S. HRG. 111–859 

Senate Hearings 

Before the Committee on Appropriations 

Department of the Interior, 

Environment, and 

Related Agencies 

Appropriations 

Fiscal Year 2011 

111th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2011 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

54–974 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–859 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of the Interior 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Nondepartmental Witnesses 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

CHARLES J. HOUY, Staff Director 

BRUCE EVANS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED

AGENCIES

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

JON TESTER, Montana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii (ex officio) 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

Professional Staff 

PETER KIEFHABER

GINNY JAMES

RACHEL TAYLOR

SCOTT DALZELL

CHRIS WATKINS

LEIF FONNESBECK (Minority) 

REBECCA BENN (Minority) 

BRENT WILES (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

KATIE BATTE (Minority) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010 

Page 

Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................................... 1 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010 

Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary ............................................. 53 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010 

Department of Agriculture: Forest Service ............................................................ 109 

Nondepartmental Witnesses ................................................................................... 141 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Feinstein, Reed, Nelson, Tester, Alexander, 

and Murkowski. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY BARBARA BENNETT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I want 

to welcome you to the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and 

our hearing on the fiscal year 2011 budget request for the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, more fondly known as the 

EPA. 

I am very pleased to welcome back Administrator Lisa Jackson 

to testify before the subcommittee. She is joined by Chief Financial 

Officer, Barbara Bennett. Welcome. 

Since this is our first subcommittee hearing of the year, I would 

also like to welcome my colleague, Senator Lamar Alexander, the 

distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, and say how 

much I am looking forward to working with you. We had a good 

year last year, and there is no reason why we will not have one 

again this year. So welcome and it is great to sit next to you. 

Turning to the budget, the administration has requested a total of $10.02 billion for the EPA for fiscal year 2011. That is a 3 percent cut below fiscal year 2010’s enacted level, which means that 

EPA proposes to tighten its belt and reduce funding for a number 

of programs. That recognizes, of course, the constraints of these 

very difficult economic times, at least to some extent. The budget requests $2 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $1.29 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving 

Fund. Overall, that is a 5 percent cut for these very popular programs. 
2 

The request further eliminates $157 million for congressionally 

designated water and sewer projects. Again, a very popular program. 

The request also reduces funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by $175 million, a 37 percent cut from the enacted level, 

for a total of $300 million. 

Because of these reductions, it might be easy to say that EPA’s 

budget is going in the wrong direction, but I would like to point out 

that this subcommittee provided a 35 percent increase to EPA’s 

budget for fiscal year 2010. EPA also received an additional $7.22 

billion from the stimulus act, known as the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA), including $6 billion in funds for water 

and sewer infrastructure alone. 

I really believe that America’s water and sewer infrastructure is 

outdated, and I remember the day before bottled water when you 

could literally drink water from the tap anywhere in the United 

States. We have more or less regressed, and, therefore, the ability 

to provide clean water is extraordinarily important. We are going 

to have to see that we do not backslide with these cuts. I know we 

had a large amount last year. I guess it was the largest water and 

sewer infrastructure program that we have ever done, but we do 

not want to backslide. 

I would like to commend the administration for shifting resources within this tight budget to provide increases for other critical priorities, starting with climate change. Most importantly, the 

budget includes a $43 million increase for a total of $56 million to 

move forward with regulation of greenhouses gases under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). I am looking forward to hearing more detail 

from you, Administrator Jackson, on how you would expect these 

funds to be used. 

I am also very pleased to see that the budget includes $21 million to implement the greenhouse gas reporting rule that this subcommittee directed the agency to promulgate in 2008. That is a 24 

percent increase. This rule takes effect this year and will provide 

EPA with critical data on some of the Nation’s largest emission 

sources. 

I am also pleased to see that the administration has used this 

budget request to address core air and water quality improvements. Overall, the request provides a 36 percent increase for 

grants to States to monitor and improve air quality, for a total of 

$309 million. 

The request includes a 20 percent increase for State water pollution control grants to improve water quality permitting and enforcement, for a total of $274 million. 

And the budget also contains several initiatives to improve community cleanup efforts, starting with a 24 percent increase for the 

Brownfields programs for a total of $215 million. For me that is a 

welcome increase. 

Now, when we are talking about numbers, I think it is also important that we discuss some of the policy decisions that drive this 

budget because, after all, a budget is in fact a policy document. 

Specifically, I want to talk about the choices that EPA is making 

as it moves forward with the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the CAA. 
3 

It has been 3 years since the United States Supreme Court ruled 

in Massachusetts v. EPA that EPA has a legal responsibility under 

the CAA to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger public 

health and welfare. Justice Stevens in that decision said the following: 

‘‘Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition 

of air pollutant, we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate emissions 

of such gases. EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable 

explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine 

whether they do.’’ 

This is the opinion. 

‘‘Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding 

various features of climate change and concluding that it would, therefore, be better 

not to regulate at this time. That EPA would prefer not to regulate greenhouse 

gases because of some residual uncertainty is irrelevant. The statutory question is 

whether sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding.’’ 

The Court’s language was clear and unambiguous. EPA is expected to follow the CAA. That means that once EPA issued its 

endangerment finding, the agency was required to regulate greenhouse gases under all sections of the CAA that apply, which means 

EPA is now responsible for regulating both mobile sources and stationary sources. It is that direct and that clear. 

Now, there are those who chose to question EPA’s decision to follow the law. In particular, a number of my colleagues are working 

to pass legislation that would strip EPA of its obligation and ability 

to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and 

welfare as the CAA requires. 

I think this is the wrong approach. Legislation overturning the 

endangerment finding countermands the Supreme Court’s landmark decision and contradicts scientific consensus about global 

warming. Once more, it also jeopardizes groundbreaking efforts to 

harmonize EPA’s tailpipe emissions standards with the Department of Transportation’s corporate average fuel economy standards, which we call CAFE. I very much believe that opposition to 

EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions is generated by 

uncertainty about how EPA intends to follow the law. 

Administrator Jackson, last week you made public additional details of how and when EPA plans to address regulatory stationary 

resources, but it is clear that more questions remain. I think the 

most important thing we can do this morning is try to answer some 

of those questions. As EPA explains its plans, I believe my colleagues will increasingly realize that the agency is proceeding in a 

deliberate and legally defensible fashion, beginning with facilities 

already subject to regulation, tackling only the largest polluters at 

this time, and developing a long-term approach to emissions that 

is as cost effective and flexible as the law permits. So I very much 

look forward to that conversation. 

And I would say one other thing. The alternative to EPA proceeding in my view is that the Congress passes a new law, and 

thus far, we have refused or been unable, whichever it is, to do so. 

Therefore, EPA’s mandate, given to it by the Court in the Massachusetts case, I think remains exceedingly clear. 

So now I would like to turn it over to my distinguished ranking 

member, Senator Alexander, for his opening statements. 
4 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman, and I look forward to working with you this year, just as we did last year. 

Ms. Jackson, thank you for being here. 

I will reserve my questions until the proper time, but I would 

like to indicate the areas in which I am most interested. 

In talking with you about the regulation of coal ash, specifically, 

what would be the impact to electricity rates and recycling uses if 

coal ash were regulated as a ‘‘hazardous waste.’’ I would like to 

talk about that. 

Two, mountaintop mining. Senator Cardin and I have legislation 

to end the practice of blowing off the tops of mountains and dumping the residue in streams, and I want to discuss that subject a little bit. 

Clean air. Senator Carper and I have a hearing tomorrow on our 

bill which 11 of us are on, a bipartisan bill, the clean air bill which 

moves forward pretty aggressively on SOX, NOX, and mercury. We 

call it the Clean Air Act Amendments of 2009. I want to make sure 

that we get from EPA all you can give us about what that bill 

would cost, and we will talk more about that. But we need the best 

possible information about what the impact upon ratepayers and 

utilities would be of that bill. 

And then hydraulic fracturing. There is concern that one of the 

great advantages we have right now as a country is suddenly we 

have a lot of new natural gas which is cheaper and lower carbon 

than coal. Well, it is cheaper than most forms of electricity and it 

is lower carbon, half the carbon of coal plants, and could be very 

useful as a bridge to a cleaner energy future. The questions about 

hydraulic fracturing—I want to make sure that whatever your conclusions are about the relationship between hydraulic fracturing 

and drinking water are peer reviewed so that we can have the 

maximum amount of confidence in the results. 

The chairman and I have a little different view on climate 

change. I agree I am ready to buy some insurance from climate 

change. I think it is a problem and we need to deal with it. I support efforts in the Congress to make that the responsibility of Congress to deal with rather than the EPA because I think the current 

law does not give EPA the appropriate flexibility to deal with it, 

and I think it is of such major importance that it ought to be done 

by Members of Congress rather than an agency. 

But I look forward to your testimony, and those will be my questions. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Administrator Jackson, if you would like to proceed. 

I would like the subcommittee to know that we will follow the 

early bird rule with 5-minute rounds of questions. 

Please proceed. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. LISA P. JACKSON

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 

Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you this morning to discuss the EPA’s proposed budget for 

fiscal year 2011. This budget fully reflects President Obama’s and 

my commitment to environmental protection and to ensure that 
5 

families all across the country have access to clean air, clean water, 

and land. 

Much work has gone into this budget over the last year, and I 

am proud that it supports my key goals for the agency. Specifically, 

this budget is a framework to address climate change, improve air 

quality, assure the safety of chemicals, clean up our communities, 

protect America’s waters, expand the conversation on 

environmentalism and environmental justice, and continue to build 

strong State and tribal partnerships. 

I would like to touch on just some of the highlights of this budget 

that will protect human health and the environment and lay a new 

foundation for our prosperity. 

Let me begin by being direct. The science behind climate change 

is settled and human activity is responsible for it. The global 

warming from 1980 to 2009, a little more than 1 degree Fahrenheit 

is statistically significant at the 99.9999 percent level. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded it is unequivocal that the 

climate is changing and it is very likely that this is predominantly 

caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. 

These changes will transform the environmental conditions on 

earth unless countermeasures are taken. That conclusion is not a 

partisan one. 

The Senate has twice passed on a bipartisan basis a resolution 

finding that greenhouse gas accumulation from human activity 

poses a substantial risk of increased frequency and severity of 

floods and droughts. And Senator Alexander, you cosponsored that 

resolution. I thank you for that. 

This budget reflects that science and positions EPA to address 

this issue in a way that will not cause an adverse impact to the 

economy. The budget includes a requested increase of more than 

$43 million for efforts aimed at taking action on climate change. 

The bulk of this funding, $25 million, is for State grants focused 

on developing technical capacity to address greenhouse gas emissions under the CAA. It also includes funding for implementing 

new emissions standards that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

from mobile sources such as passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and 

medium-duty passenger vehicles, a rule that I am pleased was supported by the States, by the auto industry, and many stakeholders. 

This budget also requests an additional $3.1 million to promote 

work on current and future carbon capture and sequestration 

projects. 

While addressing global warming, this budget also takes steps to 

ensure that the local air quality is good for all, including those with 

respiratory problems. To improve air quality, EPA will continue 

our support of enhanced monitoring and enforcement efforts. This 

budget requests $60 million for State grants to address new and 

expanded national ambient air quality standards, as well as new 

air monitoring requirements. Also, this budget provides $6 million 

to improve air toxics monitoring capabilities and address compliance and enforcement issues in local communities. 

But toxins are found not only in air emissions but in many of the 

common chemicals that we use every day, and we have an obligation to the American people to ensure these chemicals are safe. At 

the end of 2009, EPA released the first-ever chemical action plans 
6 

for four groups of substances. More plans are in the pipeline for 

2010. 

In this budget, EPA proposes $56 million for chemical assessment and risk review, including continued development of chemical 

management plans to ensure that no unreasonable risks are posed 

by new or existing chemicals. 

This budget also promotes new and innovative strategies for 

cleaning up communities to protect sensitive populations such as 

children, the elderly, and individuals with chronic diseases. It proposes $215 million for Brownfields, an increase of $42 million to support planning, cleanup, job training, and redevelopment 

of Brownfields’ properties, especially in underserved and disadvantaged communities. In addition, this budget proposes $1.3 billion for Superfund 

cleanup efforts across the country. Cleanup of contaminated properties takes pollution out and puts economic opportunity, jobs, in. 

Protecting America’s waters is a top priority for EPA due to the 

tremendous impact water quality has on human and environmental 

health and also on economic health. For fiscal year 2011, this budget reflects EPA’s commitment to upgrading drinking water and 

wastewater infrastructure with a substantial investment of $2 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $1.3 billion for 

the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. This will initiate approximately 800 clean water and 500 drinking water projects 

across America. 

Also, the fiscal year 2011 budget request supports numerous na- tional ecosystem restoration efforts. For instance, $300 million is 

requested for the Great Lakes, the largest fresh water system in 

the world. There is $63 million for the Chesapeake Bay program 

and continued funding for the San Francisco Bay and other important programs. These programs will address critical environmental 

issues such as contaminated sediments and toxics, nonpoint source 

pollution, habitat degradation and loss, and invasive species, including the Asian carp. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

We have also begun a new era of outreach and protection for 

communities historically under-represented in environmental decisionmaking. We are building strong working relationships with 

tribes, communities of color, economically distressed cities and 

towns, young people, and others, but this is just a start. We must 

also bolster our relationships with our State and tribal partners. 

These are areas that call for innovation and bold thinking, and I 

am challenging all of our employees to bring vision and creativity 

to our programs. 

Thank you for allowing me to briefly go through the highlights 

of EPA’s 2011 budget. I would be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON

Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed budget. Let me first say that I am 

particularly proud of the fiscal year 2011 budget as it reflects President Obama’s 
7 

continuing commitment to providing the environmental protection that keeps our 

communities healthy and clean and his commitment to fiscal responsibility. Families across America are tightening their budgets; the President has directed us to 

do the same. 

Environmentalism is a conversation that we all must have because it is about protecting people in the places they live, work and raise families. In fiscal year 2011, 

EPA is focused on expanding the conversation to include new stakeholders and involve communities in more direct ways. Over the years, EPA has worked to prevent 

pollution at the source and promoted the principles of responsible environmental 

stewardship, sustainability, and innovation. EPA works to improve and encourage 

sustainable practices and help businesses and communities move beyond compliance 

to become partners in protecting natural resources, managing materials more wisely, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving the environment and public 

health. Today’s challenges require renewed and refocused efforts to address old pollution and prevent new pollution. The $10 billion proposed for EPA in the fiscal year 

2011 President’s budget will support key priorities during this time of fiscal challenges. These themes are: taking action on climate change; improving air quality; 

assuring the safety of chemicals; cleaning up our communities; protecting America’s 

waters; expanding the conversation on environmentalism and working for environmental justice; building strong State and tribal partnerships; and maintaining a 

strong science foundation. 

These themes are aligned with a Government-wide effort to identify near-term, 

high-priority performance goals. For EPA, such goals include reducing Greenhouse 

Gas (GHG) emissions, improving water quality, and delivering improved environmental health and protection to our communities. EPA will work toward meeting 

these goals over the next 18 to 24 months. 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, let me touch on some of 

the highlights of this budget, both the hard choices and the targeted investments 

that will protect our health and the environment, advance creative programs and 

innovative solutions, and help build a new foundation for our prosperity. 

TAKING ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

EPA continues to take meaningful, common sense steps to address climate 

change. Making the right choices now will allow EPA to improve health, drive technology innovation, and protect the environment; all without placing an undue burden on the Nation’s economy. The budget includes a requested increase of more than 

$43 million for additional regulatory efforts aimed at taking action on climate 

change. It includes $25 million for State grants focused on developing technical capacity to address greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. It also includes 

$13.5 million in funding for implementing new emission standards that will reduce 

GHG emissions from mobile sources such as passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and 

medium-duty passenger vehicles, developing potential standards for large transportation sources such as locomotives and aircraft engines, and analyzing the potential 

need for standards under petitions relating to major stationary sources—all through 

means that are flexible and manageable for business. A request of $21 million will support continued implementation of the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Rule to ensure the collection of high-quality data. This budget also 

requests an additional $3.1 million to promote work on current and future carbon 

capture and sequestration projects. 

IMPROVING AIR QUALITY

To improve air quality we’ll continue our support of enhanced monitoring and en- forcement efforts already underway. We are also requesting $60 million for state 

grants to address new and expanded National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) as well as air monitoring requirements. Through the Healthy Communities Initiative (HCI) we will provide $6 million to improve air toxics monitoring 

capabilities and address compliance and enforcement issues in communities. I will 

have more to say both about the HCI and our efforts to improve air quality momentarily. 

ASSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS

Assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment and our bodies 

is of utmost concern, as is the need to make significant and long-overdue progress 

in achieving this goal. Last year, I announced principles for modernizing the Toxic 

Substances Control Act. At the end of 2009, we released our first ever chemical action plans for four groups of substances, and more plans are in the pipeline for 2010. 

Using our streamlined process for Integrated Risk Information System assessments, 
8 

we will continue strong progress toward rigorous, peer-reviewed health assessments. 

Additionally, we will continue focus on high-profile Integrated Risk Information System assessments on dioxins, arsenic, formaldehyde, trichloroethylene and other substances of concern. We are proposing $56 million for chemical assessment and risk 

review, including continued development of chemical management plans, to ensure 

that no unreasonable risks are posed by new or existing chemicals. Further, this 

budget invests $29 million in the continuing effort to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. We will implement the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule to address 

lead hazards created by renovation, repair and painting activities in homes and 

child occupied facilities with lead based paint. In fiscal year 2011, $6 million would 

support national efforts to mitigate exposure to high-risk legacy chemicals, such as 

mercury and asbestos. 

CLEANING UP OUR COMMUNITIES

Among our highest priorities in this budget are investments in new and innovative strategies for cleaning up communities, especially to protect sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and individuals with chronic diseases. We will 

continue to focus on making safer, healthier communities. To clean up our communities, we’re proposing investments that will get dangerous pollution out, and put 

good jobs back in. This budget proposes $215 million for Brownfields, an increase of $42 million to 

support planning, clean-up, job training and redevelopment of Brownfields properties, especially in underserved and disadvantaged communities. EPA encourages 

community development by providing funds to support community involvement and 

is adding area-wide planning efforts to enhance the positive impacts associated with 

the assessment and clean-up of Brownfields sites. Through area wide planning, particularly by focusing on lower income communities suffering from economic disinvestment, Brownfield properties can be redeveloped to help meet the needs for 

jobs, housing, and infrastructure investments that would help rebuild and revitalize 

these communities, as well as identify opportunities to leverage additional public 

and private investment. We’ll also provide funding for assessment and clean-up of 

underground storage tanks and other petroleum contamination on Brownfields sites. 

In addition, we’re proposing $1.3 billion for Superfund clean-up efforts across the 

country. We will continue to respond to emergencies, clean up the Nation’s most 

contaminated hazardous waste sites, and maximize the participation of liable and 

viable parties in performing and paying for clean-ups. EPA will initiate a multiyear 

effort to integrate and leverage our land clean-up authorities to address a greater 

number of contaminated sites, accelerate clean-ups, and put sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. The new Integrated 

Cleanup Initiative represents EPA’s commitment to bring more accountability, 

transparency and progress to contaminated site cleanups. 

This budget also requests $27 million for the HCI which covers clean, green, 

healthy schools; community water priorities; sustainability and the air toxics monitoring in at risk communities I mentioned earlier. Six million dollars is requested 

for the Clean, Green, and Healthy Schools Initiative to support States and communities in promoting healthier school environments, to broaden the implementation 

of EPA’s existing school environmental health programs including asthma, indoor 

air quality, chemical clean out, green practices, enhanced use of Integrated Pest 

Management, and safe handling of PCB-containing caulk. EPA will work in partnership with the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services to accomplish this initiative. 

HCI also includes an increase of $5 million for and Smart Growth work, including 

the Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities with the Departments of 

Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. The Smart Growth program 

works with Federal partners and stakeholders to minimize the environmental impacts of development. 

These modest investments will make real, measurable, improvements in a small 

number of pilot communities. In addition, the strategies that will be developed could 

be used in communities across the Nation. 

PROTECTING AMERICA’S WATERS

Protecting America’s waters is a top priority and EPA has an ambitious vision for 

the Nation’s waters in the years ahead. Water quality has tremendous impacts on 

quality of life, on economic potential, and on human and environmental health. In 

fiscal year 2011, EPA continues its commitment to upgrading drinking water and 

wastewater infrastructure with a substantial investment of $2 billion for the Clean 

Water State Revolving fund and $1.3 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving 
9 

Fund. EPA, the States, and community water systems will build on past successes 

while working toward the fiscal year 2011 goal of assuring that 91 percent of the 

population served by community water systems receives drinking water that meets 

all applicable health-based standards. EPA’s partnership investments will allow 

States and tribes to initiate approximately 800 clean water and 500 drinking water 

projects across America, representing a major Federal commitment to water infrastructure investment. These investments send a clear message to American taxpayers that our water infrastructure is a public health and environmental priority. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request supports national ecosystem restoration ef- forts; $300 million is requested for the Great Lakes, the largest freshwater system 

in the world. This multiagency restoration effort represents the Federal Government’s commitment to significantly advance Great Lakes protection, with an investment of more than $775 million over 2 years. The focus is on addressing critical environmental issues such as contaminated sediments and toxics, nonpoint source pollution, habitat degradation and loss, and invasive species, including Asian carp. We’re requesting $63 million for the Chesapeake Bay program including increased 

funding to implement President Obama’s Chesapeake Bay Executive Order. We are 

accelerating implementation of pollution reduction and aquatic habitat restoration 

efforts to ensure that water quality objectives are achieved as soon as possible. A 

centerpiece of EPA’s fiscal year 2011 Chesapeake Bay activity is the implementation 

of the Nation’s largest and most complex Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for 

the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. The TMDL will involve interstate waters and 

the effects on water quality from the cumulative impact of more than 17 million people, 88,000 farms, 483 significant treatment plants, thousands of smaller facilities, 

and many other sources in the 64,000 square mile watershed. 

In addition, the budget request includes $17 million for the Mississippi River 

Basin. EPA will work with the Department of Agriculture and States to target 

nonpoint source reduction practices to reduce nutrient loadings. EPA will also work 

with other Federal partners to target two high-priority watersheds in the Mississippi River Basin to demonstrate how effective nutrient strategies and enhanced 

partnerships can address excessive nutrient loadings that contribute to water quality impairments in the basin and, ultimately, to the hypoxic conditions in the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

The budget also proposes $10 million for green infrastructure research, more than 

doubling research that offers the potential to help us transition to more sustainable 

water infrastructure systems. 

EXPANDING THE CONVERSATION ON ENVIRONMENTALISM AND WORKING FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

We have begun a new era of outreach and protection for communities historically 

underrepresented in environmental decision making. We are building strong working relationships with tribes, communities of color, economically distressed cities 

and towns, young people and others, but this is just a start. We must include environmental justice principles in all of our decisions. This is an area that calls for innovation and bold thinking, and I am challenging all of our employees to bring vision and creativity to our programs. The protection of vulnerable subpopulations is 

a top priority, especially with regard to children. Our revitalized Children’s Health 

Office is bringing a new energy to safeguarding children through all of our enforcement efforts. We will ensure that children’s health protection continues to guide our 

path forward. The increased Brownfields investments I mentioned will target underserved and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods—places where environmental 

cleanups and new jobs are needed. 

We’re also proposing $9 million for Community Water Priorities in the Healthy 

Communities Initiative; funds that will help underserved communities restore urban 

waterways and address water quality challenges. 

Furthermore, the fiscal year 2011 President’s budget includes approximately $615 

million for EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance program. This request reflects the administration’s strong commitment to vigorous enforcement of our Nation’s environmental laws and ensures that EPA will have the resources necessary 

to maintain a robust and effective criminal and civil enforcement program and pursue violations that threaten vulnerable communities. 

BUILDING STRONG STATE AND TRIBAL PARTNERSHIPS

Another hallmark of this budget is strengthening our State and tribal partnerships. The budget requests $1.3 billion in categorical grants for State and tribal efforts. State and local governments are working diligently to implement new and expanded requirements under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. New and ex-
10 

panded requirements include implementation of updated National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), for the first time addressing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) 

emissions, and addressing growing water quality issues, such as nutrient pollution. 

This increase includes the $25 million for greenhouse gas permitting activities already mentioned, as well as increases of $45 million for core work under air quality 

management grants and $15 million for air monitors, all of which I mentioned previously. 

We are also requesting $274 million, a $45 million increase more than 2010, to 

help States enhance their water quality programs. New funding will strengthen the 

base State, interstate and tribal programs, address new regulatory requirements, 

and support expanded water monitoring and enforcement efforts. 

The request also includes increased support for our tribal partners. In order to 

help tribes move beyond capacity building to implementation of their environmental 

programs, $30 million is budgeted for a new competitive Tribal Multimedia Implementation grant program. These grants are tailored to address an individual tribe’s 

most serious environmental needs through the implementation of Federal environmental programs, and will build upon the environmental capacity developed under 

the Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP). To further enhance tribal capacity, 

this budget also includes an additional $9 million for GAP grants for a total of $71 

million. GAP grants develop capacity to operate an environmental program, and 

support a basic environmental office or circuit rider that can alert the tribe and 

EPA to serious conditions that pose immediate public health and ecological threats. 

MAINTAINING A STRONG SCIENCE FOUNDATION

In fiscal year 2011, the range of research programs and initiatives will continue 

the work of better understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and 

human health problems We are requesting a science and technology budget of $847 

million to enhance—among other things—research on endocrine disrupting chemicals, green infrastructure, air quality monitoring, e-waste and e-design, and to study 

of the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. It’s important to highlight 

that most of the scientific research increase will support additional Science to 

Achieve Results (STAR) grants and fellowships to make progress on these research 

priorities and leverage the expertise of the academic research community. The $26 

million increase for STAR includes $6 million for STAR fellowships in support of the 

President’s priority for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math investments. 

This reflects a near doubling of the STAR fellowships program. This budget also 

supports the study of computational toxicology, and other priority research efforts 

with a focus on advancing the design of sustainable solutions for reducing risks associated with environmentally hazardous substances. 

These are the highlights of a budget that reduces costs while strengthening American communities and boosting the green economy. Responsible, targeted investments will protect our health and the environment, advance creative programs and 

innovative solutions, and help build a new foundation for our prosperity. Thank you 

again for inviting me to testify today and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Administrator. 

You sent a letter to a group of Democratic Senators on February 

22 that says EPA is finalizing two actions to lay out how it plans 

to move forward: one action to clarify the schedule, the other the 

so-called Tailoring Rule to define entities EPA would initially regulate. Could you briefly walk us through your timeline and explain 

what actions you plan to take? 

CLEAN AIR ACT—REGULATIONS

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, Chairman, yes. The letter on February 

22, first, clarifies that EPA expects that no source will be required 

to get a CAA permit to cover greenhouse gas emissions in calendar 

2010. So there will be no CAA regulation essentially of stationary 

sources—that is an important distinction—this calendar year. 

Also, it clarifies that we will soon put out a memo that says that 

the first potential for regulation of stationary sources will be early 
11 

2011 when the car rules become effective. If you read the CAA, as 

you mentioned in your opening statement, it is the first regulation 

of greenhouse gases that then triggers regulatory requirements for 

greenhouse gases under other areas of the CAA. 

We also talk about the need to respond to the numerous comments we have gotten on the Tailoring Rule, many from States who 

say, listen, we want to get involved in CAA regulation. We know 

it is coming. We know that even if there is new legislation, States 

will need to get ready for their significant role under the CAA. But 

we need more time and we need resources. That is why the budget 

includes the $25 million and resources for States. 

My letter also talks about phasing in, even more slowly than we 

originally anticipated, regulation of stationary sources, starting 

with what we call ‘‘anyway’’ sources, those sources that need what, 

is called a PSD permit, no matter what. We would then move to 

the very largest sources and clarify that over a 5-year period between next year and 2016, we would phase in sources so that, over 

time, you move to regulation of a larger and larger universe of 

sources. 

TAILORING RULE

Senator FEINSTEIN. Two other quick questions I want to get to 

in the 5 minutes. 

What percent of emissions do you believe will come under some 

form of regulation during 2011? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is a little difficult until we finalize the Tailoring 

Rule to be specific, but let me give you a couple of numbers I think 

are helpful. Sixty-seven percent of U.S. stationary source emissions 

come from sources that emit more than 100,000 tons per year of 

CO2 equivalents. Seventy percent come from sources larger than 

50,000 tons, and 75 percent come from sources that emit more than 

25,000 tons. So you get fully two-thirds of our stationary source 

emissions, if you look at the largest sources, those more than 

100,000 tons. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

As you say in this letter, EPA plans to start phasing in permitting requirements for sources that are substantially higher than 

the 25,000 tons. Your threshold that you discuss in your draft Tailoring Rule—how do you define ‘‘substantially?’’ 

Ms. JACKSON. We have not selected another number. I am clear 

in the letter that we are in the middle of rulemaking, and so I am 

somewhat constrained until we finalize a rule or set of rules. But 

I believe, based on the almost 500,000 comments we have received 

and as I said, many from States that there may be a need to phase 

in and look at a different number than 25,000 as being our definition of what are significant sources. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But if I understand what you are saying 

then, for the near future, in terms of the next 2 years, you are 

going to be dealing with sources, at least 75,000 or more than 

100,000, but they would all be more than 75,000. 

Ms. JACKSON. That is absolutely true. It will probably be at least 

2 years before we would look at something like, say, a 50,000 

threshold. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 
12 

Senator Alexander. 

COAL ASH

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Administrator Jackson, I would like to ask you some questions 

about coal ash. You know, in Tennessee, we had a problem in the 

Tennessee Valley Authority at Kingston, a big coal ash problem, 

and that raised the issue of who ought to regulate it. Am I correct? 

Today EPA does not regulate coal ash but is in the process of considering whether to regulate coal ash. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And I am correct that a part of that consideration is whether you consider it hazardous waste. 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator ALEXANDER. When that regulation comes down, we will 

know whether you are going to regulate it, which I think you 

should do, and whether it should be hazardous waste, which I 

think it should not be. And I wanted to ask you a few questions 

about that and get your thought on it. I will go ahead and ask the 

questions and then sit back and give you time to answer. 

About half, 45 percent, of 136 million of annual tons of coal ash 

is recycled, about half of it. Most of that, a lot of it, maybe all of 

it comes from coal plants. Is that what we are talking about? Let 

us say all that comes from coal plants that produce 50 percent of 

America’s electricity. This recycled coal ash ends up in everything 

from high-strength concrete for buildings and roads, structural fills, 

embankments, wallboard, asphalt filler, grout, paint procedures, 

blasting, sanding, grit, roofing products. It is a lot of stuff, and it 

is recycled in a way that gets rid of it, which is important, and 

makes it useful and, in the process, gives it some value and that 

helps keep down electric rates, which is important for jobs and 

heating our homes. 

Now, yesterday an entrepreneur came by to see me, and I will 

not give his name. You know him, I suspect. But he brought me 

these limestone pellets, and he claims that he is able to turn CO2

from smokestacks into limestone, which he then can use for concrete or aggregate. Of course, if he can actually do that in a commercially viable way, that would be, I guess, the holy grail of electricity and make the job of dealing with carbon a lot easier because 

40 percent of carbon comes from coal plant smokestacks. 

The first question would be if this stuff, coal ash turned into 

limestone, is regulated as a hazardous waste, would that have a 

chilling effect on entrepreneurs such as the one who came by to see 

me and make it more difficult for him to develop this technology 

to get rid of carbon on coal plants, which is something that we all 

hope happens? 

I know enough about this, having been in business—if you have 

a business and you buy a plant that is on a ‘‘former hazardous 

waste site’’, you have a real problem with potential liability. Let us 

say you have a food processing plant on a site that used to be a 

hazardous waste site. You worry about whether somebody is going 

to sue you and shut your plant down and slow down your operation. 
13 

So what I am asking you to consider carefully is not whether 

EPA should regulate coal ash. I think you should. I think it is better that you do. But I think it is better that you not call it a hazardous waste because if you do and if half of it is used for products 

like this and if they turn out to be commercially viable, this product or some other product that someone invents that finds a way 

to remove carbon from coal plant smokestacks is exactly what we 

are hoping happens in our country over the next several years and 

having a chilling effect on the development of this technology 

would be a big mistake. 

So I wanted to ask your thoughts about that whole subject and 

where you are in the regulatory process. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. First, thank you for recognizing that there probably is a need for an increased regulatory 

role at the Federal level. I think the Kingston spill and subsequent 

coverage really worried people about the safety of these big impoundments, as well as what might be leaching from them. So let 

me start there. 

Your first question was about essentially a stigma. It is fair to 

say that many have speculated that a hazardous waste designation 

would stigmatize a material that is clearly being reused in significant amounts; I absolutely agree with your numbers. I have to 

preface all this by saying there is no proposed rule out yet. Please 

understand we are still working on it. 

The vast majority of uses are fine. They are actually to be encouraged because they are in places where the material is essentially not allowed to be subject to leaching. 

The concern we have seen with this material are twofold. Number one, very large pounds that are very wet and full of very heavy 

materials so that structurally that material can—the impoundment 

can break and you can have the kind of environmental catastrophe 

you have down in Kingston. And we are all working, and I have 

told you how hard the State of Tennessee and how much I appreciate their partnership in that cleanup. 

And the second issue is what leaches out of the bottom of those 

impoundments because what we have found is that this material 

is subject to leaching, and most of those impoundments are wet impoundments. We realize that you put that much stuff in those impoundments and let water leach through it, you are going to see 

impacts to groundwater and those are documented. 

So our primary concern is addressing those issues while not having the unintended consequence of shutting down reuse in an industry that we primarily agree with. There are some relatively 

minor reuses that might be of concern where you take large 

amounts of the same material and use it for fill, sir. But by and 

large, the reuse of it in wallboard, in concrete is admirable and to 

be encouraged. 

So that is what we are trying to do. 

I do not necessarily agree that saying that the material in a 

landfill as waste stigmatizes the material that is not in a landfill, 

but that is something that will certainly be subject to much comment, I would imagine, during the rulemaking process. 
14 

CARBON

Senator ALEXANDER. I thank you for such a good answer. I found 

this a fascinating possibility because, Madam Chairman, I have 

never suspected—I am not a scientist—that you could capture and 

sequester enough carbon from coal plants to make that all work. 

I have always thought somebody would come along with one or two 

or three or four ways to get rid of carbon in the same way we do 

sulphur, nitrogen, and mercury. I just want to be real careful that 

any Federal action we take does not discourage, that we actually 

should be encouraging it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. This is a building material? 

Senator ALEXANDER. This is limestone. So what this entrepreneur says—and I will let him speak for himself in the marketplace—is that he has turned CO2 coming out of the smokestack 

into limestone. It is then used in concrete or in aggregate, and according to him, it has been through the EPA and it does not leach. 

So hopefully, there will be four or five inventions that do a similar 

thing. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. In fact, the cost of doing this would be substantially less than some other ways of dealing with carbon. 

You know, if you are buying a product and it is labeled ‘‘hazardous waste,’’ all of a sudden, your lawyers come in and say, wait 

a minute. We better not use this in this house or 20 years from 

now somebody will come and say it is like asbestos and we will all 

go to jail or we will all be broke. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you for your time. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It was very interesting. 

Senator Nelson. 

CLEAN AIR ACT—ETHANHOL BLENDS

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, thanks for coming by. I was glad to have 

the opportunity to meet with you yesterday. One of the points that 

we talked about was the EPA’s pending decision to waive the CAA 

for ethanol blends and gasoline up to 15 percent. And as you understand, as we discussed, it is critical that the tests on engine 

compatibility be completed on time in order to provide stability to 

the ethanol industry. Without the increase in blends, advanced 

technologies may not materialize that will allow commercial-scale 

cellulosic ethanol to develop and allow high-tech efficiency improvements to continue even in the corn-to-ethanol process. 

As such, can you confirm that EPA anticipates the Department 

of Energy (DOE) will finish its testing this April and get some additional detail from you on the next steps the agency would take 

towards a proposed decision increasing ethanol blends in gasoline? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thanks, Senator. 

I did confirm, after our meeting yesterday, that the DOE testing 

remains on schedule. So when we last talked about this publicly, 

we said that we believed those tests would finish up in spring, 

April or May time frame. As of December, only 2 of 19 tests were 

completed. That did not seem to be enough information on which 
15 

to make a waiver decision. We expect that once we get that additional data—and it will be publicly available—then EPA will be in 

a position to move toward a final decision on waiver. Late summer 

is the time period. 

Senator NELSON. So at this point, you think things are on track 

with the time frame that we talked about. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. We did double check that. 

ETHANOL BLENDS

Senator NELSON. We also spoke about the concerns regarding the 

impact that increased ethanol blends would have on legacy vehicles 

and small motors. During our talks, I cited the example of Brazil 

which has a blend level defined in the range of E-20/25. In the 30- 

plus years of their use of mid-level blends, there have been no reported negative impacts on motors used in the Brazilian fleet, as 

well as small engines used to equip motorboats, lawn mowers, and 

chain saws. 

I really, as we discussed, hope that you will look very closely and 

the agency will look closely to the successes of Brazil while making 

your final determination on the E-15 blend so we can incorporate 

the success they have had towards energy and efficiency and bring 

that back to America as well, as we discussed. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thanks, Senator. As you requested, we are passing 

that data and that information on to the technical staff who are reviewing this matter. 

SUPERFUND SITE—OMAHA LEAD SITE

Senator NELSON. I think it would be helpful to have that other 

experience in the process of looking at the situation from our 

standpoint. We do not have to reinvent all experience if we can 

learn from others. So I appreciate your looking at that. 

I was also pleased to see in your written testimony the continued 

commitment to Superfund cleanup across the country. As you 

know, the city of Omaha has the largest residential Superfund site 

in the country. The so-called Omaha Lead Site, as it is known, contains more than 15,000 yards contaminated with dangerous levels 

of lead, posing a significant health risk. 

The EPA, up until now, has worked very closely with the city of 

Omaha. They have addressed more than 5,600 yards, and your 

staff at Region 7 has been doing an outstanding job with all interests involved. And I am certain, as we discussed, this cooperation, 

this excellent working together will continue under the new regional administrator, Karl Brooks, with whom we met recently. 

My question today is just to confirm that EPA’s budget request 

will enable the agency to continue excavating these contaminated 

yards in implementing the 2009 record of decision. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Senator, that is absolutely right. We remain 

committed. It is a top priority for the Superfund program. 

INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM (IRIS) ASSESSMENT

Senator NELSON. I appreciate that. 

And then finally, I know we touched very briefly on the arsenic 

issue, but I wanted to follow up regarding a letter I wrote you back 
16 

in October. We discussed EPA’s draft—IRIS—assessment. To be 

brief, the original arsenic rule set the arsenic limit for tap water 

at 10 parts per billion in 2001, put a lot of major, new costs on 

small communities across Nebraska. We have significant numbers 

of small communities under 2,500 and under 1,500 and under 750 

in population. 

Now the new IRIS assessment is proposing even more stringent 

regulations which would result in even additional major consequences. We obviously do not want contaminated water, but if we 

are not careful in our efforts here—and I hope that you will look 

at Dr. Samuel Cohen from the University of Nebraska’s Medical 

Center, a leading scientist on this low-dose arsenic exposure—because if we continue to press smaller communities, not just in Nebraska, but I would imagine in Montana and elsewhere, on these 

stringent requirements, the communities will shut down their municipal water supply and go to individual wells and drink the same 

water without any oversight by EPA. So we have to have a rational 

approach to this that keeps in mind good health but good common 

sense as it relates to the economics of communities. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. I could not agree more. Common sense needs to always be in the front of our minds as we make 

regulation. I pride myself on it. 

Dr. Cohen’s research—we have it. We are providing the entire 

IRIS risk assessment back to our scientific advisory board. They 

peer reviewed the draft, but this is such an important issue that 

we have asked them to conduct a focused review of our response 

to their review. Dr. Cohen’s research will be provided as well. We 

are being as careful as we can. 

Let me just say for the record that as EPA Administrator, I am 

absolutely committed to helping small communities deal with the 

conundrum that they find themselves in, not to simply put requirements out knowing that the day we do, those communities find 

themselves choosing between having enough money to buy food and 

pay the water bill. 

Senator NELSON. Well, I know with your leadership and Karl 

Brooks’ leadership, we will see less command and control situations 

and more partnership relationships develop so that we can solve 

these problems together rather than create additional burdens on 

communities’ budgets. 

Thank you, Administrator, and thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. 

Senator Reed. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

And I want to thank you, Administrator Jackson, and the chairman for the great support you have given to the Clean Water and 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. These are absolutely critical to my State and to many other States, not only in terms of investment in environmental quality, but also we have an unemployment rate of 13 percent and all this eventually translates to people 

working. In fact, I had the privilege to accompany Curt Spalding 

to the Fields Point sewage treatment facility, and they are doing 
17 

a major renovation and a major project. Seventy-five people are at 

work. 

And by the way, that was a wise choice, making Curt an administrator of Region 1. You and the President should be commended. 

Ms. JACKSON. Common sense prevails. 

CLEAN WATER AND DRINKING WATER REDUCTION

Senator REED. I agree. 

But the need is so huge. Just yesterday I had the mayor of Newport, Rhode Island, and they are facing a $180 million need for 

water infrastructure improvements. They are in negotiations with 

EPA and they understand they have to make water pollution reductions. But I know you have done a lot, but it is a little bit concerning to me that the budget calls for a $100 million reduction in 

both the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. 

So could you comment on that difficult choice and also whether 

there is an opportunity, perhaps in another recovery package, to 

put more funds in? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for the kind 

words about Curt. He is great and so is Karl Brooks in Region 7. 

You are absolutely right. There were some tough choices that 

had to be made. One of them in the budget was trying to balance 

all the priorities that States are facing. I have to say that one of 

the pieces of good news has been the State reaction and responsibility and accountability under the ARRA. As you know, States got 

$6 billion of ARRA funding for water projects, and they also got a 

requirement that they had to have that money under contract, absolutely under contract by February 17 of this year. Every single 

State made it. So I think it is a testament to two things: the fact 

that in the States folks are working hard and that they understand 

the need for clean water, both economically and environmentally 

and from a public health perspective. But they also need a lot 

more, as you point that out in your remarks. 

So I would say that between spending the ARRA money and the 

significant amount of money that is in this budget, it is still twice 

what we saw at the end of the last administration, a real acknowledgement that now is not the time to cut those funds, that they are 

tied to jobs and create jobs. I believe we have struck a nice balance. 

I have to point out there is also money in this budget, a significant increase, in money for the State water staff and air staff, by 

the way, because we know right now the other problem that States 

are facing is they are trying to balance their budgets. And we are 

hoping that they do not do that by laying off State environmental 

workers because they are the folks who write the permits and do 

the work to get these funds on the street. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Madam Administrator. 

One other point I would make is it strikes me that the delivery 

system for the State revolving funds has been in existence for a 

long time and they have the capacity to get the money out. There 

are other State programs across the country that have not been as 

successful, but this is one where there is a very good delivery system. Again, I think your comments indicate an investment in this 

is not only appropriate and necessary, but also it is a pretty effi-
18 

cient way to deliver resources and get people to work. So I thank 

you for that effort. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

ENDANGERMENT FINDING

Senator REED. There is an issue that we will confront shortly, 

which a Congressional Review Act motion to essentially withdraw 

or compel you to withdraw your endangerment finding on greenhouse gases. I understand that other countries around the globe 

have recognized this, for example, China. And then other countries 

are suggesting that it is not a problem, like Saudi Arabia. I think 

if I was producing lots of petroleum, I would also not consider it 

to be a problem. 

But can you comment on the consequences if we do not address 

this issue as you propose? 

And one other point I would suggest is that what is most interesting to me in one respect is that this issue of climate change is 

now being debated seriously as a national security problem by defense officials, by planners within the Department of Defense 

(DOD), and something that is causing them grave concern. So I 

think we might—well, I know we will benefit from your comments. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

The Congressional Review Act resolution asks Senators essentially to invalidate EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases endanger 

public health and welfare. It is, you know, 5–10 lines long. That 

is all it says, that Congress says that the endangerment finding is 

not true. 

Senator REED. Based on our scientific expertise. 

Ms. JACKSON. Based on something. 

I think that simple statement is contrary to multiple lines of scientific inquiry and the belief of the vast majority of climate scientists and people who work in the field that not only is the climate changing, the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere 

is continuing to increase. That interference in the atmosphere is 

man-made, man-induced, and something needs to be done. 

That is what EPA’s endangerment finding says, and I think for 

this country, for our U.S. Senate, to take that position in the year 

2010 would, indeed, be an enormous step backwards for science 

and the results of decades of scientific inquiry. 

You asked about national security considerations. The 

endangerment finding in and of itself has no regulation with it, but 

it will unlock the key to, first, mobile source regulation and later, 

as I discussed in my colloquy with the chairman, common-sense, 

step-wise regulation. We do know that our national security is 

threatened and imperiled by a reliance on oil that we import. Well 

more than 50 cents of every dollar we spend for gasoline is actually 

for gasoline that is not produced here in our country, and we need 

to find a different method to power our transportation system. I 

think Americans agree with that. But more importantly, DOD, 

CIA, and NSA people who worry about our national security, say 

this is a real threat. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not bring up the opportunity 

for tremendous jobs in dealing with climate pollution. In dealing 

with the negative impacts, you have a tremendous benefit, which 
19 

is we create opportunities. I was taken by your example, Senator 

Alexander, of the limestone pellets. That is what always happens. 

When it is clear that there is a regulatory imperative, America always steps in and finds new ways to deal with the problem. It happened with catalytic converters on cars. It happened with scrubbers 

on powerplants. I have no doubt in my mind as an engineer that 

the engineers in this country will rise to the challenge and create 

an entire industry around dealing with carbon dioxide pollution. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Madam Administrator. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Reed. 

Senator Tester. 

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. 

I appreciate you being here today, Administrator Jackson. 

And Ranking Member Alexander, when we find CO2 can be an 

asset, then many more problems will be solved. So I appreciate you 

bringing forth the limestone example. 

I want to thank you for your leadership in the position you hold 

in the EPA. I want to thank you for guiding your agency so efficiently to direct stimulus funds out to States and into communities 

to help restart those economies, while building critically important 

infrastructure, and improving environmental quality. I am proud to 

say that Montana was one of the fastest States to distribute those 

recovery funds, and they were very much appreciated and infused 

almost $40 million into rural communities throughout the State to 

help with water distribution and bring them in compliance with 

drinking water standards. So it was a good thing and, unfortunately, we need even more. But thank you for your work there. 

I want to touch on a question that Senator Nelson asked. In 

Montana, where every community is a rural community—and some 

of those rural communities are even frontier communities—their 

ability to comply with standards that continue to get tighter and 

tighter and tighter is very, very difficult. Make no mistake about 

it. I do not want rural America to have substandard water quality, 

but as the standards get tighter with our advancement with 

science, the folks in a lot of these areas are asking themselves are 

the tighter standards really providing a health benefit. 

And so I want to ask you two questions. Number one, as these 

standards get tighter down the line and I do not care there are numerous bad things in the water that you always try to get to zero, 

but at some point in time, it becomes cost-prohibitive. Do you feel 

strongly about the science as these standards get tighter and tighter, number one? 

And number two, is there any ability to give any relief to these 

rural communities? I know Senator Nelson asked a very similar 

question, but it is very important because, quite honestly, they are 

getting to the point where they cannot afford it. And they are not 

poverty stricken areas either. 

Could you just kind of touch on those things? 

Ms. JACKSON. I certainly will. 

First, on the science question, I think it is incumbent on me as 

head of the EPA to make sure the science is absolutely strong, es-
20 

pecially when we are dealing with something like drinking water. 

I mean, we cannot live without it, clearly. But we also do not want 

to frighten people unnecessarily with all the things that they are 

worried about, especially in this day and age. 

That is why we are going the extra mile on the contaminant like 

arsenic, which in many cases is naturally occurring, to say to people before we move into what this means from a regulatory position, let us go back and make sure that our science advisory board, 

who advised us on this last time, thinks we took the right approach 

in responding to their comments. We will include comments that 

we have received already through the public comment period and 

give those to the science advisory board as well. 

You have my commitment we will be as rigorous as we know how 

to be, and generally peer review is a really important part of ensuring scientific rigor. 

On the second question of affordability, there is currently in the 

law some ability to look at affordability criterion for small systems. 

There are also you mentioned the ARRA and the budget that 

passed last year. The Safe Drinking Water Act has always had, as 

part of the Drinking Water Revolving Fund, the ability to have 

loan forgiveness, essentially grants, to help smaller communities if 

they cannot afford it. I think we were talking recently about this 

because it came up in another hearing earlier last week, and I do 

think EPA will renew its effort to work at the State level with the 

professionals of the State to make sure that it is clear where those 

flexibilities that currently exist are because they are significant. A 

lot of times the problem is less than the flexibility and more that 

there is just more money needed. There is flexibility but there is 

not enough money to give out. And that, of course, we know is a 

concern in terms of investments in water infrastructure. 

Senator TESTER. And I appreciate the answer. It is important to 

know where the majority of the country is dealing with hundreds 

of thousands or millions of people on these water systems, where 

I live, for example, you are actually talking about a couple hundred 

people that covers an area probably four times the size of New Jersey. And so it is really important that, as we move forward everybody wants clean drinking water. You are exactly right. If we do 

not have this, we do not survive. But by the same token, we need 

to make sure that we are not eliminating the ability for communities to provide water or they will disappear. Period. 

I have got about 12 more questions, but I will go around. I assume we are going to have another round, Madam Chair? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, we are. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. I will be back. Thanks. 

WATER QUALITY FUNDING AND ENFORCEMENT

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay, good. 

I wanted to change my topic, at least a little bit, to water quality 

funding and enforcement. As I mentioned, we put in nearly $10 billion for water and sewer projects in fiscal year 2010, including $6 

billion through the stimulus. My understanding is all States needed to have their ARRA funds under contract by February 17 or risk 
21 

losing them. Are all of the ARRA funds under contract at this 

time? 

Ms. JACKSON. They are, indeed, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And how many are there? 

Ms. JACKSON. There were $6 billion total. Are you asking for the 

number of projects? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON. I do not know. We will grab that number for you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think it is 3,416. They say do not ask a 

question you do not know the answer to. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think it is that, which I think is a very good 

record. We got those projects funded and that was good. 

The New York Times recently reported that more than one-third 

of sewer systems have violated clean water laws since 2006. The 

Times also reported that fewer than 3 percent of Clean Water Act 

violation resulted in fines or other significant enforcement actions. 

And as a matter of fact, I must tell you I have noticed that too. 

When I was president of the board of supervisors, we were under 

a cease and desist order and a sewer connection ban, and had to 

build a whole new wet weather sewer system because the sewers 

overflowed. If they overflowed more than 200ths of an inch and the 

water went into the ocean and the Bay of San Francisco, it was a 

bad thing. And so there was a penalty. Since that time, I have really seen no real penalties. 

And I want to get to the delta and all the sewer systems that 

empty into the delta area of California in a minute. 

But what specific steps is EPA taking to improve enforcement 

and what is your time table for making changes, if there is one? 

Ms. JACKSON. Chairman, the time table is easy. That is immediate. It has already begun. The Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, Cynthia Giles, who is here in response to that series of 

articles. There was a series of articles in the New York Times, and 

they were not alone. There were lots of people who were saying 

that water enforcement had seemed to be de-prioritized has 

stepped up enforcement. 

Now, I have to tell you we are going to continue to focus on the 

biggest threats to human health, not just to get, you know, cases 

for the sake of bringing cases. Oftentimes, these cases can be 

against municipalities that are already financially strapped. Our 

desire is to get them into compliance, not to take all their money 

so that they then have to spend it on a penalty, but to get them 

into compliance. And that is what we have been saying. 

The other focus is transparency. One of the things that series of 

articles did is that the reporter spent an incredible amount of time 

going State by State to get data that is not now nationally available. So people cannot look and see whether or not systems are 

complying without lots and lots of work. They cannot get a picture 

of the U.S. water compliance. So we are insisting, when we work 

with our States they are our partners, but we are being pretty 

tough on this that they have to make that data available and 

transparently available so that folks can see what is going on. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me stop you for a minute. Now, the 

budget has $45 million. It is an increase for State water pollution 
22 

control grants. How are you going to assure that the States use 

this money for enforcement? 

Ms. JACKSON. That money will be for permit writing and for enforcement. Oftentimes, they are the same person at the State level, 

as we all know. And it will be given out through grants under our 

performance partnership agreements with the States and will be 

conditioned on use and sometimes some amount of match to ensure 

that it is used for water programs. There is actually a slightly larger amount for air programs as well. 

States have been asking for this money, and we are proud to as 

a former State commissioner, I am proud to be able to give them 

some help, especially now. 

GREAT LAKES FUNDS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Let me go on quickly to the Great Lakes. There were $475 mil- lion. It was cut to $300 million. As of February 17, I think you 

have only obligated or transferred $39 million of that amount. So 

we have a huge appropriation out there for the Great Lakes with 

very little movement. Why is that? 

Ms. JACKSON. The President asked me, as head of the Great 

Lakes process, to do several things. One was to ensure that we involved all the Federal agencies that have real work to do on the 

Great Lakes. The other was to include a real outreach process so 

that we would come out with an action plan, which we just released about 2 weeks ago, that reflected what the community and 

the stakeholders, the States, the tribes, around the lakes wanted, 

industry as well. I think it is a very strong plan. It builds on a lot 

of work. 

And last but not least, we really did not get the appropriation 

until the budget was reviewed, and that was toward the end of last 

calendar year. And so we could not put out the grant solicitation 

until we had the money to back up that grant solicitation. Those 

grant solicitations are out now, and I think we will start to see 

money awarded very soon. I also think it will be money for real 

projects on the ground. What we have said is what the President 

said is he wants work done in the Great Lakes, not lots and lots 

of 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right, exactly. Well, I appreciate that. You 

know, I think we should take a look at that and monitor it because 

this is a huge project. And there is a lot of use for those monies. 

I am thinking of one specifically in California, which is the bay 

delta. 

The bay delta is, Senator, a very interesting place. It is enormous. It has got maybe 2,000 miles of levee. There are a lot of artificial islands, peat soil. You know, when the soil leaks into the 

delta, it throws off trihalomethanes, which are difficult to treat. It 

is the source of drinking water for 20 million people. The federally 

run Central Valley Water Project has a huge aqueduct, which 

pumps water out of the delta all the way down to southern California essentially. And it is under great stress. 

My question to you, Madam Administrator, is what can the EPA 

do to achieve the goals you identified in your work plan to address 

the water quality issues, including what are growing discharges of 
23 

ammonia and something called pyrethroids, which I gather are 

dangerous, toxic to crustaceans and therefore fish. We have two endangered species, namely the smelt and the salmon, and that impacts everything done in the delta. There is a real need for some 

EPA participation in this. So if you have any suggestions that you 

would like to put on the table, I would love to hear them. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. 

EPA is committed to working on the water quality side of the 

equation when it comes to the bay delta. Obviously, there are 

water quantity issues, but if the water that we get is dirty and requires lots of money to treat in order to be used, whether it is for 

agriculture or drinking water or whether it is hurting the ecosystem, at the end of the day, we still have a problem in the bay 

delta. 

So I think that is where EPA’s expertise and assistance to the 

State of California can be absolutely invaluable. You have my commitment that we will work on looking at dischargers to try to 

ratchet those numbers down so that people are properly stewarding 

the bay in terms of what they discharge and also looking at ecosystem health and water supply issues from the context of we do 

not want dirty water once, we get it, to see what we can do ensure 

water quality. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. That is very helpful. Thank you 

very much. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AND DRINKING WATER

Administrator Jackson, $4.3 million requested this year to undertake a study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and 

drinking water. This is a pretty important study. I mean, suddenly 

in the United States we find we have a whole lot of natural gas 

at low prices, which is important for a wide variety of reasons. 

My question is we hear a lot of talk about good science. I want 

to make sure that in the review of this issue that you have the 

maximum amount of peer review and good science so that everyone 

has confidence in the conclusion. What is your plan? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

I am happy to give you that assurance. The study has not begun 

yet. In fact, what we are in the process of doing is reprogramming 

money for the current fiscal year so that we can begin the study 

this year rather than wait. I think this is a very important and 

timely issue and we need to start sooner rather than later. We 

have not completely scoped out the peer review aspect of it, but I 

will be happy to work with you and your office to ensure you feel 

comfortable that there is adequate and sufficient review of the results. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I would appreciate that. Would you consider 

peer review entities outside the EPA? 

Ms. JACKSON. They normally are, sir. There are several options 

for peer review. Our science advisory board is an organization that 

is outside the EPA, but we have also used different methods for 

peer review. So I am happy to discuss that with you. 
24 

CLEAN AIR

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

I would like to move to clean air. Two questions. 

As I mentioned, Senator Carper and I have a hearing tomorrow 

in the Environment and Public Works Committee on our clean air 

law, which would be nationally stronger standards for SO/x/ and 

NO/x/ and the first law requiring a 90 percent reduction in mercury 

from coal plants. 

One, will you work with us to make sure we understand the cost 

of that? You have a lot of capacity for modeling and a lot of experience in that. I want to make sure we know what we are doing. In 

other words, I do not want us to put a law—in the early estimates 

from EPA are that the cost might not be more than $2 or $3 a 

month more on the average electric bill by 2025. If that is so, that 

is not much money. But I do not need a complete answer today. 

I just want to get it to the top of your list in your agency and make 

sure you give us as much help as possible, as quickly as possible, 

in having a reliable cost estimate because we would like to pass the 

bill this year. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So will you help us? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to make sure our staff sit down with 

you as soon as possible to talk to you about exactly what analyses 

you need in order to support your work on the bill this year. 

CLEAN AIR ACT—AMBIENT OZONE STANDARDS

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you very much. 

Now, here is my other question. EPA will soon issue final regulations to tighten local ambient ozone standards nationwide, and it 

looks like it is going to put every metropolitan area in the country, 

such as those in California and Tennessee, Madam Chairman, in 

nonattainment status with the CAA. 

Now, that is of great practical importance. When I was Governor 

and Nissan came to Tennessee, the first thing they did was run 

down to the air quality agency and get a clean air permit so they 

could open a paint plant. And if Volkswagen has come to Chattanooga and they are recruiting suppliers, the first thing they are 

going to do is, in some case, to have to get a clean permit. 

We have a lot of air blowing into our State, for example, and a 

lot of it blows up against the Smoky Mountains. So we have a lot 

of special clean air problems, and I know that our communities are 

working very hard. Senator Corker, when he was mayor of Chattanooga, worked very hard. In other words, we are doing almost all 

we can locally. Perhaps we can do some more to clean up our air. 

It will take strong national emission controls on coal plants for 

us to be able to meet your upcoming stricter local standards. I 

want to make sure we do not get the cart before the horse here. 

I am working hard for stronger national emission control standards, but if you come in with unrealistic local standards, the effect 

will be to send Volkswagen offshore with its suppliers, and that 

will put jobs where we do not want them. 

So what are you doing, as you look over the next 3, 4, 5 years 

to harmonize your local ambient standards with the national re-
25 

quirements that will help local communities meet your upcoming 

tougher local standards? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

You are absolutely right on the way the CAA works. There are 

requirements that are put on States and regions. But one of EPA’s 

most fundamental responsibilities is to deal with what is called 

interstate transport, the fact that the Eastern United States gets 

a lot of pollution just by virtue of the way the wind blows. EPA is 

planning to release a proposed rule in the coming months, actually 

very soon, to replace what is called the CAIR Rule. You probably 

recall that CAIR was thrown out by the courts. The last administration’s rule was thrown out as not following the Clean Air—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. And the purpose of our legislation is to fix 

that problem. 

Ms. JACKSON. I think we have the same goals there and I think 

it is extremely important. 

Let me just say one word about the proposed ozone standards. 

Those are not final yet. So, again, I do not want anything I say 

here to somehow prejudice the public comment period, which is ongoing and very, very important. 

The CAA is also very clear about how standards have to come 

to be set. It says, first, figure out what is necessary to protect 

health. That is the foundation. And that is based entirely on 

science, as you know, not on economics, but then the regulations 

that ensue afterwards are very much based on economics. You, I 

think, know me now well enough to know that as we move to the 

regulatory—whatever happens on the national ambient air quality 

standards themselves—I believe it is important to be honest with 

the American people. Sometimes we have good environmental news 

and sometimes we have challenges. Until we are clear about what 

the challenges are, we cannot expect people to be able to figure out 

how to solve them. 

So we will go through the process and we will move, I think, in 

a way that will ensure that the CAA will do what it has always 

done. Air pollution is down 41 percent for priority pollutants, while 

GDP has gone up. I think that kind of story is entirely possible. 

As I know you do, in your proposed legislation. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. 

SUPERFUND SITE—LIBBY, MONTANA

Montana also has some other big challenges. I think we have 11 

Superfund sites on the national priorities list. They are some of the 

biggest and complex in the United States in a headwaters State. 

As I invited you last year to come to Libby, the invitation is still 

on to take a look at some and, if you have the time, all of these 

Superfund sites. So that invitation still stands, and I look forward 

to the time where you can get to Big Sky Country. 

I want to talk about Libby for just a second. First of all, I want 

to thank you for your work with Kathleen Sebelius and with Senator Baucus and myself in declaring the public health emergency 

for Libby. That was critically important with more than 200 folks 

dead in a very small town, I might add, and thousands more sick. 
26 

This designation was warranted and will help bring proper resources to that community, and I want to express my appreciation 

for that, as well as Secretary Sebelius. 

What I wanted to ask you about now, in reference to Libby, is 

that last year the subcommittee instructed you to report back within 180 days, which you have still got about 60 days of those left, 

about the known health risks and baseline for determining the 

cleanup activities planned for Libby with sufficient science to develop a record of decision. How is that report coming? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe it is in process. I think we have continued 

to work on it, sir, and we will get you a status report for the record 

because I do not have the specifics on the report. 

Senator TESTER. Okay, that would be good. 

[The information follows:] 

DETERMINING CLEAN-UP ACTIVITIES PLANNED FOR LIBBY

A draft report is currently undergoing internal Environmental Protection Agency 

review and we plan to transmit the report to you on schedule. 

Senator TESTER. One of the things that is going on right now in 

Libby is the risk assessment is using old methodology, both data 

and methodology from about 2000. So I think, as with everything— 

in Libby’s case, all we want in the end—all you want, all I want— 

is to have a place that is safe to live in. And so we need to have 

the best or the newest techniques. So make sure that we do the 

work that we do right and make sure we are not spending our 

money on stuff that we do not need to be spending money on. 

So the question is since Libby is really setting the science for asbestos resource, what kind of oversight can we expect from you or 

the agency to make sure that we are using the best science available. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we will continue to—I absolutely agree. 

Libby is sort of the frontier of this amphibole asbestos science. We 

will continue to make sure that we refine that science as more information becomes available. 

One of the problems in Libby is that we are using very old risk 

information. We have committed to updating that toxicity information, but it will not happen until sometime in 2011. 

What my commitment to you, Senator, is that we do not want 

to stop all cleanup while we wait for new information. 

Senator TESTER. No. 

Ms. JACKSON. So sort of the common-sense approach is where the 

risk information is irrelevant, let us move ahead on cleanup because we know we have to do it, and in those cases where we need 

the risk information to make a final decision, let us hold off, but 

we want to continue to do both. Right? Great science but also keeping the cleanup going for the citizens. 

SOUND SCIENCE—ASBESTOS

Senator TESTER. And can you give me any sort of assurance that 

before that record of decision is issued, that we will have sound 

science behind that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I absolutely will, but let me just be clear because 

I do not want you to be angry at me later. There are some decisions 

we can make based on the science we have now. The science we 
27 

have now is necessary and sufficient to support some decisions. Let 

us try to make them, but let us not run to make a decision if we 

do not have the necessary science. 

Senator TESTER. But when that final record of decision comes 

out, it has got to be based on solid science. 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. 

There are about 8,000 folks in Libby that have been exposed to 

asbestos. There is epidemiological data to bear that out on those 

8,000 folks. I am wondering why that data—if you can respond to 

this, and I know it is pretty specific—but why that data is not 

being used to evaluate the risk on human health, rather we are 

utilizing animal testing. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. I cannot respond to it. It is sort of beyond 

what I know of the site. But why do I not check and we will get 

back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

LIBBY—USING EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA

The approach that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is using to evaluate the human health risk from current and future exposure to Libby amphibole is 

multifaceted and is described in detail in the above-referenced report that will be 

submitted to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Animal studies are only one 

component of this effort. Epidemiologic data based on measured exposures and observed cancer incidence in Libby mine workers, who also were residents of Libby, 

are being evaluated to determine a Libby amphibole-specific cancer toxicity value. 

Similarly, epidemiological data based on measured exposures and observed noncancer effects in processing plant workers exposed to Libby amphibole are being 

evaluated to determine a Libby amphibole-specific noncancer toxicity value. These 

values, coupled with exposure concentrations measured in Libby, will be used to 

evaluate the risk of cancer and noncancer effects for the Libby community. These 

values are expected to be available for use in the baseline risk assessments for the 

Libby and Troy communities, which are planned to be completed in 2012. The animal studies that also are underway are expected to provide additional toxicity information to inform the uncertainty sections of the baseline risk assessments. Longterm epidemiological studies designed to tie health effects to quantitative measures 

of exposure to Libby residents that did not work in the mine or mills are also underway. In order to use epidemiological data to quantitatively evaluate the incidence 

of adverse health effects, quantitative measures of exposures are required. The incidence of adverse health effects in Libby residents who were not mine or mill workers is well-documented, but has not yet been tied to quantitative measures of exposure. This is one of the goals of the long-term epidemiological studies that are now 

underway in Libby. 

Senator TESTER. And I would just say that the CARD Clinic up 

in Libby is doing a great job and if EPA utilizes them to the best 

of their ability, they can be a great asset for you in that community 

because they are on the ground. 

One more question very quickly. Libby is complex. There has not 

been a risk assessor working with EPA in the community, and I 

was wondering what your sentiment is on placing a risk assessor 

on the ground in Libby. It could help with agency communication 

with the residents. My understanding is—and you can correct me 

if I am wrong on this that basically there is a toxicologist that 

comes up once a month from California, and communication is 

critically important. I just want to get your perspective on why a 

risk assessor is not there and if you think there is a need for one. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to look into the specific staffing issues, 

sir, through the San Francisco office. I would say that I do know 
28 

that the daily presence of public health professionals is extremely 

important. The risk assessment part of the science is a bit more 

wonky and a bit more it drives cleanup levels, but it is usually not 

necessary to have someone there all the time. It is very unusual 

to have a risk assessor full-time at a site, but let me check into it. 

[The information follows:] 

LIBBY—FULL-TIME, ON-SITE RISK ASSESSOR

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) operates a project specific information center and field office in Libby that is open during regular business hours. The 

Libby office is staffed by an EPA Remedial Project Manager and a Contract Administrative Assistant who live in Libby. Their full-time presence in Libby provides the 

opportunity for individuals to meet with EPA concerning the site. The remedial 

project manager’s duties include oversight of field activities and coordination with 

the site toxicologist to address community concerns regarding site risks. The remedial project manager in the EPA Libby field office, supported by his team of response contractors, also serves as an Environmental Resource Specialist (ERS) so 

that if community members encounter vermiculite that may contain Libby 

amphibole asbestos they will be able to get immediate action from EPA. Action is 

tailored to the circumstance; EPA may offer on-the-spot answers to any questions 

regarding how to address the situation or, if necessary, on-scene support. This service is available during business hours and for emergencies. Community members 

have often sought the help of the ERS to help reduce the potential for exposure to 

asbestos. 

Regarding a full-time on-site risk assessor, at this time, EPA does not believe that 

the tasks associated with the site risk assessor require full-time residence in the 

community. Since 2007, contractors for EPA have been conducting activity based 

sampling to quantify current exposures to Libby amphibole asbestos during various 

types of yard work and children’s playtime. Once Libby amphibole specific cancer 

and noncancer toxicity values are developed, the risk assessor will use these values 

and the activity based exposure concentrations to quantitatively estimate risks in 

the Libby community. 

CLARK FORK RIVER

Senator TESTER. Okay. Communication, I think, is key and I 

think it helps your effectiveness, as well as communities understanding what is going on and why it is going on. But I appreciate 

your attention to that. 

Very quickly, and I will just make this my last question. Currently the State of Montana has a great working relationship on 

the Clark Fork River, restoring a watershed and turning that area 

into a scenic park. The work will restore clean water, fish, aquatic 

species habitat, and revitalize a corridor that is home to many of 

Montana’s farms and ranches. This site was listed in 1985. It has 

waited a long time for cleanup. The State and the EPA have entered into a consent agreement where the State is the lead agency, 

a position well deserved after their good work, particularly in Silver Bow County and Milltown Dam. There is more than $100 million ready to put folks to work in 

restoration economy in Montana. Unfortunately, this work is 

stalled because of what I would call a minor disagreement between 

the EPA and the State. I just need your commitment that you will 

work with the State of Montana, which is the lead agency, to get 

these issues resolved so that we can get these projects commenced 

in a timely fashion. As I said, Montana is a headwater State. This 

is no different, and the quicker we get it cleaned up, I think the 

better it is for the whole country. 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, Senator. Obviously, we have the same 

goal, which is to get it cleaned up. 
29 

Senator TESTER. Yes. Thank you very much. Once again, thank 

you, Lisa. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your answering the 

questions. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Welcome, Senator Murkowski. You are up next if you would like 

to be. 

STATIONARY SOURCE EMITTERS

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you so very much. I appreciate it. I 

apologize that I have not been here for opening statements. We 

have Secretary Salazar testifying in the Energy Committee, so we 

are kind of bouncing back and forth this morning. 

But good morning, Administrator Jackson. Thank you for being 

here. 

A couple questions. You probably already know where I am going 

to be coming from in terms of my questions this morning. 

When the President spoke to us at his State of the Union Address, he called on the Congress to develop comprehensive energy 

and climate legislation, and then it was just a few days later when 

he released his budget, that the EPA requested more than $40 million in order to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions on its 

own. 

I have expressed my concerns about that. I believe it should be 

the Congress that does the policymaking in this area. I am quite 

concerned that EPA’s actions will harm our economy at a time that 

we can least afford it. 

Now, I understand and I have read the letter that you have sent 

just last week—I believe it was last Monday—in response to several of my colleagues about how you understand the EPA would 

implement its proposed regulations. I would like this morning to 

just get some better clarification from the points that were raised 

in that letter. 

According to that timeline, you said that roughly 400 stationary 

source emitters will face regulation under the CAA in the first half 

of 2011. My questions this morning are, given that timeline then, 

how many stationary sources do you anticipate would be regulated 

in the second half of 2011? I am trying to anticipate what it is that 

we might be seeing as we move through this transition, I guess, for 

lack of a better term, that you have proposed. So can you give me 

some indicators as to what we might anticipate that second half of 

2011 and then how many stationary sources we would see regulated by the end of 2013? 

And then it is my understanding 2016 is when you hit the smaller sources. So the number of increases that we will anticipate and 

when we actually hit what you defined as smaller stationary 

sources. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

I just have to preface everything I say by saying the letter was 

an attempt to give what we know about an ongoing rulemaking 

process. I need to just say that up front. 

You asked about the first half of next calendar year, first half of 

2011. And then the second half. So as you move into the second 

half, it is likely, depending on the final rulemaking, that you could 
30 

see up to 1,700 permits manually that would need to be reviewed 

for greenhouse gas emissions that would not this year, for example. 

So I think that was your question. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So that would be July 2011 you would see 

an additional 1,700. Is that right? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. We have not set an exact date, but you said 

second half of the year. I feel more comfortable with that terminology. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes, sure. 

Ms. JACKSON. And then you asked about 2012? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. 2013. 

Ms. JACKSON. Depending on the level that we choose, it probably 

looks around 3,000 additional major sources. Again, that is based 

on what we know right now from public comment. A lot of this is 

based on comment we have received from States who say, ‘‘This is 

what we see our workload being.’’ 

And then you asked about 2016 where we are looking at—what 

the letter says and what I feel comfortable saying today sitting 

here is that it—be no sooner than 2016 that we would move to the 

smallest sources. 

SMALL SOURCE REGULATIONS

Senator MURKOWSKI. And can you give me then some examples 

of what you would consider to be those smaller sources that would 

be subject to regulation after 2016? The big concern, the fear is 

that the local corner restaurant would be subject to regulation. Can 

you give me some examples of what you might consider? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do not have any specific categories. I would say 

that it would be based on a tonnage amount per year. We said that 

would be the smallest of the small sources. 

Perhaps this would be helpful. Sixty-seven percent of covered 

major stationary source emissions come from facilities larger than 

100,000 tons of CO2 equivalent; 70 percent from facilities larger 

than 50,000 tons; and 75 percent from facilities larger than 25,000 

tons. So you can see you do not get a whole lot more in terms of 

percentage reduction when you move from, say, 100,000 down to 

50,000. And the same is true when you move from 50,000 to 

25,000. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So as you define a small stationary source 

by ton, what would that number be? 

Ms. JACKSON. The letter simply says that in the proposed rule, 

we talked about 25,000 tons as being the number. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Ms. JACKSON. What the letter says is that we are looking at a 

significantly higher level because one thing we have heard from 

many, many States is that 25,000 tons would still get in certain facilities that they do not consider large, and would more appropriately be considered small. This is the Tailoring Rule. That is 

what it is generally called—to tailor greenhouse gas regulation and 

phase it in over a long period of time. We are looking at something 

significantly higher than 25,000 tons, you know, 50,000, 75,000. We 

are looking at those numbers as we finalize the rule. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Madam Chairman, my 5 minutes are up. I 

do not know if we are doing second rounds. 
31 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Why do you not take some more time? 

REGULATION VERSUS LEGISLATION

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay, I appreciate that. I appreciate the indulgence. 

Let me ask for some clarification here, and this is clarification 

on EPA’s position on regulation versus legislation. There was a 

statement that was made in Copenhagen that I think has generated a little bit of confusion. You had stated—and this was presumably in reference to the choice between either Congress or EPA 

acting to reduce emissions—that ‘‘this is not an either/or moment. 

It is a both/and moment.’’ So you have made that statement. 

But then you have also made other statements that provide that 

‘‘I absolutely prefer that the Senate take action.’’ Elsewhere you 

have been quoted as saying that you firmly believe—and the President has said all along—that new legislation is the best way to 

deal with climate change. 

So I am not sure whether you agree with me—and I think the 

President as well—that new legislation is the best way to deal with 

climate change or whether it should be EPA regulation. I would 

like you to provide to me and certainly to the subcommittee here 

to explain what the position is regarding whether it should be EPA 

or whether it should be Congress that should develop our Nation’s 

climate and energy policy. 

Ms. JACKSON.Well, I stand behind my statement in Copenhagen. 

I certainly stand behind the President’s call for a comprehensive 

energy legislation that puts a price on carbon. I believe that is absolutely the best way, as you said, to move our country into a clean 

energy future. I think it is critical. 

I also think that it is not an either/or moment. I think even legislation that has currently passed the House—that is the standard 

we have right now—envisions that EPA will have certain roles to 

play. There is lots of regulatory work that the EPA can do that is 

entirely consistent with new legislation in the future. I believe it 

is incumbent on me as head of the agency to ensure that regulations that we propose and promulgate are consistent with what is 

going on here in Congress with respect to new legislation. It is 

complex, but it is not the time to make a choice as to whether or 

not EPA can regulate. 

I think the CAIR rules are an excellent example of that because 

they are rules that are likely—I do not want to guess what Congress may do or take away any prerogatives, but likely to survive 

because they are such an important milestone for our country. The 

auto industry wanted the rules. Labor unions wanted the rules. 

Environmentalists believe in the rules. States wanted the rules in 

order to have one regulatory picture for cleaner cars for this country between now and 2016. And I think those rules are an example 

of the kind of common-sense, smart rulemaking we can do that is 

entirely consistent with my belief and hope that Congress will, indeed, enact new legislation in the future. 

REGULATORY APPROACH

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I think the President, in his statements that I have read, has been quite clear that he prefers and 
32 

is encouraging the Congress to move on climate policy, and that is 

the direction that should be taken as opposed to the regulatory approach. 

And I think one of the concerns that we face, what I am discussing with Secretary Salazar just upstairs, is the concern that 

there are policies that are happening over here and regulation that 

is basically doing whatever they want within the agencies. And you 

do not have a meshing. You do not have a coordination. We see far 

too often, I think, kind of this bootstrap—not necessarily bootstraps. What is the expression I am thinking of? ‘‘Belts and suspenders’’ where you have overlap of regulation and policy that do 

not necessarily mix, and then we do not have a coherent scheme 

in place. 

So, I do not know that I am any more clear, based on your statement this morning, as to whether or not you think it should be the 

Congress and those of us that are elected by our constituents and 

accountable to them to enact and advance climate policy. So we will 

continue to work and address this. 

I have one parochial question, if I may. 

Ms. JACKSON. If you would not mind, let me just be clear again 

that I would like nothing more than to see Congress enact comprehensive energy and climate legislation. I join the President in 

that call. It is my belief that there is no example out there of EPA 

regulation, since I have been Administrator, that is not entirely 

consistent with a belief that that is where we are heading. 

And it is also my belief that the States, as well as EPA, will have 

a significant role to play as we move into a world where carbon pollution is addressed, hopefully by law. And we have to get ready for 

that. We can take steps now that put us on that road that are entirely consistent with where we are trying to head. As you know, 

Secretary Salazar and I are part of a green Cabinet that meets regularly to ensure that our efforts under President Obama’s leadership are coordinated and support his call for legislation. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Given what you have just said then, would 

you support Senator Rockefeller’s proposal to delay for 2 years any 

implementation of EPA regulations? 

Ms. JACKSON. I support the need for new legislation to address 

carbon pollution, and I support and believe that it is my duty as 

EPA Administrator to promulgate and finalize common-sense, 

smart regulations that do not put this country in lose-lose situations, but that are win-win. And I think the automobile proposal, 

which we will soon need to finalize, is an example of how we can 

do that. I do not think we are at a fork in the road. 

I also think, Senator, and I should point out that the law compels 

me as EPA Administrator to follow the Supreme Court decision of 

April 2007. The law says that EPA has to move forward on these 

issues, and the rule of law and my respect for it demands that we 

move forward as well. 

VILLAGE SAFE WATER PROGRAM

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. I think there are many of us 

who feel that the EPA is expanding their interpretation beyond 

what you believe. 
33 

Let me ask very quickly a last question here, and again, this is 

parochial. This is regarding the village safe water funding. 

Funding for the Village Safe Water program has been reduced in 

past years and remained flat-funded in the fiscal year 2011 budget 

request. We have some pretty considerable needs in my State for 

water and sewer infrastructure, but our greatest needs are in communities that have absolutely no running water, no sewer service. 

Approximately 20 percent of our Native Alaska villages do not have 

what I think people would consider just basic services, basic needs. 

I would ask that you look at the funding for the Village Safe 

Water program. This is something that we have been working with 

your agency on, and I would like to think that this is an area 

where we can find areas of cooperation as we work to address some 

pretty basic needs for people in some of the most remote areas of 

the country. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to do that, Senator. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

GREENHOUSE GASES—MARKET-BASED SYSTEM

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Well, I think it is obvious that I greatly respect Senator Murkowski, but we have a very different view on this subject. I strongly believe, based on the Massachusetts case and I have read the 

law, the opinion here this morning, that you have to move forward 

and should move forward. 

However, I just want to say personally I have always felt that 

an incremental approach to the legislative approach is a much better way of going. Some time ago, I introduced a bill that affected 

the electricity sector only. I still, to this day, believe that if we 

move to institute a system affecting the electricity sector first, that 

it would work well and that people would see how a global warming cap and trade bill could be put into play. I believe each sector 

is different, but that is for another day. 

Your budget asks for $7.5 million to fund the development of national new source performance standards for greenhouse gases, 

which you contend, I believe, that it would allow EPA to consider 

market-oriented mechanisms and flexibilities to provide a lowest 

cost compliance option. 

Is it possible to set a market-based system to regulate greenhouse gases in the utility sector using these standards? And has 

EPA ever done something similar to this? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think, Chairman, the reference to market-oriented mechanisms should not be read too broadly to imply that 

EPA is currently looking at a market-oriented mechanism, say, cap 

and trade, such as has been discussed—passed in the U.S. House 

of Representatives and is certainly being discussed in various quarters in the U.S. Senate. Rather, I believe that section 111 of the 

CAA might authorize inclusion of some market-oriented mechanisms. That is one of the discussions that we are having for certain 

categories. So I do not want the language in the budget document 

to be read too broadly and for us to assume at this point that the 

agency has broader information. 
34 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me discuss it with you. As I understand it, you have created a cap and trade system for sulfur dioxide 

and nitrous oxide under this provision of the CAA, known as the 

CAIR Rule. So EPA can do this. It would have to be sector by sector instead of economy-wide. And it would not be able to benefit 

from offsets. But if you can do it with sulfur dioxide and nitrous 

oxide, I do not understand why you cannot do it here too. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Madam Chairman. I am not saying that it 

cannot be done. There are certainly limitations on it. I think it is 

something that we are happy to continue to work with your staff 

as we develop our thinking on where that might be appropriate. 

The New Source Performance Standards have the advantage 

under the CAA of being sector-wide so that they are different than 

the best available control technology standards under 112, which 

are case-by-case analyses. They give a real road map to where the 

technology is on any particular pollutant. In this case, it would be 

CO2 and greenhouse gas pollution. So there are real advantages to 

looking that way, to working with the industry to say, okay, what 

is doable, what can be commercially viable, what do we do now. 

And it allows the law to change—excuse me—the regulations to 

change as we learn more. But I would say our thinking is not so 

involved that I feel comfortable sitting here today telling you the 

extent to which that could be done. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Fair enough. Thank you. 

Senator, do you have a question? 

Senator ALEXANDER. I have only one. 

Senator Cardin and I have a bill on mountaintop mining. Our 

goal is not to eliminate surface mining of coal but to limit the practice of blowing off the top of a mountain and dumping the fill in 

streams. Would such a bill, if you had a chance to look at it, help 

clarify the 404 permitting process that you are now going through 

various permits for surface mining? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

In response to requests from you and Senator Cardin, EPA is 

completing certain analyses on the bill. Obviously, EPA’s responsibilities are pursuant to the Clean Water Act. In some ways, they 

are narrower and speak to a narrower set of issues than your bill 

does, which speaks to the practice in general. 

But certainly it is my belief that as we learn more and more from 

outside scientists and inside scientists, we know that there are 

clear water quality impacts that come from filling in streams—that 

is pretty intuitive—and from the valley fills that result when you 

have to take this tremendous amount of overburden. It is EPA’s 

focus, in reviewing your bill, to give you as much information as 

we can about what your bill would do to alleviate that situation. 

That is our interest. And we are happy to continue working with 

you on that. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator. 

And Madam Administrator, let me thank you very much and everybody with you. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 
35 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) REGULATION

Question. Administrator Jackson, you stated in your February 22 letter to Senator 

Rockefeller and a number of Democratic Senators that you don’t plan to regulate 

the smallest sources of GHGs before 2016. Your comments have been interpreted 

by some to mean that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does in fact plan 

to regulate small businesses after all. How do you plan to address the question of 

whether to regulate small sources? Will you study how practical it would be to regulate small sources like family farms, apartment buildings and dry cleaners before 

subjecting them to any regulation? 

Answer. In the proposed tailoring rule, EPA explained the need to conduct a 5- 

year study concerning the potential application of Clean Air Act permitting programs to sources that emit less than 25,000 tons per year of GHGs and to follow 

that study with a rulemaking to determine how to address such small sources. As 

I indicated in my letter to Senator Rockefeller, the final tailoring rule will ensure 

that small sources will not become subject to Clean Air Act permitting for at least 

6 years. In any event, I believe there is every reason to expect that Congress will 

enact a comprehensive program to address GHG pollution—a program that settles 

any questions about small sources—before 2016. I hope you share that expectation. 

Question. During 2011, a very small number of the largest sources will come 

under greenhouse gas regulation. This will require these facilities to use the ‘‘Best 

Achievable Control Technology’’ (BACT). Calpine and Pacific Gas and Electric’s new 

power plant in California has voluntarily attained this standard already, so we have 

a general picture of what efficiency targets such a permit would require. When will 

EPA complete guidance explaining to these sources what EPA believes the best 

technology to be? 

Answer. EPA worked with the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee to establish a 

work group comprised of States, industry, and other stakeholders that focused initially on the BACT requirement, including information and guidance that would be 

useful for EPA to provide concerning the technical, economic, and environmental 

performance characteristics of potential BACT options. In addition, the work group 

identified and discussed approaches to enable State and local permitting authorities 

to apply the BACT criteria in a consistent, practical and efficient manner. The work 

group issued its phase I report in February 2010. 

As a result of the work group’s recommendations, EPA is developing technical information and guidance to assist sources and permitting authorities as they begin 

to address GHGs in PSD permitting actions. EPA plans to issue guidance before 

January 2, 2011, the date that the permitting requirements will begin for large 

sources of GHGs that already require permits for other pollutants. 

STATE GRANTS

Question. Your budget proposes a $25 million increase for grants to States to 

ramp up their ability to issue GHG permits in fiscal year 2011. How do you expect 

States to use these funds? 

Answer. States with approved or delegated permitting programs also will be incorporating new climate change requirements into their permitting programs in fiscal 

year 2011. The $25 million increase for State grants in fiscal year 2011 will assist 

in avoiding delays in evaluating and approving permits. In consultation with the 

States, funding will be allocated to the States based on the number of sources to 

be permitted, the total emissions from the facilities to be permitted, and the amount 

of funding the State is matching under their existing grant workplan. 

Question. How many permits will they be expected to process in fiscal year 2011? 

Answer. After the EPA issues the tailoring rule, the EPA can be more specific 

about how many sources will be affected and how the new requirements will impact 

State workloads. 

Question. Will additional funds be required in the outyears as States assume more 

permitting responsibilities? 

Answer. At this point we are unable to determine whether States may need additional funding in the outyears as they assume more permitting responsibilities. This 

is dependent on the number of sources that will be subject to additional permitting 

requirements and the extent to which permitting fees offset the cost of running the 

program. 
36 

PERCHLORATE

Question. EPA has been studying perchlorate for years, and the links between the 

chemical and health problems are well known. Yet the Bush administration refused 

to set a drinking water limit on perchlorate. You announced last August that EPA 

was going to re-evaluate the decision and the scientific data on the health effects 

from perchlorate exposure. I am concerned that EPA has not said when it will finish 

this new review and hope that this is not a repeat of the Bush administration’s delaying tactics. When will EPA finish its review and announce whether it will regulate perchlorate? 

Answer. EPA plans to complete its drinking water regulatory determination for 

perchlorate in 2010. We continue to evaluate the extensive information in the public 

comments we have received on this action. If the determination is to regulate, EPA 

will move expeditiously to develop a national drinking water standard for perchlorate and conduct the health risk reduction cost analyses and consultations required in developing such a rule. 

BISPHENOL-A (BPA)

Question. I am very concerned about how pervasive chemicals are in the environment and how little is known about whether these chemicals are really safe. BPA, 

for example, has been linked to cancer and infertility, and yet it is widely used in 

food packaging and containers. I have introduced legislation to ban these uses. Last 

December, EPA announced it was taking action against four chemicals of concern, 

including phthalates, but that action against BPA was still being developed. 

Given all we know about the harms posed by BPA, why hasn’t EPA already taken 

some action against this chemical? 

Answer. On March 29, 2010, EPA posted the action plan for BPA, in line with 

the Administrator’s announcement to complete and post an initial four action plans 

in December 2009, with additional plans at approximately 4-month intervals. On 

December 29, 2009, EPA made public the first four action plans on phthalates, 

short-chain chlorinated parraffins, perflourinated chemicals, and Polybrominated diphenyl ethers. EPA’s plan for BPA focuses on the environmental impacts of BPA, 

and will look to add BPA to EPA’s list of chemicals of concern under section 5(b)(4) 

of the Toxic Substances Control Act, and require testing related to environmental 

effects. EPA remains committed to protecting human health, but notes that most 

human exposure, including exposure to children, comes through food packaging materials under the jurisdiction of Food and Drug Administration (FDA). EPA will continue to consult and coordinate closely with the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

to better determine and evaluate the potential health consequences of BPA. The results of this assessment work will factor significantly in any future EPA decisions 

to address potential risks to human health resulting from uses within EPA’s jurisdiction. More information can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/ 

existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/bpa.html. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION

Question. In June 2009, the administration released a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entitled ‘‘Implementing the Interagency Action Plan on Appalachian Surface Coal Mining.’’ The MOU noted that ‘‘Federal agencies will 

work . . . to help diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and 

promote the health and welfare of Appalachian communities. This interagency effort 

will have a special focus on stimulating clean enterprise and green jobs 

development . . .’’ 

What new programs or initiatives is the EPA proposing to advance economic diversification in Appalachia? 

Answer. Pursuant to the June 11, 2009 interagency MOU, EPA continues to work 

with the Council on Environmental Quality and other Federal agencies to diversify 

and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy. EPA is supporting upcoming 

community outreach meetings throughout Appalachia, led by U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, to foster community development and regional collaboration. Additionally, EPA is continuing to support the existing E3 initiative (Economy, Energy, and 

Environment), in coordination with the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and 

Labor, and the Small Business Administration, in identifying opportunities to apply 

E3 in Appalachia. The State of West Virginia recently announced a new small busi-
37 

ness program that will be coordinated within the E3 framework including EPA’s 

Green Suppliers Network. 

Question. What new resources is the EPA requesting to advance economic diversification in Appalachia? 

Answer. EPA continues to work with Federal agencies to identify promising and 

coordinated opportunities for promoting Appalachian economic diversification. EPA 

continues to provide staff resources and technical expertise to support upcoming Appalachian listening sessions and expanding E3 activities (Economy, Energy, and Environment) in Appalachia. EPA continues to evaluate how its core programs, such 

as Brownfields, water and wastewater infrastructure, and E3, can be used toward 

promoting Appalachian economic diversification. 

Question. In addition to devoting greater amounts of funding to programs such as 

Brownfields Redevelopment, and the Clean, Green Schools Program, how will EPA 

also use its own technical expertise, and the expertise and resources of other Federal partners, in order to strengthen the support and collaboration that are necessary for grantees’ projects to be successful in achieving long-term viability? 

Answer. The EPA’s goal is for all grant programs to become successful and 

achieve long-term viability. The general approach is to work in partnership with 

States, tribes, and local governments to promote and encourage effective development and implementation of environmental programs. An essential part of this is 

ensuring that nongovernmental organizations and the general public have and use 

reliable/valid scientific information and exposure prevention techniques and tools 

when making decisions that impact human health and the environment. To this 

end, the EPA deploys a suite of approaches to support its grantees. These approaches include: 

—Using all available legislative authorities as vehicles for comprehensive grantee 

assistance. 

—Providing focused outreach and technical assistance to increase adoption and 

deployment of assessment tools. 

—Continual improvement of transparency and coordination in sharing information and providing technical assistance, tools and materials to partners and 

stakeholder groups, including information on emerging issues. 

—Focusing on improving coordination across the EPA to ensure that EPA’s policies and programs explicitly consider and use the most up-to-date data and 

methods. 

—Working with other Federal partners to improve government-wide support in 

implementing legislative mandates and coordinating outreach and technical assistance. 

The Brownfields program is one example of how EPA uses its technical expertise 

and the expertise and resources of other Federal partners to ensure that grantee’s 

projects will be successful in achieving long-term viability. Through dedicated 

project officers, workshops, and guidance documents, EPA provides technical assistance, outreach, coordination, and other assistance as quality assurance reviews to 

support grantees’ projects of assessing and cleaning up Brownfield sites. To further 

support the effort to assess and cleanup Brownfields properties, EPA recently initiated a new pilot program which will provide grants to disadvantaged communities 

for the purpose of preparing an ‘‘area-wide’’ plan for sustainable redevelopment, 

which is targeted to increase the likelihood of attracting private investors and Federal and State grant funding for implementation. The Brownfields program is also 

engaged with Federal partners on several cross-cutting priorities. For example, 

under the HUD–DOT–EPA initiative, EPA is engaging with other Federal agencies 

to maximize the expertise offered under the Brownfields technical assistance and resources provided directly to communities to generate sustainable community redevelopment. EPA is also participating in the White House Council on Automotive 

Communities and Workers to find productive and efficient ways to bring Federal resources and technical assistance to communities suffering from the effects of economic disruption. Through these collaborative efforts, EPA will continue to look for 

ways to align and coordinate the disparate Federal resources to help communities 

address their environmental and economic development challenges. 

PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES

Question. What are the levels of metals and other contaminants in domestic wells 

and public water systems in communities downstream from mountaintop mining activities? 

Answer. Little data are available that describe the impact of mountaintop mining 

activities on domestic wells and public water systems in Appalachia, especially private wells. Information on the location of drinking water supplies and private wells 
38 

in relation to surface coal mining operations is inconsistently collected by States as 

part of permit applications under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

(SMCRA). EPA regions are working with the Corps of Engineers, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM), and States to improve data-sharing on the relationship between 

mountaintop mining activities and drinking water wells, and to evaluate potential 

drinking water impacts from proposed surface mining projects. Because nearby communities often rely on private wells (those that serve fewer than 25 people and have 

fewer than 15 connections) that are not regulated by EPA, data collection poses additional challenges. 

With the Public Water System Supervision grant programs, States or primacy authorities track any violations of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or treatment 

techniques at public water systems, both community and noncommunity water systems, that serve more than 25 persons. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA 

is required to track violations occurring in public water systems when contaminant 

levels exceed the MCL. There have been very few violations of MCLs for metal contaminants in Appalachia. Such violations, even if discovered, would represent deficiencies in finished drinking water, not source water. 

Question. Do you have a record of water quality violations in public water systems 

in communities downstream from mountaintop mining activities? 

Answer. As referenced above, little data are available that specifically connect the 

impact of mountaintop mining activities on domestic wells and public water systems 

in Appalachia, especially private wells. There are few public water systems with 

MCL violations from metals in Appalachia. 

It is worth noting that under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA tracks public 

water systems violations that occur in finished water that has already undergone 

treatment. As a result, public water system violations reported to EPA are not 

meaningful indicators of source water quality prior to any treatment. 

Question. What are the levels of toxic air pollutants and particulate matter in 

communities proximate to surface mining operations and coal processing facilities? 

Answer. Most of EPA’s monitoring for particulate matter and toxic air pollutants 

is focused in areas where populations and potential exposures are highest. We have 

limited information about levels of pollutants near surface mining operations and 

coal processing facilities. Surface coal mining operations are generally regulated by 

the Department of the Interior’s SMRCA. EPA recently finalized new source performance standards for new coal preparation/processing facilities which integrated 

with certain SMRCA requirements. These standards reflect the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the application of the best system of reduction that 

has been adequately demonstrated. 

Question. What are the human health impacts from mountaintop mining? 

Answer. The scientific literature is increasingly documenting a relationship between coal mining practices and impacts to human health in communities near coal 

mines. The potential human health impacts of these mining practices were most recently described in a peer-reviewed analysis by Palmer et al. in Science, as part of 

a literature review of the ecological effects of Appalachian surface coal mining. Additionally, research by Hendryx and Ahern (2009) demonstrates significant and growing gaps in age-adjusted mortality between coal mining areas of Appalachia and 

non-coal mining areas, and that higher rates of specific illnesses are consistent with 

a hypothesis of exposure to pollution from mining activities. A new study by Hitt 

and Hendryx (2010 demonstrates significant relationships between coal mining and 

both ecological integrity and human cancer mortality in West Virginia. While such 

research does not directly identify specific mining practices or operations as the 

source of such impacts, their conclusions point to negative and significant human 

health consequences from mountaintop mining that results in impaired watershed 

health and decreased environmental quality. 

Question. Are people drinking ground or surface waters that are significantly impacted by alkaline mine drainage? Can you tell us how many drinking wells you 

have sampled and what fraction of those have selenium present at levels that are 

higher than the background levels in nonmining areas? 

Answer. As discussed above, data on the location of private drinking water wells, 

and on the impacts of surface coal mining activities on private wells or public water 

systems, are currently lacking for a variety of reasons. EPA has not sampled private 

residential wells and does not have any data showing that water systems have abnormal alkalinity. Appalachian States may have analytical results available for private wells. 

It is worth noting that under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA tracks public 

water systems violations that occur in finished water that has already undergone 

treatment. As a result, public water system violations reported to EPA are not 

meaningful indicators of source water quality. 
39 

SELENIUM POLLUTION

Question. What are the impacts of high levels of selenium exposure on the health 

of humans and animals? Is there recent or emerging evidence that is of concern to 

EPA? 

Answer. Studies by Hawkes and Keim (2003) identified human data suggesting 

the potential for adverse thyroid effects such as increases in body weight when the 

diet is supplemented with excess selenium. The same study also saw the potential 

for adverse effects on the thyroid when the diet was made deficient in selenium. 

Selenium is an essential nutrient for humans and animals. Either too little or too 

much selenium can cause adverse effects in humans. The EPA reference dose is one 

that was developed to protect against clinical selenosis (increased blood clotting 

time, reduced serum glutathione, hair loss, nail malformation, and/or loss) based on 

data from human subjects living in an area of China that had high levels of selenium in the soils. 

In animals, high levels of selenium are of concern primarily for egg-laying 

vertebrates, such as fish and birds. Mammals are less sensitive than fish and birds. 

For fish the most sensitive effect is the occurrence of deformities in offspring 

spawned from selenium-exposed adults. For birds the most sensitive effect is a reduction in hatchability of eggs laid by exposed adults. Recent scientific evidence better defines the thresholds for these effects but has clarified that the risks of selenium are confined to a few types of pollution sources, such as surface coal mining. 

Question. What happens to selenium at each mountaintop mining site? 

Answer. At mountaintop mining sites, placement of overburden in valley fills can 

result in increased surface area available for water contact with rock particles. 

Water runoff can have higher concentrations of major ions and some trace metals, 

including selenium. This can result in elevated selenium concentrations in streams 

and other surface waters, and potential toxicity to aquatic organisms. In West Virginia and eastern Kentucky, the source of the selenium at mountaintop mining sites 

is thought to be the organic black shale material associated with the coal seams in 

this area. The selenium leaches from the organic black shale material and migrates 

down gradient into the aquatic ecosystems and adjacent terrestrial areas. 

Question. Is it accumulating in the plants used to reclaim abandoned mine lands 

and does this exposure pathway pose a risk to upland wildlife? 

Answer. Most mining companies in Appalachia use a standard set of plants in the 

reclamation of the mine sites. The Colorado State University Cooperative Extension 

(Series No. 6.109) has researched and classified plant species based on their ability 

to uptake and accumulate selenium. Even though most plant species are nonaccumulators, almost all plants will absorb selenium if grown in seleniferous soils. 

Question. To what extent is selenium accumulating in aquatic sediments? Is this 

storage temporary, and will it eventually release hazardous levels of selenium over 

an extended period of time? 

Answer. Selenium can cycle in aquatic habitats by moving in and out of sediments. A large portion of the total selenium in a stream or reservoir may be present 

in sediments, deposited directly from the water or from plants and animals as they 

die and decompose. However, this pool of selenium is not permanently removed from 

the system. Biological activity, water chemistry changes, and physical disturbance 

can mobilize selenium back into water and organisms. This means that the selenium in sediments may remain active, and may provide a source of pollution to bottom-dwelling invertebrates and the fish that feed on them. Case studies show that 

selenium in sediments can recycle into the water and food chain for decades after 

selenium inputs are stopped. 

Question. To what extent is selenium accumulating in aquatic plants and animals, 

and other wildlife, both on-site and downstream? 

Answer. Selenium concentrations have been found to be elevated downstream of 

mountaintop mining operations and valley fills. Selenium can bioaccumulate 

through the aquatic food web, and elevated levels have been found in fish in the 

Appalachian mining region. Scientific literature suggests that many Appalachian 

streams surveyed downstream of mountaintop mining operations and valley fills exceed EPA’s national recommended chronic Ambient Water Quality Criterion for selenium. Excessive selenium has been associated with increased death and deformities 

in fish and reduced hatching in birds in studies of coal overburden effluents in other 

mining regions. A recent report from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) showed that fish egg concentrations in largemouth bass 

exceeded the proposed selenium fish tissue egg ovary criterion by approximately 

four-fold. 

Question. Are toxic levels being exceeded? 
40 

Answer. The WVDEP has completed several studies on accumulation of selenium 

in the eggs of several species of waterfowl, amphibians and fish. Results suggest 

that selenium may be approaching levels toxic to aquatic life and that adverse effects on wildlife within watersheds studied in West Virginia may be occurring. 

These adverse effects include fish deformities and poor hatch and survival of larvae. 

Additional studies are ongoing. 

Question. Are there any State or Federal threatened or endangered species at 

risk? 

Answer. There may be State or federally listed species at risk. Several endangered 

species are found in Central Appalachia, including several species of freshwater 

mussels. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believe that freshwater mussel populations within the Kanawha River watershed are being threatened by upstream 

mining activities, specifically at the Kanawha Falls and the Elk River watersheds. 

The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources recently described a new species 

of fish—diamond darter—as existing only in the Elk River watershed, which is 

threatened by upstream mining activity. This species is being evaluated by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service but is not yet listed. 

Question. Are there any birds at risk, such as geese or migratory waterfowl? 

Answer. There may be bird species at risk from selenium. Selenium has been documented to have toxic effects on waterfowl from areas around the world; however, 

the WVDEP study on the Mud River watershed did not document any problems 

with birds at this particular watershed. The WVDEP does not plan to expand the 

investigation any further at this time. 

Question. How long does selenium persist in stream and reservoir sediments, and 

to what extent is selenium pollution from prior decades contributing to selenium 

pollution today? 

Answer. Selenium can persist in stream and lake sediments for a long time, but 

selenium deeper than a few centimeters is generally described as nonbioavailable. 

Historic mining in these watersheds may have minimally contributed to the selenium problem. However, current large scale mining activities are exposing the organic black shales on a much greater scale, which is believed to result in greater 

selenium exposure and environmental impacts, as discussed above with respect to 

impacts to fish populations. 

Question. How far downstream are elevated concentrations of selenium showing 

up in water, sediment, plants, and animals? 

Answer. Selenium levels can be elevated several miles downstream of mine sites. 

One measurement of elevated levels of selenium in water comes from the State’s biennial assessment of water quality conditions under sections 303(d) and 305(b) of 

the Clean Water Act. Water segments with elevated selenium levels (segments with 

the selenium criterion not met) are placed on the State’s list of impaired waters. 

Surface coal mining practices with the potential to expose selenium-bearing strata 

are most likely in West Virginia and Kentucky. In West Virginia, 29 water segments 

have been placed on the impaired waters list. Three of the 29 have since been removed from the impaired water listing. Of the remaining 26, 13 have had studies 

completed to determine necessary steps to restore the conditions in the segment to 

allow the selenium criterion to be met. Thirteen stream segments were listed for selenium impairments on the most recent completed assessment in 2008. EPA is not 

aware of any 303(d) listings in Kentucky with selenium listed as the pollutant of 

concern. 

Question. What is the degree of groundwater contamination by selenium, and 

what is the physical extent of the contamination? Is contaminated groundwater able 

to enter surface water? 

Answer. EPA does not have comprehensive data on the degree or extent of 

groundwater contamination by selenium, but we are working gather data relating 

to drinking water complaints. We do know, based on an EPA-funded study in selected areas of West Virginia and Kentucky, that selenium-contaminated water is 

discharging from the toes of valley fills at concentrations greater than 5 parts per 

billion (ppb); 50 ppb is the maximum contaminant level for selenium. Contaminated 

groundwater can enter surface water, depending on the aquifer and its hydrologic 

connection to streams. 

EXTENT AND FORM OF IMPACTS

Question. How is EPA building upon the work that was conducted as part of the 

programmatic environmental impact statement on mountaintop mining and valley 

fills, in order to maintain an updated and detailed understanding of the geographic 

extent of mountaintop mining/valley fill operations in the central Appalachians? Are 
41 

the permitting agencies capable of estimating watershed scale impacts at this time, 

or have they obtained such estimates from third parties? 

Answer. The programmatic Environmental Impact Statement concluded that approximately 1,200 miles of headwater streams were directly impacted by mountaintop mining operations between 1992 and 2002. This represents a loss of almost 2 

percent of the stream miles in the study area during this 10-year period. Furthermore, the permitted area for mountaintop mining in the study area over the same 

10-year period was estimated at 403,810 acres. At that time, both mine footprint 

and stream losses were projected to double by 2012. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (USGAO, 2009) recently updated this inventory by reviewing permits 

issued between 1990 and 2008. However, updated estimates of stream loss and 

other cumulative impacts associated with these operations are not yet available. 

Question. Do accurate maps exist and, if so, are they being used to guide monitoring and evaluation? 

Answer. Large scale maps depicting impacts in select areas of the Appalachian 

region exist, and are being used where available. Typically, however, resolution on 

these maps is not fine enough to be used for site-specific monitoring. EPA and our 

other Federal and State regulatory partners are working to improve our capabilities 

in this regard, but we are not currently at the point of mapping impacts in all watersheds. To that end, however, EPA is working with the OSM on collecting and 

sharing geospatial data in order to evaluate existing impacts and better inform decisions on proposed surface coal mining projects. 

Question. What evidence exists to suggest that the runoff or export of mining-derived pollutants (sulfates, manganese, selenium, aluminum, etc.) declines following 

reclamation of mountaintop mining/valley fill projects? 

Answer. According to a draft EPA review of scientific peer-reviewed literature, 

there is no evidence that current reclamation approaches reduce conductivity downstream of valley fills. For example, in larger streams of the Kanawha Basin, Paybins 

et al. found that median concentrations of sulfate had increased 1.6 times between 

1980 to 1998 (Paybins et al. 2000). 

Question. How long does the process take? 

Answer. Concentrations of metals that are not soluble in alkaline conditions, including total iron, manganese, and aluminum, decreased by approximately one-third 

to one-half during the 1980 to 1998 time period. Their decrease may reflect the increased sources of alkaline water from valley fills. 

Question. We have heard a lot about mayflies, and it is my understanding that 

their loss indicates unsuitable water quality. But are there other species being lost 

as well? What impact has mountaintop mining had on the loss of species other than 

mayflies? For example, could the loss of sensitive animals like salamanders wind 

up negatively affecting the larger animals, such as bear? 

Answer. Mayflies have long been recognized as important indicators of stream 

ecosystem health and are a very important part of the native organisms in the central Appalachian streams. Significant effects on macroinvertebrate communities, including other aquatic insects, crayfish, and other invertebrates from burial, loss of 

habitat, and water quality impacts from mountaintop mining activities will be 

transmitted up the ecosystem. This is true especially of sensitive species, such as 

salamanders, some fish species, and insectivorous birds and bats. Outside the aquatic ecosystem, land clearing from mining activities can also adversely affect bird and 

bat species. 

The Central Appalachians ecoregion where the majority of mountaintop mining is 

located has some of the greatest aquatic animal diversity of any area in North 

America, especially for species of amphibians, fishes, mollusks, aquatic insects, and 

crayfishes. Salamanders in particular reach their highest North American diversity 

in this ecoregion. For example, nearly 10 percent of global salamander diversity is 

found within streams of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. It is likely that many 

of the aquatic organisms inhabiting these stream systems are eliminated or displaced when headwater streams are buried or blasted during the mining process. 

It has also been documented that other specialized wildlife such as some neotropical 

migrant birds and forest amphibians rely on natural headwater streams and adjacent forest types exhibited in this ecoregion. Finally, it is unclear what impact, other 

than habitat fragmentation and displacement, surface mining has on larger wildlife 

populations such as bear, that are not exclusively dependent on aquatic resources 

for their food supply. 
42 

REGULATION, COMPLIANCE, MITIGATION

Question. How many times over the last decade have mining companies been cited 

for violating water quality standards associated with mountaintop mining/valley fill 

activities? 

Answer. With respect to the number of violations, we are not able to determine 

violations specifically associated with mountaintop mining or valley fill activities, 

but we can provide data on violations involving bituminous coal or lignite surface 

mining more broadly. Please note that this category includes bituminous coal and 

lignite preparation plants that perform such activities as cleaning, crushing, screening, or sizing that are operated in conjunction with a mine site, or operated independently, as well as conventional surface mining operations. To date we have found 

15 permitted bituminous coal or lignite surface mining permitted facilities that have 

violated their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

limits since January 2000. The facilities are located in Kentucky (1), West Virginia 

(1), Illinois (7), Louisiana (1), Montana (4), and Utah (1) and violated their permits 

by either exceeding their limitations, failing to report discharge monitoring data, or 

by reporting a single event violation. This number is out of 857 NPDES permits for 

bituminous coal or lignite surface mining facilities for which we have permit and 

effluent limitation data. The following chart shows which facilities in which States 

had what type of violation. 

State Permit number Facility Violation type 

IL ......................................................... IL0061166 ............ JADER FUEL COMPANY, INC. .................. Single event 

IL ......................................................... IL0061247 ............ FREEMAN UNITED COAL—INDUSTRY ..... Single event 

IL ......................................................... IL0064611 ............ JADER COAL COMPANY .......................... Single event 

IL ......................................................... IL0072745 ............ KNIGHT HAWK COAL, LLC ....................... Single event 

IL ......................................................... IL0073351 ............ ARCLAR COMPANY, LLC ......................... Single event 

IL ......................................................... IL0078026 ............ KNIGHT HAWK COAL, LLC ....................... Single event 

IL ......................................................... IL0078565 ............ Sugar Camp Energy, LLC ...................... Single event 

KY ....................................................... KY0043133 ........... HARLAN CUMBERLAND COAL TOTZ ........ Failure to report 

LA ........................................................ LA0064076 ........... DOLET HILLS LIGNITE CO., LLC .............. Single event 

MT ....................................................... MT0000892 ........... DECKER COAL CO (WEST MINE) ............ Single event

MT ....................................................... MT0023965 ........... WESTERN ENERGY COMPANY ................ Single event

MT ....................................................... MT0024210 ........... DECKER COAL CO (EAST MINE) ............. Single event 

MT ....................................................... MT0021229 ........... WESTMORELAND RESOURCES, INC. ....... Single event 

UT ....................................................... UT0024368 ........... Crandall Canyon Mine ........................... Single event 

WV ....................................................... WV0050717 .......... UPSHUR PROPERTY, INC. ....................... Exceeded limits 

Question. What have companies done in response to these violations? What additional protections have been implemented by violators to prevent future water quality degradation? 

Answer. Two recent civil judicial settlements—with Massey Energy Company 

(Massey) in 2008 and Patriot Coal Corporation (Patriot Coal) in 2009—provide examples of what mining companies have done in response to Clean Water Act violations and to prevent future water quality degradation: 

—In its 2008 Federal consent decree, Massey agreed to invest approximately $10 

million to develop and implement a set of procedures to prevent future violations. Massey agreed to implement an innovative electronic tracking system 

that allows the company to quickly address compliance problems and correct 

any violations of permit limits. This measure is part of a comprehensive environmental compliance program that Massey has agreed to implement under the 

decree, which includes in-depth internal and third-party audits, employee training, and a plan to prevent future slurry spills. Massey also agreed to set aside 

200 acres of riverfront land in West Virginia for conservation purposes and is 

required to perform 20 stream restoration projects downstream from mining operations. 

—In its 2009 Federal consent decree, Patriot Coal agreed to implement extensive 

measures to prevent future violations and to perform environmental projects at 

a total estimated cost of $6 million. Patriot Coal will develop and implement 

a company-wide compliance-focused environmental management system including: creation of a database to track information relevant to compliance efforts; 

conducting regular internal and third-party environmental compliance audits; 

implementing a system of tiered response actions for any possible future violations; and conducting annual training for all employees and contractors with environmental responsibilities. 
43 

Question. What is EPA’s protocol for measuring stream ecosystem structure and 

function (for instance, how much water was running through the stream before the 

mining occurred)? If there is not a functional assessment available, how have permittees been complying with the Clean Water Act regulations? 

Answer. EPA is currently working with the Huntington District Corps of Engineers to develop an assessment protocol to appropriately describe the ecological condition of Appalachian headwater streams and to develop an accounting system that 

assures functions will be effectively compensated. The protocol has recently been advertised on public notice by the Huntington district. EPA has been working to incorporate mitigation performance measures within the permit conditions to ensure that 

the stream mitigation proposal meets the requirements of the Clean Water Act and 

the 2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rule. We strongly agree with the importance of 

providing permit applicants with technically sound, consistent, and cost effective 

methods for meeting the information requirements of the agencies’ regulations. 

There are numerous existing stream assessment protocols available for use by 

mining companies applying for CWA permits. In lieu of a single approved assessment protocol, applicants may currently select an existing assessment protocol of 

their choosing and submit their functional analysis to the Corps as part of their permit application. The Corps generally relies on information submitted by permit applicants to determine if proposed mining projects comply with requirements of the 

CWA regulations. EPA believes that the development of a standard assessment protocol that ensures scientifically sound and repeatable evaluations of high-gradient 

streams in the coal fields of Central Appalachia will better ensure effective and consistent implementation of regulatory requirements. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BEN NELSON

COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO)—INFRASTRUCTURE IN OMAHA

Question. Like hundreds of localities across the country, the city of Omaha administers a combined sewer system that is no longer able to perform at a level necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act. As such Omaha was directed by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a long-term control plan to upgrade the sewer system. The city has completed this task and has in place a process 

to fund the necessary upgrades via user fee increases. The infrastructure upgrades 

associated with this project are going to cost well more than $1.5 billion and result 

in significant fees on the community. 

While I applaud the city of Omaha for addressing this issue head on I’d prefer 

to see the Federal Government, as the entity mandating these changes, play a 

greater role in the financing of the required upgrades. 

Does the EPA have a plan for addressing the costs that localities will incur in 

order to upgrade combined sewers outside of State revolving loan funds and/or allowing localities to completely self-finance? If so, what is that plan and did EPA describe the plan in its fiscal year 2011 budget request? 

Answer. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program is the EPA’s 

method for assisting States and localities to address water infrastructure improvements, including CSOs. Since 1988 and through 2009, the CWSRF has provided approximately $7.2 billion in assistance for CSO projects thereby helping communities 

across the country improve their respective water infrastructure systems. The fiscal 

year 2011 CWSRF request level represents a substantial increase more than requested and enacted levels prior to fiscal year 2010 and the fiscal year 2009 Recovery Act. The fiscal year 2011 CWSRF request level is a 190 percent increase more 

than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request contains language requiring that up to 30 

percent of the CWSRF funds be used by the States to provide grants, forgiveness 

of the principal, or negative interest loans. This provision will help communities 

that otherwise could not afford a standard State revolving fund loan. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS (OPP)

Question. Congress’s key purpose in adopting procedural requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements, is to allow for meaningful public participation in the regulatory process. This participation ensures that those affected by EPA’s regulations 

have a voice in the process. It also ensures that EPA bases its decisions on sound 
44 

science and the all available scientific expertise on a topic. On October 7, 2009, EPA 

publicized its notice that it would re-evaluate Atrazine and called for written comments by October 23, 2009. This gave the public only 16 days to prepare for and 

provide written comment on a complicated scientific review. Is 16 days really sufficient lead-time to ensure meaningful public participation and to ensure that EPA 

benefits from the best thinking of the many non-EPA participants with expertise in 

the science underlying the registration of Atrazine? 

Answer. We believe there was sufficient lead time for public participation in the 

November meeting on Atrazine because the meeting was not held to discuss or review the substantive science issues; it merely presented the proposed plan for reevaluation in the upcoming year. The Federal Register notice announcing the meeting (October 7, 2009, 74 FR 51593), indicated that the November Scientific Advisory 

Panel (SAP) meeting was an informational meeting only, to inform Panel members 

and the public about EPA’s plans for three SAP meetings planned for February, 

April, and September 2010. The meeting was intended to communicate and clarify 

the nature, scope, and breadth of the Atrazine-related discussions planned for those 

three 2010 SAP meetings. Although EPA encouraged submission of written comments by October 23, the notice said the EPA would accept written comments until 

the day of the meeting, November 3, 2009 (thereby providing an additional 11 days 

for the submission of written comments). Due to the informational nature of the November Atrazine meeting, we believe the time allotted for public comment was adequate. 

The October 2009 notice also provided information relevant to the upcoming SAP 

meetings including how and when to participate. Background documents for the 

Atrazine SAPs are available through the EPA public docket (http:// 

www.regulations.gov) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA) SAP home page (www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap). 

Question. EPA announced its scientific review plan for Atrazine on November 23, 

2009—less than 1 month after closing the public comment period. How many studies does EPA have on file on Atrazine? 

Answer. There are more than 6,000 studies in EPA’s files on the human health 

and environmental effects of Atrazine. 

Question. How many SAPs have been created to review Atrazine? 

Answer. Prior to the November 2009 informational meeting of the SAP, the EPA 

has held seven SAP reviews exclusively on Atrazine (September 1988, June 2000, 

June 2003, July 2003, October 2007, December 2007, and May 2009). Some of these 

meetings were to address human health issues and others were to address ecological 

effects issues. 

Question. What is the cost of empanelling a SAP? 

Answer. The resources associated with organizing, convening, and developing the 

final report for the April FIFRA SAP meeting is estimated to be approximately 

$200,000. This cost estimate is comparable to the cost of a typical SAP meeting. 

Question. What is the mean number of studies for all registered products? 

Answer. Since there are more than 6,000 Atrazine studies and there are 6 technical registrations, the mean number is approximately 1,000 studies. For a new 

food-use pesticide active ingredient registration, EPA would require at least 100 

studies. 

Question. Is this adequate time, given the number of studies that EPA has on file 

on Atrazine? 

Answer. Yes, this was adequate time for EPA staff working on Atrazine to prepare. Most of the 6,000 studies on file for Atrazine were reviewed prior to the 

Atrazine Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) in 2003. In 2001, EPA 

developed a preliminary risk assessment based on many of these studies and published a risk assessment for public comment as part of the re-registration process. 

As a result, most of the stakeholders interested in the regulation of Atrazine are 

also very familiar with the body of Atrazine research, having followed developments 

closely over the last decade. 

In the 7 years since the 2003 IRED was issued, significant Atrazine research has 

been done, with more than 100 new studies available on its potential human health 

effects. These additional data have been received from the Atrazine registrants, or 

published in the peer-reviewed open literature. EPA reviews these new data internally as quickly as possible within the overall framework of the program. For example, after the water monitoring data have been reviewed and quality controlled, the 

EPA makes these data available to the public via its Web page. 

Question. Is this adequate time given that EPA just re-registered Atrazine in 2006 

and concluded it could be used without harm to humans? 

Answer. Yes, this is adequate time. The 2003 IRED was the EPA’s decision on 

the individual chemical Atrazine, establishing data requirements and risk manage-
45 

ment measures for the uses of Atrazine and associated human health and environmental risks. However, Atrazine’s re-registration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions could only be finalized once the cumulative assessment for all of the 

triazine herbicides was completed. The EPA’s publication of the triazine cumulative 

risk assessment in 2006, therefore, finalized the EPA’s Atrazine re-registration decision. 

Since the 2003 IRED was published, the EPA has continued its review of Atrazine 

as data have become available through IRED-required studies and water monitoring 

programs, published literature, registrant-submitted studies, and EPA-sponsored 

studies. The OPP keeps in place an Atrazine team consisting of scientists and regulatory managers to ensure that the review of data and implementation of decisions 

reached in the 2003 IRED for Atrazine are current. 

OPP has received and reviewed ongoing monitoring data as a condition of re-registration. For example, the EPA has received an extensive amount of drinking water 

and ambient surface water monitoring data from the registrants of Atrazine as an 

ongoing condition of Atrazine’s re-registration under the 2003 IRED. EPA continuously reviews and makes decisions based on these data. In accordance with the 2003 

IRED, the EPA has added 26 new community water systems into the monitoring 

program (as of April 2010) because they warranted closer scrutiny, and removed 

others where no immediate problems or violations were identified. Additionally, 

EPA is aware of recent Atrazine research in the fields of both epidemiology and laboratory toxicology. Moreover, three FIFRA SAP meetings have been convened by 

EPA to review new Atrazine research and methods to assess its risk since the reregistration decision was reached, but prior to the 2009 decision to re-evaluate 

Atrazine. 

In sum, EPA scientists and regulatory managers have stayed abreast of developments in Atrazine research, and have continually kept the public informed about 

new data through the SAP review process. 

Question. On October 7, 2009, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Stephen Owens was been quoted by the New 

York Times in a story regarding EPA’s plans to re-review the registration of 

Atrazine as saying that you at EPA ‘‘have a question: Did the decisions made in 

previous administrations use all available science?’’ Does this statement accurately 

reflect the basis for decisions at EPA regarding resource allocation, that EPA intends to reach back and re-consider the scientific decisions already made by EPA 

scientists? 

Answer. The EPA has an ongoing statutory responsibility to ensure that pesticides currently on the market continue to meet the standards in the FIFRA. Over 

the last 7 years since the Atrazine re-registration decision was completed, the EPA 

has received additional data and convened a number of FIFRA SAP to review new 

research and methods to assess Atrazine’s risks. Moreover, the EPA has received 

an extensive amount of drinking water and ambient surface water monitoring data 

from the registrant, which was a condition of re-registration. EPA continuously reviews these data. In addition, the 1994 Atrazine special review covering cancer 

issues and drinking water remains open, highlighting the EPA’s historical and ongoing focus on the potential health effects of Atrazine. 

Question. Is EPA reconsidering all of its own past scientific analyses? 

Answer. Consistent with our statutory mandate, EPA will revisit its past pesticide 

assessments whenever warranted by new information and at least every 15 years. 

Question. What is the basis for reconsideration? 

Answer. Atrazine is one of the most widely used pesticides in the United States 

and is the subject of significant scientific research and regulatory interest. Given the 

new body of scientific information, as well as the documented presence of Atrazine 

in both drinking water sources and other bodies of water, the EPA determined that 

this is an appropriate time to consider the new research and other information to 

ensure that our regulatory decisions about Atrazine protect public health. Therefore 

we are re-evaluating of Atrazine. 

In the 7 years since the IRED was issued, significant Atrazine research has been 

done, with close to 100 new studies available on its potential human health effects. 

The EPA has also received an extensive amount of drinking water and ambient surface water monitoring data from the registrants of Atrazine as an ongoing condition 

of re-registration. Given the new research and the availability of additional data on 

Atrazine in drinking water sources and other bodies of water, the EPA is reviewing 

the new data to ensure that our regulatory decisions about Atrazine are protective. 

EPA has continued to work on Atrazine since the 2003 IRED. EPA has convened 

a number of SAPs in the last 7 years to review issues concerning cancer, effects on 

amphibians, and evolving methods to assess ecological risks. The EPA also continues to review drinking water monitoring data collected as a condition of re-reg-
46 

istration. EPA has already modified aspects of its 2003 decision based on the results 

of these SAPs and implementation efforts. 

Question. Just 3 months ago, EPA announced on its Web site that Atrazine is not 

likely to cause cancer in humans. Furthermore, the next round of registration review for Atrazine was already scheduled to begin in 2013, which would have ensured an appropriately deliberative process. Given EPA’s tight budget and many 

competing environmental demands for resources, why is EPA abandoning its plan 

and now rushing to re-review Atrazine now? 

Answer. There is more than one review process by which EPA is looking at potential risks associated with the use of the pesticide Atrazine. These review processes 

have been integrated and are ongoing. 

In November 1994, EPA initiated a special review for the triazine pesticides, 

which at that time included Atrazine, Simazine, and Cyanazine. The special review 

process is set in motion when EPA has reason to believe that the use of a pesticide 

may result in unreasonable adverse effects on people or the environment. The basis 

for the special review of the triazines included the potential for cancer risks resulting from dietary or occupational exposure, as well as the potential for human health 

risks resulting from drinking water exposure caused by ground and surface water 

contamination. 

When the EPA initiated the re-registration process for Atrazine, it took Atrazine’s 

special review into consideration. In 2000, the EPA determined that Atrazine was 

not likely to cause cancer in humans. However, in an abundance of caution, the 

2003 Atrazine IRED committed the EPA to present to the FIFRA SAP its assessment of all available data about the potential carcinogenicity of Atrazine—both epidemiology studies and laboratory animal studies—including its review of forthcoming results from the National Cancer Institute’s Agricultural Health Study. 

Thus the EPA’s commitment to convene an SAP on Atrazine and cancer well predated the EPA’s Atrazine re-evaluation announcement of October 2009. The 2003 

IRED also required a drinking water monitoring program, which is ongoing. The 

special review case for Atrazine remains open, highlighting the EPA ’s historical 

and ongoing focus on Atrazine and its potential health effects from drinking water 

exposures. 

The 2003 IRED is the EPA’s decision on the individual chemical Atrazine, establishing data requirements and risk management measures for the uses of Atrazine 

and associated human health and environmental risks. However, Atrazine’s re-registration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions could only be finalized once 

the cumulative assessment for all of the triazine herbicides was completed. The 

EPA’s publication of the triazine cumulative risk assessment in 2006, therefore, finalized the EPA’s Atrazine re-registration decision. 

Atrazine is one of the most widely used pesticides in the United States and is the 

subject of significant inquiry and regulatory interest. Given the new body of scientific information since the 2003 IRED, as well as the documented presence of 

Atrazine in both drinking water sources and other bodies of water, the EPA determined it appropriate to consider the new research and to ensure that our regulatory 

decisions about Atrazine protect public health. 

EPA is following an open and transparent process and has presented its approach 

to the SAP on several occasions to ensure the scientific soundness and integrity in 

the review process for Atrazine. In February of this year, the SAP met to focus on 

generic issues concerning approaches for reviewing epidemiology studies and their 

use within risk assessments. An SAP review scheduled for later in April will evaluate laboratory studies addressing the human health effects of Atrazine as well as 

sampling protocols used to monitor Atrazine levels in community water systems. 

The SAP will also meet this September. At the fall meeting, EPA will present and 

seek peer review of its evaluation of Atrazine health effects based on experimental 

laboratory studies and epidemiology studies. This review is intended to also include 

any new experimental laboratory data since the April SAP meeting. 

Also, EPA will present and seek peer review of its evaluation of Atrazine cancer 

and noncancer effects based on animal laboratory toxicology studies and epidemiology studies. This review is intended to include the most recent results from the 

National Cancer Institute’s Agricultural Health Study. 

Question. Does this review currently underway satisfy the registration review of 

Atrazine scheduled for 2013—and if not why again require significant EPA resources for another review in 2013? 

Answer. The current re-evaluation will help address aspects of the registration review scheduled for 2013 that involve human health risk assessment. As a result, 

the current re-evaluation of Atrazine should reduce the resources needed to complete the registration review, and possibly reduce the scope of the EPA’s final plan 

for Atrazine, which would likely be implemented between 2013 and 2019. 
47 

As mentioned above, based on this evaluation, the EPA will decide whether to revise its current Atrazine risk assessments and whether new restrictions are necessary to better protect health. For more information on this and other Atrazinerelated programs as well as the schedule for the upcoming SAP meetings, see the 

Atrazine Web page at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/ 

atrazinelupdate.htm#ewmp. 

Question. Congress adopted the FIFRA, and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 

Act (FDCA), which together ensure the registration and safe use of herbicides in the 

United States. Under these laws, EPA established long-standing requirements to 

ensure the scientific integrity of data that underlies decisions under FIFRA and 

FDCA. EPA regulations require that studies relied on to register products meet 

Good Laboratory Practice standards (GLPs). These standards are intended to ensure 

the quality and reliability of information in a FIFRA study. Does EPA consistently 

require that all studies used to support FIFRA registrations meet these standards? 

Answer. EPA evaluates available information from all kinds of sources—pesticide 

companies, other governments, academia, or the published scientific literature—to 

ensure that its decisions are informed by the best science available. We look closely 

at every study to determine whether the results are scientifically sound. The fact 

that a study may not have been conducted under prescribed GLP conditions does 

not necessarily mean that it is of lesser quality than a GLP study. EPA scrutinizes 

the experimental procedures used and the overall quality of the resulting data for 

each individual study and then makes a weight of evidence judgment of the quality 

and robustness of that study. 

EPA has promulgated regulations that describe procedures designed to enhance 

the integrity of scientific data. This regulation is referred to as the GLP standards. 

GLP regulations cover broad topics ranging from archiving to personnel training. 

They also require that registrants or applicants for registration submit with any 

data intended to support registration a statement ‘‘describing in detail all differences between the practices used in the study and those required’’ by the GLP 

regulation. The regulations further provide that EPA ‘‘may refuse to consider reliable for purposes of supporting an application for a research or marketing permit 

any data from a study which was not conducted in accordance’’ with the regulation. 

As a result of this study-specific review, EPA may not require that a given study 

used to support a FIFRA registration meets every GLP standard because some failures to follow those standards do not result in data that are unreliable. It is possible 

that a study may not be fully GLP compliant for a reason that does not compromise 

the integrity or validity of the study (e.g., personnel training records may not have 

been provided). 

In sum, even when relying on non-GLP studies, the EPA adheres to its high 

standards of evaluating the integrity, quality, and robustness of the studies under 

consideration. Our analysis gives greater weight to better run studies and those 

findings confirmed by multiple sources. Ultimately, EPA looks at all of the studies 

to decide what the preponderance of evidence shows. 

Question. As EPA works through the latest Atrazine review, will EPA be requiring that all data used to make all of its decisions regarding the continuing use of 

Atrazine meet GLP standards? 

Answer. No, whether they follow GLP standards or not, the EPA has historically 

considered all scientifically reliable and relevant data. In the evaluation of all studies, the EPA makes a weight of evidence judgment, which involves evaluating the 

quality and robustness of each individual study. The study needs to be well-documented with respect to the methods used and the results, so an independent analysis and scientific review can be conducted. Greater weight is given to high-quality 

and well-documented studies and those findings confirmed by multiple sources. As 

EPA evaluates each study it considers a variety of factors such as the study design, 

the dose response, the cohesiveness of results with results seen in other studies, and 

the current understanding of the mode of action of toxicity for the compound. Ultimately, EPA looks at all of the studies to decide what the preponderance of the data 

shows. 

Question. What new scientific studies led EPA to re-review Atrazine and who conducted the study? 

Answer. The EPA did not base its decision to formalize the re-evaluation process 

on the results of any one study. Atrazine’s re-evaluation process has always been 

dynamic. Over the last 7 years since the 2003 Atrazine IRED was completed, significant Atrazine research has been done. Moreover, the EPA has received an extensive 

amount of drinking water and ambient surface water monitoring data from the registrants of Atrazine, as an ongoing condition of re-registration. With respect to environmental toxicology studies, the EPA has so far identified approximately 100 studies which are being considered in the 2010 re-evaluation (www.regulations.gov, 
48 

docket EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0125–0022). In addition, more than 40 epidemiology 

studies published since 2004 are being considered as part of the 2010 re-evaluation. 

A subset of these epidemiology studies were included as a case study at the February 2010 SAP (www.regulations.gov, see docket number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009– 

0851–0002). The remaining epidemiology studies will be included in subsequent 

SAP reviews. 

Given this significant body of new scientific information as well as the documented presence of Atrazine in both drinking water sources and other bodies of 

water, the EPA determined it appropriate to consider the new research and to ensure that our regulatory decisions about Atrazine protect public health. 

Question. Did EPA conduct internal data evaluation reviews of the new data prior 

to announcing the re-review? 

Answer. In the case of Atrazine, formal Data Evaluation Records were not generated. However, EPA determined these newer studies, warranted a closer look at 

the data to determine whether there are other health concerns not previously identified, whether our current understanding of how Atrazine produces its toxicity has 

changed and to re-evaluate the amount and duration of exposure that may lead to 

an impact human health. Reviews of these studies are being included as components 

of the 2010 SAP review. Given the amount of data the EPA is aware of since the 

IRED, internal review of data can occur rapidly to protect the public. 

Question. Were these studies conducted in compliance with EPA’s GLP standards? 

If not, why isn’t EPA following its own standards in reviewing scientific evidence? 

Answer. Since the most recent human health risk assessment in 2003, more than 

100 new studies on a variety of scientific topics have been published (details provided above), of these only a small number (< 10) were conducted under GLP standards. In the case of the Atrazine review, sole reliance on GLP studies would require 

the EPA to ignore important information on the human health effects of Atrazine. 

EPA evaluates all available information from every source—whether from pesticide 

companies, other governments, or the published literature. The EPA utilizes a 

weight of evidence judgment which involves evaluating the quality and robustness 

of each individual study. Thus, when relying on GLP or non-GLP studies, the EPA 

adheres to its high standards of evaluating the integrity, quality, and robustness of 

the studies under consideration. A number of the new experimental toxicology studies were conducted at EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s (ORD) National 

Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory. ORD conducts research on environmental chemicals to ensure the strongest possible scientific basis for EPA risk assessments and risk management decisions. While ORD labs are not required to follow GLP procedures, they are required to conduct their research under the 

NHEERL Quality Management Plan (2005) which ensures that data generated are 

of the highest quality and fully transparent. 

PESTICIDE REGISTRATION FEES

Question. Administrator Jackson, the President’s budget proposes a host of new 

fees on pesticide registrants, including the imposition of tolerance fees, enhanced 

registration service fees, and additional pesticide maintenance fees. Will the proposed fees be retained by the EPA, or returned to the Treasury? 

Answer. The administration’s fee proposal would authorize EPA to collect fees beyond the current fee authorization, which expires at the end of fiscal year 2012. If 

authorized, the administration’s proposal would direct increased receipts to the Department of Treasury and be subject to congressional appropriation with one exception: in fiscal year 2011 maintenance fee collections up to the current authorization 

amount will continue to be directed to the Reregistration and Expedited Processing 

Revolving Fund (Treasury Account Number 020–00–4310). 

Question. How will these fees increase the EPA’s ability to review these products 

or to increase its efficiency in review of new registrations and the renewal of existing registrations? 

Answer. Proposed fee increases are intended to better align existing user fees with 

the full cost of direct services provided by the Federal Government to pesticide registrants. EPA expects the cost of reviewing new and existing pesticide registrations 

to increase in the future due to higher fixed costs (e.g., payroll and benefits) as well 

as the continued desire for more detailed screens on submissions, expedited data review, earlier feedback to applicants, and consultation and implementation of the Endangered Species Act with the Services. 

EPA intends to pursue further improvements to processing times with investments in helping registrants develop complete and error-free submissions through 

training events and by developing and implementing electronic application and review tools. The EPA’s long-term goal is for registrants to apply electronically via the 
49 

Web and for routine parts of the application or submission to be reviewed electronically, thereby reducing both amount of time and burden imposed on regulated entities to develop an application and for the EPA to reach a decision. 

Question. Does the EPA regard the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal 

Act as having been successful in ensuring that fees assessed to registrants are retained by the EPA to perform its duties and in providing the EPA with dedicated 

funding to expedite the review process? 

Answer. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act specify how collected fee receipts will be used by 

EPA. Specifically, registration service fees are to be used by the EPA for the review 

and decisionmaking related to specific pesticide registration applications, including 

costs associated with salaries, contract employees, advisory committees, peer reviews, information management expenses, and collecting the registration service 

fees. EPA has used the resources consistent with the law. 

CLIMATE PROTECTION PROGRAM

Question. Administrator Jackson, the President’s budget proposes funding in the 

Science and Technology, Climate Protection Program of $16.94 million for fiscal year 

2011. This represents a $1.875 million reduction from the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. 

What impact will the reduction have on the laboratory’s operations, particularly 

in the area of research and development? 

Answer. This $1.857 million reduction will have limited impact on the laboratory’s 

operations. The funding request reflects a phase down of the Federal cost-share for 

California technology demonstration partnerships while retaining the traditional 

focus on development of advanced automotive technologies in support of the administration’s goal to take action on climate change. The administration is also supporting the deployment of alternative and advanced vehicle technologies and providing opportunities for demonstration and commercialization through substantial 

resources provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for these activities in the Department of Energy. 

Question. As EPA contemplates additional regulation to curtail greenhouse gas 

emissions, what additional research is needed to achieve additional reductions in 

the following vehicle classes: Passenger vehicles, light trucks, medium-duty trucks, 

heavy-duty trucks. 

Answer. The Climate Protection Program, and specifically the Clean Automotive 

Technology Program, emphasizes research and collaboration with the automotive, 

trucking, and fleet industries. The Program will continue its focus to transfer the 

research advances of the hydraulic hybrid technology to the industry, and demonstrate the effectiveness of the high-efficiency, clean-combustion, gasoline, homogenous-charge compression ignition (HCCI) engine. 

However, analyses to inform regulatory decisions are conducted through a different program, namely the Federal Vehicles and Fuels Standards and Certification 

Program. In fiscal year 2011 the President’s budget requests an increase of about 

$4 million to support additional needs for heavy-duty vehicle and engine greenhouse 

gas (GHG) standards and for initial analysis and technology assessment efforts 

needed to support potential development of GHG emission standards for other mobiles source categories. Additionally, the budget requests an additional $2 million 

to support promulgation of GHG standards for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, 

and medium-duty passenger vehicles. 

Question. Does the funding requested facilitate this research? If not, what additional resources would be required? 

Answer. Yes, the requested funding is adequate to achieve our highest-priority research goals. 

Question. What is the status of the commercialization of the hydraulic hybrid 

technology? Is this technology ready for deployment in fleet vehicles, medium and 

heavy-duty trucks and busses? If not, what additional research needs to be conducted? What additional resources are needed? 

Answer. EPA has been actively working with its broad mix of partner companies 

to demonstrate that its unique hydraulic hybrid technology works and that there 

are no fundamental technical barriers or road blocks that could prevent its commercialization. 

EPA has focused its initial technology transfer demonstrations on prototype series 

hydraulic hybrid technology in class 6 urban delivery vehicles such as UPS and 

FedEx trucks. These successful demonstrations have sparked some interest among 

the heavy fleet industry to purchase series hydraulic hybrid trucks, which spurred 
50 

several of EPA’s technology transfer partners to progress to the early stages of designing and building their first pre-production series hydraulic hybrid trucks. 

In fiscal year 2011, because of technical challenges of this patented EPA technology, the manufacturers require EPA’s technical assistance, expertise and experience to get these vehicles operating effectively. 

In order for hydraulic hybrid technology to gain acceptance industry-wide, the 

program tries to leverage other projects to also demonstrate its application in other 

vehicles including shuttle buses (partnering with California’s Air Resources Board 

and the South Coast Air Quality Management District) and nonroad trucks such as 

cargo handling equipment used in sea ports in California and the rest of the Nation. 

The core technology is ready for proof of concept demonstrations in commercial 

trucks (meaning there are technical improvements needed, but no technical barriers 

or road blocks that should prevent its commercialization), and commercial truck 

companies and suppliers are working with EPA in designing and developing their 

pre-production vehicles. Industry is now preparing to build its initial pre-production 

vehicles and will test them in various pilot commercial truck fleet trials during 2011 

and 2012. 

The technology for delivery vehicles and shuttle bus applications is ready for initial field evaluations. Research is underway to overcome some application specific 

hurdles for other types of vehicles such as passenger cars and light trucks, including 

research to increase the efficiency of various hydraulic components, reduce their 

weight, reduce the ‘‘hydraulic noise,’’ and extend service intervals. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

INORGANIC ARSENIC IMPACTS ON DRINKING WATER

Question. Due to the consequences and implications of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System assessment of inorganic arsenic on drinking water, agriculture practices, and the perceived safety of the food 

supply compliance, do you agree the EPA should extend the comment period by 30 

days and include a broader peer review? 

Answer. EPA believes that this second review and the announced public comment 

period are appropriate and adequate. The EPA agrees that the public should be afforded an opportunity for review and comment on EPA’s draft human health assessments, and that this review period should be of adequate length to ensure that the 

public’s participation is full, transparent, and open. EPA also agrees that it should 

bring the best available science and scientific analyses to bear on such assessments. 

In 2005, EPA’s draft human health assessment for carcinogenic effects of longterm exposure to inorganic arsenic was provided for public review and comment and 

the resulting public comments were made available to EPA’s Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) as part of its independent external peer review. In June 2007, the SAB issued 

a final report, ‘‘Advisory on EPA’s Assessments of Carcinogenic Effects of Organic 

and Inorganic Arsenic: A Report of the US EPA Science Advisory Board.’’ EPA then 

revised the draft assessment to address the recommendations and comments as part 

of the EPA’s standard process for the development of human health assessments. 

EPA has now taken the extra step of requesting that the SAB conduct an evaluation of the EPA’s interpretation and implementation of key recommendations included in the SAB’s 2007 peer review report. This will act as a useful check to ensure that EPA is achieving our goal of having the best science inform this assessment. 

A 2-month public comment period on the EPA response to the SAB’s 2007 report 

was announced in the Federal Register on February 19, 2010. In accordance with 

EPA’s peer review guidance, the SAB panel will be provided with the public comments submitted by the end of the announced public comment period. After the 

SAB’s review is complete, EPA will finalize the assessment based on the public and 

expert comments and include it on the IRIS Web-based database. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) SMALL REFINERY STUDY

Question. In the RFS II rulemaking, did Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

rely on the DOE small refinery study that Congress had determined to be unreliable 

and needed to be revised? If so, please justify such reliance. 

Answer. The criteria specified by statute (Clean Air Act section 211(o)(9) for providing a further compliance extension to small refineries is a demonstration of ‘‘dis-
51 

proportionate economic hardship.’’ The statute provides that such hardship can be 

identified through the DOE study (CAA section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii)), or in individual petitions submitted to the Agency (CAA section 211(o)(9)(B)). However, the DOE study 

concluded that no disproportionate economic hardship exists, at least under current 

conditions and for the foreseeable future under RFS2. DOE had not revised its 

study, as requested by Congress, as of the time of the RFS2 rulemaking. Therefore, 

EPA had no basis under section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii) to extend the temporary exemption 

for small refiners but indicated that it could do so in the future on the basis of either a revised DOE study or in response to a petition under section 211(o)(9)(B). 

We are aware that there have been expressions of concern from Congress regarding the DOE study. Specifically, in Senate Report 111–45, the Senate Appropriations Committee ‘‘directed [DOE] to reopen and reassess the Small Refineries Exemption Study by June 30, 2010,’’ noting a number of factors that the Committee 

intended that DOE consider in the revised study. The final Conference Report 111– 

278 to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act (H.R. 3183), referenced the language in the Senate Report, noting that the conferees ‘‘support the 

study requested by the Senate on RFS and expect the Department to undertake the 

requested economic review.’’ At the time EPA issued the RFS2 rule, however, the 

DOE study had not been revised. If DOE prepares a revised study and the revised 

study finds that there is a disproportionate economic hardship, we will revisit the 

exemption extension in accordance with section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii). 

Question. Because DOE is currently revising the small refinery study, would you 

support extending the temporary exemption of small refineries from the RFS until 

a credible and valid study is completed and the facts surrounding the issue are actually known? 

Answer. EPA does not currently have authority to grant such an extension of the 

temporary exemption, since the statute states that such relief shall only be provided 

upon a demonstration of ‘‘disproportionate economic hardship’’. As previously noted, 

if DOE prepares a revised study and the revised study finds that there is a disproportionate economic impact, we will revisit the exemption extension at that point 

in accordance with section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii). In addition, EPA is prepared to review 

and act on individual petitions for an extension of the temporary exemption on the 

basis of disproportionate economic hardship experienced by individual facilities. 

Question. Has EPA corresponded with DOE regarding this study since enactment 

of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2010? If so, please provide me with copies of that correspondence. 

Answer. We are working on assessing potential correspondence regarding DOE’s 

Small Refinery Study and will respond further once we finish reviewing the relevant 

documents. 

Question. Is EPA participating with DOE in the revised small refinery study? If 

so, what is the status of that study? 

Answer. We anticipate that we will be coordinating with them as they move forward—in particular providing them with information related to the RFS standards 

and compliance issues. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

LONG CREEK WATERSHED

Question. The Long Creek watershed near Portland, Maine is one of the first in 

the Nation being required to reduce nonpoint source pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This will affect 110 landowners. The affected businesses, local government entities, and National Estuary Program (Casco Bay Estuary Partnership) have 

formed a nonprofit organization to help acquire grants and other funding to assist 

landowners with the cost of the clean up. I recently met with Regional Administrator Curt Spalding, who pledged to help with this unique project. Will you also 

work with the Long Creek watershed groups and my office to identify EPA funding 

that could help landowners meet their Clean Water Act obligations? 

Answer. Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will work with Long 

Creek watershed groups to help them identify funding for the landowners required 

to reduce stormwater pollution under the residual designation. While EPA’s State 

Revolving Fund is the most likely source of funds for small business owners who 

need assistance to comply with National Permit Discharge Elimination System permit requirements, other Federal and State funds may also be available. EPA is prepared to work with your office to assist the landowners in identifying various funding sources. 
52 

MERCURY

Question. I have long believed that we, as a Nation, are not paying sufficient attention to the dangers posed by mercury to our children and, in general, to all of 

our citizens. When I have spoken to experts in Maine about this problem I have 

learned that each new scientific study finds more mercury in the environment and 

more affected species than the previous study. In 2006, when EPA released a major 

new mercury regulatory rule, its Inspector General found that data for mercury pollution models was severely lacking and recommended EPA implement a national 

mercury monitoring network. Last year, to address this need for better data, I and 

Senator Carper introduced the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act to 

ensure that we have the information we need to make decisions necessary to protect 

our people and environment. Do you support implementing a National Mercury 

Monitory Network? What specific steps will the EPA take in the coming year to protect us against this persistent and dangerous neurotoxin? 

Answer. EPA recognizes the value in comprehensive, long-term mercury monitoring data and has made significant and tangible progress toward collecting national mercury monitoring data. Mercury is a complex and multi-faceted issue that 

is present in all media, including air, water, sediments, fish, and wildlife. EPA is 

collaborating with Federal, State, and tribal agencies, and academic partners to provide a comprehensive understanding of mercury in the environment using existing 

data, monitoring capabilities, and resources. EPA has convened workshops to discuss the design of a comprehensive national mercury monitoring program. 

—In 2003, EPA co-sponsored a workshop with the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry to develop a national-scale program to monitor changes 

in mercury levels in the environment resulting from anticipated mercury emissions reductions in the United States. The workshop recommended a set of environmental measurements and indicators, EPA is evaluating these recommendations. 

—In 2008, EPA co-convened a follow-up workshop with experts from USGS, 

NOAA, USFWS, NPS, State and tribal agencies, the BioDiversity Research Institute, the National Atmospheric Deposition Program, industry, academic institutions, and Environment Canada. Workshop participants agreed on a goal and 

major design elements for a national mercury monitoring program, EPA is evaluating these recommendations. 

—Since 2008, EPA and its partners have achieved significant progress in developing new mercury monitoring and assessment capacity, including the National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program’s newly established North American network 

that monitors atmospheric concentrations of mercury at 20 sites throughout the 

United States and Canada, and collaborative efforts to develop common databases of multi-media mercury concentrations for the Great Lakes Region that 

can be merged with existing databases from the Northeastern United States 

and Eastern Canada. 

Mercury emissions have declined substantially in the United States since 1990 

through regulatory and nonregulatory measures. Total estimated mercury emissions 

were reduced from about 246 tons in 1990 to 103 tons by 2005, about a 58 percent 

reduction, largely due to reductions from municipal waste combustors and medical 

waste incinerators, but also due to reductions from other sectors, such as chlor-alkali production plants. Moreover, reductions are currently being achieved from the 

steel industry through the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program and 

a 2007 National Emissions Standard for electric arc furnaces at steel mills, as well 

as hazardous waste combustion units. EPA is also in the process of developing revised standards for Portland Cement Kilns, Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

Boilers and Process Heaters, and Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration units. In 2011, EPA plans to continue progress with reducing mercury emissions and continuing its progress in significantly reducing exposures to mercury by 

2015. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator FEINSTEIN. I believe that concludes the hearing for 

today. So we will stand recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.] 
(53) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010 

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

The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Reed, Nelson, Tester, Alexander, Cochran, Bennett, and Collins. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

DAVID J. HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY 

PAMELA HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome you to the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee’s second budget oversight hearing. 

This morning, in addition to discussing the Department’s fiscal 

year 2011 funding request, Senator Alexander and I would like to 

expand this hearing and take a closer look at the issue of renewable energy development on public land. We believe this is an extremely important public policy matter with many critical questions yet to be answered. Our goal will be to ask some of those 

questions and, hopefully, get the kind of answers that will allow 

the public and the Congress to know precisely how the administration intends to move forward in this area. 

We have, I think, four votes at 11 a.m., so we want to move right 

around. We follow the early bird rule, and time is limited to 5 minutes a Senator. 

Testifying on behalf of the Department is our former colleague, 

our friend, Secretary Ken Salazar. Mr. Secretary, it is very nice to 

have you back in the Senate, and we look forward to your testimony. 

Also, joining us this morning to weigh in on the renewable energy issue is David Hayes, the Department’s Deputy Secretary, and 
54 

last but not least, we are joined by Pam Haze, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget. We welcome all of you here. 

CALIFORNIA WATER

Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for the efforts that you and your staff have made over 

recent weeks to supply additional water to California farmers using 

administrative means consistent with the biological opinions. Mike 

Connor, Commissioner of Reclamation; David Hayes, sitting on 

your right; Don Glaser and Ron Milligan in the region have done 

yeoman’s work on this issue, and I greatly appreciate the effort 

that has been made. Water is one of the more painful parts of our 

job it seems. 

BUDGET

Turning now to the budget, as proposed by the President, the De- partment’s funding request for fiscal year 2011 totals $11.1 billion 

for the agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. While that amount is virtually unchanged from what 

was provided last year—so the budget is flat—there are significant 

funding increases that we should look at in several program areas. An additional $100 million is requested for land acquisition. That 

is 31 percent more than last year. An additional $35 million is requested for the climate change adaptation initiative. That is an additional 26 percent increase. And an additional $20 million is requested for beefed-up law enforcement in tribal areas. Most of that is new money that will allow 

for 81 FBI personnel. 

Now, Mr. Secretary, each of these is an important priority for 

you—we understand that—and for the administration. And I know 

you will speak passionately about these programs. 

My concern is that in order to pay for these, the administration 

is proposing cuts elsewhere that may well be untenable. And so let 

me spell some of that out. 

The construction accounts at the National Park Service (NPS), 

FWS, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) would be cut $164 million. That is a 33 percent reduction from the current level. Now, each of these agencies 

has separate maintenance budgets, but the construction accounts 

are where much of the major repair and restoration work is addressed. And that is a problem. 

The administration has also proposed cutting the Department’s hazardous fuels reduction account by $44 million. That is a 21 percent reduction. Given the level of fire on public lands, particularly 

in the Western States, over the past several years, that is a cut 

that is very hard for me to understand, let alone support. 

The budget proposes having the various bureaus absorb $108 

million in unfunded fixed costs. Now, these include congressionally 

mandated pay raises, increased employee health benefits, and increased rent and utilities. Each of these must be paid for but in 

this budget they are not. 

So where does the NPS come up with the $32 million it needs 

to cover its fixed costs? That question I hope you answer in your 

opening remarks. BIA would have to absorb $19 million in fixed 
55 

costs, and that virtually wipes out the $19 million being added for 

law enforcement. 

The administration has also proposed cutting $78 million across 

the board as a result of various management efficiencies, including 

$18 million in information technology. The budget suggests consolidating e-mail systems and computer help centers as the way to 

make this work. Now, I support those actions, but the amount that 

can be cut from each agency are estimates of potential savings. 

So the question is immediately raised, what happens to law enforcement in our National Parks and refuges or Indian education 

or the fire program if we adopt those budget cuts and then find out 

that the savings do not materialize? So we hope you will address 

those. 

The Department has made great progress on several fronts over 

the last year or 2, and I am aware that your budget was up 14 percent last year. So maybe you can absorb some of this, but our staff 

has said it is going to be very difficult if not impossible. 

And finally, Mr. Secretary, before turning to Senator Alexander 

for any comments he might care to make, I would just like to congratulate you on the tremendous job you have done in utilizing the 

$3 billion provided through the stimulus, or the Recovery Act. I 

know that you have until September 30 to obligate all the funds, 

but I understand that the Department has made significant 

progress in awarding 3,400 Recovery Act projects. I also understand that many of these projects have come in below budget, 

which is very unusual around here, and because of that savings, 

it will enable you to undertake an additional 140 projects at our 

parks and wildlife refuges. So we really appreciate this. I think it 

shows solid management and is really impressive. 

Now, I would like to turn this over to my friend and my colleague 

and the distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. It is good to see 

you and especially to see our friend Ken. 

The Department lost one of its fine public servants in Sam Hamilton. We all regret that and admire his life and public service, 30 

years with the FWS. 

I appreciate the difficult financial environment. 

I thank you for your work, especially with Congressman Shuler 

on the North Shore Road to bring that to a conclusion. That was 

a difficult problem that has been going on since World War II, and 

I think your decisions have helped bring that to a successful conclusion. 

I also thank you for coming to the 75th anniversary of the Great 

Smoky Mountain National Park where you attracted nearly as 

much attention as Dolly Parton did. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Without the assets. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, he had a hat. 

Senator LEAHY. I have so many things I want to say. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do not say them. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Senator Dirksen once told Senator Baker he 

should try to be guilty occasionally of unexpressed thoughts. 

So I think all of us will do that here. 
56 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), I am going to 

reserve my comments until the questions, but here are the areas 

that I will be interested in. The difference between the funding for 

Federal and for State-side of land and water. The State comes up 

pretty short. 

You and I have talked about additional operations and maintenance fundings for the National Parks. Senator Feinstein just 

talked about that. 

I continue to be concerned because the Great Smoky Mountains, 

because of historical circumstances, has two or three times the visitors of our other major parks, but gets about one-half the funding 

of similar parks. 

I would like to mention Education in the Parks initiative which 

we worked on last year, and as Senator Feinstein said, we do not 

want to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment. At least one major conservation group has talked about 

the renewable energy sprawl, and you have talked about treasured 

landscapes. We simply want to work with you to make sure there 

are clear policies about what is appropriate and what is not. I will 

be giving you a letter later today with some suggestions for what 

I hope could be a part of the policy that we are looking forward to 

receiving from you later, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Mr. Secretary, please proceed. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you very, very much, Senator Feinstein, not only for your leadership of this subcommittee, but for 

your leadership on so many issues. More recently I have been seeing a lot of you, as has David Hayes, with respect to California 

water and it is a crisis and we hope we find our way through. 

Senator Alexander, thank you for your leadership, for welcoming 

me to the 75th anniversary of the Great Smoky Mountains, and I 

look forward to working with you as well on so many issues. 

To all of you, the members of this subcommittee, my good 

friends, Senator Collins, who really was the chief sponsor of so 

many movements on the LWCF; to Senator Leahy, who took me 

into Jordan and lots of other places, and under his wing; and to 

Senator Cochran, who in front of this Senate introduced Sam Hamilton to be the Director of FWS; and to John Tester, the Senator 

from Montana, who has taken me to Glacier National Park and 

other places, you are a wonderful group of people. It is my honor 

to appear before you today. 

With me today is David Hayes, who is the Deputy Secretary of 

the Interior and has been leading the efforts on California water, 

as well as on climate change and renewable energy within the Department. I think you want to hear some comments from him briefly after my opening comments. 

And Pam Haze, our Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, who 

has put together this budget. 

In the audience, is Steve Black, who is our counselor on energy 

and has worked with you on the monument issues in California, 

Senator Feinstein; Mike Poole, who is Deputy Director of the BLM; 
57 

Mary Catherine Ishee who is heading up our renewable energy efforts on the Atlantic offshore wind, as well as Gary Frazer from 

FWS. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MISSION

Let me simply start out by saying the Department of the Interior 

has a very important mission and it is a mission which I like to 

carry out every day, thinking that it is probably the most important mission of the executive agencies of the Government. That 

mission simply is to protect the Nation’s natural resources and the 

Nation’s natural and cultural heritage. We do that every day with 

all of the authorities in each of the agencies under my jurisdiction. 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

It is also important, when we think about Interior, to recognize 

there is a huge economic contribution the Department of the Interior makes to this country. Whether it is at Acadia National Park 

in Maine or the great wildlife refuges of Mississippi, we know there 

is a huge economic contribution that comes from the activities of 

this Department. Our economic analysis, which I had the economists in our Department complete about 1 month ago, demonstrates that we generate about 1.3 million jobs a year out in the 

private sector. The economic contribution that comes from visitation to our National Parks, oil and gas production, renewable energy production, and all the rest of the activities of the Department 

nears almost $400 billion a year. So unlike other parts of the Government, we are significant economic generators in each of your 

States, and we are very proud of that. 

BUDGET

This budget reflects tough choices in some very tough times. It 

is not a budget we would be presenting here if we were navigating 

through times where there would be the ability to access funds 

with your support to help us fulfill some of the greater visions that 

we have. So there are tough choices here. I think as both Senators 

Feinstein and Alexander alluded to, we had to make some tough 

choices as we went through the budget. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TRAVEL REDUCTIONS

For example, I know the cuts you alluded to, Senator Feinstein, 

on travel and information technology are just real cuts. We are 

having our employees travel less. We are being smarter in how we 

travel. Information technology—instead of spending more than $1 

billion a year, which we are spending in the Department with each 

bureau doing its own thing, we are doing a consolidation so we can 

have better information technology but also doing it in a way that 

saves money. 

For my time in the Department of the Interior over the last 14 

months, I have had 5 simple priorities. 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The first is to work as part of the Obama team, working with 

this Congress on a new comprehensive energy program for the Na-
58 

tion and tackling the issues of climate change which affect each 

and every one of your States. 

On the energy front, we have moved forward with a robust conventional energy program, which has included both onshore leasing 

and production for oil and gas and other resources, as well as offshore. In comparison to what has happened in the previous 8 years, 

I think we have stayed apace with respect to the rates of leasing 

of the public lands for oil and gas production, including in the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). 

With respect to renewable energy, we have launched a new direction on renewable energy, and this budget proposes that we will be 

standing up more than 9,000 megawatts of renewable energy power 

just on the onshore. With respect to the offshore, in particular, we 

have a focus on the Atlantic because so many of the governors 

along the Atlantic want us to move forward with an offshore renewable energy program. We think there is great hope there, and 

we are very focused on making that possible. 

As part of the energy future for America and a comprehensive 

plan, we also have tackled the realities of climate change. I know 

there is great debate here today and will be in the year ahead 

about what we do with energy and climate change, but I see it 

when I go to Glacier National Park. I am told by our scientists 

there that the glaciers will not be there by the year 2020, or in the 

Apostle Islands in Lake Superior where the waters are 5 degrees 

warmer than they were just 30 years ago, or in the Colorado River 

Basin, which is so water-short and our projections are that we will 

be having 20 percent less water there than we have had historically. Those are huge issues that we have to address. 

TREASURED LANDSCAPES

Second, America’s great outdoors. Senator Alexander, from the 

days of President Eisenhower and on, has carried on the baton 

moving forward with what we do with our great outdoors. It is important for hunters, for anglers, and working in the right way with 

local governments and respecting private property rights, that we 

move forward with an agenda on that, and the LWCF increases included in this budget are very much a part of that agenda. 

WATER

Third, water. We have initiatives in here with respect to new 

water management initiatives on conservation and reuse and recycling, as well as dealing with specific water conflicts we face including the water conflict in the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Hopefully, 

those will help us move forward to a 21st century approach to 

water conservation. 

YOUTH IN NATURAL RESOURCES

Fourth, youth. We educate millions of young people in our national parks and wildlife refuges across the country. We have about 

400 million visitors throughout the Department’s facilities. Many of 

them are young people, and we actually educate in the classroom 

more than 2 million young people just through the NPS alone. 

Through the employment side of things, we have moved forward 
59 

with a robust jobs program for young people. Our hope is that we 

will be able to have more than 12,000 young people working as 

seasonals with the Department of the Interior. 

EMPOWERING NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES

And finally, Native Americans. We have had a long and sordid 

and negative history and conflict with the Native Americans of the 

United States, 564 tribes who have a nation-to-nation relationship 

with the United States and a trust responsibility with the Department of the Interior. This budget supports addressing many of the 

issues in Indian country, including law enforcement. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I would like to have David Hayes, Madam Chairman, give a 

quick overview of the renewable energy efforts. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here 

today to present the details of the 2011 budget request for the Department of the 

Interior. I know that you have a particular interest in the Department’s role in 

building a new energy future, and look forward to speaking with you about this important issue. I want to thank the Chairman, the members of this subcommittee 

and the Appropriations Committee for your support of our Department and ongoing 

reforms that are important to the stewardship of the Nation’s natural and cultural 

resources and to fulfilling our trust responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska 

Natives. Your support for Interior’s programs is helping us to build a strong foundation to achieve a clean energy future, tackle climate change impacts, conserve our 

treasured landscapes, and empower tribal communities. I look forward to working 

closely with you to continue to advance these priorities. 

I look forward to a continued partnership with you and your staff to address another issue—California’s water problems. The situation in California’s Bay-Delta 

ecosystem is a full-blown crisis that requires all hands on deck. Although many of 

California’s water managers served by the Federal Central Water Project anticipate 

receiving adequate water supplies, some managers face a fourth straight year of uncertain water supplies due to the legacy of 3 straight years of drought and the near 

collapse of the ecosystem, which has affected deliveries to agricultural and urban 

water customers south of the delta and devastated the commercial salmon fishery. 

My Deputy Secretary, David Hayes, is leading Interior’s implementation of the administration’s Interim Federal Action Plan for the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Interior, 

through the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), has a key role in this plan. In the 2011 budget before this subcommittee and your colleagues on Energy and Water Development, the 

Department requests $155.2 million for studies, projects and other efforts directly 

in the Bay-Delta, an increase of $50.6 million above 2010. In addition, the budget 

includes $72.9 million for WaterSMART grants and studies to support water recycling and reuse projects and address water availability issues throughout the country. 

INTRODUCTION

I am honored to serve as the 50th Secretary of the Interior and to oversee this 

Department and its vast domain. Our mission is as simple as it is profound. We 

protect America’s natural resources and cultural heritage. Our land and communitybased programs touch the lives of most Americans, including 1.7 million American 

Indians and Alaska Natives. 

Interior manages 500 million acres or about 1 in every 5 acres in the United 

States, including 392 national park units, 551 wildlife refuges, the 27 million acre 

National Landscape Conservation System, and other public lands. These places are 

treasured landscapes. They provide us with scenic landscapes, recreational opportunities and they tell our history and our varied culture. They serve as economic engines for tourism and growth opportunities for recreation, drawing visitors and supporting jobs and businesses in surrounding communities. 
60 

The Department’s public lands and 1.7 billion acres on the Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS) supply nearly one-third of the Nation’s domestic energy production. 

These resources are vital to the Nation’s energy security and provide economic returns to the Nation. In addition, the mineral and timber resources that are from 

the public lands support industry, help to pave our roads, and build our homes. 

The Department of the Interior’s people, programs, and information have an impact on all Americans. Interior recently analyzed the economic impacts of its programs and activities, and estimates that the Department generates the following in 

economic benefits: The Department supports more than 1.3 million jobs and more 

than $370 billion in economic activity. Parks, refuges, and monuments generate 

more than $24 billion from recreation and tourism. Conventional and renewable energy produced on Interior lands and waters results in $292 billion in economic benefits and the water managed by the Interior supports more than $25 billion in agriculture. 

The Department fulfills its special responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives, managing one of the largest land trusts in the world including more 

than 55 million surface acres and 57 million acres of subsurface mineral estates 

held in trust for Indian tribes and individual Indians, more than $3.6 billion of 

funds held in more than 2,700 trust accounts for approximately 250 Indian tribes, 

and more than 380,000 open Individual Indian Money accounts. The Bureau of Indian Education school system provides services to approximately 42,000 students in 

23 States attending 183 elementary and secondary schools and supports 30 tribally 

controlled community colleges, universities, and postsecondary schools. 

The Department of the Interior is truly the Department of America. We are 

uniquely positioned to provide enduring benefits to the American people. We will invest the resources included in the 2011 budget and make wise and prudent investments that will allow us to maximize opportunities to realize the potential of our 

lands and waters, resources, and people. 

THE FIRST YEAR

In January 2010, I celebrated my first anniversary as Secretary of the Interior 

by recognizing the achievements of Interior’s 70,000 employees, including: 

—Restoring the Everglades.—Beginning construction of the 1-mile bridge on the 

Tamiami Trail and breaking ground on the Picayune Strand Restoration project 

in the Everglades in Florida—to restore water flows and revive 55,000 acres of 

wetlands for wildlife habitat; 

—Negotiating a Settlement of the Long-running and Highly contentious Cobell v. 

Salazar class-action lawsuit.—Resolving trust accounting and management 

issues after 14 years; 

—Advancing Renewable Energy Development.—Establishing renewable energy coordination offices in four States and teams in six States to facilitate renewable 

energy production on public lands and issuing four exploratory leases for renewable wind energy production on the OCS; 

—Moving forward to invest $3 billion available from the American Reinvestment 

and Recovery Act in facility renovation and energy efficiencies, habitat restoration, increasing water supplies and water conservation, supporting renewable 

energy development, and reducing human hazards; 

—Restoring confidence and accountability in our energy programs by beginning an 

orderly termination of the Royalty-in-Kind program and reforming the management of onshore oil and gas resources; 

—Coming to the aid of drought-stricken California with emergency aid and infrastructure investments; 

—Expanding Opportunities for Youth.—Employing 8,200 young adults in 2009; 

—Opening the Crown of the Statue of Liberty for Public Access.—The Crown has 

been closed to the public since 9/11; 

—Ending a Stalemate at the Flight 93 National Memorial.—Completing the acquisition of land in cooperation with willing sellers and clearing the way for construction of a memorial to honor the Nation’s heroes; 

—Delisting the Brown Pelican.—A case of complete recovery for a species that was 

first listed as endangered in 1970; 

—Increasing Transparency.—Reversing and withdrawing flawed oil and gas leases 

with potential impacts to national parks in Utah and oil shale research, development, and demonstration leases that may have shortchanged taxpayers; and 

—Helping to negotiate a collaborative solution that would end decades of conflict 

and potentially allow for the restoration of the Klamath River Basin in California and Oregon. 
61 

OVERVIEW OF THE 2011 BUDGET

Interior’s 2011 budget reflects an aggressive agenda in the context of challenging fiscal times. The 2011 Interior budget request for current appropriations is $12.2 

billion, $38.7 million or 0.3 percent below the level enacted by Congress for 2010. 

Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of existing legislation without 

further action by the Congress will provide an additional $5.8 billion, for budget authority totaling $18 billion for Interior in 2011. 

Within this amount, the budget proposes investments for high-priority goals and 

initiatives. With the 2011 budget, the Department will: 

—Implement a comprehensive New Energy Frontier strategy that creates jobs, reduces the Nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and reduces environmental impacts. The budget requests an increase of $27.4 million for renewable and conventional energy programs. 

—Confront the realities of climate change by launching an integrated strategy for Climate Change Adaptation. An increase of $35.4 million is requested to implement the Department’s integrated program. 

—Develop a 21st century conservation agenda that protects Treasured Land- scapes. The 2011 budget includes increases of $106 million for Land and Water 

Conservation Fund programs and $71.4 million for investments in major ecosystem restoration projects in the Chesapeake Bay, California’s Bay Delta, the 

Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi, and Everglades. 

—Tackle the water challenges facing the country with a new strategy to Sustain 

and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow. The Department’s 

WaterSMART sustainability agenda includes increases of $36.4 million. —Engage America’s Youth in Natural Resources.—The budget increases funding for youth programs by $9.3 million. —Honor Trust Responsibilities and Empowering Tribal Nations.—The budget includes targeted increases for contract support and other tribal priorities. 

These increases are possible within a level budget as the Department is proposing $750 million in terminations, reductions, and management efficiencies and absorption of $108.7 million in fixed costs. 

The 2011 request includes $11.1 billion for programs funded in the Interior, Envi- ronment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This is $16.7 million, or 0.2 percent, below the level enacted for 2010. The 2011 request for the BOR and the Central Utah Project Completion Act, funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, is $1.1 billion, $22 million or 2 percent below the level enacted for 

2010. 

In 2011, Interior will continue an exemplary record of producing revenue for the 

U.S. Treasury. The estimate for revenue collections by the Department in 2011 is 

$14 billion, more than offsetting the budget request for current appropriations. 

NEW ENERGY FRONTIER

The Department of the Interior oversees one-fifth of the Nation’s landmass and 

more than 1.7 billion acres of the OCS. As the steward of the Nation’s energy and 

mineral estate, the Department has a leadership role, promoting clean energy that 

can reduce climate impacts, and responsibly developing conventional energy sources 

to reduce reliance on foreign oil. 

The New Energy Frontier initiative will create clean sources of energy using the 

Nation’s vast domestic resources. The New Energy Frontier initiative invests $73.3 

million in renewable energy programs, an increase of $14.2 million more than 2010. 

The initiative includes $3 million for BLM to focus on the environmental elements 

of renewable energy projects, $3.2 million for Materials Management Service (MMS) 

region-specific planning needs, $3 million for USGS to analyze and document the 

effects of renewable energy on wildlife populations, $4 million for FWS to carry out 

endangered species consultation and other wildlife conservation efforts and provide 

timely environmental review of projects, and $1 million for BIA to support renewable energy development efforts on tribal lands. 

The Department has a High Priority Performance Goal to increase approved capacity for solar, wind, and geothermal energy resources on Interior-managed lands, 

while ensuring full environmental review, by at least 9,000 megawatts by the end 

of 2011. 

The 2011 budget continues support for the development of conventional energy, 

with $460.2 million in BLM, MMS, and BIA. This is a net increase of $13.1 million 

more than the 2010 level. Within this requested level, there is an increase of $4.4 

million for MMS’s 2007–2012, 5-year program and $10 million for audit costs to support the transition from Royalty-in-Kind to Royalty-in-Value. The 2011 budget increases the MMS inspection fee on OCS above-water oil and gas facilities by $10 
62 

million. A reduction of $13 million is proposed in the net BLM oil and gas program 

appropriation, which is offset by $10 million in new inspection fees in the onshore 

oil and gas program; the remaining $3 million reduction results from the completion 

of a legislated energy study. BIA’s budget includes an increase of $1.5 million for 

conventional energy leasing activities on the Fort Berthold Reservation, including 

support for a ‘‘one-stop-shop’’ to streamline development activities in the area. 

CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

Resource managers consider climate change to be the single most challenging 

issue they face. In order to equip them with the tools and strategies they need, Interior’s Climate Change Adaptation initiative will investigate the causes and formulate solutions to mitigate climate impacts to lands, waters, natural, and cultural resources. As the pre-eminent manager of lands and resources, Interior will leverage 

its experience and expertise in partnership with other governmental and nongovernmental entities. Interior’s Climate Science Centers and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives will conduct and communicate research and monitoring to improve understanding and forecasting for those natural and cultural heritage resources that 

are most vulnerable to climate change impacts. 

The Department’s High Priority Performance Goal for Climate Change Adaptation 

is to identify areas and species most vulnerable to climate change and begin implementing comprehensive adaptation strategies by the end of 2011. The 2011 budget includes $171.3 million for the Climate Change Adaptation Ini- tiative, an increase of $35.4 million more than 2010. This includes continued investments in the USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center ($8 million), which will serve as the nexus for 8 Climate Change Science Centers; expansion of monitoring in USGS ($1 million) and FWS ($8 million) that will be integrated, standardized, and accessible to Interior bureaus, partners, and the public; 

expansion of the USGS carbon sequestration project by $2 million; expanded science 

and planning capacity in FWS ($8.8 million) and BLM ($2.5 million) to support additional Landscape Conservation Cooperatives; and FWS adaptive management activities with private landowners ($2 million). Beginning with the 2011 budget, the 

BOR and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) identify dedicated climate change funding, 

including an increase of $3.5 million for Reclamation basin studies and scientific 

support and $200,000 for BIA participation in an LCC. 

WATERSMART

The 2011 budget proposes a sustainable water strategy to assist local communities to stretch water supplies and improve water management. A High Priority 

Performance Goal is established to enable capacity to increase water supply for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in the Western United 

States up to 350,000 acre-feet by the end of 2011 through the BOR’s conservation 

programs including water reuse and recycling and WaterSMART (formerly challenge) grants. 

The budget for the WaterSMART program—Sustain and Manage America’s Re- sources for Tomorrow—includes $72.9 million, an increase of $36.4 million more 

than the 2010 enacted level for sustainability programs in Reclamation and USGS. 

Reclamation will use $62 million, an increase of $27.4 million, to improve water 

management by encouraging voluntary water banks; reduce demand; implement 

water conservation and water reclamation and reuse projects; and take action to improve energy efficiency and reduce environmental conflicts. The USGS will use $10.9 

million, an increase of $9 million, for a multi-year, nationwide water availability 

and use assessment program. 

YOUTH IN NATURAL RESOURCES

The future of resource conservation depends upon the next generation’s understanding of the importance of natural resources and cultural treasures. The 2011 

budget continues the Youth in Natural Resources initiative which signals the Secretary’s emphasis on youth involvement. 

The Department’s High Priority Performance Goal for Youth in Natural Resources 

is, by the end of 2011, to increase by 50 percent from the 2009 level, the employment of youth (ages 15 to 25) in the conservation mission of the Department. 

The budget includes an additional $9.3 million for programs at the parks, refuges, 

and other public lands. This includes $5.8 million for youth employment and education programs in the National Park System (NPS) and $2 million for youth programs at national wildlife refuges. The budget also includes $2 million for FWS and 

BLM to partner with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in public-private 

partnerships to engage youth through conservation projects on public and private 
63 

lands. The total for youth programs includes an elimination of a $500,000 earmark 

in the FWS Migratory Bird program. In addition, NPS has committed to dedicate 

a total of $6.4 million, $2 million more than last year, of recreation fee revenue collected at parks to youth projects that benefit the visitor experience. 

TREASURED LANDSCAPES

The 2011 budget reflects the President’s agenda to protect America’s treasured 

landscapes and demonstrates a sustained commitment to a 21st century conservation agenda. The budget will allow Interior to intensify efforts to protect treasured 

landscapes; to participate in major restoration efforts to restore, protect, and preserve key ecosystems; and to operate and maintain landscapes. Interior’s 2011 budget includes $445.4 million, an increase of $106 million for Interior Land and Water Conservation Fund programs including Federal acquisition 

and State grants. The budget also includes $288.2 million, an increase of $71.4 million targeted to key ecosystems for restoration and renewal—the Everglades, California’s Bay-Delta ecosystem, the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

President Obama’s 2011 budget protects open spaces, forests, and wildlife habitat by funding $619.2 million in Land and Water Conservation Fund programs in the 

Department of the Interior and USDA Forest Service. This is a 29 percent increase 

more than the 2010 enacted and a 104 percent increase more than the 2009 level. 

With these consecutive increases, appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund are on track to reach the full funding level of $900 million annually 

by 2014. 

The 2011 budget also includes $288.2 million for high-priority ecosystem restoration, an increase of $71.4 million from the 2010 level. This includes $148 million 

that is requested as part of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriation, an increase of $25.9 million. The balance is requested in the BOR budget. 

These ecosystem restoration efforts build on existing programs and efforts and feature the following efforts targeted for 2011 funding increases. 

The Department of the Interior, through the NPS, FWS, USGS, and the BIA, is 

a key player in restoring the Everglades ecosystem. In 2011, the budget includes 

$74.5 million, an increase of $6 million more than the 2010 enacted level for restoration of the Everglades. This request includes $8 million for the Tamiami Trail 1- 

mile bridge, a component of the Modified Waters Delivery project that is being managed by the Corps of Engineers. 

The 2011 budget includes an increase of $50.6 million for increased efforts by the 

BOR, FWS, and USGS to conduct studies, projects, and other efforts in the California Bay-Delta. These activities will support the December 22, 2009, Bay-Delta Interim Action Plan, investing in short- and long-term actions for sustainable water 

and ecosystem restoration. This request will fund habitat restoration efforts, the development of fish screens and fish ladders, efforts to eradicate or mitigate invasive 

species, various water quality and quantity studies and assessments, and other efforts. This includes $5 million for FWS and $45.6 million in the BOR budget. 

The FWS owns and manages 10 National Wildlife Refuges totaling 300,000 acres 

along the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi. For FWS and NPS, there is a net funding increase of $4.8 million in 2011 to support the restoration of key fish and wildlife habitat along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi and enable FWS to 

provide its expertise to multi-agency projects in the area. This includes a reduction 

of $192,000 to the NPS Gulf Coast Programs. 

The Department’s 2011 budget for USGS, FWS, and NPS includes $31.6 million, 

an increase of $10 million to expand the Department’s efforts to conserve and restore the Chesapeake Bay’s cultural and natural resources. 

EMPOWERING TRIBAL NATIONS

The Empowering Tribal Nations initiative includes programs to advance nationto-Nation relationships, improve Indian education for students in BIE funded 

schools, improve the safety of Indian communities, and reform trust land management with an ultimate goal of greater self-determination. In November 2009, the 

White House held a Tribal Nations Conference, which was attended by more than 

400 tribal leaders. At the conference, the President pledged to strengthen Nationto-nation relationships, improve the tribal consultation process, and empower strong 

and stable Indian communities. 

Overall, the 2011 budget request for Indian Affairs is a reduction of $3.6 million 

from the 2010 enacted amount, after excluding the $50 million in one-time funding 

to forward-fund tribal colleges in 2010. Maintaining key increases for law enforcement and education programs, the 2011 budget request includes programmatic in-
64 

creases of $70.6 million for the Empowering Tribal Nations initiative. Specifically, 

the 2011 budget: 

—Advances nation-to-Nation relationships and Indian self-determination by providing additional funding of $21.5 million for contract support costs and the Indian Self-Determination Fund, $2.9 million to assist with the unique needs of 

small and needy tribes, and $2 million for social services. 

—Protects Indian country by providing $19 million to increase the number of Federal Bureau of Investigations agents that are on-the-ground and dedicated to 

Indian country. 

—Advances Indian education with $8.9 million to address environmental and security concerns at BIA schools and strengthen grant support funding for tribally 

operated BIA schools. 

—Improves trust land management with increases of $11.8 million to promote 

both renewable and conventional development on tribal lands, defend and assert Indian water rights, and assist tribes with dam safety. 

The Department’s High Priority Performance Goal for Safe Indian Communities 

will achieve significant reductions in criminal offenses of at least 5 percent within 

24 months on targeted tribal reservations by implementing a comprehensive strategy involving community policing, tactical deployment, and critical interagency and 

intergovernmental partnerships. 

Settlement of the Cobell Lawsuit.—On December 8, 2009, the parties in Cobell v. 

Salazar announced a pending settlement of the 14-year-old class-action lawsuit alleging the Federal Government’s mismanagement of assets held in trust on behalf 

of individual Indians. Under the terms of the settlement, approximately $1.4 billion 

would be distributed to the class members with each member receiving $1,000 for 

their historical accounting claims and some receiving additional funds related to 

trust management claims. The second part of the settlement provides for a $2 billion fund for the purchase of fractionated land interests held in trust on behalf of 

individual Indians. In addition, as an added inducement to facilitate the purchase 

of fractionated land interests, up to $60 million of the $2 billion for land acquisition 

will be contributed to an existing, nonprofit organization for the benefit of educating 

American Indians and Alaska Natives. On February 12, 2010, the President transmitted to Congress a package of budget amendments that includes the Cobell settlement. Final disposition of the settlement is pending congressional action and approval by the Court. 

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

This subcommittee’s leadership on high-priority public lands issues has been critically important, including the Wild Horse and Burro and Wildland Fire programs 

as highlighted below. The subcommittee has also helped us to accelerate our efforts 

to protect the public and public lands from marijuana trafficking and remediate 

abandoned mine site hazards. The budget maintains a strong commitment to make 

progress on these issues, which are high priorities for the Department. 

Wild Horse and Burro Program.—The current path of the Wild Horse and Burro 

program is not sustainable for the animals, the environment, or the taxpayer. On 

October 7, 2009, I announced a new comprehensive long-term plan to put the wild 

horse and burro program on a sustainable track. The plan identifies three management strategies to improve the protection and management of wild horses: 

—Managing sustainable herds on western rangelands through the aggressive application of fertility control measures. 

—Establishing new wild horse preserves, primarily in the Midwest and East for 

horses that must be removed from western rangelands. 

—Providing special designations for selected treasured herds in the West. 

The 2011 BLM budget includes $75.7 million, a program increase of $12 million, 

for the Wild Horse and Burro Management program. The BLM LWCF budget includes an increase of $42.5 million to acquire land for a wild horse preserve. Initial 

costs for implementing the proposals would be significant as the BLM acquires preserves and works to achieve sustainable herd levels on public rangelands, but overall program costs should decline in the future. The plan will enable BLM to achieve 

appropriate management population levels on the range in the near future. 

Responsibly Budgeting for Wildfire.—The budget responsibly budgets for wildfires 

and includes $933.9 million for Wildland Fire Management, an increase of $78 million. The 10-year average of suppression costs is fully funded. The budget proposes 

continuation of a regular suppression account and the FLAME Wildfire Suppression 

Reserve Fund, and includes a new Presidential Wildfire Contingency Reserve account. Regular suppression will support initial attack and predictable firefighting 

costs; the FLAME funds will be used in cases of severe, complex, and threatening 
65 

fires and be used as a contingency reserve. The Presidential Contingency Reserve 

would require the issuance of a Presidential finding when the suppression and 

FLAME appropriations are soon to be exhausted. There is a proposed program reduction of $42.6 million in the hazardous fuels reduction program. Fire management 

resources would be used in a cost-effective manner in high priority areas, such as 

the Wildland Urban Interface to more effectively reduce the risk of wildfire to communities. 

Program Reductions.—Consistent with the President’s directive to freeze spending 

on nonsecurity discretionary spending, we took a hard look at all of our programs 

across the Department. We found more than $750 million in program reductions for 

ineffective or low-priority programs, including the elimination of one-time funding. 

Included within these reductions is $50 million for a one-time payment to forwardfund tribal colleges. This was a one-time increase in the 2010 budget to provide 

funding in advance of the academic year, and the $50 million is not needed in 2011. 

The budget also contains a $163.9 million reduction, or 34 percent, for Interior construction accounts. These reductions take into consideration the $3 billion Interior 

received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The 2011 budget 

proposes reductions of $38.4 million to terminate the Save America’s Treasures and 

Preserve America programs managed by the NPS and reduces the Heritage Partnership Program grants for National Heritage Areas by 50 percent. 

Management Efficiency Savings.—The 2011 budget assumes management efficiency savings throughout the Department totaling $82.1 million. All bureaus and 

program offices, including the Working Capital Fund, assume reductions from efficiency savings that are either bureau-specific or are part of a Department-wide reform. The budget assumes $20.1 million in bureau-specific management efficiency 

savings which includes $3.4 million from property consolidation. 

The Department’s 2011 budget assumes $62 million in savings from three specific 

Department-wide management initiatives launched in 2010—travel, information 

technology consolidation, and strategic sourcing. All of these improvements were 

identified from the administration’s SAVE Award effort, where Federal employees 

across the country put forward their best ideas to improve Government operations. 

Each of these initiatives targets unnecessary redundancy. Implementing management policies will reinforce these initiatives to ensure efficiencies are achieved. Savings from these reforms are assumed in each bureau and program office budget request commensurate with established criteria. 

LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSALS

The budget assumes enactment of a number of legislative proposals, including: 

—Termination of mandatory payments from the General Treasury to States and 

tribes that have been certified as completing reclamation of abandoned coal 

mine sites and, consequently, no longer need funds for that purpose. 

—A $4 per acre fee on nonproducing Federal oil and gas leases on Federal lands 

and waters to provide a financial incentive for oil and gas companies to either 

get their leases into production or relinquish them so that the tracts can be released to and developed by new parties. 

—The budget proposes to make permanent the current arrangement for sharing 

the cost of administering energy and minerals receipts. Under current law, 

States receiving significant payments from mineral revenue development on 

Federal lands also share in the costs of administering the Federal mineral 

leases from which the revenue is generated through a 2 percent deduction from 

their payments. 

—The administration will submit legislation to repeal portions of section 365 of 

the Energy Policy Act. Section 365 diverted mineral leasing receipts from the 

Treasury to a BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund and also prohibited 

BLM from establishing cost recovery fees for processing applications for oil and 

gas permits to drill. 

—The administration will submit legislation to repeal section 224(b) of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. The repeal of section 224(b) will permanently discontinue 

payments to counties and restore the disposition of the geothermal revenue to 

the historical formula of 50 percent to the States and 50 percent to the Treasury. 

—The budget proposes to repeal section 344 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 344 extended existing deep gas incentives to ensure that Americans receive 

fair value for federally owned mineral resources. 

—The administration proposes to reauthorize FLTFA, eliminating the 2010 sunset 

date and allowing lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use 

plans to be sold using the FLTFA authority. FLTFA sales revenues would con-
66 

tinue to be used to fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and 

the administrative costs associated with conducting sales. 

—Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, commonly known as 

Duck Stamps, were originally created in 1934 as the Federal licenses required 

for hunting migratory waterfowl. The administration proposes to increase these 

fees to $25 per stamp per year, beginning in 2011. Increasing the cost of Duck 

Stamps will bring the estimate for the Migratory Bird Conservation Account to 

$58 million. 

—The Office of Insular Affairs is currently engaged with the State Department, 

the Defense Department, and other agencies in a review of the Compact of Free 

Association with the Republic of Palau. Permanent and indefinite funding for 

the compact expires at the end of 2010. The 2011 budget seeks to authorize permanent funding for the Compact as it strengthens the foundations for economic 

development by developing public infrastructure, and improving healthcare and 

education. 

Through appropriations language, the administration proposes to implement the 

following changes: 

—Create an inspection fee in 2011 for onshore oil and gas drilling activities that 

are subject to inspection by BLM. The proposed inspection fee is expected to 

generate an estimated $10 million in 2011, offsetting about 25 percent of the 

cost of onshore inspections. 

—Continue a fee for processing drilling permits through appropriations language, 

an approach taken by Congress in the 2009 and 2010 Appropriations Acts. A 

fee of $6,500 per drilling permit was established in 2010, and if continued, 

would generate an estimated $45.5 million in offsetting collections. 

—Increase the inspection fees in 2011 for offshore oil and gas drilling activities 

that are subject to inspection by MMS. The increased fees are expected to generate an estimated $20 million in 2011, offsetting about half of the cost of inspections. 

SAM HAMILTON, DIRECTOR, FWS

Before I conclude my statement, I want to pay tribute to a great conservation 

leader that died last month. Sam Hamilton was a visionary and a professional 

whose years of service and passionate dedication to his work have left an indelible 

mark on the lands and wildlife we cherish. His forward-thinking approach to conservation—including his view that we must think beyond boundaries at the landscape-scale—will continue to shape our Nation’s stewardship for years to come. He 

as a remarkable leader and a compassionate, wise, and eternally optimistic man. 

When Sam become the Director of the FWS on September 1, 2009, he brought 

more than 30 years of experience with the Service, beginning when he was 15 years 

old working as a Youth Conservation Corps member on the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Mississippi. Throughout his career, Sam exhibited outstanding leadership and fostered creative and innovative solutions to the challenges facing wildlife 

conservation. In the Southeast Region, he supported efforts leading to the establishment of a carbon sequestration program that has helped biologists to restore roughly 80,000 acres of wildlife habitat. His emphasis on partnership activities bolstered 

the Service’s fisheries program and helped establish the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership to restore vital aquatic habitats across the region. 

Sam provided key leadership and oversight to restoration work in the Everglades 

and oversaw the extensive recovery and restoration efforts following Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, which devastated coastal wetlands, wildlife refuges, and other 

wildlife habitat areas along the Gulf of Mexico. 

Sam believed that the sustainability of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources require our cooperative efforts and he worked tirelessly toward building collaborative 

partnerships for conservation of resources for this and future generations. We will 

miss Sam. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the President’s 2011 budget 

request for the Department of the Interior. I want to reiterate my appreciation for 

the long-standing support of your subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee. We have a tremendous opportunity to improve the future for our children 

and grandchildren with wise investments in clean energy, addressing climate impacts, treasured landscapes, our youth, and the empowerment of tribal nations. I 

look forward to working with you to implement this budget. This concludes my written statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. 
67 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Please proceed Mr. Hayes. Glad to have you 

here. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DAVID J. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, members of the subcommittee. 

I will be very brief in terms of reviewing our priorities on the renewable energy side. 

As you know, this is a Presidential priority and, as the Secretary 

just mentioned, one of his priorities, which is to facilitate more attention on bringing more renewable energy opportunities through 

our public lands and our offshore resources. 

The approach has been to focus on key study areas and corridors, 

and as Bob Abbey, our Director of BLM likes to say, do it right 

from the start, get the right sites that work from an environmental 

perspective, put our resources into streamlining those projects and 

implementing them. 

On the solar side, we have implemented that by taking the programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) that had been 

started at the end of the prior administration and bringing definition to it; finding 24 areas that looked most promising in the West, 

as identified by the Western Governors Association and by a process that had begun in California, and doing a deeper dive into 

those 24 specific areas so that we could get a better look as to 

which of those looked the most promising in terms of development. 

We have also identified a number of fast-track projects that we 

are working on and working through in a coordinated fashion with 

other stakeholders to determine whether they are good candidates 

for potential stimulus funding. We have a number of those projects 

moving along this year. 

Throughout, we are looking to complete thorough environmental 

analysis, take no shortcuts when it comes to the environment, including taking an eye towards species impacts, mitigation, and 

siting concerns. That is why, Senator Feinstein, we have worked 

with your office, for example, to ensure that our projects are consistent with your plans for Mohave Trails National Monument. 

On the wind side, as the Secretary mentioned, we have taken a 

special focus on offshore wind off the Atlantic. The Secretary recently met with the governors of the Eastern States and has set 

up a special process with them. Each of the governors is identifying 

a resource person to work with our team and develop a strategy 

moving ahead on the east coast. A tremendous opportunity there, 

as Senator Collins well knows, in part because of the magnitude of 

the resource and how close it is to those load centers. 

On transmission, this is a key issue to unlock some of the renewables. If we cannot get the renewables, for example, in Montana 

and much of the Intermountain West to those large load centers, 

then we will not have that development. Steve Black and the Secretary have been working on a project with other Federal agencies. 

We have an Memorandum of Understanding and we are working 

very closely with the Department of Energy (DOE), Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Secretary of Agriculture, and 

others to coordinate our planning. We have a series of fast-track 
68 

projects. We are bringing the Federal Government together to help 

make the projects that make sense go forward. 

Let me also mention, finally, we are looking for developing tribal 

opportunities in the renewable energy area as well. There are 77 

tribal reservations that have commercially viable wind resources. 

We want to help tribes develop those resources and bring them to 

market. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Finally, geothermal and hydro are also areas of attention by the 

Department. We are looking for the broadest sweep possible of development on the renewable side that makes sense, and we appreciate the support of this subcommittee both in terms of providing 

the funds needed to make sure we do this in a smart and environmentally responsible way. 

Thank you, Senator. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID J. HAYES

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee I am pleased to have the 

opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department’s Renewable Energy program. 

This is an exciting and unprecedented direction for the Department and we are 

moving rapidly to remove the barriers to renewable energy development in the 

United States—responsibly in a manner that protects the environment. 

CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

During the first year of his administration, President Obama has led the United 

States toward a clean energy future. A primary reason for delivering this change 

is that the United States cannot afford to fall behind in the energy technologies that 

will shape this century. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year on imported oil—our oil dependence poses risks to our national security. 

Renewable energy development is one of President Obama’s highest priorities, and 

the United States has come far in developing renewable resources this past year 

under the President’s leadership. New jobs are being created and many more are 

coming in the clean energy sector. America’s abundant natural resources can help 

us rise to meet the challenges we face. 

The great promise of solar energy and other renewable resources has led us at 

the Department of the Interior to change how we do business. For the first time, 

environmentally responsible renewable energy development is a priority at this department. Until now, our deserts, plains, forests, and oceans have been largely unexplored for their vast clean energy potential. 

OPPORTUNITIES

The possibilities are immense, and the opportunities are great. The Department 

oversees 20 percent of the Nation’s lands and 1.7 billion offshore acres. The Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates the wind potential off the East Coast of the United States in the Atlantic Ocean to be more than 

1,000 gigawatts, greater than our entire national electricity demand. Turbines are 

already springing up to capture the energy of the wind that blows across the Great 

Plains. We have huge solar potential in the deserts of the Southwest containing an 

estimated 2,300 gigawatts of energy capacity, not far from the great cities of Los 

Angeles, Las Vegas, and Phoenix. Geothermal energy opportunities are bubbling up 

across the country. We have great opportunities to increase hydropower production 

through improvements in efficiency, by adding power generation units to existing 

facilities, and through pumped storage. 

During the past year, we offered new areas for oil and gas development, but instituted reforms to ensure we are offering leases in the right places and in the right 

way. Importantly, and relevant to today’s hearing, we have also opened the new renewable energy frontier—not just for solar power, but also for wind, geothermal, 

and hydropower—on America’s lands and waters that will help power our clean energy economy. 
69 

We have opened Renewable Energy Coordination Offices in California, Nevada, 

Wyoming, and Arizona and established teams in six other States—Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, New Mexico, Oregon/Washington, and Utah—that are charged with expediting the required reviews of solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass projects and 

supporting the prompt permitting of appropriate transmission-related projects on 

our public lands. 

We worked with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to develop and enter 

into a memorandum of understanding that resolved jurisdictional concerns that had 

resulted in the delay of renewable energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS). We have also put in place long-awaited offshore renewable energy rules, creating the first-ever framework for offshore renewable energy development, which we 

expect to result in the development of significant offshore wind energy potential. We 

subsequently awarded four exploratory leases for wind energy production on the 

OCS offshore of New Jersey and Delaware. 

The Secretary recently announced that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) 

will establish an Atlantic renewable energy regional office—this will be the first 

Federal office specifically supporting renewable energy development on the OCS. 

Two weeks ago the Secretary met with the governors of 11 Atlantic Coast States 

that are considering the development of offshore wind energy projects to explore 

how to support and coordinate the development of this new industry. All agreed that 

the United States cannot be left behind and that cooperative planning is needed to 

move forward. The Secretary established a consortium of Federal agencies and Atlantic States to pro-actively determine the best sites for renewable energy development rather than let the applications drive the process. As the Department explores 

the potential for renewable energy in offshore areas, wind energy production in the 

Atlantic offers great promise. This collaboration will allow us to move smartly to 

identify the areas most suitable for development and streamline the permitting 

process. 

As we open this new energy frontier, new development and new technology deployment on public lands will help solve key challenges in reliability, storage, and 

transmission of renewable energy and ultimately could mean lower costs to the private market in meeting energy demands. 

We cannot afford to fall behind in the development of solar energy technologies. 

Over the past year, as we have worked to make the President’s vision a reality, 

there has been much discussion in the media about the development of these technologies in other nations. We have heard that China is now the world leader in the 

manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines, and it has targeted the development 

of renewable and low-carbon energy as a priority. A number of European countries, 

including Spain and Germany, have developed aggressive policies that have led to 

expanded development of renewable, specifically solar, energy. 

The Department’s vast land ownership and the breadth of our management responsibilities over those lands puts us in a unique and important role with regard 

to the domestic development and transmission of solar energy. The possibility of 

capturing the Sun’s abundant energy and making it usable as a clean, nonpolluting 

source of power; the potential of American ingenuity to drive more efficient applications; and the promise of additional jobs for the new energy economy are ensuring 

that we at the Department are moving quickly to responsibly develop this tremendous energy potential on our public lands. 

Renewable energy was the subject of Secretary Salazar’s first Secretarial Order, 

issued in March 2009. That order made facilitating the production, development, 

and delivery of renewable energy, including solar energy, on public lands and the 

OCS top priorities at the Department. The Secretary has pledged that these goals 

will be accomplished in a manner that does not ignore, but protects our signature 

landscapes, natural resources, wildlife, and cultural resources. 

MOVING FORWARD

Over the past year we have worked diligently to prioritize the development of renewable energy on our public lands and our offshore waters. Last June, Secretary 

Salazar and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the identification of 

1,000 square miles, 24 tracts of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered 

land, in the West as Solar Energy Study Areas. We are fully evaluating these areas 

for their suitability from an environmental and resource perspective and for the 

large-scale production of electricity from solar energy. 

Along with the Department of Energy, we are preparing a Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, due for public release in late 

2010. This EIS will be a landscape-scale plan for siting solar energy projects on our 

public lands in the Southwest that have been identified as having the best potential 
70 

for utility-scale solar energy development. The BLM has identified approximately 23 

million acres with solar energy potential, including the 24 Solar Energy Study 

Areas, which are being reviewed as part of this process to evaluate the environmental suitability of solar energy development across the West. The Solar Energy 

Study Areas alone have the technical potential to generate nearly 100,000 

megawatts of solar electricity, enough to power millions of American homes. The 

public comment period on these solar study areas closed in September 2009, and 

we are evaluating the comments we received. 

We believe that landscape-scale planning and zoning for solar projects on our public lands will provide a more efficient process for permitting and siting of this type 

of development. 

To further our goals, we have announced 34 ‘‘fast track’’ renewable energy 

projects. Fast-track projects are those where the companies involved have made sufficient progress in the environmental review and permitting process and they could 

potentially be cleared for approval by December 2010, thus making them eligible for 

economic stimulus funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009. 

Fourteen of the 34 fast-tracked projects are solar energy projects. These include 

several different types of concentrated solar thermal technologies—like solar engine, 

parabolic trough, and power tower—and photovoltaic cells, and are located in Arizona, California, and Nevada. All are currently undergoing detailed environmental 

impact reviews, and if ultimately approved, some 5,000–6,000 megawatts of new capacity could be permitted for construction by the end of this year. Moreover, our 

analysis indicates that tens of thousands of jobs could be created in the development 

of these projects alone. 

In this same vein, last fall Secretary Salazar and California Governor 

Schwarzenegger announced a memorandum of understanding between the State and 

the Department that will expedite the process of siting, reviewing, approving, and 

permitting renewable energy projects on Department-managed lands in California. 

We must also recognize that the development of transmission capacity for this 

new energy production is a crucial element. Developing solar and other renewable 

energy resources, which are often located in remote areas, will require new transmission capacity to bring this clean energy to the population centers where it is 

needed. The Department has already identified and designated more than 5,000 

miles of transmission corridors on the lands it manages to facilitate the siting and 

permitting of transmission lines in the right ways and in the right places, and we 

are processing more than 30 applications for major transmission corridor rights-ofway on the lands we manage, with 7 applications in Idaho, California, and Nevada 

that could add more than 1,000 miles of new transmission, on the ‘‘fast track’’ to 

potential permitting this year. 

This administration is working smartly to cut through bureaucratic barriers. In 

October 2009, the administration announced that 9 Federal agencies, including Interior, had signed a memorandum of understanding designed to expedite the siting 

and permitting of electric transmission projects on Federal lands. This agreement 

commits the participating agencies to close coordination and a number of procedures 

to improve the Federal process under existing authorities, including establishing a 

single point of contact for all required Federal authorizations. 

BUDGET

The 2011 budget supports our efforts to create clean sources of energy using the 

Nation’s vast domestic resources. The New Energy Frontier initiative invests $73.3 

million in renewable energy programs, an increase of $14.2 million more than 2010. 

The initiative includes $3 million for BLM to focus on the environmental elements 

of renewable energy projects, $3.2 million for MMS region-specific planning needs, 

$3 million for U.S. Geological Survey to analyze and document the effects of renewable energy on wildlife populations, $4 million for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

carry out endangered species consultation and other wildlife conservation efforts 

and provide timely environmental review of projects, and $1 million for Bureau of 

Indian Affairs to support renewable energy development efforts on tribal lands. 

The Department has a High Priority Performance Goal to increase approved capacity for solar, wind, and geothermal energy resources on Interior-managed lands, 

while ensuring full environmental review, by at least 9,000 megawatts by the end 

of 2011. 

The Department is redoubling efforts to evaluate existing applications for renewable energy projects. The BLM is currently processing approximately: 

—130 applications for utility-scale solar projects that involve approximately 

77,000 megawatts and 1.2 million acres of public land; 
71 

—22 geothermal development plans that total 761 MW; 

—249 applications for wind energy applications—207 for testing; and 

—42 applications for wind energy projects that involve 5,861 MW. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department’s Renewable 

Energy program and thank you for your leadership to advance responsible renewable energy development. This is a breakthrough time for the Nation’s energy future. We will continue to work with you to ensure a balance between meeting the 

Nation’s energy needs and careful stewardship of our natural and cultural resources, in partnership with local communities across the country. This concludes 

my written statement. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

ENERGY

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. 

Mr. Secretary, because of the time and we have these votes, I am 

going to take my budget questions and send them to you and would 

appreciate a response in writing and go right to the energy questions, of which there are many, but I will do just one or two with 

my time. 

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA DESERTS

More than 100 developments—energy—have been proposed for 

California’s deserts, and less than 5 have even begun the formal 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting process. So 

here is the question. How many pending applications to develop the 

California desert stand before BLM today? How many have begun 

the formal NEPA review? And how many do you expect BLM to 

complete reviewing by the end of this year? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Senator Feinstein, total solar projects in the 

California desert are 52. Under formal NEPA review at this time, 

there are nine. We expect to be able to have nine of those approved 

by the end of the year. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay, good. 

How many of the solar development proposals in fast-track permitting would be halted by the legislation I have submitted, the 

Mohave Trails National Monument, and other provisions of the 

Desert Protection Act which I authored in the 1990s? And how 

many acres of the solar study zones overlap the proposed monument? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Senator Feinstein, let me just say we have 

been working closely with you to avoid conflicts between the siting 

of these solar facilities and the areas that need protection, and I 

think our staffs have essentially come up with agreement on the 

boundaries so we can avoid conflicts to the maximum extent. There 

may be some projects that are affected, but I think at the end of 

the day, we have come to understand your legislation is exactly 

what our approach is, that there are right places for there to be 

development, and there are places where we ought not to have development. I think in working closely with you and the stakeholders in southern California, we have achieved that balance 

under your legislation. 

I will say this. Overall, our goal is by the end of this year, 2010, 

December 1, because of the economic recovery program efforts, we 

want to have permitted approximately 5,000 megawatts of renew-
72 

able energy power across the western landscape, and much of that 

is in California, Nevada, and Arizona. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. My understanding—because we 

have worked together, I wanted to get you on the record—is that 

there are zero projects affected by fast-track permitting that would 

be halted, and in terms of acres of the solar study zones overlapping the monument, there are zero acres there as well. 

Secretary SALAZAR. David, will you confirm that fact? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

SOLAR DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING

Solar development permitting requires completion of spring biological surveys. As spring approaches, will BLM require all developers proposing development on public land to either complete necessary spring biological studies or give up their applications? The 

question is why or why not? 

Secretary SALAZAR. It is the first time, Senator Feinstein, that 

somebody raises the question with such specificity, but only the 

chairman of this subcommittee would do that in terms of the spring 

efforts that have to be done. 

We are working very hard with the applicants of these projects 

and with our sister Federal agencies to make sure the EIS process 

is followed. We are tracking each of the projects within the 34 listed projects for fast-track possibility, and we want to make sure we 

are not doing anything that is in conflict with environmental legal 

requirements. If the work has to be done in the spring, I am certain that is what is being done. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. Because we believe there is a provision 

that the work has to be done, and what you are telling me is that 

will then be the requirement. Is that right? 

Secretary SALAZAR. If that is the requirement of the law, that is 

what we shall do. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. 

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS

What are the criteria that the BLM will use with regard to endangered species impacts, viewshed impacts, water use impacts, 

cultural impacts, and other impacts on the public land? 

Secretary SALAZAR. What we have tried to do is to minimize 

those impacts, and so as David Hayes testified, our approach has 

been to be smart from the start and to be proactive in planning. 

I think in the past, before this administration, essentially what 

would happen is that applications would be taken in and they 

would be processed without a sense of where it was appropriate to 

do the development. Through our efforts, including the programmatic EIS with respect to solar, the one with respect to wind, 

and the other environmental planning efforts that we have underway, we want to essentially zone out those areas where we think 

we have the greatest promise for renewable energy development. 

When we look at the Western States, the programmatic EIS is covering about 23 million acres of land. As we go through that effort 

and as we burrow down even further, we hopefully will be able to 

isolate those areas where there is conflict so we can have more of 
73 

a green light with respect to those areas that are appropriate for 

renewable energy development, as we have with your monument 

legislation. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. Your work is very 

much appreciated. Thank you. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Secretary, you mentioned 5,000 megawatts of energy. You 

mean 5,000 megawatts of capacity or actual production? 

Secretary SALAZAR. It is 5,000 megawatts of permitted energy 

projects. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, but if it is a solar or wind project, 

they only operate about a one-third of the time. So it would probably be more accurate to say if it is 5,000 megawatts of capacity, 

it would be 1,500, 1,700, or 1,800 megawatts of actual production, 

or about the equivalent of 2 nuclear reactors. 

Secretary SALAZAR. What we are talking about is the total that 

would be developed from any of these energy projects. So, Senator 

Alexander, my understanding has always been if we are developing 

a 350 megawatt solar power project in the deserts of the Southwest, that it will produce 350 megawatts. And so, yes, when there 

are clouds that come over, you do not have the sun, you are not 

going to have that kind of power being produced. What is expected—with each of these applications—is that is the total quantum they would produce on an annual basis. 

Senator ALEXANDER. The point I am leading to is that we often 

talk with renewable energy about 1,000 megawatts of electricity for 

wind and solar when only a one-third of that is actually produced 

by comparison with a coal plant or a gas plant or a nuclear powerplant where the electricity is produced 90 percent of the time. 

So as an example, based on my computation—and I would like 

to discuss wind in the same way that Senator Feinstein discussed 

solar—in order to produce 20 percent of our electricity from wind 

turbines, it would take 186,000 wind turbines, which would cover 

an area the size of West Virginia, but it would only take 100 reactors covering 100 square miles, which is the reason why some conservation groups are becoming concerned about the so-called renewable energy sprawl. 

I am happy, A, that you are focusing on treasured landscapes 

and, B, that the President—over the last 6 weeks—has begun to 

take significant steps to encourage nuclear power because it has 

less impact on the landscape. The scale of it is so small. 

SITING

In the case of the wind turbines, as Mr. Hayes mentioned, if we 

had 186,000 wind turbines, we would need about 19,000 miles of 

transmission lines, whereas if we had 100 new reactors, we would 

need almost no new transmission lines because they could go over 

existing lines. 

So my questions would be, as I understand today’s policy, we do 

not site new energy projects in National Parks or refuges. Is that 

correct? 
74 

Secretary SALAZAR. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And would that also be true with new renewable energy projects? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Senator Alexander, there are renewable energy projects that we do have on wildlife refuges or National Parks. 

They are the kinds of small solar or even small wind projects that 

essentially produce electricity for those refuges. We do not have 

commercial scale kinds of facilities. 

But if I may take your question because I think this is the broader question. What are you planning to do with renewable energy 

and how does that tie into the whole energy plan of the administration? The President has been clear from day one that a comprehensive energy plan needs to have a very broad portfolio. Yes, he has 

taken a strong position with respect to nuclear. We will have an 

oil and gas component, as we have executed that program in the 

last year. But renewable energy and clean energy is very much a 

part of that energy future. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I do not want to be rude, but I only have 

a minute left. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Your point on intermittency with respect to 

wind and to solar is part of what we have to do as we create a 

Smart Grid system to make sure we address that issue. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Senator ALEXANDER. My concern is especially with the ridges of 

the Eastern United States, as you know, because we have talked 

about it because they are the only place, except for the coastlines, 

where wind works well. And in the Southeastern United States, it 

barely works at all. We have spent more than a century and billions of dollars of public and private money protecting these landscapes and these areas. 

For example, the Appalachian Trail runs 2,178 miles from Georgia to Maine, and were we to run a row of 50-story wind turbines 

adjacent to the trail, it would only equal the power produced by 

four nuclear reactors and we would still need the reactors for when 

the wind does not blow. 

So my question would be, are you considering in the East, as a 

part of your treasured landscape, finding ways to protect the Appalachian Trail specifically and its viewscapes from large 50-story 

wind turbines and leaving the production of carbon-free electricity 

to other forms of electricity that might not interfere with that 

viewscape? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Our own view, Senator Alexander, is there 

are appropriate places for siting the wind-energy potential and 

places that we ought to protect. I know, for example, that you will 

not see wind turbines in the viewsheds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park or the ridge lines that I know you have protected. 

It is a very legitimate question. As we stand up renewable energy, whether it is wind or solar, do you want it to be everywhere? 

The answer to that is no. There are places where it ought not to 

be, and that is why smart from the start is really the way to go 

with respect to renewable energy. 
75 

Senator ALEXANDER. Madam Chairman, I have a letter to the 

Secretary which I will give to him and I will submit my other questions in writing. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I want to thank the Secretary for being here today. It is always good to see you and, David Hayes and Pamela Haze, thank 

you for being here too and the rest of your team, Mr. Secretary. I 

very much appreciated the opportunity to visit. 

First of all, I need to ask how many folks do you have in the Department of the Interior. How many folks work there? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Approximately 70,000. 

MONUMENT MEMO

Senator TESTER. Seventy thousand. There has been concern in 

Montana about a leaked memo by one of those 70,000 people on national monuments. Being from the West yourself, you probably understand those concerns. In fact, I am sure you do. 

So I guess my first question is, are there any plans to designate 

national monuments in Montana by the Department? 

Secretary SALAZAR. The answer to that is there are no plans that 

we have to move forward. There have been no directions from the 

White House that we move forward with the monument designation. It obviously is a Presidential exercise of authority. 

What there have been conversations about, Senator Tester, are 

the same kinds of conversations I have had with many of you on 

this subcommittee over the last year, and that is in 2010, it is 

about 102 years after President Roosevelt called the leaders of 

America together to essentially launch the conservation agenda, 

which has made America very unique. That is the kind of conversation and dialogue we hope to be able to have with people across the 

country, including the people of Montana, and we will do that with 

you and with State and local and private landowners in your State. 

Senator TESTER. We will appreciate it. 

Just to follow up, so that if there is any sort of activity like that 

going on, public input on the ground would be sought out by your 

Department. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Absolutely. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. 

MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS

Another issue similar. There has also been talk about possible 

land agreements along the Missouri River breaks. Some folks are 

fired up about the Department coming in and actively planning to 

pursue purchase along the Missouri River in the breaks region. Do 

you know, is this something that is real or is it something that is 

not real? Does the Department plan on buying land in the breaks? 

Secretary SALAZAR. I am not aware that there is any such plan, 

Senator Tester. The fact again here is that the best way these 

things work is exactly the kind of effort many members of this subcommittee were involved in, and that was the passage of the Public 

Lands Management Act of 2009. For me, that was the first chapter 

of the America great outdoors agenda. All the pieces that were in-
76 

cluded in that legislation, which included some 2 million acres of 

wilderness, 1,200 miles of wild and scenic rivers, National Park improvements, and a whole host of other things, it was members of 

this subcommittee that were driving that legislation based on what 

the local community wanted. That is what we intend to do. 

ABANDONED MINES

Senator TESTER. Moving over to abandon mines, the AML was 

zeroed this year, as it was in last year’s budget. There are many 

in Montana, as there are in California and throughout the West. 

In Montana, we have a law that requires Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act funds to be used for cleanup. We cannot use 

it for funding education or prisons or anything like that. If it comes 

in from the Federal Government, it has to be used for mine cleanup. 

Could you give me any sort of perspective on how we could get 

this money reinstated and if you think it would be a wise thing to 

be reinstated if the States were required to use it for mine cleanup? 

Secretary SALAZAR. This is one of those tough choices kinds of 

questions because we are in the process of deficit reduction and trying to keep our budget controlled. We looked at the coal mine dollars that were coming back, and saw that those monies were supposed to be going for coal mine reclamation. We know what happens is it ends up shorting States like Montana and others who are 

using that money for reclamation of abandoned mines. It is a huge 

issue in this subcommittee, including Senator Feinstein, who have 

taken a huge lead role in addressing the problem that we have 

with tens of thousands of abandoned mines in the West. 

So at the end of the day, it is an appropriation issue. We did our 

best in the administration to try to come up with a way of moving 

forward. So let me just leave it at that. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY PILOT OFFICES

David Hayes talked about renewable energy, and I appreciate 

your perspective on that. Over the last year, pilot offices have been 

opened up in Wyoming, Arizona, California, and Nevada for renewable energy projects to help streamline those projects to get 

through the redtape, so to speak. I think there is a tremendous 

amount of opportunity, and I think your Department and your 

leadership by Secretary Salazar has been critically important. 

Is there a plan to expand and have more pilot offices other than 

just those four States? And the reason I ask is because Montana 

has incredible wind opportunities, not just on the ridges, but also 

on the flats that blows well. Is there any opportunity to help? Because I think those pilot offices are critically important if we are 

going to get—when you talk about transmission, generation—and 

you can defer to Mr. Hayes, if you want, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Senator, we actually have a special team dedicated 

to Western States. We are using the four offices as satellites, but 

there are teams in important Western States working closely. 
77 

We are very aware of the special opportunities in your State and 

we will work with the existing offices. I am sure we would be delighted to open up additional offices as well, but we are finding 

these offices are working well in the States where they do not 

physically reside, as well as the ones where they do. 

Senator TESTER. We will work you. I would just say that I think 

that we have tremendous opportunity, as the Secretary has pointed 

out, and I do not want to see that opportunity go by the wayside. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I think all of us are going to brag to you about the strength of 

our wind resources in our States, whether it is Montana or Maine. 

But, Mr. Secretary, Deputy Secretary Hayes, as you know, my 

State of Maine has some of the strongest offshore wind resources 

in the Nation, as well as the scientific and manufacturing capacity 

to lead the Nation in developing new composite materials for deep 

water offshore wind turbines. And I would say to my dear friend 

from Tennessee that an advantage of offshore wind is you do not 

have the aesthetic issues that you do with onshore wind. In addition, deep water offshore wind is much stronger and more persistent than some of the onshore wind sites. So in Maine, we are 

very excited about the possibility of leading not only the Nation but 

the world in the development of deep water offshore wind. 

FEDERAL PERMITTING

But to realize that vision, we need improvements in the Federal 

permitting process. The offshore wind industry, a coalition of offshore wind groups, just recently issued a white paper in which they 

estimate that the process that the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) uses would take some 71⁄2 years for a qualified offshore 

wind developer who submits an initial application today to secure 

the regulatory approvals needed to start construction. I am told 

that this is more than three times the period that is required to 

permit a typical gas turbine plant, and it is longer than the anticipated timeline to grant a permit to a new nuclear plant. 

I am very concerned about that long delay because we see China 

leaping ahead in the development of alternative energy. We see 

England taking a lead in permitting offshore wind. I do not want 

our country to lose the edge in the development of alternative energy, particularly offshore wind, because our permitting process is 

so slow and cumbersome. 

So I would ask both of you whether you are looking at the industry’s suggestions for reducing that long permitting process. For example, it is my understanding that MMS currently requires two 

EIS, one for getting the lease for the area and a second to begin 

construction. Is the Department looking at ways to shorten that 

permitting process, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Senator Collins, the answer to that is absolutely yes, and it is absolutely unacceptable that any Government 

process like this should take 3 to 9 years. In the onshore area, for 
78 

example, we are fast-tracking projects where we will have permits 

by December of this year. 

Three things just briefly on Atlantic offshore wind. 

One is we are working with the Governors of the Atlantic States 

to develop a consortium to develop offshore wind all along the Atlantic. 

Two, there are huge opportunities with respect to transmission 

in the Atlantic that essentially would allow for the flowering of the 

offshore wind in the Atlantic, and we are very hopeful we can move 

forward with that. 

Three, I have charged a group of people, led by David Hayes and 

Steve Black, to come up with recommendations on how we can redo 

the process with respect to permitting in the offshore wind. 

To the extent we require legislative assistance, we will be back 

to the Congress to get that assistance, but in the meantime, I believe there are ways in which we can shorten that process by borrowing some of the same processes we are using on the onshore. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

I also hope that as MMS looks at leasing opportunities on the 

OCS for renewable resources, that you will revise the draft regulations which do not include the Gulf of Maine at this time. We obviously need to protect sensitive fishing grounds, but that is a very 

large area. And I have submitted formal comments on those issues, 

and I hope you will revise the list of potential areas to include the 

area off the coast of Maine for renewable energy. I hope to see that 

in the final version. 

Madam Chairman, I know my time has expired. I will submit the 

rest of my questions for the record. 

Mr. Secretary, let me just end by thanking you for coming to 

Acadia National Park last summer for that wonderful visit. I want 

to join Senator Feinstein in applauding your use of Recovery Act 

monies, including the most recent $4.7 million for the Schoodic Environmental Research Center, which you toured this summer. So 

thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Collins. 

Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, it is always good to see you. You are dear friend 

and it is nice to see Mr. Hayes and Ms. Haze here with you. 

Senator LEAHY. You can note for the record those last names are 

spelled differently. 

And you are always welcome to come visit Vermont if you would 

like to. 

Secretary SALAZAR. I will be there. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, and I will welcome you there. 

FULL FUNDING FOR LWCF

I am glad to see in the budget request that you put us on track 

to fully fund the LWCF by 2014. These are very needed funds for 

national parks and refuges. They protect endangered species habitat. They promote outdoor recreation. What it does is preserve land 

for our children and our grandchildren. If you make a mistake and 

preserve too much, you can always sell it back, but you do not get 

to get it if it is not preserved in the first place. It has been in the 
79 

budget for far too long. So I am glad to see your efforts to put it 

back into full funding. 

WHITE-NOSE BAT SYNDROME

Let me talk to you about an issue that involves me and unfortunately is about to involve Tennessee and many other States. Our 

last few winters have been very serious but not for the obvious reasons. We have experienced a die-off in our bat population of historic proportions. Adrienne is putting up a map over there showing 

the spread of white-nose syndrome of bats. It was first discovered 

in our bat population in 2007. It has now spread infected every 

hibernacula in my State. Populations have been completely wiped 

out. It has caused the steepest decline in North American wildlife 

in the past century and has killed more than 1 million bats in the 

last 4 years. 

Why should you think this is important? Well, of course, any 

farmer will tell you how extremely important bats are because they 

eat crop pests, and if you lose all these bats, it is going to have 

very damaging, probably irrevocable effect on our agriculture. Last 

year it spread 450 miles in a single winter. It is now documented 

in 10 States. Biologists feel it soon will reach the largest colonies 

of endangered Indiana gray and Virginia big-eared bats. It was 

confirmed, as I mentioned, in a Tennessee cave just last month. 

These stories are horrendous. I have photographs which I will 

leave for you and your staff of just how horrible it is. 

A significant investment is required to work on this. We are 

going to have just a huge, probably hundreds of millions of dollars 

worth of damage in crops and in human health if we do not stop 

this. It is so interrelated. 

Where we on this issue, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Senator Leahy, thank you for your leadership 

on the LWCF and on Vermont issues. I will want to visit one of 

the wildlife refuges in Vermont here this year and hopefully I can 

do it with you when you are available. 

With respect to the bat issue, it is something which has been 

raised to us. It is something we are very aware of. FWS and the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), along with the NPS, are 

allocating in this budget $2 million to continue to do research and 

to understand what is happening with the bat issue. It has become 

a much more high-level issue in the last year because we understand the statistics, including the morbidity rates that you have 

been talking about. We will look at it and try to do as much as we 

can. 

Senator LEAHY. I would urge accelerating whatever you are 

doing because it is basically an epidemic. People do not think of 

bats until they start realizing just how much it does in the balance 

of nature. Again, agricultural areas are just going to be devastated, 

but obviously you are going to find human populations are affected 

because of the huge increase in flying pests and the chance for 

more cases of West Nile virus. 

LAKE MEMPHREMAGOG

Also, I will take a moment to talk about the opportunity for the 

Department to conserve more than 400 acres of ecologically signifi-
80 

cant lakefront property on the border between Vermont and Quebec, Canada on Lake Memphremagog. Nevermind the spelling. We 

will get that to you. This land was bequeathed to the Federal Government at no cost—it is 400 acres—provided only the ownership 

transfers prior to September of this year. Otherwise, it is going to 

be given to a secondary beneficiary and likely to be subdivided and 

so forth. 

Now, you and the Northeast Regional Director, Marvin Moriarty, 

all the FWS staff have been working hard to do this. But the clock 

is ticking. We have 6 months. I mean, it is free land, one of the 

most beautiful areas between the United States and Canada from 

a very generous donor. Will you kindly nudge everybody to keep 

this moving? My office will help anyway we can because once that 

deadline comes, this is gone. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Senator Leahy, we are days away from completing the process and days away from the decision. We will get 

it done. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, thank you very much. Did we pass out this map? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It went down this way. 

Senator LEAHY. Oh, good. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I know Senator Reed is very interested in 

bats and he would like to see that. 

Senator LEAHY. Listen, we can joke about it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am not joking. 

Senator LEAHY. Nor am I, this thing is devastating. It is going 

to destroy agriculture in some part of this country—I mean, we are 

going to see our apple orchards disappear. We are going to see a 

lot of our grain crops disappear. It is just unbelievable how white 

nose syndrome has spread so rapidly. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much for your advocacy, 

Senator. 

Next is Senator Cochran. 

Senator COCHRAN. There is no relationship between the bat out 

of hell and your role in Batman. Was there? 

Senator LEAHY. No. I was a good guy. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your 

cooperation and attention to the interests of the members of the 

subcommittee. We especially appreciate your visit to Mississippi. I 

remember going with you to the Vicksburg National Military Park 

and visiting the old courthouse there, historic assets, resources that 

make our State, and I am sure every State in the Union is proud 

of heritage and history, to keep these sites accessible to visitors so 

they may continue to enjoy the natural beauty, as well as historical 

points of interest around our great country. 

NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY

The Natchez Trace Parkway is a very important artery for visitors coming to our State. They go from the northeast corner down 

to the Natchez area on the Mississippi River. We hope we can continue to support that, the maintenance of it, and make sure it is 

a place that is attractive to the visiting public. Your assistance in 

that regard continues to be appreciated. 
81 

SAM HAMILTON

I was glad you mentioned Sam Hamilton. We regret his passing, 

our wonderful friend and a great contributor to our appreciation of 

natural resources and protecting our ecosystems in our State and 

throughout the country. His sudden death was a great shock to us 

all. We are going to suggest that the North Mississippi National 

Wildlife Refuge complex be named in his honor. We hope that you 

can support that as well. 

COASTAL RESTORATION

Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, and we have been 

working and I know you have too in coastal restoration. Thank you 

for your leadership, and we hope that this budget request will contain support for that important work to replenish barrier islands 

to keep a good working relationship going between the NPS and 

the Corps of Engineers, which is essential to expeditiously completing that important project. 

So I look forward to your testimony. Thank you very much for 

being here to help us understand your request. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. 

I think Mississippi does demonstrate how this Department really 

is the Department of the Americas. When we think about the great 

wildlife values and national park facilities that we have in your 

State, it is something that makes us very proud. 

We thank you for honoring Sam Hamilton both in life and now 

and look forward to working with you in terms of how we honor 

a man who understood that the matter of conservation was not a 

Republican or a Democrat or any other kind of affiliation. It was 

a matter of doing it right and working with local communities in 

the creation of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Much of 

what you see in this budget with respect to Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and climate change essentially was the brain 

child of Sam Hamilton. 

Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. 

Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your leadership in the Department. 

ATLANTIC WIND ENERGY POTENTIAL

I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Collins 

about the potential for wind in the Atlantic. We are in Rhode Island at the stage of trying to get some projects off the ground, and 

you have been very, very helpful. You recently convened all the 

governors to talk about how the States can cooperate with your 

agency. 

We, in Rhode Island, have been working with a joint Federal/ 

State task force to do a request for interest (RFI) for a Federal 

lease, and we have had conflicting advice from MMS. And we have 

been forced to revise this document twice. At the same time, the 

State of Massachusetts has been promulgating their request without coordination with Rhode Island. 
82 

I know there has been some, because of your work, better collaboration between the States, but it does raise several questions. 

One is how is MMS working to minimize these conflicts between 

the States of sharing information and also of insisting that there 

be thorough analysis of the topography and the subsurface elements. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Senator Reed, you raise a very important 

question, and I agree with the inference that we could, in fact, do 

much better. I would just say that it is important to note the historical context of this, that before I became Secretary of the Interior, there were no rules and really no program for offshore wind. 

David Hayes led the effort with Jon Wellinghoff from FERC to address the bureaucratic logjam that essentially allowed us to move 

forward with the framework. The framework is still a work in 

progress. It is not perfect, and that is why we have charged MMS— 

and I am personally involved in this—to work with the States to 

come up with a template on how we are going to move forward. 

In the context of all the things I work on, standing up the renewable offshore wind capacity off the Atlantic is close to the very top 

of the priorities, and we will not leave any stone unturned to make 

sure that we do it better. We already have the working group with 

the States to try to figure out how we can minimize those conflicts. 

Senator REED. I thank you for that, Mr. Secretary. One of the aspects of Rhode Island that we feel gives us a good foundation to 

begin this process is for the last several years, going back 2 or 

more years, we have conducted a special area management plan 

study. We have basically looked very closely at the subsurface geological characteristics. We have integrated with fishing grounds, et 

cetera. I think we might be as far ahead as anyone. 

I think that factor is not being considered enough by MMS in 

terms of what they are doing. For example, I do not think our sister States, Massachusetts and others, are that far ahead yet. They 

still are sort of submitting their RFIs and going ahead. So I think, 

again, in this process of trying to rationalize what is being done, 

credit for recognition of the scientific basis of these proposals 

should be much greater. And I think you agree. 

Secretary SALAZAR. I agree. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

ATLANTIC RENEWABLE OFFICE

Let me also say you have indicated that you are going to create 

an Atlantic office for renewable energy. Do you have any idea 

where that is going to be? 

Secretary SALAZAR. It is going to be in one of the Atlantic States. 

Senator REED. So it is from Caribou, Maine to Key West, Florida. 

We have narrowed it down? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Yes. Actually, Senator Reed, there are a 

number of criteria that we are looking at. The bottom line is the 

principle that will drive us in the decision to locate this office will 

be how we make it the most effective office, and that means having 

an office that can essentially communicate with all of the different 

stakeholders along the Atlantic States. We are close to that decision. Stay tuned for lots of announcements we will be making with 

respect to offshore wind in the months ahead. 
83 

Senator REED. Yes. Given the interest, obviously, of not just Senator Collins, but I think many members of the subcommittee, I 

think we would all like a fair opportunity to advance our recommendations. And I know you will make the decision and you will 

make it based upon what you believe is the best and most effective 

means to carry out your policy. But there is a great deal of interest 

not in my home State alone but up and down the coast in terms 

of getting this. I think part of it is because of what we have talked 

about previously, this sense that it is difficult to coordinate with 

MMS, that it is a voice at the end of a phone that sometimes is 

not the same voice, all these things. 

So the location of this facility will signal but also that I presume 

will be the place where we will all have to go and coordinate. It 

will be sort of the direct service. Is that your concept, sort of onestop shopping? 

Secretary SALAZAR. It is and it is to provide a focal point for the 

coordination of these issues on the Atlantic offshore wind, many of 

which you have raised as problems that we currently are facing. 

We are moving forward with the hiring. We really should not be 

moving forward with the hiring until you know where the location 

of the office is going to be. 

Senator REED. Well, I am simply defending Senator Collins’ 

rights. That is all I am doing. 

Secretary SALAZAR. We are on the case. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

Senator Bennett. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, last week we had a discussion about the monuments and the Antiquities Act, and I am delighted to have Senator 

Tester join with me. And I appreciate your answer to him being the 

same one that you gave to me. 

OIL AND GAS

I want to turn now to another issue that I am sure will not come 

as a surprise, and that is oil and gas. The primary issues that we 

are faced with right now in the country are jobs and the deficit. 

Those are the two things I hear the most about when I am out 

campaigning. Where are the jobs? What are you doing to get us 

those jobs? And gee, we hate all this Government spending. We 

hate the size of the deficit. 

I think the two are interrelated with respect to oil and gas. 

Maybe some do not understand it, but the revenues that come from 

oil and natural gas, next to the income tax, are the largest source 

of revenue in the Federal Government. The program pays for itself 

many times over. The study I have seen says that the onshore oil 

and gas program generates $46 for every $1 spent on the program 

and $123 when you factor in income and other taxes, income paid 

by people who are working in the industry by the companies, et 

cetera. It is pretty tough to come up with any example of a Federal 

program that can produce $146 return on every $1 spent. And of 

course, there are jobs. 
84 

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL FEES

Now, your budget proposes a significant increase in the application for a permit to drill fee, a new nonproducing lease fee, a new 

inspection fee, a rulemaking for onshore royalty rate increase, and 

new taxes on the oil and gas industry. 

Now, I am a businessman and when we have a problem with a 

product, you do not raise prices on it in an effort to have it move 

more. And we have something here that we want to continue, and 

yet with all of these increased fees and increased prices, I think 

there is going to be an impact both on the jobs and on the amount 

of money that the Federal Government receives because we have 

already seen in my home State with the reaction to what has been 

done in the areas that we have talked to Mr. Hayes about companies saying, well, we are just not going to fool with dealing with 

the Federal Government. We are going to take our rigs and we are 

going to go someplace else, and they move from Utah to Oklahoma 

or Texas or some other places. 

And now you are saying, well, if you do stay on Federal lands, 

we are going to charge you significantly more by virtue of this. And 

we have a tremendous unemployment problem and jobs in Uintah 

County and Duchesne County as this industry dries up. 

My question is, has there been any analysis, economic, statistical 

analysis, of what will happen to revenue reductions both in State 

and Federal treasuries, because the State gets a lot of revenue 

from this, as a result of this increase in fees? 

Secretary SALAZAR. I appreciate the questions you asked last 

week on monuments and the question you asked today on oil and 

gas. Our job, as I see it as the Secretary of the Interior, is to make 

sure taxpayers are getting their fair return. When you look at the 

statistics relative to the number of acreage that has been leased on 

the onshore, as well as on the offshore, in the last year, it is apace 

with what was done in the previous 8 years. 

When you look at the fees we are collecting, those fees I believe 

are fees that are affordable by the oil and gas industry. The economic downturn we have seen with respect to oil and gas has been 

driven simply because of the lower cost of natural gas, not because 

of the fees. The $6,500 permit application, APD fee, that we charge 

that was in last year’s budget and it is in this year’s budget again. 

It is a tough budget and we are trying to make tough choices. 

As we look at these things, it is important we are doing it from 

a rational, economic point of view. I had the BLM and economists 

in the Department of the Interior look at ways in which we are 

making sure we are getting a fair return for the taxpayers. For example, the 12.5 percent royalty that is paid onshore by an oil and 

gas producer has been the same royalty that has been in place 

since 1920 when the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act was passed. It was 

then called the King’s share. It still could be called the King’s 

share today. You compare that to what is being paid to the States, 

whether it is Texas, somewhere in the range of 20 percent, or 

South Dakota, there is room for economic analysis to make sure we 

are getting it right here, and that is what we are trying to do. 

Senator BENNETT. Let me just quickly, Madam Chairman, take 

the Texas example. If you make an application in Texas to drill on 
85 

State land, the application is approved in about 19 or 20 days. People who have been trying to get leases done in Utah have filed resource management plans that have taken 7 years to come to fruition, going back to what Senator Collins had to say about her circumstances, and then as we know, some of those after 7 years have 

been turned down by you when you became and now you have put 

in additional delays. 

I think they would be happy to pay a 20 percent royalty if they 

could get on the ground within 19 days. It is the combination of 

the increased fees for which they get no services. If you get something for what you pay, they are willing to pay. But I do not think 

it is really a fair comparison between what is happening in the 

States that use their money to facilitate this, create the jobs, and 

get the revenue, then Federal Government that, at least in my 

State keeps delaying, delaying, and delaying, and now increases 

the cost. 

I would appreciate it if you would do a careful analysis of the impact of this on jobs, as well as the overall impact on revenue because it is one thing to say we are increasing the percentage, but 

a higher percentage of nothing produces a whole lot less revenue 

than a lower percentage of something that is moving forward. And 

I have the fear that this is what is happening, at least in my State 

with respect to oil and gas. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary SALAZAR. If I may, Madam Chairman, just a quick response, Senator Bennett. I very much look forward to working with 

you and others on the ground to get it right. I think what we have 

seen is that in the prior administration, the last year, 49 percent 

of the oil and gas leases were protested, and so when we have 7- 

year delays it is because of litigation that ensues because it is not 

being done right. 

Senator BENNETT. The 7 years to produce the RMP had nothing 

to do with the environmental suits. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Going back to the principle that Director 

Abbey and I are driving here is we want to get it smart from the 

start, and I think by knowing where oil and gas production is going 

to take place is something that we ought to be able to do to provide 

more certainty to the oil and gas producers. That is part of what 

we are trying to do with the rules and the outreach that Director 

Abbey and Assistant Secretary Lewis are doing, including going 

back to Utah and having additional conversations with organizations like IPAMS and others about how we can get it right. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First of all, Secretary Salazar, it is good to see you. I appreciate 

your being here today. It is always good to have you back on the 

Hill among your friends, and we appreciate your good work. Working with you in the Senate was a pleasure, and it is becoming a 

pleasure working with you in your new role. 
86 

RED WILLOW CREEK DAM

I want to take just a moment to note a Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR) issue. I know we do not fund the bureau in this subcommittee, but it is an issue I want to mention briefly while I have 

the chance because just yesterday I sent a letter to the BOR Commissioner, Michael Connor, regarding in my home area the Red 

Willow County dam. This is located on Red Willow Creek, approximately 11 miles northwest of my hometown of McCook, Nebraska. 

Unfortunately, during an inspection last fall, multiple cracks 

were discovered throughout the 126-foot earth fill embankment 

which impounds up to 85,000 acre-feet of water to form Hugh Butler Lake. And in response, the bureau has had to lower the lake 

to levels last seen during the drought of 2002 in order to relieve 

stress on the dam. This means that up to 5,000 acres of cropland 

in the Frenchman Cambridge Irrigation District will have no available irrigation water in either 2010 or 2011, and it will inevitably 

lead to financial difficulties for area farmers and communities. 

I know that you know as well as anyone the problems water 

shortages cause Western State growers. I know the bureau is doing 

what it can and what it has to. And I wanted to take the opportunity and say I want to be a partner should there be a role for 

Congress to play to help the bureau execute a plan to repair this 

dam as quickly as possible and mitigate the need for such low 

water levels behind the dam and to extend an offer to be of any 

assistance that I possibly can in the process of fixing this. I know 

you might have some degree of influence there, and to the extent 

that you find that I can, I would appreciate being let know. I am 

sure Mr. Connor will, but I would like to have your attention to it 

as well. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. Let 

me say I have not been to McCook, but I enjoyed our trip together 

to Scottsbluff earlier this year and seeing some of our wildlife refuges and USGS facilities in that area. 

Senator NELSON. Well, if you liked Scottsbluff, you will love 

McCook. 

Secretary SALAZAR. We will come by. 

Let me just say we are aware of the issue. We are evaluating it. 

These are cracks in the dam, so we have public safety issues that 

need to be addressed, and our hope is that we will have the repairs 

underway with the right funding by 2011. There may be ways in 

which we can expedite that, and I will ask the Deputy Secretary, 

David Hayes he and Mike Connor are outstanding working on 

these issues to see whether there is a way in which maybe it could 

be expedited because I recognize that if we are looking at repairs 

in the year 2011, we basically have gone by two irrigation seasons. 

I know how important that is. 

Senator NELSON. We lose two seasons. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Let us see whether there is a way of expediting it, but right now it is on schedule for studies and then repairs for 2011. 

Senator NELSON. Well, thank you. I know you will. I appreciate 

it. 
87 

And as you said, last fall we had the opportunity to be in 

Scottsbluff, you and Secretary Vilsack, to meet with a number of 

our farmers, ranchers, community leaders, and researchers from 

the University of Nebraska as part of the administration’s tour. I 

truly appreciated that opportunity that we all had to discuss the 

vital issue of how communities, States, and the Federal Government can work together to help strengthen rural America. 

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AND USGS COLLABORATION

Part of that visit, the university had engaged with USGS in a 

workshop on water resources and challenges in the area, especially 

in the Sandhills in the northern, central, and western parts of Nebraska, which are so important to our State and the West. And I 

hope that the collaboration between the USGS and the university 

is progressing. If you would, perhaps you would not be able today 

to do it, but if you could, please, and if not, maybe have somebody 

get back to us on what are the next steps to make certain that that 

relationship, that partnership continues in the fine tradition that 

it has started. 

Secretary SALAZAR. We are going fast forward with that, and I 

think that is another great example of how you can take part of 

an ecosystem, as you have done there in Nebraska through the 

University of Nebraska and USGS, and you look at the water 

issues. You look at the land issues and you respect private property 

rights. You respect water rights. At the same time, you move forward with a coherent plan, as the University of Nebraska and 

USGS are doing on the Platte. And so we are full partners and we 

are fully engaged and we want to make it an example for what 

happens all around the country. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, I would have been here earlier except that I 

was on the floor, but you pointed out that I arrived just in time 

for my cameo appearance. I appreciate very much the opportunity, 

and thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. 

We have some time yet, and I have two questions I would like 

to ask, but I also want you to know that Senator Alexander suggested that we have a second hearing really just devoted to energy. 

So we will be doing that, obviously, that which is in our jurisdiction. So I want to alert you that we will be doing that. 

PERMITTING ON PRIVATE LAND

But I want to bring to your attention an issue and that is permitting on private land. As you will recall, the conference report of last 

year’s bill had a statement to the effect that ‘‘the conferees believe 

that renewable energy developers should have less difficulty permitting their projects on disturbed private lands than on pristine 

public lands in order to facilitate greater species protection and 

stewardship of public resources and public lands.’’ That is a direct 

quote from the conference report. 

Now, this problem has not gone away. FWS has stated that permitting a project on private land will take up to 9 years. In contrast, you are pushing, as I understand it, the permitting of public 
88 

land projects down to 18 months, which is great. It is a more reasonable time table. 

Now, we are told by developers that this has gotten so severe 

that developers are searching for ways to avoid FWS. Developers 

tell my staff they scour a private land development site for an isolated desert wetland just so they can have the Army Corps of Engineers be their lead Federal agency. When developers hope to find 

a wetland on their development site, I think that is a sign that the 

permitting process is broken. 

Now, my staff has received an update from FWS. Bottom line, 

the service is making some progress, but really they are not focused on private lands. So I have a series of questions in this area. 

To bring logic to permitting private land projects, the Mohave 

needs a desert conservation plan, and California and FWS are 

drafting such a plan. The goal is to get it done by 2012, but few 

seem to believe that is possible. In fact, the plan is already months 

behind schedule. 

This subcommittee recommended the service consider creating a 

cooperative agreement with California under section 6 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to speed this process up. Can you assure me that this option will be given serious consideration immediately? 

Secretary SALAZAR. The answer is yes, and I will have David amplify on the response. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Excellent. 

Mr. HAYES. Senator, I wanted to thank you and your staff for 

your leadership on this very important point in this very important 

area. I think, with your help, we are prioritizing the importance of 

bringing habitat conservation planning on the ground in California 

so that private projects can move forward. The key is to have a 

global approach to deal with the desert tortoise habitat issues and 

that, of course, is what both section 6 and section 10 of the ESA 

are designed to do. 

I recall being with you, Senator, 8 years ago at Fort Irwin looking at desert tortoises to help the Army expand their facility there. 

We know that with smart conservation approaches we can solve 

these problems and we are committed to do it. 

Let me also say the legislation you have introduced has some 

very good features in this regard, and we look forward to working 

with you on that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. Thank you very much. 

SOLAR DEVELOPMENT

I understand that BLM plans to complete a full NEPA EIS on 

each zone, but that solar development proposed in the zones will 

also go through a project-specific full environmental impact report. 

So a project in the zones would have to complete two full EISs 

while projects in less ideal locations outside the zones would need 

only one EIS. 

Now, we believe you could prevent this by assuring that the first 

EIS is sufficient to meet the project level permitting needs. Is this 

possible and can you make sure that the first EIS is sufficient so 

that a second EIS is not necessary? 
89 

Secretary SALAZAR. The answer is we will expedite the process. 

Actually it is the first EIS that will help us make sure that it is 

expedited. David, the Deputy Secretary, will amplify. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Is that a yes? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Yes. 

Mr. HAYES. Senator, we did a midcourse correction on the programmatic EIS that had begun before we came to office. It was at 

such a high level that we thought it probably would not help at all 

in terms of individual projects. What we have done is now focused 

on these 24 areas. We are bringing more specific levels of review 

there so that individual projects can tier off of that programmatic 

EIS. We are hopeful the NEPA that will be needed for individual 

projects will be far less, often environmental assessments, because 

of the work that has been done on those specific areas. That is the 

whole intent, is to facilitate individual projects not having to go 

through the entire process again. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I think this is really critical because it 

drives people crazy and it is totally unnecessary and it is very costly. So I really appreciate that answer, and I thank you for making 

that change. I think that should be welcome news to everybody. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Senator, if I may just add a supplemental 

footnote to that. Our efforts with respect to renewables have been 

to try to streamline the processes. This is a new world we are operating in, and I am the first to admit we may not have it perfect 

but we are trying to avoid the kind of duplication or waste of investment on the part of the development of renewable energy. We 

are open to improving our processes, but we are committed to making sure that we stand up renewable energy on the onshore and 

the offshore. 

SOLAR STUDIES

Senator FEINSTEIN. Just one quick other thing. You have proposed four solar studies in California covering more than 330,000 

acres, but none of the four areas are in the West Mohave Desert, 

which many biologists point to as an area of less pristine desert 

than the East Mohave. So my question is, would you consider establishing more solar study areas in the West Mohave? 

Secretary SALAZAR. David, go ahead. 

Mr. HAYES. The issue there, Senator, is that there is not as much 

public land on the west side of the Mohave. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Which is what we want to do. I want to protect land—see, I view the fact that the reason the Federal Government has land is to conserve it—— 

Mr. HAYES. Right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. And to protect it, and that there 

is a reason why that land is public land. And now, there is a lot— 

and we have all seen it—of private land that is eminently suitable 

for this. 

Mr. HAYES. Let me just say this fits right into your previous 

question, Senator, which is will we help private developers on private land develop their projects. The answer is yes. In the West 

Mohave, there is much more private land ownership. Just what we 

were talking about before, working through section 6 and section 

10 of the ESA, we will help facilitate those projects as well. This 
90 

initiative the Secretary is talking about is we are interested in 

standing up renewable energy wherever it makes sense, including 

on private lands, most certainly. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. I appreciate that and I thank you both 

very much. 

Senator Cochran. No comments? 

Senator COCHRAN. I have nothing further, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. 

Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Nothing, thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, we are in time for the vote, and let me 

thank both of you. For me, it really is very fine what you are doing. 

You are listening. You are taking in arguments. You are evaluating 

them. And I think we are beginning to make progress in this 

arena. It is unprecedented. When I look back just a year at the 

pile-up of projects and people just went in and took land or wanted 

to submit for land in huge projects, projects the size of which had 

never been done anywhere in the world, and now we are down to 

things that I think are practical and doable on land which is possible for this kind of development. So I really want to thank you 

both for your leadership, and we will continue. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

We will submit questions in writing. The record will remain open 

for 2 days to do that. So thank you very, very much. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS

Question. We have worked together for more than a year to make sure we move 

forward with renewable energy development in a way that protects the most pristine parts of the California desert. As part of that effort, I have proposed the Mojave 

Trails National Monument, and I have endorsed your effort to establish solar study 

zones and to ‘‘fast track’’ permitting of proposed development in locations where 

projects avoid opposition and delay. How many of the solar development proposals 

in ‘‘fast track permitting’’ would be halted by the proposed Mojave Trails National 

Monument or other provisions in California Desert Protection Act of 2010, and how 

many acres of the solar study zones overlap the proposed Monument? 

Answer. There are no ‘‘fast track’’ projects or solar study zones (Solar Energy 

Study Areas (SESAs)) within the boundary of the proposed Mojave Trails National 

Monument. 

Question. In the California Desert Protection Act of 2010, I propose that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) require each developer to complete (1) necessary 

biological field studies; (2) cultural field studies; (3) plans for water; and (4) plans 

to connect to the grid. I proposed that BLM should reject applications of developers 

who are not making progress in these areas and focus resources on the proposals 

that are making serious progress, so that the best sites cannot be held as assets 

by speculative companies. As we discussed at the hearing, Solar development permitting requires completion of spring biological surveys. Will BLM require all developers proposing solar development of public land to either complete necessary biological studies this spring or give up their applications? Why or why not? 

Answer. The BLM’s existing regulations provide the authority to deny right-ofway applications when the proposed use is inconsistent with the BLM’s existing Resource Management Plan, or when the BLM determines the application is deficient. 

The BLM is requiring that applicants submit a plan of development that includes 

the following information necessary to perfect their solar energy right-of-way applications: necessary biological field studies; cultural field studies; plans for water use 
91 

and conservation; plans to connect to the transmission grid; and other proposed design and development information. If applicants fail to meet these requirements, 

their applications will be rejected. 

Question. You have proposed SESAs across the West, including four in California 

covering more than 330,000 acres. I have a few questions about these areas. 

On much of the land in California’s SESAs, developers had already submitted 

right of way applications to develop solar projects on the land before BLM designated them as study areas. Do you intend to prioritize review of these pending 

applications ahead of proposed solar development on BLM lands outside the study 

areas? How do you intend to offer lands within these SESAs for development? Do 

you intend to offer lands within these areas through a competitive process? 

Answer. Of the 330,000 acres of BLM-administered public land within California’s 

SESAs, approximately 154,000 acres are under application for wind or solar development, of which nearly 87,000 acres are being analyzed as BLM ‘‘fast track’’ 

projects. SESAs were identified as areas expected to have fewer resource conflicts. 

Question. If you subject these lands to competitive bidding, how do you intend to 

avoid a bidding situation that increases the cost of renewable energy for California’s 

consumers? 

Answer. As stated previously, no decisions have been made on how to offer lands 

for solar energy development within SESAs, including whether to offer the lands 

through a competitive process. The Department’s goal is to develop a process that 

is environmentally sound, scientifically grounded, and cost effective. 

Question. I understand that BLM plans to complete a full National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on each SESA, and I 

greatly appreciate your assurance during the hearing that you will do everything 

possible to prevent projects proposed within the areas from having to go through 

a second, project-specific full EIS. However, I do not understand how your department intends to execute this plan without completing comprehensive spring biological studies as part of the first, programmatic EIS (PEIS). Please explain what steps 

you are taking to assure that the first EIS will be comprehensive enough to assure 

that projects will be able to ‘‘tier’’ off it, completing project level Environmental Assessments (EAs) that require less review and less delay. 

Answer. The Department is committed to conducting a robust solar PEIS. We are 

taking the following steps to reduce the need for subsequent consultation and clearances for future projects: conducting Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species 

effects analysis for each of the SESAs; identifying potential conservation measures 

at both the PEIS and SESA levels; and utilizing desert tortoise surveys and population estimates provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Site-specific 

work, such as biological surveys, may still be necessary prior to development within 

a solar energy zone to ensure that only the most current data are used for decisionmaking. Our plan is to allow the project-level environmental analysis to tier to the 

PEIS to the greatest extent possible. 

Question. During the hearing, you stated that BLM does not control enough land 

in the West Mojave to justify a SESA. However, according to BLM’s West Mojave 

Plan released in 2006, the ‘‘West Mojave Desert area encompassing 9.3 million acres 

in Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties: 3.3 million acres of public 

lands administered by BLM, 3 million acres of private lands, 102,000 acres administered by the State of California, and the balance of military lands administered by 

the Department of Defense.’’ It surprises me that the Department of the Interior 

does not view any of the 3.3 million BLM acres as appropriate for analysis as a solar 

energy study area, even though this area of the desert is generally considered less 

pristine than the East Mojave, and Federal lands in the West Mojave are still in 

a checker board pattern with private land. Will you ask BLM to analyze the 3.3 million acres it controls in the West Mojave in order to determine whether a SESA 

would be appropriate in this area and report back to the subcommittee within a reasonable time period? 

Answer. Recently, the BLM began actively working with California Department 

of Fish and Game and other wildlife groups to identify suitable SESAs in the West 

Mojave Desert that would have minimal impact on the mojave ground squirrel. Of 

the 3.3 million acres of BLM land in the West Mojave, approximately 70 percent 

is committed to special uses including wilderness, wilderness study areas, desert 

wildlife management areas, the Marines’ Twenty Nine Palms Expansion, off-highway vehicle open areas, habitat management areas, and other conservation areas. 

The remaining 30 percent is mostly noncontiguous BLM lands mixed with private, 

State, and other ownerships which is why close coordination and collaboration with 

others in the area is critical. 

Question. BLM has ‘‘fast tracked’’ permitting of 10 solar projects in California in 

order to help these projects qualify for the ‘‘Treasury Grants program,’’ establishing 
92 

in section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that expires at the 

end of 2010. Is it your understanding that many solar projects in California will not 

be built unless they are able to claim the treasury grants program? Do you agree 

that extending this program, as I have proposed in the Renewable Energy Incentive 

Act, would allow far more solar projects to be financially viable? 

Answer. The Department defers to the Department of the Treasury regarding 

these incentives. 

Question. BLM is currently permitting solar and wind projects on BLM land 

under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Under the statute, 

what criteria must BLM use to determine whether or not to grant a right of way 

use to a private entity? On what substantive grounds can BLM turn down an application if it has been properly submitted? What standard of review determines 

whether or not an applicant will be granted a right of way use authorization? 

Answer. The BLM processes wind and solar right-of-way applications consistent 

with the requirements of title V of FLPMA and its implementing regulations (43 

CFR 2800). Under FLPMA, before the BLM approves any right-of-way, it must find 

the use to be consistent with the Resource Management Plan for the area, and must 

comply with the NEPA and other Federal laws. In addition, before processing a 

right-of-way application, the BLM requires the applicant to provide cost recovery 

funds, submit a detailed plan of development sufficient to initiate NEPA review and 

analysis, and provide timely responses to any requests for additional information. 

Failure to comply with any of these requirements could be grounds for the BLM to 

reject an application. Also, during the NEPA review, environmental consequences 

may be identified of such significance that the application can be denied because 

it is not in the public interest and would cause unnecessary or undue degradation 

of the lands. 

Question. BLM has established very important Renewable Energy Permitting Coordination Offices (RECO). Senator Tester and I introduced legislation proposing 

these offices in 2008, and I have supported them ever since. While these offices are 

improving the consistency of permitting within each State, there is still no single 

solar permitting guidance to assure that projects in all States are evaluated under 

the same set of criteria. Do you believe BLM should develop a guidance or manual 

that would set clear rules for permitting renewable energy nationwide? 

Answer. The BLM issued a solar energy policy in April 2007 to provide guidance 

in the processing of solar energy right-of-way applications. The BLM is currently 

preparing additional guidance regarding solar energy rent, bonding, due diligence, 

best management practices, and length or term of solar energy right-of-way authorizations. Solar energy applications and authorizations also must comply with the requirements of the BLM right-of-way regulations and existing right-of-way policy 

guidance. 

PERMITTING ON PRIVATE LAND

Question. FWS has completed a draft section 4(d) rule, which would standardize 

permitting requirements for desert tortoise. Will you pledge to complete this rule 

within 1 year? 

Answer. FWS is in the process of drafting a proposed 4(d) rule under the ESA 

for desert tortoise that would streamline ESA compliance for certain renewable energy projects on non-Federal lands in the desert region of southern California. The 

FWS plans to publish the proposed rule in February 2011 for public comment. The 

rule is subject to NEPA, which requires us to write either an Environmental Assessment or an EIS for the final rule. Public input is required under NEPA, and FWS 

estimates that the final rule and NEPA decision documents could, depending on concerns raised by the public, be completed by December 2012. 

Question. FWS believes they cannot complete a template ‘‘habitat conservation 

plan’’ that solar developers could use to speed up private lands permitting until it 

completes the 4(d) rule. Please explain why a simple template cannot be provided 

immediately. 

Answer. The conservation standards that will be developed as part of the 4(d) rule 

discussed above would be used for a template habitat conservation plan for solar 

projects in the same region. We believe that the 4(d) rule should be developed first, 

and depending on the need, we would then decide whether a template habitat conservation plan would provide an additional benefit to streamline ESA compliance. 

Currently, we are involved in developing best management practices and the Desert 

Renewable Energy Conservation Plan that would streamline permitting processes 

on both Federal and non-Federal lands. These efforts, along with fulfilling the Department of the Interior’s obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding 
93 

(MOU) between Secretary Salazar and the Governor of California to streamline permitting of renewable energy on public lands, are our top priority. 

Question. FWS is apparently working to complete a MOU with other desert management agencies in order to establish a habitat mitigation bank similar to the bank 

I proposed in the California Desert Protection Act of 2010. Such a bank could speed 

up private project permitting, administratively. Will you pledge to get this bank 

running by the end of the year? 

Answer. FWS, along with BLM, California Department of Fish and Game and the 

California Energy Commission, comprise the Renewable Energy Action Team 

(REAT) in California. The REAT agencies recently signed an MOU with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to manage a mitigation account available for renewable energy projects in the desert region of southern California that 

occur on both public and private lands. This account is already available to project 

applicants. This account is not a habitat mitigation bank. It’s a streamlining mechanism to achieve described mitigation actions for biological resources required under 

Federal and California State laws. Use of the NFWF account does not provide a section 7 nexus under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Use of the habitat mitigation bank as described in the proposed California Desert Protection Act of 2010 

would provide a section 7 nexus under the Federal Endangered Species Act. 

Question. I appreciated you and David Hayes pledging to make solar development 

on private lands a Department priority. As you know, FWS has never retracted its 

statement that projects on private lands could take 9 years to permit. Are you willing to revise FWS’s estimate that these projects may take 9 years to permit? If so, 

how many years do you believe it would take to obtain a permit from FWS to develop a utility-scale solar project on private lands, if the project had endangered species impacts comparable to projects on public lands that BLM is currently reviewing 

on a ‘‘fast track’’ schedule? 

Answer. The 9-year estimate for completion of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) 

likely originated from a 2008 presentation given to energy developers describing the 

HCP process. In that presentation, the FWS explained that in the past, some HCPs 

have been completed in 1–2 years, whereas others have taken from 6–9 years. The 

FWS also emphasized that it was developing streamlining mechanisms to ensure 

HCPs would be processed as rapidly as possible. The length of time is dependent 

on the size of the project and the complexity of all impacts considered under the 

NEPA process that must take place when developing an HCP. 

Question. In order to facilitate renewable energy permitting, you have proposed 

to increase resources for BLM much more rapidly than you have proposed to increase resources for FWS. Please explain whether you believe this budget request 

is consistent with the pledge you made during the hearing to make permitting 

projects on private lands a priority. 

Answer. The 2011 budget request reflects an increased priority on permitting for 

renewable energy development on both Federal and non-Federal land, and funding 

increases will benefit both. 

Question. In your testimony, you announced a goal of permitting 9,000 megawatts 

of new solar, wind and geothermal electricity generation on Federal land by the end 

of 2011. If you did that all with solar power, it would require approximately 58,000 

acres of development. Such development would require only approximately 20 percent of the acreage placed into BLM’s solar study zones in California, and demonstrates that there is plenty of opportunity to develop solar power while protecting 

the most pristine portions of California’s desert. What is your target number of 

megawatts that you would like FWS to permit on disturbed private land by the end 

of 2011? 

Answer. FWS does not establish a target for megawatts permitted, but will continue to respond to all permit requests it receives with respect to renewable energy. 

There is no threshold at which FWS will cease responding to requests for consultation or assistance with HCP development of renewable energy projects. 

Question. Developers proposing solar development on private land may be able to 

avoid massive delays in FWS permitting by applying for a Federal loan guarantee 

from the Department of Energy (DOE). Under this scenario, FWS would be the consulting agency to DOE, which would be the lead Federal agency under NEPA. However, DOE would then have to evaluate the full environmental impacts of the solar 

project, for which BLM has built up the greatest amount of knowledge and expertise. Do BLM’s RECOs stand ready to assist the DOE and FWS in completing NEPA 

review of private lands projects as expeditiously as fast track BLM projects on public lands? 

Answer. The BLM RECOs do not currently have the authority or staff to assist 

DOE and the FWS in the NEPA review of solar energy development projects on private land. Any proposed expansion of the responsibilities of the RECOs to cover 
94 

projects on private lands would have a significant and negative impact on the ability 

of the BLM to respond to renewable energy or related transmission projects on the 

BLM-administered public lands. 

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS

Question. BLM has required California’s renewable developers to make large deposits of funds in a cost recovery account and prepare extensive EAs in order to set 

up meteorological measurement devices. Some companies have been waiting years 

for permission to study the weather. That is both out of balance with the limited, 

temporary environmental impact of meteorological measurement devices, and in apparent conflict with national BLM policy to use categorical exclusions in these cases. 

In response to my recent letter on this matter, you stated that ‘‘the BLM will 

make diligent use of CXs for applications and project areas in accordance with applicable law, regulation, and BLM policy.’’ However, you did not clarify whether BLM 

would begin using CXs in California, where the backlog of proposed projects is the 

longest. Does BLM plan to use categorical exclusions more frequently and whenever 

appropriate in California, so that developers can rapidly determine which proposed 

development sites are viable and which should be abandoned? 

Answer. The BLM will continue to use categorical exclusions where appropriate. 

The BLM determines whether to use a categorical exclusion on a project-specific 

basis by determining the scope of a project and its potential impacts. 

MILITARY LAND

Question. Many of the best lands for renewable energy development in California 

lie on military bases, and in the California Desert Protection Act of 2010, I proposed 

requiring the military to complete an EIS with regard to its renewable energy development program. I also secured funding in the fiscal year 2010 budget for a study 

of the potential for renewable energy development on California military lands. My 

staff arranged a series of meetings between your Department and the Defense Department in 2009 in order to assure that conflicts over jurisdiction between your two 

Departments would not serve as a barrier to utility-scale renewable energy development on military bases. Please provide an update on the status of your conversations with the Department of Defense on this matter. Please explain by when you 

intend to have a clear agreement or formal understanding established between the 

two departments regarding all potential conflicts that could slow renewable energy 

development on military bases. 

Answer. The Department believes there are benefits to the development of renewable energy projects on military lands that do not conflict with the military mission 

for those lands. In addition, the idea of siting renewable energy projects on military 

bases which are already off-limits to the public is gaining ground with many stakeholders and the public. For military installations located on BLM-withdrawn lands, 

the development of renewable energy projects must be consistent with the terms of 

the withdrawal. 

Renewable energy development on withdrawn military lands in the California 

Desert is a significant policy issue currently being coordinated between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense. The two Departments are committed to resolving this issue as quickly as possible so the public and the industry 

have a clear articulation of Federal policy concerning renewable energy development 

on withdrawn military lands. 

TRANSMISSION

Question. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP), if completed, 

will include 250 miles of new and upgraded high-voltage transmission lines capable 

of delivering 4,500 megawatts of renewable power from wind farms and other 

sources in the best wind resource area in California to the people of greater Los Angeles. 

In these difficult economic times, I believe it is vitally important that we make 

permitting major infrastructure projects like this transmission line a national priority. While the State of California has already approved this project, literally billions of dollars of private capital investment and thousands of construction jobs 

await final decisions by Federal agencies, including FWS and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Can you assure me that FWS has provided adequate staff to work with 

the Angeles National Forest on the Endangered Species Act review? Can you explain the degree to which the two agencies consolidate workload and facilities? Will 

FWS set and meet aggressive schedules for completing their work? 

Answer. Since consultation was initiated on December 21, 2009, FWS has been 

actively working on the consultation for the TRTP, committing substantial staff 
95 

time from two field offices and the regional office. The FWS is committed to completing this consultation as rapidly as possible. The FWS works closely with the Angeles National Forest and has co-located staff at the USFS office. The FWS evaluates opportunities to improve collaboration and increase efficiencies with USFS and 

other Federal agencies as needed. 

HYDRO POWER

Question. The Kaweah Hydroelectric Project, part of which is in Sequoia and 

Kings Canyon National Park, is the subject of ongoing negotiations between the utility owner and the Park regarding a fair fee to the park in order to keep operating 

the facility. 

Two years ago, I wrote to you asking that you review the park’s position, which 

struck me as incredibly unjust to California ratepayers. Also, the fiscal year 2010 

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill included language 

directing the Department to continue negotiations to reach a cost-effective agreement. However, I do not believe talks have occurred. I therefore would appreciate 

the answers to the following questions: 

—What is the park’s current proposal on the annual fee to be charged, and on 

what basis has the Park Service determined that the proposed fee is fair? 

—By when will the Department of the Interior complete these negotiations? 

—Will you assure me that the Park Service will demand a fee that is fair to California ratepayers? 

Answer. The Department shares your desire to reach an equitable resolution on 

this issue. We continue to work on a solution and believe we will be able to provide 

a response outlining the resolution to this issue shortly. 

Question. Mr. Secretary, four of my Senate colleagues and I sent you a letter on 

September 15, 2009 expressing our opposition to the taking of off-reservation lands 

into trust for gaming purposes. Our letter encouraged you to use your evaluation 

of the Interior Department’s policies on Indian gaming to maintain key components 

of the Department’s January 3, 2008 guidance on taking off-reservation lands into 

trust for gaming purposes and to increase scrutiny of proposals to take off-reservation land into trust for gaming purposes. 

Additionally, it is my view that initial reservations and restored lands should be 

subject to a similar high level of scrutiny when evaluating modern and historical 

connections to land acquisitions. This includes meaningful opportunities for local jurisdictions to register their views with the Department. 

In my home State, voters approved a ballot initiative approving tribal gaming 

with the understanding it would be done on tribal lands. However, several questionable proposals for restored lands would bring casinos into urban, highly populated 

areas and along with them, the problems of increased traffic, noise, environmental 

impacts, and crime. 

Question. What is the status of your evaluation of the Department’s policies on 

Indian gaming? 

Answer. The Department continuously evaluates its Indian gaming policies to ensure that they are consistent with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), its 

own published regulations, applicable case law, and its continuing trust obligation 

to Indian tribes. We are currently reviewing policy in this area to determine what 

changes, if any, are needed. 

Question. What solutions are you considering to balance the economic development goals of Indian tribes with the impacts of casinos on air quality, noise levels, 

community planning, and the environment? 

Answer. The Department believes Congress struck the proper balance between 

tribal and State interests when it passed the IGRA in 1988. Within the scope of the 

IGRA and the Department’s trust acquisition authority, the Department has promulgated regulations to ensure the views and concerns of local communities are 

properly considered. Additionally, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

and the Department’s regulations at 25 CFR part 292 ensure Indian gaming proposals are subject to rigorous environmental review. The Department will continue 

to evaluate its policies to ensure they are consistent with the IGRA, NEPA, the Department’s own published regulations, applicable case law, and our continuing trust 

obligation to Indian tribes. 

Question. Are current regulations and guidelines sufficient to address the trend 

of off-reservation gaming proposals? 

Answer. There have been numerous tribal proposals to develop off-reservation 

gaming facilities since the IGRA’s enactment in 1988. Out of these proposals, only 

a relatively small number have been approved. While the Department believes current regulations allow it to address State and local concerns regarding the trend of 
96 

off-reservation gaming proposals, it will continue to evaluate its policies to adhere 

to both the Federal trust obligation to tribes and the balance Congress struck when 

it enacted the IGRA. 

Question. Are current regulations and guidelines sufficient to address restored 

lands applications for land that might be used for gaming? 

Answer. While the Department believes current regulations allow it to address 

State and local concerns regarding restored lands applications, it will continue to 

evaluate its policies to adhere to both the Federal trust obligation to tribes and the 

balance Congress struck when it enacted the IGRA. 

Question. Is additional legislation necessary to clarify congressional intent with 

regard to limits on off-reservation gaming? 

Answer. As referenced above, the Department believes Congress struck the proper 

balance between competing interests when it enacted the IGRA, and that Congress 

carefully considered the implications of the exceptions to the prohibition on gaming 

on lands acquired after October 17, 1988. Therefore, the Department does not believe additional legislation is necessary. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT (OSMRE)

Question. I am deeply troubled by two spending reductions proposed within your 

Department. 

Within the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund for the OSMRE, the President’s 

budget proposes to reduce discretionary funds by $4.5 million for State emergency 

reclamation grants and federally managed emergency projects. As you know, this 

program has cost an average of $20 million per year for the past 10 years. This is 

a dangerous reduction given that these monies are used to fund immediate actions 

to protect health and safety and human life from an emergency situation resulting 

from the adverse effects of coal mining. This cut is completely contrary to the ideals 

of protecting the families adversely affected by the mining in their communities. 

Within the ‘‘Regulation and Technology’’ account for the Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, the President’s budget proposes an $11 million reduction in funding for State grants to regulate and enforce the permitting process 

for surface mining. This is a reversal from last year, when the President sought to 

increase funding for surface mining enforcement. The administration proposes to reduce this funding pursuant to its commitment to the G–20 nations to reduce subsidies for fossil fuels. The President’s budget encourages States to raise user fees 

on coal producers to offset the loss of Federal funding for mining regulation. 

In this fiscal and political environment, Appalachian States are unlikely to be able 

to muster the support to raise fees on coal producers, which will result in those 

States having fewer dollars to enforce land and water protection laws. 

Taken together, these are impractical and dangerous spending cuts that will impede efforts to ensure that surface mining is conducted within the parameters of the 

law and that past mining practices do not continue to haunt the citizens of mining 

communities. 

Question. How can the Federal Government meet its responsibility to enforce environmental protection laws if the President’s budget does not provide adequate resources? 

Answer. The proposal is consistent with the administration’s commitment to reduce Federal subsidies to fossil-fuel industries. While other energy industries must 

pay user fees to reimburse the Federal Government for regulatory costs, coal fees 

are very low. The budget reduces State grants in order to encourage States to increase their cost recovery from the coal industry. 

In addition, the 2006 Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act amendments 

extended the authority for fee collection through September 30, 2021, and changed 

the way that State and tribal reclamation grants are funded, beginning in fiscal 

year 2008. State and tribal grants are now mandatory and are derived from current 

AML fee collections and the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. The amendments 

dramatically increased funding from $132 million in fiscal year 2007 to $369.1 million in fiscal year 2010. Because the States and tribes now receive increased mandatory AML grants, they have adequate resources to address emergency AML issues. 

The OSMRE will continue to work with the States to ensure a smooth transition. 

Question. How can the Federal Government ensure better enforcement if it does 

not provide monies to the States to implement the Federal mandates? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget decreased State and tribal grants by 15 percent of what was requested, or about 7.5 percent of total State regulatory costs. The 
97 

budget does not propose to shift the burden of the cost to the States. Rather, it encourages the States to increase fees paid by the industry that receives the benefit 

of the services States provide. The OSM is willing to work with the States to assist 

in fee recovery. Therefore, we believe this is an equitable proposal. 

Question. In recent years, the Charleston field office (CHFO) of OSMRE has 

issued a number of oversight reports on blackwater spills; flyrock incidents (causes 

of the incidents, as well as the processes for reporting and investigation); slurry impoundments breakthrough potential; and surface water runoff analysis (i.e., whether 

rain on certain types of surface mines and valley fills exacerbates flooding). Please 

describe (a) the actions taken by the relevant stakeholders following those reports, 

and (b) your current assessment of the adequacy of those actions in addressing these 

problems over the long term. 

Answer. Oversight studies and reports are not limited to findings of compliance. 

Rather, the reports often include suggested discretionary actions aimed at improving the program beyond what is required. The following provides examples of oversight studies that are used to ensure a State Regulatory Authority’s compliance with 

its approved surface coal mining program and create positive change. —Blackwater Spills.—This oversight report, completed in October 2009, was a follow-up to a 2004 report on the same subject. Despite the State’s compliance 

with its approved program and various programmatic improvements made after 

the 2004 report, the 2009 report noted that blackwater spills were still occurring at the same rate as the earlier 2004 study and that these occurrences are 

still mostly related to human error—as opposed to any design flaw or operational issue. Therefore, the joint OSMRE and State team recommended increased use of increased fines, permit suspensions, and consideration of criminal 

penalties. —Actions by Stakeholders.—Since completion of the study, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) reviewed more recent spill 

data and reported that it is experiencing a decrease in the number of spills over 

the rates noted in the 2004 and 2009 reports. 

—Assessment of Adequacy of State Actions.—The OSM finds the State activities 

specific to this report on blackwater spills is adequate, but still believes the 

State could be more aggressive in the timely pursuit of patterns of violation 

related to permit suspension. The OSM is continuing to review State activities related to pattern of violations as requested by interested citizens on 

other types of violations. —Fly Rock Incidents.—This topical study was conducted with the assistance of the 

WVDEP’s Office of Explosives and Blasting (OEB) and was completed in March 

2009. The study found the OEB (created in 1999) did a thorough job in review 

of blasting incidents. However, the reviewers noted the OEB was not always notified of all flyrock incidents by inspectors from the State’s Division of Mining 

and Regulation. The reviewers also expressed concern with the number of vacancies within OEB. 

—Stakeholder Actions.—The WVDEP agreed the OEB should always be involved in any flyrock violation. The WVDEP implemented new operating procedures that increased the involvement of OEB in flyrock investigations. The 

WVDEP also agreed to the imposition of additional remedial measures following a flyrock incident. 

—Assessment of Adequacy of State Action.—The OSM found the action taken to 

be adequate. The OSM is currently reviewing the WVDEP regulatory program staffing levels as an independent oversight evaluation. 

—Slurry Impoundment Basin Breakthrough Potential.—The OSM’s CHFO conducted two studies in 2006 and 2008, reviewing 10 coal mine waste impoundments. These studies evaluated the adequacy of the State’s review to determine 

the potential for impounded slurry to breakthrough into underground mine 

workings. In 2009, the CHFO initiated a broader study involving 15 impoundments. 

—Stakeholder Actions.—The WVDEP resolved the site specific issues from the 

previous evaluations and is fully engaged in the ongoing oversight evaluation. 

Citizens have requested the OSM investigate specific dams and impoundments and those investigations are ongoing. 

—Assessment of Adequacy of State Actions.—State actions to date have been 

adequate for site specific cases but the OSM cannot reach conclusions about 

the overall adequacy of program activity until the current study is finalized. 

—Surface Water Runoff Analysis.—The State regulations refer to this assessment 

as a ‘‘Storm Water Runoff Analysis’’, or SWROA. The SWROA is an analysis 

of the projected runoff from a permitted area using hydrologic modeling of a 

rainfall event on representative mine site conditions before and during mining 
98 

and after reclamation. The March 2009 oversight report reviewed the effectiveness of implementing the SWROA requirements. 

—Actions by Stakeholders.—Since the report, the WVDEP has conducted staff 

training to address identified issues. The WVDEP also plans to host an industry SWROA workshop to clarify SWROA requirements. The WVDEP has also 

agreed to monitor violations on a yearly basis to determine if there is a trend 

in offsite impacts that are related to excessive peak discharges. This information would be used to determine if further regulatory changes may be warranted. 

—Assessment of Adequacy of State Actions.—The OSMRE agreed with the actions listed above and is monitoring WVDEP’s progress in developing further 

training parameters and hosting a workshop for industry. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)

Question. Reports issued by the USGS and the Bureau of Mines over the past two 

decades have raised serious questions about the exhaustion of economically recoverable coal reserves in Central Appalachia. How can the USGS more effectively use 

its own resources, and also partner with other Federal and State agencies that possess the relevant analytical capacities, in order to publish analyses of the amount 

of coal that the Northern and Central Appalachian Basin coal regions could produce 

under a range of assumptions about demand and production costs? What plans does 

the agency have to accomplish these objectives? If it has none, please explain why. 

Answer. Estimates of that portion of the in-place coal resources that are currently 

economically recoverable (the reserve base) are very important for understanding 

how coal can contribute to the Nation’s energy mix and future. The USGS has recently refined its coal assessment methodology to take advantage of improvements 

in computer hardware as well as in geologic and mining model software. As a result, 

the scope of USGS coal resource assessment capabilities (including those of technically and economically recoverable resources) has grown in size from a few small 

areas to whole coal fields or basins. Thus, the current generation of USGS U.S. coal 

assessments is not only an enhancement of what is calculated (in-place resources, 

but also technically and economically recoverable resources), but will also produce 

a systematic determination of the coal reserve base on a regional basis in all the 

major coal provinces in the Nation. 

The correlation of each individual coal bed of economic importance is necessary 

for the determination of the economically recoverable coal resources. Although this 

approach is time consuming, correlation of individual beds is essential to build integrated, multiple-bed geologic computer models that can then be analyzed by mining 

economic software to better estimate economically recoverable coal resources. Regional estimates of economically recoverable coal resources will provide energy planners a much more meaningful appraisal of the amount of coal that is currently and 

realistically recoverable in the foreseeable future. 

The first U.S. coal basin to be evaluated in this current assessment program is 

the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming and Montana. The PRB is the largest 

coal basin in the United States in terms of mined tonnage, supplying more than 40 

percent of the total coal produced in the United States. The Gillette coal field alone 

accounts for more than 90 percent of the PRB coal production. Furthermore, there 

are extensive Federal lands within the PRB. USGS has published a new coal assessment of the Gillette coal field (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1202/) calculating the inplace resources as well as those that are technically and economically recoverable. 

This work continues on the whole of the PRB. Once the PRB is completed, regional 

scale coal assessments will continue on all significant coal beds in all major U.S. 

coal basins. 

Currently, the State geological surveys of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia 

are working on re-correlating their States’ coal beds. Once this work is completed, 

we will work with these State surveys, using their revised data sets to determine 

the technically and economically viable coal resources using the USGS methodology 

used in the other States. USGS currently funds a portion of this State work through 

our National Coal Resources Data System State Cooperative Program. 

This USGS methodology does not include a range of assumptions about demand 

and production costs, as that is beyond the scope of USGS purview or ability, especially from supply and demand perspectives. We have worked with other agencies, 

such as BLM and the Energy Information Administration, to share with them what 

we are doing, so as to make our data and results useable for a variety of purposes, 

including various scenarios or forecasting analyses. 

Question. When will the USGS be releasing more detailed assessments of the Appalachian coal-producing regions (e.g., including mapping (GIS) and other data re-
99 

garding stripping ratios, drill holes, surface areas with previous coal mining, etc.)? 

Please describe the programs through which the USGS or other Federal agencies 

can provide additional money to State geological surveys, in order to enhance and 

expedite the development of these studies? 

Answer. Current USGS work in coal assessments is focused in the PRB of Wyoming and Montana, as the largest coal producing basin in the United States. Current cooperative efforts with the State geological surveys in the Appalachian Basin 

focus on supporting their efforts to re-correlate their States’ coal beds to provide a 

foundation for resource estimation. The USGS National Coal Resources Data System State Cooperative Program has continuously supported State geological surveys 

in coal-related work since 1975, with West Virginia being 1 of the 3 initial States 

funded that year. In fiscal years 2005–2009, the USGS provided financial assistance 

for compiling data to assist in the estimation of coal resources in the Appalachian 

Basin to Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and 

Virginia. Funds were used to encode hardcopy data to digital format, for geologists’ 

time to correlate the newly digitized coal information, to support the collection of 

GIS information (mined areas, etc), and to create GIS coal bed maps (e.g., coal 

structure, isopach). The USGS will continue to provide funding to these States contingent upon funding availability through the appropriation process. Data such as 

stripping ratios, drill holes, footprints of available mine maps, and related data will 

be made available as part of these efforts. 

ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION

Question. In June 2009, the administration released a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entitled ‘‘Implementing the Interagency Action Plan on Appalachian Surface Coal Mining.’’ 

The MOU noted that ‘‘Federal agencies will work . . . to help diversify and 

strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and promote the health and welfare 

of Appalachian communities. This interagency effort will have a special focus on 

stimulating clean enterprise and green jobs development . . .’’ 

Question. What new programs or initiatives is the Department proposing to advance economic diversification in Appalachia? 

Answer. The Federal Government has made a commitment to move America toward a 21st century clean energy economy based on the recognition that a sustainable economy and environment must work hand in hand. Under the MOU, we are 

working in coordination with appropriate State, regional, and local entities, and 

other Federal agencies to help diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional 

economy and promote the health and welfare of its communities. This interagency 

effort will focus on stimulating clean enterprise and green jobs development, encouraging better coordination among existing Federal efforts, and supporting innovative 

new ideas. 

Question. What new resources is the Department requesting to advance economic 

diversification in Appalachia? 

Answer. The Department is not requesting any new resources; rather, it is applying continuing programs to support this effort. Two ongoing programs that contribute to this initiative sponsored by OSMRE are the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI) and the Office of Surface Mining/Volunteers in Service to 

America (OSM/VISTA). 

The ARRI is a cooperative effort between the Office of Surface Mining and the 

States of the Appalachian region to encourage restoration of high-quality eastern 

hardwood forests on active and reclaimed coal mine sites. Successful re-establishment of the hardwood forests that once dominated these lands will provide a renewable, sustainable multi-use resource that will create economic opportunities while 

restoring a healthy ecosystem. Thriving forests provide local jobs for an existing and 

growing timber industry, provide habitat for wildlife, and support a variety of recreation activities important to local human communities. 

The OSM teams with AmeriCorps’ VISTA program—concerned with poverty, and 

coal country watershed groups—working in more than 30 towns across the eight 

States of Appalachia to deal with environmental degradation. Through this partnership the Team targets problems associated with the legacy of pre-regulatory coal 

mining in Appalachian Watersheds. The OSM/VISTA Team places, trains, and supports college-educated OSM/VISTA volunteers who live and work throughout coal 

country to promote social and environmental change at the grassroots level. 
100 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JON TESTER

TREASURED LANDSCAPES AND THE CROWN

Question. What criteria did you use to decide what would be your Treasured 

Landscapes? Why are all the projects coastal/water based? Mr. Secretary, when you 

visited Montana last summer, we talked about the importance of the Crown of the 

Continent Ecosystem; I am wondering why you excluded it? Are there plans to include it in future Great Outdoors America Projects or Treasured Landscape 

Projects? 

Answer. In developing the 2011 budget request, the Department looked across the 

Nation for geographic areas that faced significant and increasing challenges to protecting and restoring natural and cultural resource values. The Department looked 

for areas where Interior bureaus were already active, but could benefit from a more 

coordinated focus with other Interior bureaus, and other Federal and non-Federal 

partners. And the Department looked for areas where targeted investments could 

achieve real results. 

The five ecosystems included as part of the Secretary’s Treasured Landscapes 

agenda met each of these criteria. These ecosystems will remain priorities for restoration and renewal through coordinated and targeted investments. The Department will continue to look for opportunities to leverage existing Federal conservation efforts for additional ecosystem restoration. As the Department’s Climate 

Science Centers and the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives become operational 

they will be relied on to help prioritize and coordinate Federal and non-Federal efforts for ecosystem restoration nationwide, including those like the Crown of the 

Continent Ecosystem. The Great Outdoors America listening sessions are collecting 

input for opportunities including the Crown of the Continent. 

YELLOWTAIL DAM

Question. Secretary Salazar, a long-standing conflict has surround the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s (BOR) management of the Yellowtail Dam and maintaining water for 

the boat launch at Horseshoe Bend, behind the dam at the expense of a trout fishery below. 

Last year my college, Senator Max Baucus, initiated an Inspector General (IG) investigation as to the handling of flows of water into this reservoir. First, I understand this IG report is not happening. Why not? 

Answer. BOR’s headquarters was contacted by the Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG) and information was submitted. We have not received any correspondence or 

requests from the OIG since that time. 

Question. Will you start the investigation? 

Answer. In addition to supplying the information to the OIG, BOR formed the 

Bighorn River System Issues Group in March 2007, as a means to collaboratively 

identify and investigate ways to optimize the benefits provided by the Yellowtail 

Unit. BOR conducts monthly outreach conference calls with interested parties to 

disseminate up-to-date operations information and to provide a mechanism for 

stakeholder input and feedback. 

Question. Understanding this issue spans the boundary of two States, what cooperative management plans are you undertaking to make sure that in low water 

years Montana and Wyoming share the burden of lower water, not one side 

disproportionally? 

Answer. BOR manages the water; the National Park Service manages the Bighorn 

Canyon National Recreation Area. BOR engages stakeholders and customers in reservoir operations-related issues through the Bighorn River Basin Issues Group 

through monthly (or more frequent) reservoir operations updates. Individuals from 

both Montana and Wyoming are represented on the Issues Group. 

Question. Why are the three dams in that drainage managed independently? 

Answer. The three dams are operated in a coordinated manner. Boysen and Buffalo Bill are under the jurisdiction of the Wyoming Area Office located in Mills, Wyoming. Yellowtail Dam is under the jurisdiction of the Montana area office located 

in Billings, Montana. Both offices operate under the guidance and purview of the 

Great Plains regional office, also located in Billings, Montana. 

Question. Would you consider returning them to coordinated management to address the issues in Bighorn Drainage? 

Answer. The operation and management of the dams is presently coordinated between the Wyoming area office and the Montana area office. These offices are responsible for operating the dams to provide benefits consistent with congressional 

authorizations, water supply contracts with customers, and State-based water law 

in Wyoming and Montana. 
101 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Question. Over the last year you have open up renewable energy pilot offices in 

Wyoming, Arizona, California, and Nevada. I championed the work of renewable energy coordination offices (RECOs) in the 2009 energy bill and fully support the idea. 

Do you plan to expand these offices beyond those four States? When do you plan 

on locating an office in Montana, where we have excellent renewable resources? 

Answer. The Department has established the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

RECOs in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Wyoming to support those States with 

the largest number of renewable energy applications for public lands. Funding has 

been provided to other States, including Montana, for additional renewable energy 

support staff. The BLM office in Montana has received funding for five additional 

renewable energy support positions. However, due to the limited workload to date 

and the number of pending applications, only two positions have been filled. The 

BLM will respond to any future needs as they are identified. 

Question. Mr. Secretary, you have made renewable energy and transmission de- velopment a priority in your office, increasing funding to $73.3 million, an increase 

of $14.2 million. 

What are you doing in Montana to realize these goals? 

Answer. The BLM has provided additional funding to Montana to support renewable energy support staff and to respond to any renewable energy and transmission 

development projects in Montana. The workload in Montana has not materialized 

as anticipated; however, the BLM is prepared to respond as needed. There are several proposed transmission projects that are currently being reviewed and the BLM 

has placed a priority on the processing of these applications. In addition, the BLM 

is currently preparing guidance to implement an Interagency Transmission Siting 

Memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was signed by the Secretary in October 

2009. This guidance provides procedures for improving the coordination in permitting of electric transmission facilities on Federal lands. Transmission projects in 

Montana will be processed consistent with the provisions of the Interagency MOU 

and the BLM implementation guidance. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)

Question. Recently I learned the number of people working on FWS staff in the 

State of Montana and region 6 is almost half of other regions, like Oregon and 

Washington. To address this low level of staff funding, it has come to my attention 

that FWS is considering closing the Billings field office, which houses the wildlife 

biologist for eastern Montana. Montana’s expanding energy renewable frontier and 

increasing investment in domestic fossil fuel production often require environmental 

consolations from the FWS to swiftly complete the planning of projects. This especially true after Friday, March 5, when the Sage Grouse was listed as ‘‘warranted 

but precluded,’’ adding it as another species whose progress must be watched. 

Mr. Secretary, what is the formula for calculating how much each State receives 

for staff? 

Answer. Staffing for the Ecological Services (ES) offices is funded from the habitat 

conservation and endangered species programs. The allocation formula for the endangered species subactivities was developed in fiscal year 2000. According to this 

method, each region receives funding based on weighted complexity factors for candidate and proposed species occurring in each region. For example, aquatic species 

and wide-ranging species are considered more complex than terrestrial species with 

smaller home ranges. As part of the end of year reporting, Regions are asked to review the species weights and provide the Washington office with any changes that 

are necessary, along with documentation as to why the change is required. 

Base funding is disbursed to the ES field offices from an allocation methodology 

that is consistent across all field stations, based on FTEs at each field station. Increases and decreases are based on workload and priority issues. 

Question. Are you planning to close the Billings office? 

Answer. FWS’s Billings, Montana ES field office staff has been reduced over the 

years to two staff members, an administrative staff person and a biologist. FWS is 

terminating the current General Services Administration (GSA) lease for the Billings Montana ES suboffice. The remaining biologist position will still be located in 

Billings in GSA space that fits the needs of a one-person office. The administrative 

assistant position will be moved to the Montana ES field office in Helena. 

Question. How do you plan to make sure that Montana has adequate staff to assure that there are not delays in analyzing energy and development projects? 

Answer. FWS’s Federal activities review and section 7 consultation programs do 

their best to address all project proposals provided for consultation, informal or formal, in a timely manner. Workload distribution across field offices is managed by 
102 

the field supervisor in coordination with their regional office. These field supervisors 

will ensure workload is managed to avoid delays. 

COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ACT/WOLF KILL BILL

Question. Mr. Secretary. I included two provisions in the last omnibus public 

lands bill, which passed last January: The Cooperative Watershed Management Act 

and the Livestock Loss Mitigation Act. Both of these provisions were directed to 

have their rules written and funding project within a year. But to my knowledge 

neither of these programs have finished rule making and your budget this year does 

not fund them in fiscal year 2011. 

Can you assure me that you will prioritize finishing the rules on these important 

programs as quickly as possible? 

Answer. The Department is currently collecting comments from States and will 

complete this phase by the end of May. As emphasized in the Cooperative Watershed Management Act, States play an important role in supporting watershed 

groups and there are as many approaches to watershed management as there are 

States. These comments will help the Department shape both the application development and program implementation. In February 2010, I issued an order directing 

the Department to implement the new WaterSMART program. The Cooperative Watershed Management Program is an important component of this new initiative. The 

act created a new tool for Interior to work at the watershed level where restoration 

and management decisions need to be made. The program framework should be in 

place this summer. 

Question. How about prioritizing their funding next year? 

Answer. I have asked bureaus to work together to identify seed money for this 

program. Once the program framework is in place, we will identify pilot areas where 

we can test the new program and make needed adjustments. At that time we will 

be able to make a better decision on the level of funding that would be necessary 

to implement the program and consider its inclusion in future budgets. 

Question. In the interim, the livestock loss mitigation program was funded in fiscal year 2010. The goal of the program is to reduce and compensate for predation 

by reintroduced wolves. 

Can you assure me that the funds you distribute this year for this program will 

focus on preventing and compensating predation, specifically to States that have 

predation data? 

Answer. Yes, the funds will be focused on prevention and compensation of predation by wolves. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

Question. I’m pleased that you are a supporter of the LWCF, which has protected 

important places like Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and the Blackfoot 

River Watershed in Montana, among other areas across the country important for 

conservation, historic preservation, and public recreation. I was pleased to see almost $25 million proposed for deserving projects in Montana this fiscal year, which 

can help protect Montana’s outstanding wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in places like the Rocky Mountain Front. According to a recent Federal study, 

more than 291,000 anglers in Montana spend more than $226 million annually, 

nearly 200,000 hunters in Montana spend more than $310 million annually, and 

more than 750,000 wildlife watchers in Montana spend more than $376 million annually. We need to ensure these economic activities are maintained while also improving public access and enjoyment for other Montanans. 

Mr. Secretary, what can the Department do to ensure greater support for funding 

the LWCF? 

Answer. The Department of the Interior supports fully funding the LWCF and is 

on target to reach the full annual funding level of $900 million by 2014 with the 

Department of Agriculture. Interior’s 2011 budget request reflects our commitment 

with a request of $445.4 million, an increase of $135 million above the 2010 enacted 

funding level. The total request for LWCF, including USDA, is $619.2 million. In 

addition, Interior will receive another $740,000 in mandatory appropriations 

through the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act for the NPS State LWCF activities 

in 2011. 

RURAL WATER

Question. In September, Commissioner Connor testified that BOR has a backlog 

of more than $2 billion in authorized rural water projects. As you know, several of 

us are working to authorize more projects. As you also know, these projects don’t 

get cheaper with time. How do plan to address the backlog? 
103 

Answer. The first priority for funding rural water projects is the required O&M 

component, which is $15.5 million [BOR-wide] for fiscal year 2011. For the construction component, BOR allocated funding based on objective criteria that gave priority 

to projects that serve on reservation needs; and percent of project complete. 

Question. How do you plan to address the projects that you will inherit soon? 

Answer. Using the criteria above, BOR will continue to budget for construction 

of ongoing authorized rural water projects within budget targets. 

Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget justifications for DOI include budget requests of $27.5 million for tribal trust accounting at DOI’s Office of Historic Trust 

Accounting, a portion of $13.5 million for the DOI Office of Trust Records to index 

inactive records sent to the American Indian Records Repository, and a portion of 

$67.9 million at the Office of the Solicitor for its Indian Trust Litigation Office. How 

much in appropriations is the Department seeking for fiscal year 2011 specifically 

relating to the pending tribal trust cases? 

Answer. The Department’s budget request includes $27.5 million in OST’s budget 

for tribal historical accounting and another $4 million to be transferred from OST’s 

Records budget to the Solicitor’s Office for litigation support. This provides $31.5 

million for tribal historical accounting and related litigation support. Funding for 

trust records is not separated between IIM and tribal activities. 

Question. Have you committed senior-level officials to working on the tribal trust 

cases now that there has been a settlement agreement in the Cobell case? Also, how 

long do the Departments foresee that litigation of these cases will go on, and how 

much more appropriations do the Departments anticipate, before we can start to see 

settlements for these cases? 

Answer. It is the administration’s goal to resolve as many of the tribal lawsuits 

as possible, and senior-level officials are committed to resolving these cases. Direct, 

informal negotiations between the parties generally are facilitated by temporary 

joint stays of litigation agreed to by the courts. In some instances, settlement negotiations are facilitated by a third-party neutral evaluator or settlement judge. For 

example, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Judge(s) from the Court of Federal 

Claims are working with Government and tribal representatives to reach negotiated 

settlements in several cases. Of the 95 tribal trust cases currently pending at the 

trial level, approximately 70 cases have been temporarily stayed so that the parties 

can pursue informal settlement discussions or formal ADR processes. Several cases 

are now in advanced phases of resolution where the parties are either considering 

specific settlement stipulation language and figures, or are on track to exchange settlement figures in the near future. 

Last fall, legal counsel acting on behalf of approximately 80 of the 114 American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribes that are litigating proposed a meeting to discuss 

possible settlement of tribal trust accounting and mismanagement claims against 

the United States. In April, senior officials from the Departments of Justice, the Interior, and the Treasury held an initial meeting with the designated representatives 

for this group to discuss the process for achieving global resolution of the cases 

without protracted litigation. The parties expect to reconvene before the end of 

June. Separately, senior officials from Interior and Justice have engaged with counsel for 16 other litigating tribes seeking global resolution for that group of cases. 

Notwithstanding such global settlement efforts, the Department must continue necessary efforts to marshal information on trust funds and trust resources for the active pending cases. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

Question. The administration’s fiscal year 2010 budget includes $569 million for 

the Federal portion of the LWCF, a 37 percent increase, while the stateside grant 

program was increased from $40 million to $50 million. The administration has 

pledged to fund the LWCF programs at the fully authorized level of $900 million 

by 2014. 

I’m very supportive of the Federal side of LWCF, but as a former Governor, I can’t 

overstate how important the stateside grant program is for recreation, habitat and 

open spaces. Plus, that funding is matched dollar-for-dollar by grant recipients. 

The Great Outdoors America Report, produced by the top conservation minds and 

organizations in the country, called for permanent, dedicated funding for LWCF, 

with a share guaranteed to the States and urban areas. 
104 

With the stateside backlog of $27 billion, shouldn’t more funds be put into the 

stateside portion of the program rather than continuing such a heavy emphasis on 

the Federal side where the bulk of the funds have been going for years? 

Has the Department considered additional dedicated funding sources for LWCF, 

through new lease royalties or user fees? 

Answer. The Department is appreciative of the benefits gained by the States from 

the State grants program within the LWCF. The 2011 budget increased funding for 

LWCF State grants by $10 million, an increase of 25 percent over the 2010 level. 

However, in these tough economic times, several States may not be able to take advantage of this program as it requires matching grants. In addition, several States 

are struggling to operate and maintain the parks that they already have. We will 

evaluate the balance of funds in the State grants and Federal parts of the account 

for fiscal year 2012 formulation. 

The 2011 budget includes a relatively new funding source for LWCF State grants. 

The revenues authorized by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act will provide 

$740,000 for LWCF programs in 2011. There are no additional new revenue streams 

for LWCF proposed for 2011. 

CENTENNIAL INITIATIVE FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS)

Question. Our National Parks across the country face serious operational and maintenance backlog issues. For the last 2 years, $100 million plus inflationary 

costs has been added to the parks operations and maintenance account. This was 

added to address some of the maintenance backlog issues and to hire additional 

rangers, interpreters, and law enforcement personnel to enhance the visitor experience as the NPS moves toward its 100th anniversary. 

The National Parks Second Century Commission report, which was co-chaired by 

Howard Baker, strongly encouraged the administration and Congress to continue 

the Centennial Initiative until 2016, which would eliminate the unfunded operations 

backlog of the NPS. 

Why is this funding not included in the 2011 budget request? 

Answer. The National Parks Second Century Commission outlines a vision for the 

National Parks that can be applied to all public lands. As custodians of our Nation’s 

natural, cultural and historic resources, we have a duty to protect all of the places 

that Americans love, and to help all Americans connect with their land and heritage. That includes the 392 units of the national parks system, 551 national wildlife 

refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the 27 million 

acre National Landscape Conservation System in the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). 

One of the goals of the administration is to protect these treasured landscapes by 

implementing wise stewardship, science based decisions, and forward-looking policies that help protect the Nation’s land, water, and wildlife for future generations. 

The Treasured Landscapes Initiative in the 2011 budget supports operations on 

public lands that enhance the visitor experience, promotes ecosystem restoration, 

supports species recovery and protects habitat, and facilitates cultural resource 

preservation and conservation. 

The 2011 Treasured Landscape Initiative request shows our commitment to preserving the national parks and preparing for the 100th anniversary of the NPS in 

2016. The NPS budget request includes $2.3 billion for park operations including 

$51 million in additional funding requested as part of the Treasured Landscapes 

Initiative. The increases will be applied to targeted operational needs at 127 parks 

and to invigorate capacities in history, scientific research, and community assistance 

in accord with the recommendations of the National Parks Second Century Commission. 

The Treasured Landscape Initiative also provides an additional $80 million for 

FWS science inventory and monitoring, $1.3 million targeted to new wilderness 

areas designated by the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, and 

$414,000 for high-priority operating needs in the BLM National Monuments and 

National Conservation Areas. 

FUNDING FOR GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

Question. Not funding the Centennial Initiative further sets back our country’s 

most visited park, the Great Smoky Mountains. I see that its budget is only $59,000 

higher than last year which won’t even keep pace with inflation and pay costs for 

park employees. 

The Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which has two or three times the 

visitors of some of our other popular parks, gets about half the funding of similar 

parks because of circumstances of history. 
105 

How can this be changed so that the Smokies receives a fair amount? 

Answer. The 2011 Treasured Landscape Initiative request shows our commitment 

to preparing the parks for the 100th anniversary of the NPS in 2016. The NPS 

budget request includes $2.3 billion for park operations including $51 million in additional funding requested as part of the Treasured Landscapes Initiative. The increases will be applied to targeted operational needs at 127 parks and to invigorate 

capacities in history, scientific research, and community assistance. 

The 2011 budget includes increases for highest-priority needs based on an evaluation of many factors. Proposals submitted by park units throughout the Nation are 

evaluated on a competitive basis. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes an 

increase of $238,000 for Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The additional 

funding will be used to conduct additional back country patrols, improve the safety 

of visitors, and protect resources from threats such as ginseng poaching. In fiscal 

year 2010, Great Smoky Mountains National Park received a base budget increase 

of $498,000. 

SITING OF RENEWABLE PROJECTS ON FEDERAL LANDS

Question. I’m extremely concerned with what is being called renewable energy 

sprawl by at least one conservation group. We all want clean energy, but not at the 

expense of our landscapes and open spaces. I think Chairman Feinstein and I share 

concerns about the destruction of our landscapes, whether by traditional oil and gas 

extraction, renewable energy and transmission lines, along with the associated infrastructure required for energy projects. We’ve spent billions of dollars and over a 

century acquiring and protecting our public lands, and we should give the same 

scrutiny to renewable energy projects as we have to other traditional forms of energy leases in our Nation’s history. With regards to wind energy specifically, companies in the Eastern United States want to site these wind projects on mountain 

ridge tops where the wind is the strongest, but the impact to scenic landscapes 

would be greatest. What we need is a national policy to protect our landscapes— 

coordinated with other agencies. 

I am also concerned about parity in our energy policy. Oil and gas leases will be 

required to pay royalties somewhere between 12 percent and 18 percent for energy 

production. I understand BLM and MMS will charge a much lower rate for renewable projects on Federal lands and offshore. 

How would you address criticism that you are raising royalties on oil and gas production when we have such a heavy reliance on foreign oil, while you are charging 

such a lower rate for use of the public lands for renewable energy production? 

Answer. As with other BLM and MMS energy permitting activities, the proposal 

to implement a rulemaking to raise onshore oil and gas royalty rates is guided by 

the administration’s belief that American taxpayers should get a fair return on the 

development of energy resources on their public lands. A standard approach for determining what constitutes a fair return is to look at what other resource owners 

in similar positions charge for the sale or use of these resources. A comparison of 

prevailing oil and gas royalty rates in the United States indicates that the Federal 

Government is currently not receiving a fair return. The base royalty rate for oil 

and natural gas produced on Federal onshore lands has been set at 12.5 percent 

since 1920. By contrast the current average State royalty rate is 16.67 percent, and 

the royalty rate in Texas is 22.5 percent. 

Similarly, the Department intends to periodically assess the royalties and fees 

that are charged for renewable energy projects on Federal lands to ensure that they 

are in line with the amounts received by other landowners who permit their lands 

to be used for these projects. However, there are a number of reasons why what is 

considered a fair return may be lower for renewable energy projects than for oil and 

gas. One is that we are dealing with a nascent industry. Another is that the product 

being sold is not the same. For oil and gas, companies are paying a royalty (a percentage of the value of the resource) to permanently remove that resource from the 

Federal estate. For renewable resources like wind and solar energy, no Federal resource is being removed from the land. Instead, we charge rental fees based on the 

tenant’s occupancy of a particular site. 

Beyond this guiding principle of receiving a fair return, the Obama administration 

shares your concern over the United States’ heavy reliance on foreign oil. However, 

the administration recognizes that the country cannot solve this imbalance, which 

threatens both our energy security and our national security, by simply increasing 

domestic oil and gas production. From an energy supply standpoint, we are not capable of meeting the country’s growing demand and appetite for energy through domestic conventional energy resources. For this reason, the administration is aggressively pursuing a comprehensive energy policy that promotes renewable and alter-
106 

native energy development, encourages energy conservation, and continues to support environmentally sound development of fossil fuels in the right places. To advance this important national goal of reducing our dependence on imported energy, 

the administration and Congress have worked together to put in place incentives 

to promote and support the nascent renewable energy industry. It could be counterproductive if we were to simply offset those incentives with unjustifiably high fees 

for developing renewable energy projects on Federal lands. 

I also share your concern about protecting our public lands as we pursue renewable energy development. Under my direction, BLM is focused on developing renewable energy in a manner that protects the signature landscapes, wildlife habitats, 

and cultural resources of the public lands. As I have stated on numerous occasions, 

we want to implement the New Energy Frontier ‘‘right from the start.’’ This is being 

accomplished by conducting studies and analyses in advance to identify the most appropriate areas for siting renewable energy projects and transmission infrastructure, areas where conflicts with other resource values are avoided or minimized. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

Question. Europe built its first offshore wind farm in 1991. With the current 7.5 

years Minerals Management Service (MMS) permitting process, it is unlikely that 

new utility-scale offshore wind projects will be operating in the Federal waters until 

the end of the decade. By that time, Europe will have hundreds of utility-scale offshore wind farms with a production capacity of 40 to 55 gigawatts (GW), and a total 

investment in excess of $150 billion. The United Kingdom alone will be producing 

a quarter of its electricity from offshore wind by 2020, representing an investment 

of $120 billion and creating up to 70,000 jobs. Here in the United States, we can’t 

even get demonstration projects in the water in a timely manner to get the data 

needed for eventually building utility-scale projects. 

In my State of Maine, we have a 60-day permitting period for new technology research, development, and demonstration projects where new offshore wind turbine 

designs can be placed in the water for a limited period for performance testing and 

environmental assessment work. Will you consider developing such a 60-day permitting period and guidelines for full-scale new turbine research, development, and 

testing projects in Federal waters? Will you provide funding opportunities for the 

required environmental monitoring efforts so that monitoring protocols can be developed for these new technologies? 

Answer. The Secretary is committed to the expeditious and responsible development of clean renewable energy in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. The MMS 

regulations incorporate Federal environmental and consultation requirements (including consultation with States), and also reflect time needed by developers to generate site data and submit project plans. Certain timeframes are therefore built in, 

such as conducting environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) or complying with the Endangered Species Act or the Coastal Zone 

Management Act. 

However, the overall time the renewable energy permitting process could take will 

be influenced heavily by other factors, such as whether there is competitive interest 

in the area, what kind of resource assessment the developer needs in order to secure 

financing, the kind of technology the developer intends to use, and the level of consultation required with States, tribes, and other Federal agencies. As a general rule, 

the more prepared the developer is when it submits its application and the more 

multiple-use and environmental review issues that have been addressed in advance, 

the faster the process will move. 

The process can potentially take many years if a developer chooses to obtain a 

lease before beginning site work, and then takes several years to develop site data 

(the regulations allow a developer up to 5 years) before designing and submitting 

final construction plans. These multiple approval steps may also necessitate additional NEPA analysis and State and Federal consultations. However, barring any 

serious multiple-use conflicts, the approval process may take as little as 3 years if 

a developer is able to come fully prepared with completed site data and construction 

plans, and does not face competition from other interested developers. 

MMS is actively working with States and other Federal agencies to generate critical environmental data to help expedite Federal environmental reviews, and to address multiple use and other issues in advance of the leasing process. We are closely 

examining our regulations and the permitting process to look for ways to improve 

efficiency while still meeting all legal requirements, and maintaining robust and responsible environmental and safety standards. 
107 

While Federal statutes will not allow for us to approve research, pilot, or demonstration projects in a 60-day timeframe, MMS provides a separate course of action 

for noncommercial technology testing and data collection leases that moves quickly. 

Indeed, under this procedure, the Department has already issued four leases for 

data gathering in support of future commercial offshore-wind projects. In addition, 

the MMS regulations allow the Director to issue leases to a Federal agency or a 

State for renewable energy research activities in areas where there is no competitive 

leasing interest. 

Regarding funding for environmental monitoring efforts, the MMS has issued a 

solicitation that includes developing environmental monitoring protocols for offshore 

renewable energy technologies. Currently, proposals are being reviewed and we intend to have this work begin in the near future. We appreciate your interest in expediting the responsible, environmentally sound development of the Nation’s promising offshore wind energy. 

Question. Last summer we enjoyed a wonderful visit to Acadia National Park, a 

jewel of Maine’s coast. Thank you for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

money ($4.7 million) you announced last week to help rehabilitate the Schoodic Environmental Research Center, a former Navy base that now offers innovative educational programs that combine natural science research with field-based education. 

As you saw during your visit, Acadia is unique among National Parks in that it 

still contains many privately owned land parcels within the park’s official boundaries. Looking forward at the fiscal year 2011 budget, Acadia has the opportunity 

to purchase a key 39-acre parcel near Lower Hadlock Pond. The land is appraised 

at $3 million and your budget request includes $1.7 million in LWCF money to help 

acquire it. I understand it is a tough budget year, but I hope we can work together 

to get the park the full amount it needs to acquire this piece of land. 

Answer. In formulating the budget request for Federal land acquisition within the 

National Park System, the National Park Service applies criteria to rank and 

prioritize land acquisition at the park, regional, and national level. To leverage 

projects and resources and achieve maximum conservation benefits, projects were 

evaluated Department-wide. The projects included in the fiscal year 2011 budget request reflect the Department’s and NPS’s highest land acquisition priorities. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $1,764,432 to acquire a 22.9-acre tract at Acadia National Park. The tract, which borders Round Pond and is in a very secluded 

section of Mount Desert Island, was determined to be the highest acquisition priority at the park. The second-highest acquisition priority at the park, and the subject of your inquiry, is the 39-acre tract valued at $3,000,000 located at Lower 

Hadlock Pond. This tract will be evaluated for potential acquisition in future budgets. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator FEINSTEIN. The hearing is recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.] 

(109) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:33 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Feinstein, Tester, and Alexander. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I welcome you to our hearing on the fiscal year 2011 

budget request for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 

I am pleased to welcome Tom Tidwell, the new Chief of the 

USFS. Chief, this is the first time you have had the opportunity 

to testify before the subcommittee, so I want to say we are all looking forward to your testimony and to working with you. Given all 

the changes in your proposed budget request, it is clear that we 

have a good deal to discuss. The President’s request provides $5.38 billion for the USFS. That is an increase of $61 million, or 1 percent. Despite the constraints 

reflected on this budget, there are a number of important programs 

that receive increases. 

In particular, the budget request provides a total of $2.64 billion for all wildland fire activities. That is an increase of $129 million 

over the enacted level. That is 5 percent. Within that amount, hazardous fuels reduction activities are funded at $349 million, roughly equal to this year’s level. The budget also proposes $1.59 billion to fund operations for the 

Nation’s forests and grasslands. That is a 2 percent increase. And 

State and private forestry programs receive a 4 percent increase, 

for a total of $321 million. Land acquisitions increase by 16 percent, for a total of $74 million. 
110 

Now, there are also a number of program cuts. Funding for construction and maintenance of facilities, roads, and trails is cut by 

21 percent for a total of $438 million. Road construction and maintenance is cut by 31 percent, for a total of $164 million. And this 

cut comes despite the fact that the service reports a $3 billion backlog in road maintenance as part of its budget request. 

And finally, funding for State and volunteer fire assistance is cut by 29 percent, a total of $57 million. 

I would like to speak for a moment about two major changes that 

are part of the request. One is the proposal to combine several of 

the agency’s land management programs into a new integrated resource restoration account. We spoke about this yesterday. The 

other is a major restructuring of the agency’s fire preparedness and 

suppression accounts. 

Let me begin with the wildland fire programs. The budget re- quests a total of $1.5 billion for fire suppression. That is an increase of $90 million, or 6 percent. It includes $1.2 billion as part 

of the fire suppression account and $333 million that has been 

shifted to the preparedness account. 

For years now, the USFS has been charging a portion of its preparedness costs to the fire suppression account, hiding the true cost 

of the agency’s readiness needs. So I am pleased to see this shift 

to properly pay for those activities within the preparedness account, which is where they belong. All told, the budget requests $1 billion for firefighter salaries, 

training, and equipment. That is a 49 percent increase compared 

to 2010. 

Now, I support the level provided in this budget for fire suppression, but I am concerned that the request divides firefighting funds 

into three overly complicated accounts. Now, this is account one, 

$595 million for base fire suppression. Two, $291 million for the 

Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement 

(FLAME) Fund, which was instituted by Congress last year to 

cover the cost of fighting large wildfires, and $282 million for a 

third account, the Wildland Fire Contingency Reserve, which is a 

reserve fund that can only be accessed by Presidential declaration. 

I do not understand the need to have three separate fire suppression accounts, and I hope you will explain that. 

An even more significant change is the proposal to merge three 

National Forest System programs to create a new $694 million line 

item called the ‘‘Integrated Resource Restoration’’ program. 

Now, the administration has proposed this initiative to provide 

flexibility to fund restoration work it plans to do on the ground. I 

am concerned that this budget request leaves a lot of questions unanswered. 

First, why the administration feels such a significant restructuring of the budget is necessary to accomplish your restoration 

goals. I am concerned that collapsing three programs into one 

huge, new account reduces transparency and accountability regarding how these program dollars are spent, and I think others share 

that concern with me. 

I would also like to discuss how the USFS proposes to allocate 

funds for this initiative, particularly how the agency plans to implement a new $50 million priority watersheds and jobs stabiliza-
111 

tion initiative to fund large-scale restoration and create jobs in 

rural communities. 

And finally, I would like to discuss the impact that these changes 

will have on the availability of timber supply from national forests. 

Chief, I am hoping you can provide some clarity on how much timber the USFS plans to produce in fiscal year 2011 and how you 

plan to implement such a large increase in the use of stewardship 

contracting. 

These are important questions and they concern a number of 

Senators, and I hope you and your staff will help us work through 

this as we begin the process of drafting a bill. 

Now I would like to turn to my ranking member, Senator Alexander, for any comments that you may care to make. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Chief, welcome. Glad to have you here. 

I am glad to see Rocky Fork included in the USFS land acquisition fund. We are getting close to finishing that. It is your number 

one-ranked project, and it is a tremendous piece of property for the 

Cherokee National Forest. 

You are mostly a westerner, and we have a pretty good balance 

on this subcommittee. We are all interested in the whole country, 

but I used to think President Reagan had asked me to be chairman 

of the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors in the mid1980s, and after going through that for a couple of years, I thought 

we probably ought to have two different environmental and conservation policies, one for the West and one for the East, because 

the issues were so different so much of the time. For example, in 

the West, so much of the land is owned by the Federal Government, but in Tennessee, North Carolina, in our area, very little is 

owned by the Federal Government. In our area, the Great Smoky 

Mountains and the Cherokee National Forest, which is adjacent to 

it on each end, are about it for us. So we have a completely different attitude toward the presence of a Federal Government. Even 

the conservative Republicans in the area where I live and have 

grown up are big fans of managing the Great Smokies as if it were 

a wilderness area and of protecting and encouraging the Cherokee 

National Forest. 

So we have those different attitudes, and they are represented 

here. I look forward to working with you on them, and I thank you 

for making the Cherokee National Forest a priority. 

Both the chairman and I have been interested in the impact of 

what some conservation groups have called the ‘‘renewable energy 

sprawl’’ on treasured landscapes. It makes no sense for us to spend 

$40 million buying the Cherokee National Forest and then sticking 

a bunch of 50-story wind turbines on top of it. You know, we do 

not want to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment. So there are appropriate places for large wind turbines 

and solar thermal plants and biomass enterprises that use huge 

amounts of wood. But there are also inappropriate places. 

Several of us, including the chairman, have asked you and Secretary Salazar to do a report on how you plan to look at this so 

it does not happen in some haphazard way and so we do not unwit-
112 

tingly set in motion damage to our treasured landscapes. One example could be through history, looking at the abandoned land 

mines that we are struggling with. There are thousands of them in 

California and many more across the country. With a little foresight, we might not have had so many, and with the proper foresight, we might have our renewable energy projects in the right 

places instead the wrong places. 

You are an important steward of public land. For example, in the 

Eastern United States, the wind does not blow very much and the 

large wind turbines only work best on ridge tops. Well, we really 

do not—I do not, anyway—and I think most of us do not want to 

see 50-story wind turbines along the 2,000 mile Appalachian Trail 

vista, much of which is in national forest. 

So I have brought a letter with some suggestions. One I gave to 

Senator Salazar. One I will give to you with some suggestions 

about what you might consider for your report. And I will get back 

into during the question time. 

The other areas in which I will be interested are biomass harvesting, which I think is a good idea for getting dead pine trees out 

of the forests, a bad idea if we cut down too many trees; invasive 

species, which is very important in our area, as it is in other areas 

in the country; and of course, firefighting. That is not just a western concern, it is an eastern concern. I am told that 85 percent of 

the employees in the Cherokee National Forest spend some of their 

time fighting fires. So we are all interested in that. And the chairman has been a real leader in trying to separate the firefighting 

costs, urgently important, from all the other costs so we do not just 

have a national—the USFS does not become only a national firefighting agency. I know of your distinguished background in that 

area, but we want to keep it in balance. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, Madam Chairman, those are my concerns. I look forward to 

the opportunity to ask questions, and I welcome the Chief. Also, 

Senator Cochran couldn’t make it today, but would like to offer a 

statement for the record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming the Forest Service 

Chief, Tom Tidwell, to the subcommittee this morning. Mr. Tidwell, thank you for 

joining us today to speak about the Forest Service’s (USFS) initiatives for fiscal year 

2011. 

Mr. Tidwell, I would also like to thank you for your hard work ensuring that our 

national forest system is maintained in a manner that allows for proper use of our 

Nation’s forests and provides the needed resources to protect forest health. 

I have one comment I would like to make about the Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research (Center) headquartered in Stoneville, Mississippi. This unit is part 

of the Southern Hardwoods Research Station. In 1996, the USFS research units in 

Mississippi, including the Southern Hardwoods Lab in Stoneville, the Forest Hydrology Lab in Oxford, and the Seed Biology Lab in Starkville merged to function as 

a research center with a common mission focus. 

The research that these units conduct is vitally important to both my State and 

the Nation. The good work that these researchers have undertaken has positively 

impacted national and State forests, as well as privately owned forest land. 

I was happy to request additional funding for this Center in previous appropriations bills and hope that the USFS will continue to focus its resources on the important work that Center is doing. 
113 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward to the 

testimony. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Chief, would you like to proceed? 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, thank you. Madam Chairman, members of 

the subcommittee, it is a privilege to be here today to discuss the 

President’s budget for the USFS. I appreciate the support this subcommittee has shown the USFS in the past, and I look forward to 

working with the subcommittee to provide more of the things that 

the American people need and want from the Nation’s forests and 

grasslands. 

The President’s budget request is designed to support the administration’s priorities, Secretary Vilsack’s priorities, for maintaining 

and increasing the resiliency of America’s forests. The USFS is taking an all-lands approach. We want to work across boundaries and 

ownerships to address the critical issues that are facing the Nation’s forests. 

The budget supports these priorities through five key objectives. 

The first is to restore and sustain forests and grasslands by increasing the collaborative efforts to build support for restoration activities that are needed to increase the resistance and resiliency of 

these ecosystems. The budget requests full funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund. It also proposes an integrated resource restoration budget line item which would align our 

budget structure with the restoration work that needs to be done 

on the landscape. It will facilitate an integrated approach to developing project proposals that will optimize multiple benefits. 

The second objective is to increase the emphasis on protecting 

and enhancing water resources and watershed health with a request for $50 million for a new Priority Watersheds and Job Stabilization Initiative. This is a pilot program that would fund largescale projects that will focus on watershed restoration and job creation. We would use the statewide assessments and our own watershed assessments to look at the jobs that could be created or maintained and the opportunity for biomass utilization for the selection 

criteria. 

The third objective is that we will manage landscapes to be more 

resilient to the stressors of climate change by applying the science 

that is developed by the USFS research and development to increase the adaptive capacity of ecosystems. We want to use science 

to determine how our management needs to change to increase the 

ecosystems’ resistance to the increasing frequency of disturbance 

events, such as fire, insect and disease outbreaks, invasives, flood, 

and drought. 

The fourth objective is that the budget request provides for full 

funding for wildland fire suppression, which includes a level of preparedness to continue our success to suppress 98 percent of 

wildland fires during initial attack. It provides for a realignment 

of preparedness and suppression funds that more accurately displays the true costs. It provides for a FLAME Fund to increase the 

accountability and transparency for the costs of large fires and provides for a contingency reserve fund that will significantly reduce 
114 

the need to transfer funds from other critical programs to fund fire 

suppression during the very active fire season. And it also increases the emphasis on hazardous fuel projects to reduce the 

threat of wildfire to homes and communities by doing more of the 

work in the wildland/urban interface. 

The last objective is to create jobs and increase economic opportunities in rural communities with the proposed Priority Watersheds and Jobs Stabilization Initiative, doing more work through 

stewardship contracting to build off the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects that encourage biomass utilization, continuing to work with the States to use the State and private forestry programs to address conservation across all lands, and 

through our job development with our 28 Job Corps centers and 

our partnership with the Department of Labor. Our goal is to increase collaborative efforts to build support for science-based, landscape-scale conservation, taking an all-lands approach to conservation, to build a restoration economy, which will provide jobs and 

economic opportunity for communities across our Nation. 

I also want to clarify that we will continue to use timber sale 

contracts when a timber sale contract is the best tool for us to be 

able to get the restoration work done and the forest health work 

done. It will be used whenever it is the best tool, and the decision 

will not be based on the revenue that is produced off of any individual project. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

I am going to be somewhat parochial in my questions. We discussed the Quincy Library Group (QLG) proposals, and it is my understanding that a Federal judge has lifted the injunction. So many 

of the projects are ready to go ahead. Are you on track to meet or 

exceed your initial target of 20,000 acres in 2010? And what will 

be the number scheduled to meet the 40,000-acre minimum target 

in 2011 called for in the QLG legislation? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for 

the leadership that you have provided over the years and especially 

with the QLG. 

We are on track this year. In fact, the region has told me that 

they actually believe that they will be able to treat maybe 25,000 

acres this year. With this budget request, we will be able to maintain the same level of funding for 2011 and a similar target accomplishment. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So $26 million for 2011? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I was hoping you could go to 40,000 acres. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we will see. Based on what we are able to 

get done this year and as we move forward with the program of 

work for 2011, we will get back to you if the region feels that they 

can actually increase that to get closer to 40,000. 

TIMBER SALES AND STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. I do intend to follow that. 
115 

Now, your budget would eliminate the use of below-cost timber 

sales in fiscal year 2011, and there are only a handful of forests 

nationwide and only one forest in California, the San Bernardino, 

that had timber programs that turn a net profit. 

So what impact would this have on your ability to get forest 

management work done in my State? 

What percentage of your timber sales are considered below-cost 

and would be affected by this change? 

And what impact would this prohibition have on the agency’s 

ability to get the work done on the ground? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Madam Chairman, thank you for the question. I 

want to clarify that with the subcommittee. We will be sending up 

a letter to clarify that we will not be restraining timber sale contracts based on the revenue that is produced. We want to look at 

the work that needs to be done on the landscape and then choose 

whichever is the appropriate tool, whether it be a stewardship contract or a timber sale contract. We do not even track which timber 

sale contracts actually produce a positive net revenue. We focus on 

doing the work, the things that need to be done on the landscape, 

and using the appropriate tool. So there will not be any restriction 

on using a timber sale contract or a stewardship contract. 

We do want to increase the use of the stewardship contracting. 

I think in many cases it is often—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Excuse me. I have an urgent call right outside. I am going to turn it over to the ranking member for a moment. You continue on and he will fill me in. I will be right back. 

Thank you. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Please go ahead, Chief. 

Mr. TIDWELL. To follow up with stewardship contracting, I do believe that it is a better tool in many situations. But we are going 

to use whatever tool is better. If a timber sale contract is the best 

tool to get the work done, we will use that, otherwise we will use 

a stewardship contract. 

It has been my experience that by using a stewardship contract, 

we can accomplish several different things. One, it is a more efficient business operation for the USFS. Instead of having multiple 

contracts to do various things on the landscape, we can have one 

contract. Stewardship contracting authority allows us to retain the 

receipts of any of the merchantable material and to use that to offset the costs of restoration. 

It has also been my experience that it helps build support for the 

work that we need to do across the landscape. When folks can see 

that we are not only dealing with the forest health concerns, dealing with hazardous fuel reduction concerns, but at the same time 

we are addressing the needs to improve wildlife habitat, to increase 

fisheries habitat, to provide for a better road system, to replace culverts, and we can put all this work together, it builds more support 

for the restoration work that needs to be done, and I think it provides more assurance that we are not just going to be doing the 

biomass removal. So, it is one of the things we are going to focus 

on in 2011, increasing the use of stewardship contracting. 

WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Chief. 
116 

I will go ahead and ask my questions now, and when the chairman comes back, she will continue hers or we will go on to Senator 

Tester’s. 

Not long ago, BP Alternative Energy notified the HuronManistee National Forest it is planning to withdraw its application 

to build up to 22 wind turbines, each 420-feet tall, on Federal land. 

It would be a 75-acre parcel near the Lake Michigan coast. It 

would have required the development of 5 miles of permanent new 

roads in the forests, the installation of more than 40 miles of underground electrical wirings or above ground, and several miles of 

above-ground transmission lines. 

To take another example—well, in that case, it has been said to 

me that it would be perfectly appropriate to put wind turbines in 

the middle of Lake Michigan or in the middle of Lake Huron where 

the wind blows better and you cannot see them. They do not interfere with the landscape. As I understand USFS policy, those decisions are simply made on an ad hoc basis by the local USFS manager based upon wind applications. 

To take another example, the Appalachian Trails runs for 2,100 

miles from Georgia to Maine. It runs through eight national forests. Those ridge tops are where the wind blows best in the East. 

So I guess under current USFS policy, we would leave it to each 

of the USFS managers whether it was a good idea to destroy the 

vista. 

I remember another example a couple or 3 years ago where in 

a national park, which is not your area, in order to get the money 

for it, whoever was managing Old Faithful allowed a big cell tower 

to be put up right next to the Old Faithful geyser, which is sort 

of a brain-dead decision in my opinion. 

These new renewable energy projects are massive in scale. The 

chairman has talked about the solar energy plants that are 3 miles 

by 3 miles on the Mohave Desert, a biomass plant that produced 

just 100 megawatts, which is one-tenth of a nuclear plant—I figured out you would have to—well, to equal a nuclear plant, you 

would have to continuously forest an area the size of the Great 

Smoky Mountain National Park. 

So what are your plans? We have asked you and Secretary Salazar to give us your ideas about your policies for that. I have a letter 

for you with some ideas. But tell me what the USFS’s attitude is, 

for example, toward large wind turbines on scenic ridge tops in the 

Cherokee National Forest or the White Mountain or other scenic 

forest ridge tops in the Eastern United States. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, thank you, Senator. I look forward to seeing 

your letter. We are in the process of finalizing our policy regulations as far as dealing with wind energy, and that will be the policy 

that will help our line officers, our forest supervisors, address applications. We do have a responsibility to do what we can for renewable energy, to address the Nation’s needs. On the other hand, 

we also have a responsibility to address the environmental effects 

of any type of energy development, whether it is renewable or not. 

So, when it comes to wind turbines, one of the things that, when 

we have an application, we will look at and factor in, are the environmental effects to see if this is actually a good use or the right 

use for the national forests and grasslands. One of the things that 
117 

we always do look at is if there are other lands that are available 

for this type of use. 

So far we have not received very many applications. I do think 

that there may be certain places in the country that this may be 

an appropriate use, but so far we have just received a few applications. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Let me ask this. In the case of oil and gas 

exploration, do you not have certain zones where you say it is permissible and certain other zones where it is not? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We do go through a leasing analysis with oil and 

gas, and then—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. But you do not just allow an oil or gas company to come in and apply to drill anywhere you might want to in 

the national forest. Do you? 

Mr. TIDWELL. If it is an area that is available for leasing, yes. 

And it is one of the things we need to look at as far as with wind 

turbine—— 

RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEMS

LANDS

Senator ALEXANDER. Or solar plants. Would it not be wiser to establish zones or areas and say these are appropriate places, rather 

than just let entrepreneurs who might be attracted by a 3 cent per 

kilowatt hour Federal subsidy to come in and build a big turbine 

and then sell the tax credit off to some banker in New York or Chicago who then subdivides it like a real estate loan and sells it 

around the world? That is what actually happens with this stuff. 

I mean, four Democratic Senators just held a press conference 

and talked about $2 billion in the stimulus package that went for 

wind turbines, and 80 percent of the jobs were in China and Spain. 

So I am not even so concerned about wind versus nuclear, wind 

versus solar, or the stimulus package. I am more concerned about 

a rational policy for protecting treasured landscapes as we move in 

appropriate ways to take advantage of renewable energy so that we 

do it on the front end, not on the back end, and so that we do not 

find ourselves 20 years from now with an abandoned land mines 

situation where we have got a lot of mines that looked like a good 

idea when they were started, but years later they have become not 

just an eyesore but an expensive problem that needs to be cleaned 

up. 

My time is up. I will look forward to talking with you more about 

this, and I imagine the chairman would like to finish her questions. 

LAKE TAHOE BASIN—FIRE HAZARD FROM SLASH PILES

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate 

that. 

We also spoke about the Tahoe Basin, which has been a big priority for me. So I want to ask a question that specifically relates 

to the Lake Tahoe management unit. On February 9, Malcom 

North of the USFS’s Pacific Southwest Research Station reported 

to researchers at a conference that he found high rates of tree mortality after the Angora fire because hand-thinning treatments were 

piled and left unburned, which is a real problem in the area. He 
118 

stated that if you have unburned piles throughout a treated area, 

it is almost like you did not do the treatment at all. 

My question is how will the Lake Tahoe Basin management unit 

reduce the number of unburned piles after treatment? 

Now, I walk a trail every year and see the piles, and I have commented on them and some have gotten burned and some have not 

gotten burned. But what I have always been told is, well, it depends on the burn days. And so it is a burn day and nothing is 

happening anywhere. So I ask why, and the question is answered, 

well, we cannot get the contractors. And then I find out that a lot 

of the work is done by prison inmates and you have to bring them 

all the way up to the lake, which takes 3 hours, back which takes 

3 hours, and the limited workday. 

So the question comes, how do you develop the contracting units 

that are on the spot and working 8 hours a day on these piles and 

creating the piles and then a year later burning the piles? What 

I have noticed is that the State park there has done a much better 

job, at least on the west side of the lake, than our people have 

done, and I wonder why. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you for the question. 

I do not know why, in this case, the State has been more effective than we have. I do know that we will finish up the last piles 

that need to be burned just as soon as we can get in there this 

spring and early summer. 

When we talk about the Lake Tahoe Basin, the long-term solution has to be something besides just piling this material and burning it. The number of days that we have where we have a clearing 

index so that the smoke will disperse and we also have conditions 

where we feel confident we can burn piles is very small. We then 

have to leave piles that are adjacent to trees, and if we get a wildfire like you referenced, then we will suffer mortality in those 

trees. 

The better solution is to find a way to make use of this material, 

to be able to use this residual material that needs to be removed 

and find some way to convert it to another use. Currently, we are 

struggling because I think the closest facility is about 75 miles 

away. Economically that does not work out. We have to find a way 

to develop additional infrastructure. I think the infrastructure 

needs to be closer to the areas where we have the fuel, and we 

need to make sure the material is the right size so that we can 

have a facility that we can haul this material to so we are not so 

dependent on the weather and only having certain days to burn. 

I can assure you that when we do have those days and we have 

the clearing limits we can burn. You have been up there in the 

basin on those beautiful summer days and people see a bunch of 

smoke. They often comment about it. That is not what they are 

usually coming to the basin for. 

So we will continue to have to do some burning, but I want us 

to be able to move forward and hopefully develop some additional 

infrastructure. 
119 

LAKE TAHOE BASIN—BIOMASS INFRASTRUCTURE

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think that is right. I think you hit the nail 

on the head actually. And I do think there are places where you 

can locate a biomass facility such as in the South Lake Tahoe area 

right off of Highway 50 there. There is space. It does provide jobs 

for people. I think the question is a system that makes some sense 

economically that can be set up and perhaps you could do that. I 

mean, I think that would be a great contribution to getting some 

of the dead, dying, and downed stuff out that is going to really fuel 

another forest fire of major proportions. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. That is one of the things I know that the 

basin is working on with one of the counties to see if there is interest in maybe building a new facility that is scaled appropriately for 

the amount of material that we need to remove, not only in the 

basin but maybe from one or two of the adjacent national forests 

too. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. The thing is that you do not have to take the 

stuff over the mountains, which you do when you leave the lake 

proper area. It is all surrounded. So you have got to go up and then 

down with it to Placerville or someplace like that, and that is a distance and it is a hard pull. So you really need to do something, I 

think, in the basin itself. 

Anyway, that is my view. It is, I think, of significant importance. 

We have just submitted the second Lake Tahoe restoration plan, 

and it is really the crown jewel because it is one of two clear lakes 

in the world remaining. And a major forest fire just will desecrate 

it. So it is an important thing to do. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Madam Chairman, I want to also thank you for 

your support over the years for the Lake Tahoe Basin. We are 

making a difference there not only reducing the sediment that in 

the past has gone into the lake, but also making a difference in reducing the threat of large fires. Even with the Angora fire, we had 

situations there when that fire did burn into treated areas, that 

the suppression crews were able to get in there—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No question. You are absolutely right. 

Mr. TIDWELL [continuing]. And they were effective. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No question. So it did work. I mean, we know 

that forest management works if we do it. The question is to do 

enough of it. So I thank you very much for that and appreciate it. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Chairman Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Montana comes to life. 

Senator TESTER. Ah, yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Not that we are going to be parochial, but we 

will in my case. 

INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION LINE ITEM—ACCOUNTABILITY

Senator TESTER. Thank you for being here, Tom. I really appreciate the work you have done in Region 1 previous to this job, and 

I appreciate your vision here in the position you have. 

Secretary Vilsack has a new vision for the USFS. In Montana 

just a few days ago, the Secretary talked about how a bill that I 

happen to have, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, provides the 
120 

tools the USFS needs to achieve that goal. He and I both believe, 

as I think the chairwoman does, that timber production and restoration are tools to create and save jobs in our rural communities 

and ultimately save those rural communities. I can see this vision 

in this budget. 

Unfortunately, what I do not see in the budget is the accountability to manage the money. For example, in my bill there is a 

mandate to make sure that the work on the ground is completed 

and that it is done at a time certain. 

What is the USFS doing to make sure that the funds are accounted for and spent wisely and restoration, timber harvest, and 

watershed management are all still completed in this new budget? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, thank you for the question, and also 

I want to thank you for your leadership and your support for us 

to be able to do more restoration work on the landscape, to provide 

more jobs, and also with your legislation, to add additional areas 

to the wilderness preservation system. I want to thank you for that 

leadership. 

Also, thank you for that question. With our budget justification, 

we do plan to provide additional information to the subcommittee 

that will not only show the number of acres that will be restored 

with this budget request and the number of watersheds that will 

be improved, but also we will provide you with a list of all the 

other outputs that will be accomplished through this work. That 

will include in excess of 2.4 billion board feet of timber sold, the 

number of acres of wildlife habitat that will be improved, the number of miles of fishery streams improved, and the number of acres 

of noxious weeds treated. We want to be able to show you that by 

restoring the number of acres that we are proposing with this 

budget request, that it equals this set of accomplishments. We 

want to be able to show you that there is a direct connection so 

that we can be held accountable for not only improving the overall 

watershed conditions, but also to be accountable for this set of outputs. That is very important that we are able to provide those. 

So, I look forward to being able to bring that up and sit down 

with you and the staff and work with the subcommittee to address 

your concerns. I recognize that is missing in our budget request, 

and we need to get that up to you so you can see that. 

Senator TESTER. I appreciate that. 

I guess the next question would be, to follow up, is how often do 

you plan on giving the subcommittee the kind of analysis that you 

just spoke of? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we will continue to work with the subcommittee to address your concerns. Throughout the year, we are 

more than glad to come up at any time to be able to show the 

progress that we have been making on accomplishments. I would 

like to reference what we were able to do in 2009. If you look at 

2009, it was probably the toughest market that we have had with 

the timber and integrated wood products industries. However, we 

were still able to accomplish close to 97 percent of our timber target in 2009. We also exceeded our wildlife improvement targets and 

our hazardous fuel improvement targets. 

Senator TESTER. We appreciate that work. And quite honestly, I 

appreciate your openness about getting the information to us so 
121 

that we know as appropriators that the money is being spent wisely and efficiently. 

STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

In November 2008, the Government Accountability Office produced a report about the use of stewardship contracting in the 

agency. That report recommended three things: better plans for 

long-term stewardship contracting, better collection of data about 

stewardship contracts, and improved accounting for services received for products sold. 

What is the agency doing about addressing those management 

goals? 

Mr. TIDWELL. First, we have changed our accounting system so 

we are now able to track the outputs for stewardship contracts and 

also the revenues and the cost of that work. We will now be able 

to include that in our automated timber sale statement of accounting. Each year we will be able to produce that report that will show 

all the accomplishments. 

We have also provided a stewardship agreement template that 

we can use across the country so that every region and every forest 

is using a consistent stewardship agreement. 

We are also in the process of completing a new stewardship contract that I refer to as a blended contract. In the past, we have had 

two contracts, one was an integrated timber sale contract and one 

was a service contract, and we had to chose at the start of the 

project which way to go with that. This new contract combines 

them so that we are able to use the same contract and not have 

to be worried so much about the market conditions. I believe that 

will help facilitate the work. It will make it easier not only for our 

employees, but definitely for our purchasers. I believe that will be 

a significant improvement and will help us to move forward and 

use this authority more. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Well, thank you, Chief Tidwell. 

Madam Chair, I have got to slip out for a bit. If the hearing is 

still going on, I will come back, but if it is not, we will submit the 

questions in writing. 

SUNRISE POWERLINK

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I wanted to ask questions, if I may, regarding the Sunrise 

Powerlink in California. This is really a very big deal. San Diego 

Gas and Electric has sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack. They are 

cautiously optimistic the forest supervisor will not require further 

environmental review of and beyond the multi-year review by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and California Public Utilities 

Commission. 

The governor has called Secretary Vilsack twice and the White 

House once in order to try to get the USFS to act on the project. 

The Imperial County Board of Supervisors has written a letter, 

which is here, to Secretary Vilsack requesting issuance of the 

record of decision stressing that the county has 27 percent unemployment and this is a big employment facility. The Imperial Valley 

Economic Development Corporation is hosting a renewable energy 
122 

summit, and there is expected to be considerable frustration that 

Federal permitting stands in the way of economic recovery. The record of decision would enable construction of a $1.7 billion 

power line that would put 400 to 500 people to work. 

I can give you all the correspondence on this, if you would like. 

But here there are two infrastructure projects which await USFS 

decisions. One is the Tehachapi transmission line from the 

Tehachapi wind resource area into Los Angeles County, and the 

second is the Sunrise Powerlink from Imperial County to San 

Diego. Both have their State permits and have had the other Federal permits for more than a year. After all these years of permitting, both await only the USFS. 

So here is the question. Would you give priority to the permitting 

needs? Now, this is a privately funded infrastructure project to essentially help us obtain the job goals. 

And the second is, by what date can you assure me that the 

USFS will complete its review of both the Tehachapi and Sunrise 

transmission lines, which are in an area identified by the Department of Energy (DOE) as national interest electric transmission 

corridor lines? 

It is a big deal in southern California, and the only thing awaiting its go-ahead is actually you. So you have a chance to really 

break this gridlock and move these two projects along. How do you 

feel? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is meant to be heat. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Madam Chairman, I can assure you that both of 

these projects are a priority for us. We recognize how important it 

is for us to get our part of the analysis done. 

On the Tehachapi, it is my understanding that the company is 

moving forward and that they realize it is going to take a little 

more time for us to finish our analysis and our section 7 consultation. It is my understanding that they are okay if it takes a little 

more time for us to finish that analysis. 

On the Sunrise, I understand that is a more urgent need for us 

to complete our analysis. We are looking at the analysis that was 

completed by the BLM for this project and we are evaluating that 

to see if it does cover all the issues that have been raised about 

having a line placed on the Cleveland National Forest. Based on 

that analysis, we will let you know if we feel we can go forward 

and use the existing analysis or if we need to supplement that. 

As far as a date, I will need to get back to you and provide you 

a specific date when we will have this accomplished. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. If you would give me a specific date, I 

would appreciate it. 

[The information follows:] 

As of April 15, 2010, the Forest Service is finalizing review of existing environmental analysis documentation on Sunrise Powerlink, and anticipates making a determination within a couple of weeks on next steps. 

SUNRISE POWERLINK

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me just read one part of the letter from 

the chief operating officer of San Diego Gas and Electric. 

‘‘The delays associated with the unprecedented level of review of Sunrise jeopardize the timely completion of a crucial energy infrastructure project for southern 
123 

California in an area that has been identified by the Federal Government as having 

critical and persistent electricity congestion. 

‘‘Sunrise is located within a designated transmission corridor on BLM and USFS 

lands pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Its location will not only help modernize the grid in this congested region and increase reliable electric service to consumers, it will also do so while facilitating the development of renewable energy at 

a lower cost to consumers. 

‘‘Additionally, at a time when spurring economic development has become critically important, Sunrise would directly inject nearly $2 billion into the economy and 

create over 400 green jobs with potentially thousands more that would be employed 

in constructing the wind, solar, and geothermal energy facilities that will benefit 

from this new line.’’ 

So as you can see, this is really a mega-project for us in that it 

then produces what is necessary for the wind and solar energy to 

transmit. So the longer you guys hold it up, the less renewables we 

have in an area that is a heavy consumer of electricity. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Madam Chairman, I will follow up with the 

region later this week in fact. I am going to be down in southern 

California, and I will follow up. Based on that letter you have just 

shared, that is some different information than what I have been 

shared. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can I give you this? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I would appreciate that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It has, I think, all the notes. It has got the 

San Diego letter. It has got the Board of Supervisors. I think it has 

what you need to understand the alacrity with which people are 

looking at this. And as far as I know, there is no opposition, which 

is unusual. 

Mr. TIDWELL. That is also encouraging. Based on my inbox, I 

have received quite a few emails from folks that actually are concerned about the project, which is often the case. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, could you tell me the nature of the concern? You know, in California, you get a suit over almost anything. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 

The comments received in the Chief’s e-mail inbox in relation to the Sunrise 

Powerlink have been almost unanimously against the project. As of March 30, 2010, 

the Chief has received only one comment in favor of the project. In addition to these 

e-mails, public meetings on the project have generated attendance in the hundreds, 

with overwhelming opposition being voiced. Many of the concerns expressed in the 

e-mails are centered around health issues, viewscapes, and impacts to wildlife. 

There are also concerns about the fire danger the Powerlink may pose. There is concern about the fact that there is only one road in and out of the El Monte Valley, 

which would lead to difficulty fighting fires that might result from the Powerlink. 

Additionally, some people believe there are better and safer ways for power to be 

generated in the area, or that this is really not a renewable energy project at all, 

and that it will, in fact, be linked to unregulated fossil-fuel energy from Mexico, 

causing enhanced pollution in southern California. There have been concerns expressed about the ‘‘greed’’ of Sempra, and that the company should not be allowed 

to market itself as ‘‘green’’ when it really is not. This is based on Sempra’s refusal 

to abide by a written agreement guaranteeing it would carry only renewable energy. 

Hang gliding and paragliding enthusiasts oppose the project because of the danger 

the lines pose to people who enjoy their sport. Additional concerns pertain to increased vehicle traffic and removal of live oak trees that some people believe will 

be cut down for the project. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But we have to find out what is the public 

good and move with the public good. And renewable power because 

I do not think there are any flora or fauna or real environmental 

problems that I know of, and my staff, I think, has looked at this 
124 

rather carefully. So I think it is unlike other areas where you do 

it in the middle of desert tortoise habitat or bighorn sheep or something like that. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we will review the analysis, and if it is adequate to address the concerns, we will be able to move forward. If 

we do need to do a supplemental analysis, we will let you know. 

The last thing that I would want us to do is—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could I just say one other thing? My staff 

handed me this note, just so you know. There is local opposition 

by NIMBY groups fully considered and dismissed by BLM and the 

California Public Utilities Commission. So I mean, you have to bear 

that in mind. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If we are going to get this done, we need to 

do it. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You were going to say something? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, the last thing we would want to do is go forward with a decision that lacked adequate analysis and thus we 

find ourselves in court. I would much rather make sure we have 

the adequate level of analysis so that we can implement the 

project. That is one of the things we will be looking at. We will take 

a very careful look at it, and either way we will do everything we 

can to expedite this. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. 

Senator Alexander. 

ENERGY CORRIDOR SITING

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I wanted to move to ask about invasive species, but I enjoyed listening to Senator Feinstein. The problem with renewable energy 

for this country is the one of scale. For example, if we were to have 

20 percent of our electricity from wind, we would have to build 

19,000 miles of transmission lines, and where will those transmission lines go? Well, the easiest place to put them is not through 

somebody’s suburban backyard, but through the national forests or 

some conservation easement land that we worked for 50 or 60 

years to protect. 

So I know that, on the one hand, the need for energy is going 

to cause the DOE to say, well, here is a national transportation 

corridor we want Congress to approve. But I think at the same 

time we need to have the countervailing policy from the USFS and 

the national parks to say, but wait a minute, we have got some 

treasured landscapes that we want to protect and we do not want 

to just override that for a little bit of intermittent wind power or 

even intermittent solar power for an area as large as southern 

California. 

I know nothing about this project and have no comment on it, 

but it illustrates the need for a good, rational policy for what is basically a new phenomenon in our country. We did not really have 

these issues to consider 20 years ago. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Would you yield for 1 second? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Oh, I will yield for more than 1 second. 
125 

Senator FEINSTEIN. How dare you to see a more difficult permit 

process than the State of California has anywhere. It goes on and 

on and on. And I guess my point is it has made its way through 

every permit process, every evaluation. That is pretty good because 

it does not happen many times. 

Senator ALEXANDER. No. But it is possible today—let me just 

move it to the East—for someone to come build a—get a bunch of 

Federal subsidies and build a big wind park right outside the Cherokee National Forest in east Tennessee and then say, okay, we 

want to run the transmission lines through the national forest to 

get to Knoxville when it is a puny amount of power that only works 

one-third of the time and we would not want our vistas destroyed. 

We would not have thought of that before. 

So I do not have any comment on the southern California issue. 

I am just saying that the chairman and I both would like to introduce into the discussion the larger issue of how we deal with renewable energy sprawl as it deals with deserts, national forests, 

national parks. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

But if I may, I would like for you to say something about 

invasive species and what you are doing about that. That is a big 

problem for us. The Great Smoky Mountains, for example, and the 

Cherokee National Forest have more species of trees, for example, 

than Europe, but we are about to lose all of the hemlock trees. The 

gypsy moths have penetrated our whole region. Our University of 

Tennessee is trying to do some research work in the area, and we 

have some on-the-ground ways. I have been there myself to see if 

you put beetles to try to deal with the woolly adelgids that are destroying that are destroying the hemlock trees. Your budget is cut 

for on-the-ground treatments and research, I am told. 

So what is your attitude about priority for invasive species and 

research to try to find better ways to deal with that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, thank you for the question. 

When it comes to invasives, we approach it both through our research and also through management. We continue to need to be 

able to do the research. As you mentioned, with this predator beetle on the hemlock woolly adelgid, it does show promise as potentially a control for the adelgid, and it is one of the things that our 

research scientists have been working on. We also want to continue 

to look for other ways to suppress the adelgid, and it is essential 

that we are able to continue our research. 

But, at the same time, it is also essential for us to then have 

management to see if there are some things that we can do out on 

the landscape that will help slow down this spread and increase 

the resistance of the hemlocks to this adelgid. So that is how our 

research and management work together. 

We also work very closely with universities with our research 

and then also the States. Our State foresters are a key partner as 

we address invasives. It is a perfect example of this all-lands approach; invasives do not care. They do not pay attention to the 

boundary on the map or the property ownership. They are going to 

go wherever the host is. It is essential that we work together with 

the private landowners and also with the national forests as we 
126 

take on these issues, so we can find a solution across the entire 

landscape. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I would simply like to encourage you to, 

wherever appropriate, work in partnership with universities in 

States like the University of Tennessee or the State of Tennessee 

or other States and universities to maximize our bucks on this. You 

know, 40 years ago, the chestnut was our major hardwood tree in 

the forests of the Eastern United States. It is gone. The hemlocks 

appear to be going unless the predator beetle or something else 

makes a difference. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator FEINSTEIN. I thank you very much. 

Mr. Tidwell, let me just say that I think this subcommittee is 

very interested. You are a new Chief. That is always an exciting 

time. I mean, we look forward to your innovations, your initiative. 

We all know that there is a place for that and good management, 

and hopefully the USFS is going to thrive under your management 

and we would like to be as much help to you as we can. So please 

feel very welcome, despite our questions, which were actually very 

mild questions. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION

Question. Your budget contains significant restructuring and policy changes to the 

National Forest System (NFS) account, including a proposal to merge three existing 

programs into this new ‘‘Integrated Resource Restoration’’ program. Why is such a 

major budget restructuring is necessary? Why do you think your current budget 

structure does not allow you to meet your restoration objectives? 

Answer. The Forest Service’s (USFS) focus on forest landscape restoration is the 

basis for the proposal to establish the Integrated Resource Restoration program by 

combining the NFS—wildlife and fisheries habitat management, forest products, 

and the vegetation and watershed management budget line items (BLIs). In addition, the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund (CFLRF) previously 

funded under the Wildland Fire Management appropriation is included within this 

BLI because it shares a similar primary purpose to restore forest landscapes. The 

NFS programs and the CFLRF all share similar and complementary objectives to 

sustain and restore aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Restoration and maintenance of sustainable landscapes and watersheds requires a holistic approach and 

our ability to sustain healthy watersheds will be facilitated by having a single BLI. 

Combining the NFS budget line items is clearly a logical grouping that enhances 

the USFS’s ability to focus on integration. 

TIMBER SUPPLY

Question. I have received a letter from 14 Senators, including a number of Senators who serve on this subcommittee, expressing serious concern that this budget 

request creates uncertainty about the availability of timber from public lands at a 

time when communities that depend on the forest product industry for jobs can least 

afford it. An adequate and predictable timber supply is critical to maintain our existing forest products infrastructure. I am hoping you can provide some clarity on 

exactly how much timber you plan to produce. How many board feet of timber do 

you plan to produce in fiscal year 2011 with the funding level proposed by your 

budget? 

Answer. The USFS proposes to sell 2.4 billion board feet of timber with the proposed budget in fiscal year 2011. 
127 

Question. If we provide the USFS flexibility to spend your funding on multiple 

restoration objectives, how can we be certain you will actually produce that amount? 

Answer. As identified in the budget justification, given the budget proposed, the 

USFS intends our resource management and restoration activities to generate a sale 

volume of 2.4 billion board feet. The USFS will continue to track and report on our 

volume accomplishments. Stewardship contracts and agreements will be USFS’s primary means of managing natural resources; this includes a focus on existing, new, 

and emerging markets for wood removal and utilization. These tools provide the 

USFS with the ability to exchange the value of the timber (goods) for the cost of 

services, such as the nontimber harvest activities. They also allow the USFS to supplement the value of the timber with appropriated funding or retained receipts as 

necessary to accomplish the specified nontimber harvest work. 

STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

Question. The success of your proposed restoration initiative relies heavily on the 

use of stewardship contracting authorities. However, even though stewardship contracting authorities have existed for more than a decade, the USFS has not made 

widespread use of them. You treated 88,000 acres in 2009 using these contracts, and 

I understand that you plan to treat 121,000 acres this year. Yet your fiscal year 

2011 budget sets a target of restoring 600,000 acres using stewardship contracts— 

a five-fold increase. How can we be confident that you will be able to meet this aggressive target? What specific steps do you plan to take to implement such a large 

increase in the use of these contracts? 

Answer. The USFS already has 10 years of experience in successfully implementing stewardship end-results contracts. During this 10-year period, our partners, cooperators, and employees have gained considerable experience and have 

overcome numerous obstacles. To expand the use of stewardship end-results contracting, we are finalizing the development of a simplified single contract instrument. This contract will focus on achieving the end results identified through the 

collaborative process, facilitate best-value contracting, and protect the interests of 

our stakeholders and the Government. Utilizing this contract of choice, as another 

tool to implement stewardship end-results contracting, the USFS will have an increased capacity to accomplish more good work for national forests. 

INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION

Question. Within your new Integrated Resource Restoration program, you propose 

$50 million for a ‘‘Priority Watersheds and Job Stabilization’’ initiative to fund a 

number of long-term stewardship contracts to improve watershed health and create 

jobs. How do you plan to select projects under this initiative, and how many projects 

do you expect to fund in 2011? 

Answer. Selection criteria will be based, in part, on needs and opportunities associated with restoration, partnerships, public use, and ecological significance. Watersheds will be funded in a variety of areas across the country but the number of 

projects will not be known until proposals are evaluated and project selection is 

made. Priorities will be informed by identification in the State forest assessments, 

watershed condition, costs, and input from local communities. 

The watersheds identified as most important to the public will be brought forward 

for a more comprehensive evaluation. Proposed projects will be evaluated through 

a national prioritization process with final selections by the Chief of the USFS. Selection of biomass projects will favor proposals that are coordinated with other Federal and State land management agencies, as well as tribes; accomplish management objectives with regard to forest function and health; create jobs or contribute 

to job stability; and create or maintain traditional forest products or biomass/renewable energy development. Nontimber, forest jobs will be prioritized using the proportion of non-Federal matching funds and the number of jobs for youth that will be 

generated. Creating job opportunities for youth in rural areas will be an important 

component of this initiative. 

BIOMASS UTILIZATION

Question. Your budget request states that you will conduct an USFS-wide biomass 

assessment to help prioritize and support the development of biomass utilization facilities. I’ve been very concerned about the lack of biomass infrastructure in areas 

like the Lake Tahoe basin, where the cost of transporting biomass can be prohibitive 

and the USFS is still forced to depend on piling and burning to dispose of much 

of its forest waste. How will your budget proposal specifically increase biomass utilization? 
128 

Answer. One of the underlying concerns in the development of a woody biomass 

utilization facility is assuring a reliable and predictable supply of biomass. Any investment in infrastructure will require a long-term supply of raw material (excess 

woody biomass). Instead of piling and burning of this excess biomass, the USFSwide biomass assessment identified in the fiscal year 2011 budget justification will 

help to prioritize and support the development of bio-energy facilities and other biomass utilization facilities. 

One example includes the Kings Beach area of North Lake Tahoe, California, 

where the USFS is currently working with Placer County to establish a 3-megawatt 

combined heat and power facility. Woody biomass comes from forest health restoration projects on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. The project used one of 

the biomass assessment tools, the coordinated resource offering protocol (CROP) 

study, to assess the availability of woody biomass in the next 5 years. The project 

is moving forward at this time. 

The USFS is integrating biomass utilization efforts with partners (Departments 

of the Interior, Energy, Defense, and Commerce, as well as USDA and EPA), including implementing new fiscal year 2008 farm bill authorities such as the Biomass 

Crop Assistance Program, and coordinating with communities, State foresters, and 

tribes. The EPA is working directly with the Department of Energy on 49 new bioenergy facilities to pilot and demonstrate wood-to-energy technologies. In fiscal year 2011, $20 million is targeted to farm bill programs that encourage 

market development for biomass materials removed from the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The Forest Biomass for Energy Program (section 9012), administered 

by USFS research and development, is funded at $15 million, and the Community 

Wood Energy Program (section 9013) is funded at $5 million. Since 2005, the USFS 

awarded a total of $24.5 million (98 grants) to help improve NFS hazardous fuel 

reduction activities. 

In addition, the USFShas identified 20 CROP study areas capable of providing a 

sustainable woody biomass resource. The USFS will continue to expand on the number of CROP study areas, and to provide available biomass information for these 

study areas to potential investors. 

COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION ACT

Question. The subcommittee provided $10 million to begin funding Restoration 

Act projects this year and asked you as part of the fiscal year 2010 Interior Appropriations Act to provide a list of projects you plant to fund by March 1. Unfortunately, we have not yet received that list from you. When do you expect to have 

this year’s projects selected? What criteria will be used to choose the final recipients? 

Answer. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 requires proposals 

to be reviewed and recommendation for selection made by an advisory panel. The 

advisory panel is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The FACA 

process is fairly lengthy, but the notice of intent to establish the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Advisory Committee and call for nominations 

was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2010. Committee member 

selection is anticipated no later than April 30, 2010. Upon selection of prospective 

committee members, a background check for each will require approximately 3 

weeks to complete. The USFS anticipates that the CFLR Advisory Committee will 

be in place by June 2010 and is currently soliciting CFLR proposals from the field. 

The request for proposals, sent to the regional foresters on February 24, provides 

guidance to ensure that the proposals are responsive to CFLR requirements and are 

organized to allow efficient evaluation by the CFLR Advisory Committee. Proposals 

are due May 14, 2010 and projects will be selected in July 2010. The following criteria, as required in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 will be used 

in the selection: the strength of the proposal and strategy; the strength of the ecological rationale; the strength of the collaborative process; the ability to reduce longterm wildfire management costs; the ability to reduce costs through the use of 

woody biomass; and, the ability to leverage non-Federal investments. The CFLR Advisory Committee may add additional criteria. 

QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP (QLG)

Question. I understand that there has been some confusion regarding how much 

the USFS plans to spend to implement QLG activities in fiscal year 2010. Could you 

please confirm for me exactly how much you plan to spend this year on QLG 

projects? 

Answer. The USFS has allocated $26.2 million for QLG activities in fiscal year 

2010. 
129 

Question. How much is in your budget for QLG projects for fiscal year 2011? Can 

you assure me that the funding for QLG is not going to get cut, given the proposed 

changes to your restoration budget? 

Answer. The USFS does not propose any reductions for QLG. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $26.2 million for QLG projects, the same level as fiscal year 

2010. 

Question. I have been very concerned that the USFS continues to be unable to 

meet the 40,000-to-60,000-acre annual treatment target set by the legislation authorizing QLG. Last year at this hearing I discussed these targets with Chief 

Kimbell. She testified that the USFS planned to treat approximately 18,000 acres 

in 2009 and 20,000 acres in 2010. Did the USFS meet your 2009 acreage target? 

Answer. No, the USFS treated 14,370 acres in fiscal year 2009. Appeals and litigation have greatly reduced the ability to implement the pilot project, which, along 

with the economy, has resulted in the project area losing forest product industries. 

The Sierra Pacific recently closed their QLG small log sawmill. The USFS plans to 

treat 25,476 acres in fiscal year 2010. 

Question. How many acres do you plan to treat in the QLG area in 2011? 

Answer. The USFS plans to treat more than 21,000 acres in fiscal year 2011. 

FEDERAL LAND ASSISTANCE, MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT (FLAME) ACT

Question. Last year the subcommittee enacted the FLAME Act of 2009, which required a number of firefighting budget and accountability reforms. As you know, one 

of the major changes under this new law was the creation of a $413 million appropriations account, the FLAME Fund, to fund large wildfire incidents this year. I understand the USFS has been working your Department to set up this new account. 

How will the USFS ensure that the FLAME Fund is up and running so that funding 

will be seamlessly available to the field for firefighting needs this year? 

Answer. The USFS is confident that implementation of the FLAME Fund will be 

seamless and not affect the availability of funds for firefighting needs. All fire expenditures will be made out of the wildfire suppression account, which current has 

sufficient funds to carry the USFS through most of the existing fiscal year due to 

carryover funding from last year and depending on the severity of this year’s fire 

season. We are finalizing our procedures for implementation of the FLAME Fund. 

The FLAME Act funds will be available to the Secretary of Agriculture to be 

transferred into the suppression account when the suppression account is nearly exhausted and/or certain objective criteria are met. 

The fund will help address the challenges of budgeting for fire suppression and 

enable the USFS to respond effectively during highly variable fire seasons. 

Question. I’m pleased that you’ve provided $1.2 billion for fire suppression appropriations, including $595 million for base fire suppression programs and $291 million to continue the FLAME Fund in 2011. However, I’m concerned you’ve also created additional bureaucracy by adding on a third fund, the Presidential Wildland 

Fire Contingency Reserve Fund, on top of your two other firefighting appropriations. 

Why do you need three separate firefighting appropriations? Why is it necessary to 

create this Contingent Reserve Fund? 

Answer. The Presidential Wildland Fire Contingency Reserve Fund will help address the challenges of annual budgeting for changeable fire suppression needs and 

enable the USFS to respond effectively during highly variable fire seasons. Upon 

forecast of FLAME fund depletion, a Presidential declaration can authorize transfer 

of funds from the Presidential Contingency Fund. A Presidential declaration for use 

of these funds is to be based on an analysis of risk decisions made for type 1 and 

2 fires. An approved Presidential declaration, in effect, indicates that the USFS is 

worthy of accessing this fund due to effective and accountable operations. 

This special contingency account will provide a backstop for the unpredictability 

of fire seasons and ensure that other key USFS programs are not disrupted if fire 

transfer would otherwise have to be employed to meet firefighting funding needs in 

years of above average fire activity/costs. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS

Question. Your budget proposes $349 million for hazardous fuels reduction, roughly equal to the level provided by Congress for this fiscal year. Within that amount, 

you propose a number of changes to your program of work, including an increased 

emphasis on treating acres in the WUI and $20 million to fund two new biomass 

utilization grant programs. How many acres do you plan to treat in 2011, and how 

you will select those acres? 

Answer. The USFS proposes treating 1.6 million acres in fiscal year 2011. The 

USFS will focus on treating the more expensive high-priority wildland urban inter-
130 

face treatment acres and areas that have completed a Community Wildfire Protection Plan or an equivalent plan. 

BIOMASS UTILIZATION

Question. How these new biomass utilization grants would be used? Why do you 

think funding for these grants is a better investment than funding additional fuels 

reduction work on the ground? 

Answer. As part of title IX of the 2008 farm bill, 2 new biomass grant programs 

were established. The Community Wood Energy Program (section 9013, Public Law 

110–246) creates a new program to support State, Tribal, and local governments in 

developing community wood energy plans and to acquire or upgrade wood energy 

systems for public facilities. Eligible public facilities are those owned or operated by 

State or local governments which use woody biomass as the primary fuel which 

have or could install single facility central heating, district heating, combined heat 

and energy systems, and other related biomass energy systems. 

To ensure wood energy systems match the available fuel supply a community 

wood energy plan will be required before program funds are used to acquire equipment. Support will be for systems that are smaller than 5 million Btu per hour 

heating and/or 2 megawatts for electric power production as directed by statute. The 

plans will be required to address potential air quality impacts of the proposed systems and compliance with applicable air quality rules and performance standards. 

State foresters and many other groups interested in forest health, hazardous fuels 

reduction, and renewable energy have expressed interest in supporting and participating in this new program. 

The Forest Biomass for Energy Program (section 9012, Public Law 110–246) will 

be a research and development program to encourage use of forest biomass for energy. The grant program priorities are fully in line with the bioenergy and bio-based 

products research and development program. The creation of a sustainable bioindustry producing biofuels and bioproducts on a significant scale is critically dependent on having a large, sustainable supply of biomass with appropriate characteristics at a reasonable cost; cost-effective and efficient processes for converting 

wood to biofuels, chemicals, and other high-value products; and useful tools for decision-making and policy analysis. If the program is funded, Forest Service Research 

& Development will administer grants. 

Energy security, development of renewable energy, combating global climate 

change, and wildfire risk reduction are national priorities, and the utilization of 

woody biomass plays a role in each, as well as in the management of long-term forest health. Energy from biomass has the potential to contribute significantly to 

meeting the Nation’s goals for domestic energy production and reducing carbon 

emissions. There is a national desire to ensure that expansion of wood-based bioenergy does not result in negative consequences like forest degradation and loss of 

ecosystem services. USFS has also raised significant concerns and challenge regarding the air quality impacts of small wood fired boilers and heaters. Issues of sustainability include overall quantities of biomass that can be produced without negative 

impacts, effects at both the landscape scale (e.g., overall land use change) and site 

scale (local impacts from harvest or facility development). 

The new biomass programs can help the USFS and partners address issues of 

scale, environmental impacts, social acceptance, public lands management, and 

rural economic development. The new grants, as well as the continuation of the 

Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program, will continue to link benefits to NFS forest health, watershed, and habitat objectives as well as achieve sustainable, biomass 

utilization to the States and local communities. 

AIRTANKERS

Question. At this hearing last year I expressed serious concern about the declining 

number of firefighting air tankers available to the USFS. Since 2002, you have lost 

almost 60 percent of your fleet to safety and maintenance issues. Your own Inspector General confirmed in a July 2009 report that your remaining 19 aircraft will 

start reaching the end of their service life in 2012. This subcommittee asked the 

USFS to present an aviation strategy that lays out a plan to address your air tanker 

shortage as part of our 2010 Interior bill. Nearly 5 months have passed since we 

asked for this plan and we have still not heard how the USFS intends to respond. 

When will the USFS share its recommendations with the subcommittee for upgrading its air tanker fleet? 

Answer. The USFS recognizes the need for an overall airtanker strategy to plan 

for a future airtanker fleet and will work closely with the subcommittee to develop 

an acceptable strategy to deal with the rapidly aging airtanker fleet. The USFS and 
131 

our interagency partners are also working on the cohesive strategy, as directed by 

the Congress, which will provide strategic insights for balancing wildland fire response, fire-adapted human communities, and landscape restoration. 

STATION FIRE

Question. Last August, the Station Fire destroyed 160,000 acres in the biggest fire 

event in the history of Los Angeles. At the time there were many questions raised 

about the appropriateness of the USFS’s response. Some still believe that these 

questions have not been answered. Did the USFS’s incident commanders call for 

firefighting airplanes on initial attack? And were they fully utilized? 

Answer. Yes, the USFSdid order and use a full complement of aircraft for initial 

attack on the Station Fire. Air resources mobilized on the first day of the fire included two air tankers, seven helicopters, one lead plane and two air attack planes. 

The lead and air attack planes are used to manage air traffic over the fire and coordinate with firefighters on the ground. 

Air resources on the second day of the Station Fire included six air tankers, seven 

helicopters, two lead planes, and three air attack planes. Aircraft were provided 

through USFS contracts, and Los Angeles County and Los Angeles City cooperating 

agreements. These aircraft were part of an aggressive initial response to the Station 

Fire which also included 13 fire engines, 9, 20-person hand crews, 3 water tenders, 

and 2 patrol units. 

After the Station Fire, USFS Chief Thomas Tidwell commissioned a review of the 

initial suppression actions (first 48 hours). A panel consisting of members from the 

USFS, the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE released a report on November 13, 2009 

concluding that incident managers from the Angeles National Forest acted in accordance with accepted wildland firefighting practices. It determined that fire mangers had clear intent from their leader and that they deployed fire suppression resources only in those conditions where they would be safe and effective. 

Question. In the wake of the Station Fire, State and local officials have expressed 

concern that USFS firefighting policy is not as aggressive as it could be. This sentiment is best expressed in a letter I received from the Los Angeles County Board 

of Supervisors, that notes ‘‘U.S. Forest Service fire suppression policies 

limit... the use of State and local government personnel, equipment and aircraft 

for early attack and suppression of fires within the Angeles National Forest.’’ Local 

officials believe that current USFS policy is allowing fires to burn from Federal 

lands onto their jurisdictions, and they believe that these policies must be changed. 

Can you please tell us how the USFS plans to work with State and local fire departments to ensure that all available resources are utilized in the most aggressive 

manner possible to keep fires from burning into heavily populated areas? 

Answer. The Pacific Southwest Region has a strong track record of working with 

cooperators on aggressive Initial Attack and often establishes joint or unified command on fires. 

The USFS did not hold back any firefighting resources in fighting the Station 

Fire. In fact, resources not immediately being used on the nearby Morris Fire were 

rerouted to assist in suppression efforts on the Station Fire. 

In October 2009, Chief Tidwell commissioned a review of the initial suppression 

actions (first 48 hours) on the Station Fire. The resulting report in question 17 was 

released on November 13, 2009 and is available on the USFS homepage at 

www.fs.fed.us. 

This report includes assessments of several key factors such as topography, 

weather, vegetative (‘‘fuel’’) conditions, and threats to both communities and natural 

resources. It does, in fact, also discuss decisions made on the ground by fire commanders and what the impacts of those decisions were in suppressing the Station 

Fire. There have been no changes in operating protocol as a result of the findings 

of the Station Fire Initial Attack Review. 

NIGHT-TIME FLYING

Question. Night-time aerial firefighting operations have the potential to double 

the amount of time that full-fledged fire suppression activities can take place. Several jurisdictions in California, including Los Angeles County and the city of San 

Diego, have authorized, equipped and trained their fire aviation fleets to operate at 

night and other low visibility conditions. While I understand that the USFS is reviewing the feasibility of flying at night, the USFS’s official position is that this activity still that is too unsafe to authorize. What is the status of your internal review 

on night flying, and when do you expect it to be completed? Will you provide the 

subcommittee with an update once the review has been completed? 
132 

Answer. The review of night-time helicopter operations is underway and the evaluation is being led by staff at the San Dimas Technology Center in California, with 

support from contractors and NASA. Efforts have been focused to understand the 

mission more completely; review the history of the programs, review current programs employed by counties, Federal agencies, and the military, reviewing current 

and emerging commercial technology, studying risk associated with night operations, integration issues with our existing aviation and ground operations program 

and benefit/cost analysis. The USFS anticipates completing this review in fall of 

2010 and will provide the subcommittee copies of the final report as soon as they 

are available. 

Question. If you determine that night-time aerial firefighting can be done safely, 

will you provide this subcommittee with an assessment of expected costs and potential benefits? 

Answer. Yes. 

FIREFIGHTER RETENTION

Question. I have been concerned about firefighter vacancies on national forests in 

California, as well as reports that the USFS has had difficulty retaining experienced 

firefighters because of pay disparities and morale issues. As you may know, I supported $28 million in prior-year funding to develop and implement retention strategies to keep firefighters in Federal service. I understand that the USFS used this 

money to provide a 10 percent retention bonus to certain firefighters and used the 

rest of the money to convert seasonal employees to full-time, year-round staff. Have 

there been improvements in firefighter retention in my State since these incentives 

were implemented? 

Answer. Yes, the USFS has seen improvements in firefighter retention since the 

incentives were implemented. The graph ‘‘Permanent Firefighter Resignations in 

Region 5’’ displays those improvements. 

The overall attrition rate for calendar year 2009 is below 8 percent from a high 

of 13 percent in 2007. The resignation rate dropped from a high of more than 7 percent in 2007 to 3 percent in 2009. The graph, ‘‘Permanent Firefighter Resignations 

by Grade in Region 5,’’ below, demonstrates declines in resignation rates across all 

grades, suggesting that incentives have helped to improve retention rates. 
133 

Question. If so, what percentage of these improvements can be attributed to the 

retention strategies and what percent can be attributed other factors, such as State 

and local hiring freezes? 

Answer. It is difficult to quantitatively determine what portion of the employees 

did not leave as a result of the implementation of the retention strategies or because 

of hiring freezes by State or local fire departments. The below table displays the 

percentage and number of the resignation rates attributed to employees leaving to 

California State, county, and local fire departments, pre- and post-retention incentives. This information shows a significant decrease in these resignations since the 

retention incentives were implemented. 

RESIGNATION OF REGION 5 FIREFIGHTERS 

No. of employees Percentage of 

resignations 

Pre-retention 3/1/08 thru 2/28/09: CA State, county, and local fire departments .............. 44 33 

Pre-retention 3/1/09 thru 2/28/10: CA State, county, and local fire departments .............. 8 19 

Change ....................................................................................................................... ¥36 ¥15 

Question. How many firefighters will your agency field in California this year? 

Answer. The graph ‘‘Permanent Fire Employees in Region 5’’ displays the history 

of fire employee populations along with the attrition rate for those time periods. The 

USFS in California has more than 2,100 permanent fire employees. In April, Region 

5 is conducting another round of hiring for key permanent firefighting positions GS 

06–10. At this time the USFS is planning for almost 4,300 permanent, apprentice 

and temporary employees, plus 52 Organized AD and Contract Hand crews made 

up of an additional 1,040 call-when-needed firefighters. 
134 

Question. Can you assure me that the USFS will employ an adequate number of 

experienced firefighters in my State for fire season? 

Answer. Yes. As the previous questions indicate we are doing a better job of retaining experienced fire personnel. 

ENERGY

Question. I do not support a first-come, first-serve approach to permitting renewable energy development on Federal lands. Unfortunately, it appears that the USFS 

is taking such an approach. I believe that the Federal Government should plan the 

development in a manner that is in the best interest of the public. That is why I 

have proposed in the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 that the USFS conduct a development planning process, known as a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for wind, solar and biomass energy. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is doing such an EIS to bring order to the solar permitting process, 

after it took development applications for years on a first-come, first-serve basis 

without regard to where development belonged. Does the USFS intend to initiate 

a planning process, mirroring that now going on at BLM, to assure that renewable 

energy development on USFS land is consistent, considers the public interest, and 

is focused on the land best suited for this use? 

Answer. Renewable energy production and transmission is an important consideration in the comprehensive management of the 193 million acres NFS land. Early 

coordination among all interests is a key element in properly locating energy production and transmission. Each energy resource has unique characteristics guiding 

its proper location within the NFS. 

The USFS and the BLM recently prepared a comprehensive evaluation of geothermal energy within BLM and NFS lands. The results of the study are used to 

guide the location of future geothermal energy production. The USFS and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) completed a 

2005 study, Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on National Forest System Lands, to assess the overall potential for such development on NFS land. This 

report will assist forest planners and resource managers in identifying NFS lands 

that have the highest potential for industrial development of wind and solar energy. 

To date, requests for the use of NFS land for wind and solar energy production 

have been rather modest, fewer than 15 inquiries in total. No solar facilities have 

been requested and only one wind energy facility is under study for authorization. 

These studies and the relatively low interest in wind and solar production on NFS 

land indicate that additional evaluations of these energy sources are not appropriate 

at this time. Should a competitive interest occur, the USFS will issue a prospectus, 

ensuring that the public’s best interests are addressed (36 CFR 251.58(c)(3)(ii)). 
135 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HERB KOHL

LAND ACQUISITION

Question. I understand that the Forest Service (USFS) has recently modified its 

ranking criteria for land acquisition projects. Could you tell me a little about that 

ranking process? 

Please include in your response some specifics on how a project might be a top 

priority one year and not be ranked at all the subsequent year. This was the case 

for a project in my State. Land acquisition in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National 

Forest ranked high in the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget and received Federal 

funding that year, but didn’t make it on the regional priorities list for fiscal year 

2011, even though it was only partially funded and needs additional monies to be 

completed. 

It is my understanding that projects which received prior-year funding, and are 

not yet completed are usually considered a Department priority. Is that no longer 

the case? 

Answer. The USFS land acquisition list is a national listing of the administration’s proposed priority acquisitions. The criteria used to evaluate and rank projects 

were based on resource attributes, achieving administration conservation objectives, 

and advancing the goals of the USFS’s strategic plan. The nine criteria used to 

evaluate and rank projects were: healthy watersheds; wetlands and riparian habitat; diverse habitats for threatened and endangered species; adaptation to the effects of climate change; conserving forests for landscape restoration; recreational 

uses and improved public access; cultural and heritage resources; projects situated 

within congressionally designated areas (e.g., wilderness, wild, and scenic river); 

and increased management efficiency. 

Each region applies the above criteria to projects submitted by individual national 

forests to evaluate and rank projects for consideration by a national review panel 

composed of several individuals representing different parts of the USFS. The panel 

considers the regions’ ranking, along with other factors, such as a region’s capacity 

to complete the acquisition, the level of local support for the acquisition, and achieving a national distribution of projects across regions and landscapes. The new criteria includes consideration of a project’s prior-year funding, but past funding is not 

a guarantee that a project would rank sufficiently high to be included in the President’s budget submission. 

The USFS is reviewing its project ranking and selection process to consider revisions for fiscal year 2012 and is aware of the additional funding needs for projects 

where remaining parcels are to be acquired. Should the Eastern Region submit a 

land acquisition project on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest for fiscal year 

2012, the national panel will carefully evaluate it for consideration of funds. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST

Question. The total planned volume sold in the fiscal year 2011 President’s budget 

request is 2.716 billion board feet (bbf), down from 2.909 bbf in the fiscal year 2010 

budget request. What effect will a reduction in the national program have on the 

Black Hills National Forest? How much additional funding would be required to 

raise the national volume to 3 bbf annually? 

Answer. There is some confusion in the budget justification tables that show the 

sold volume proposed for accomplishment in fiscal year 2011. The total sold volume 

for fiscal year 2011, 2,400 million board feet (MMBF) shown under the forest products program, is a unified accomplishment level. This total is made up of 2,000 

MMBF of green timber, 250 MMBF of salvage volume, and 150 MMBF in the K– 

V authority. The salvage and K–V volumes are included in the total and thus are 

not additive. Thus, to produce 3,000 MMBF of timber volume sold, appropriated 

funding for an additional 600 MMBF would be needed. It is estimated that an additional $92 million would be required to produce this volume. The production of this 

volume is dependent on finalizing the National Environmental Protection Act decision on the project and the timber market at the time of proposed sale. 

Nationally, in fiscal year 2009, the Forest Service (USFS) sold 2,508 MMBF and 

has targeted the sale of approximately 2,546 MMBF in fiscal year 2010. The USFS 

anticipates that the fiscal year 2011 projected program will result in a reduction on 

the Black Hills National Forest. 

Question. In the fiscal year 2010 budget allocation, Region 2 received an additional $40 million to address bark beetle epidemics, Montana received $20 million 
136 

to address a bark beetle epidemic, and Idaho received $14 million to address a bark 

beetle epidemic. Those funds, while tremendously important and appreciated, are 

far short of what is necessary. The fiscal year 2011 budget is silent on how, or 

whether, to pay for the enormous costs associated with addressing the bark beetle 

epidemics. Does the President’s budget request include sufficient funding to address 

the bark beetle epidemics for fiscal year 2011? If not, what is your strategy for identifying and requesting those funds? 

Answer. Addressing the spread and effects of the bark beetle epidemic will require 

a multi-faceted and multi-year approach, and the USFS’s fiscal year 2011 budget 

request reflects this approach and need. Specific funding and programs addressing 

the bark beetle epidemic are described below. 

The USFS will continue to fund management action to reduce forest susceptibility 

to beetle outbreaks and protect high-value trees. In coordination with partners and 

stakeholders, the USFS will direct funds to the areas that have been experiencing 

tree mortality as a result of beetle infestations both to ensure public safety and to 

reduce the impact on forested ecosystems. 

National Forest System management will prioritize treatments to restore health 

and resilience of forested ecosystems to facilitate adaptation to the stresses created 

by climate change through landscape restoration projects. This includes implementing projects to treat forested landscapes that are highly vulnerable to bark beetle infestations. The expanded use of stewardship contracting will increase opportunity to leverage commercial thinning opportunities to accomplish additional treatments to enhance forest resiliency by exchanging the value of forest products generated for additional restoration treatments. 

The forest health management request includes funding to meet the highest-priority prevention and suppression needs on forests managed by the USFS, other Federal agencies, tribal lands and non-Federal lands. Forest health management programs provide for detection, monitoring, evaluation, prevention and suppression of 

bark beetles on the Nations’ forested lands. 

The Eastern Forest and Western Wildland Environmental Threat Assessment 

Centers—in partnership with Government agencies, universities, and nongovernmental organizations—provide national leadership in developing knowledge and 

tools to respond to emerging issues and threats associated with new and potential 

bark beetle infestations. 

USFS research scientists will continue to evaluate potential future effects of climate change in order to identify natural resource vulnerabilities and prioritize management actions to enhance resilience of natural systems. This includes development 

of a cohesive, coherent model to help land manager predict the interacting behavior 

of fire and bark beetles under selected climate change scenarios. 

Question. Virtually the entire Black Hills National Forest timber sale program is 

geared to reducing fire hazard or mountain pine beetle risk. Further, most of the 

recent NEPA decisions have included new road construction. How will eliminating 

all funding for road construction/reconstruction affect implementation of the Black 

Hills National Forest forest plan, reducing fire risks, thinning the forest, and addressing the pine beetle epidemic? 

Answer. Fuels management and vegetative treatments needed for control of the 

pine beetle epidemic will focus primarily on areas where new road construction and 

upgrades to existing roads are not required. The elimination of the road improvement activity will have little impact on the Black Hills National Forest timber sale 

program. Any new road construction will continue to be included as a purchaser requirement within the timber sale offering and will therefore be funded by the sale 

product value and not appropriated road funding. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JON TESTER

COLLABORATION

Question. Anecdotal and collected data show that up-front collaboration is breaking the gridlock in our forests and help to get work accomplished on the ground. 

Your agency is encouraging this in the budget through new programs like the Forest 

Landscape Restoration Act and the Jobs and Watershed Stabilization Fund, but 

what are you doing to train your district rangers and line officers to facilitate collaboration and build local support for projects? 

Answer. The Forest Service (USFS) offers multiple opportunities for dynamic 

learning using both internal and university and partner resources. The USFS enables line officers flexibility in their approach and allows the individual and situation to dictate what is most important in a given situation. 
137 

The USFS is employing a range of methods to train line officers in facilitating collaboration. First, the USFS has made available several training modules related to 

collaboration, through the USDA portal for e-learning. By completing training 

courses on this portal, USFS employees can earn credits towards development goals. 

Complementing this online resource, line officers will soon be able to also use the 

USFS’s Partnership Resource Center, our online vehicle for advancing collaboration 

and partnerships. As part of this effort, the USFS is launching a new e-Collaboration feature which will create a Web environment for exchanges and networking. 

The site, scheduled to relaunch in May or June 2010, will also offer new resources 

and tools, both internally and externally built and tested. 

The USFS is also actively engaged in various cross-sector, capacity-building exercises alongside our partners, the audience with whom we implement projects and 

ideas. One example includes participating in a recent capacity-building session in 

Skamania, Washington, with grantees as well as the National Forest Foundation 

(NFF) (recent capacity-building session in Skamania, Washington, with grantees). 

The USFS offers line officers a range of peer-learning opportunities. Line officers 

have participated in peer-learning sessions, sponsored by the NFF, to exchange 

knowledge and best practices and build relationships, to facilitate stewardship contracting and agreements. Working across agencies, line officers have also participated in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sponsored distance learning 

course, Managing by Network. This course uses WebEx conferencing to join participants with their colleagues and a management coach to discuss and learn how to 

manage their work through networks of partnerships, contracts, volunteers, and alliances, and how to apply best management practices to their current partnerships 

and community collaboration responsibilities. 

FIRE

Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget finally addresses firefighting in a separate 

budget with the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement (FLAME) 

Fund and the President’s discretionary fund. Yet you cut the investment in local 

and State firefighting funds. Why? How do you plant to help assist States? Also why 

is it necessary to have two contingency funds? Why is the secretarial discretion not 

sufficient? If it was so important for Congress and this subcommittee to pass the 

authorization for the FLAME Act, why was it not necessary for the subcommittee 

to pass the same authorizing authority for the Presidential discretionary fund? 

Answer. The President’s budget proposal of $50,104,000 for State Fire Assistance 

(SFA) funding, while down from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, is consistent with 

prior funding requests for this account. These program funds complement the SFA 

program that is funded through the State and private forestry appropriation. 

As in prior years, the USFS will continue to provide SFA funding to State foresters to address important and unique needs relating to hazardous fuel treatment, 

wildland fire prevention, hazard mitigation, and wildland fire suppression response. 

The SFA funding will continue to be used to maintain and enhance coordination and 

communication with Federal agencies as well as for critical preparedness needs including firefighter safety, enhanced initial attack capability, and training. State foresters make determinations about how to target funding to the highest-priority 

needs identified in their State. 

The proposed budget also contains a discretionary Presidential contingency reserve account for firefighting which would be used if the Suppression and FLAME 

Act accounts are exhausted and specific criteria are adequately addressed. 

This special contingency account will provide a backstop for the unpredictability 

of fire seasons and ensure that other key EPA programs are not disrupted if fire 

transfer would otherwise have to be employed to meet firefighting funding needs in 

years of above average fire activity/costs. 

The Secretary’s discretion covers the funding needed to cover the 10-year average 

costs for suppressing wildfire. The President’s Contingency Reserve Fund provides 

funding over and above the 10-year average cost for suppression of fires. It will 

make available an additional $282 million if the fire season is extreme and suppression and FLAME Act funds are depleted. 

ROAD BUDGET

Question. Your budget drastically reduces the road maintenance budget and clearly outlines the USFS’s desire to reduce the number of roads the USFS maintains 

by 6,000 miles. To properly remove roads and restore watershed takes money. How 

does defunding this budget properly address the goal reducing the USFS’s duplicative road infrastructure? Wouldn’t it be wiser to increase funding to assure roads 

are properly converted to trails, decommissioned and re-contoured? 
138 

In the ‘‘Right Sizing’’ of the road system, what steps does the USFS consider to 

be a reclaimed road? Is this fully re-contouring? What is the impact on leaving these 

road beds on water quality and fish habitat? 

Answer. The USFS is managing multiple priorities within a constrained budget. 

The reduction reflects a curtailment in the construction of new roads and upgrading 

existing roads while keeping the maintenance funding relatively level (a decrease 

of 1.5 percent) with the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The USFS will focus on maintaining the existing transportation system. Other appropriated programs such as 

legacy roads and trails and deferred maintenance and infrastructure Improvement 

complement the roads program. Road work accomplished under these programs, including decommissioning, support the USFS’s priorities to repair and maintain 

roads and trails that affect water resources and ecosystem function, and to reduce 

the deferred maintenance backlog. Nonurgent work will be deferred. 

Road decommissioning decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and consider 

many factors such as topography, climate, geology, and risks to threatened and endangered species. Some roads may require recontouring to ensure that decommissioning is effective and to mitigate resource damage; some roads will be decommissioned with limited effort. Those sections that do not require full recontouring are 

considered to be low risk, and have minimal impact on water quality and fish habitat. 

PLANNING RULE

Question. As you well know the current planning rule was issues in 1986 and is 

scientifically and socially outdated. On December 18 you announced an effort to 

write a new planning rule under the National Forest Management Act. What is the 

progress on this effort? 

Do you really think a new rule will solve our problems? 

Answer. The USFS is analyzing public comments received in response to the notice of intent issued December 18, 2009. The USFS will host a National Science 

Forum and a series of public meetings through mid-May 2010 to provide opportunities for public input and dialogue on the development of a new planning rule. Further information on these meetings is available at on the planning rule Web site, 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule. Through collaboration on the planning rule, 

the USFS will be able to better address current and future needs of the National 

Forest System (NFS) such as restoration, protecting watersheds, addressing climate 

change, sustaining local economies, improving collaboration, and working across 

landscapes. The USFS expects to publish the draft environmental impact statement 

in December 2010 and the final environmental impact statement in October 2011. 

ENERGY PLANNING

Question. Chief Tidwell, the Mountain States Transmission Intertie (MSTI) line 

is working to cite and build a 500kv line in Montana. Some of the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) alternatives for this line cross FS land. How are you working with the stakeholders, Interior and State Departments to find reasonable solutions to citing this and future transmission lines? 

Answer. The USFS is a cooperating EPA in the MSTI project and works closely 

with the joint lead agencies—the BLM and Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ). Under BLM and MDEQ project management, we have collaborated with several other agencies, starting in 2008 with the Montana Major Facility 

Act process. We have also participated in numerous interagency meetings and public 

meetings to identify issues and alternatives. As alternative routes are proposed in 

response to specific issues, many of those proposals would cross NFS lands outside 

of designated corridors. In those situations, the EPA identifies resource concerns 

and land management plan implications, then collaborates to refine the routing in 

a manner that reduces unnecessary conflicts, such as crossing inventoried roadless 

areas. As a result, the USFS has identified a reasonable range of feasible alternatives, including some that do cross NFS lands outside of designated corridors. 

Those alternatives will be studied in detail in the draft EIS which is scheduled for 

public release in June 2010. 

Question. What are you doing to work with Interior and the State of Montana and 

plan energy transmission corridors? 

Answer. During forest plan revision, the USFS has been consulting with other 

Federal and State agencies on a variety of topics, including utility corridor designation. Recently, the USFS participated with many other Federal agencies in the 

West-wide Energy Corridors process mandated by Environmental Protection Act of 

2005, section 368. The State of Montana has made many valuable comments relative to NFS lands on the draft Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement 
139 

(PEIS), which many have been adopted in the final PEIS. As specific major transmission projects are proposed, we cooperate with the State first in the Montana 

Major Facility Siting Act process, followed by cooperation in the Montana Environmental Protection Act and processes. 

The Forest Service also works closely with BLM and other Federal agencies, as 

outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Coordination in Federal 

Agency Review of Electric Transmission Facilities on Federal Land (dated October 

28, 2009). As individual project siting is completed, new or revised energy corridors 

may be designated through land management plan amendment, as provided for in 

subsection 368(c). Prior to issuing the record of decision for the section 368 corridors, the Montana Governor’s office reviewed the corridors as required by the 

BLM’s governors consistency review process. Based on that review, Montana offered 

no revisions for the 368 corridors on NFS lands. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Question. Recently the Forest Service (USFS) completed a revision of the Travel 

Management Plan in Mississippi. This plan has created much consternation among 

users of the National Forests in Mississippi. For many years, forests in Mississippi 

were open for use for all-terrain vehicle (ATV) enthusiasts and hunters. Currently, 

many of the trails and roads that were utilized by these users are closed and prohibitions on the use of ATVs within the forest also exist. It is my hope that the USFS 

can address the needs of all users. 

Mr. Tidwell, can you tell me what resources the USFS will need to ensure that 

all users of forests will be able to fully access and utilize the forests? 

Answer. Very few places exist on the National Forests and grasslands that are 

closed to access by all users. However, the method of access and/or time of year may 

be restricted. The travel management rule, promulgated on November 9, 2005, requires that all administrative units designate those National Forest System (NFS) 

roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are open to motor vehicle use. When 

making designations, specific criteria must be considered including the effects on 

natural and cultural resources, public safety, recreational opportunities, etc. Decisions on which NFS routes and areas to designate are left up to the local line officers—district rangers and forest supervisors—since they are most familiar with the 

local situation. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL

AIRTANKERS

Question. Page 137 of the House Report 111–316, accompanying the fiscal year 

2010 Interior Appropriations Act, states that: ‘‘The Conferees reiterate the House 

and Senate direction concerning readiness required for public safety and the requirement that the Forest Service provide a copy of its report on Federal air tanker 

needs, including an estimate of replacement costs, within 30 days of enactment of 

this Act.’’ (emphasis added) 

Apparently, this report has not yet been submitted. What is the status of that report currently, and when can members expect to see it? 

Answer. The Forest Service (USFS) recognizes the need for an overall airtanker 

strategy to plan for a future airtanker fleet and will work closely with the subcommittee to develop an acceptable strategy to deal with the rapidly aging airtanker 

fleet. The USFS and our interagency partners are also working on the cohesive 

strategy, as directed by the Congress, which will provide strategic insights for balancing wildland fire response, fire adapted human communities and landscape restoration. 

Question. I am told that, last summer, the Department’s Office of Inspector General stated that due to the rapidly aging large air tankers, individual aircraft will 

need to be retired for reasons of safety in the near future. Do you agree with this 

prognosis? If not, why? 

Answer. The USDA Office of Inspector General’s Audit Report No. 08601–53–SF 

USFS’s Replacement Plan for Firefighting Resources states that ‘‘FS estimates that 

by 2012 the remaining 19 airtankers will begin to be either too expensive to maintain or no longer airworthy.’’ The USFS agrees with the Inspector General’s assessment and would add that this estimate does not take into account the possibility 

of additional loses from accidents, further reducing fleet size. 
140 

Question. Can you supply relevant data regarding the remaining operational service life of the large air tankers that are today in the fleet? 

Answer. The estimated remaining time for the aircraft based on cycles is as follows: 

—P–3: Attrition begins in 2014 and ends in 2026, half of the attrition occurs by 

2016 

—P2V: Attrition begins in 2013 and ends in 2032, half of the attrition occurs by 

2017 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator FEINSTEIN. So thank you for coming and we look forward 

to working with you. 

And the subcommittee is recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., Wednesday, March 17, the hearings 

were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 

subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(141) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

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

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The subcommittee was unable to hold hearings 

on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and letters of those 

submitting written testimony are as follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE 1854 TREATY AUTHORITY

The 1854 Treaty Authority is an inter-Tribal natural resource organization which 

implements the off-reservation hunting, fishing and gathering rights of the Grand 

Portage and Bois Forte Bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa in the area ceded to 

the United States in the Treaty of 1854. Our program is funded by a Public Law 

93–638 contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which is appropriated directly through the BIA’s ‘‘Trust/Natural Resource Management—Rights Protection 

Implementation.’’ The 1854 Treaty Authority respectfully requests that the Senate 

fund this appropriation in fiscal year 2011 at the same level it was funded in fiscal 

year 2010 ($30,451,000) in order to meet the increased cost of fulfilling our courtordered responsibilities. 

For background purposes, the Grand Portage, Bois Forte and Fond du Lac Bands 

are signatories to the Treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109. In that Treaty 

the Bands ceded approximately 5,000,000 acres in northeastern Minnesota, reserving the right to hunt, fish and gather in that territory. For most of the 20th century, 

those off-reservation rights lay dormant and unrecognized and Tribal subsistence 

activities were relegated to lands within reservation boundaries. In 1985 the Bands 

went to Federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the 1854 Treaty did indeed reserve these off-reservation rights and that the State of Minnesota had no authority to regulate tribal hunting, fishing and gathering in the ceded territory. In 

the course of that litigation, the Bands and the State entered into negotiations concerning the exercise of treaty rights in the ceded territory. The negotiations resulted 

in an agreement which was approved by both the Minnesota Legislature and the 

Tribal governments. The agreement was then entered as a consent decree in the 

Federal litigation such that the obligations of the parties are enforceable in court. 

One of the Bands’ obligations under the agreement and court order was to create 

a means by which the Bands could effectively regulate Band member activities. 

After the Fond du Lac Band exercised its right to opt out with notice, the two remaining Bands formed the 1854 Treaty Authority. To this day, the 1854 Treaty Authority is the entity responsible for management of the Bands off-reservation hunting, fishing and gathering rights. 

The 1854 Treaty Authority employs 10 full-time employees, consisting of an Administrative Division (three), a Resource Management Division (four) and an Enforcement Division (three). Two of the Resource Management positions are grant 

(temporary) funded. The organization is overseen by a Board of Directors comprised 

of the elected Tribal Councils of the Grand Portage and Bois Forte Bands. The 1854 

Treaty Authority also has a Judicial Services Division which retains a judge to hear 

matters arising under the Tribal code. 

The 1854 Treaty Authority is a shining example of cooperation as we gather and 

share biological information with State, Federal, local, and other tribal govern-
142 

mental units. The 1854 Treaty Authority is authorized through a Joint Powers 

Agreement with the State of Minnesota to enforce State natural resource laws over 

non-Tribal users and State Officers are authorized to enforce tribal law applicable 

to tribal users. The 1854 Treaty Authority has also conducted many natural resource improvement and research projects with the above-mentioned government 

entities, as well as organizations from the private sector. 

However, the 1854 Treaty Authority has struggled to maintain its full-time staff. 

Up until fiscal year 2010, we had not had an increase in base funding for our programs of any significance in many years, and in fact the base funding had decreased 

the previous seven funding cycles. Simultaneously, cost of living expenses have increased at a regular rate, and some expenses have increased at an alarming rate 

(e.g., health and vehicle insurance, fuel, etc). Staff pay costs (wages plus benefits) 

combined with a decrease in base funding compelled the Treaty Authority to absorb 

all the cost increases internally at the expense of other programs and services. In 

2007 we were unable to continue doing so and two vacated positions (one biologist 

and one enforcement) remain unfilled due to lack of funding. Of particular concern 

is the fact that our current enforcement staffing level (3 officers) is woefully inadequate to cover the 5 million acres of ceded territory. 

I understand that this is not a unique situation, but at the same time the Federal 

Government has a trust responsibility to protect and preserve treaty rights. Those 

rights will be jeopardized if the 1854 Treaty Authority cannot fulfill its obligations 

as an effective manager of treaty resources. We strongly believe that we can continue to be an integral and positive component of natural resource management in 

northeastern Minnesota. As history shows in the short 22 years of our existence we 

have been able to establish the Bands rightful place among all stakeholders and 

provide services that stretch beyond tribal benefit. In short, the work we do benefits 

all users and citizens of this region. 

We are very thankful for the increase in fiscal year 2010 funding which enabled 

us to make up some of the shortfall which has plagued us in recent years. If we 

can continue to maintain funding at its current level, we can begin to look at ways 

to refill the two vacant positions that are sorely needed to provide adequate services 

to the tribes. 

Finally, I would like to close with a sincere thank you for the years of funding 

which have enabled the tribes success in this area, and especially the increase in 

2010, and respectfully reiterate the request for the Senate to fund this appropriation 

in fiscal year 2011 at the same level it was funded in fiscal year 2010 

($30,451,000.00) in order to meet the increased cost of fulfilling our court-ordered 

responsibilities. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION ON INTELLECTUAL AND

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Senator Alexander: On behalf of 

our members and supporters across the country, and tens of millions of children 

whose health, learning and behavior are daily impacted by dank, dark, dirty, and 

polluted conditions of our PreK–12 public schools, we urge you to fund the EPA’s 

‘‘Clean Green Healthy Schools Initiative’’ at $8.2 million, $2 million above the President’s $6.2 million request in the fiscal year 2011 EPA request. 

The national SICK SCHOOLS 2009 collaborative report assembled by more than 

30 contributing public interest nonprofits, analyzed Federal data from EPA, Education, and CDC, as well as peer reviewed published sciences in healthy school environments. Result: at least 60 percent of all 55 million school children endure lower 

test scores and poor attendance due solely to the environmental conditions of their 

schools. See www.healthyschools.org/sickschools. 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 EPA budget supports EPA’s critical Office of Children’s Health Protection and the agency’s voluntary schools-focused programs that 

help local schools and districts to create healthier school environments for all children. EPA will co-lead a Federal interagency effort to integrate existing voluntary 

schools programs across the agencies, including asthma, indoor air quality, chemical 

clean outs, green practices (highly cost-effective as New York State has learned) and 

enhanced use of integrated pest management; promote safe handling and management of PCB-containing caulk in schools and build regional technical support and 

outreach; assesses the impacts of noncompliance with existing environmental laws 

on health risks in schools; and increase technical assistance on voluntary EPA 

guidelines under the Energy Independence Security Act (EISA of 2007) regarding 

school siting and other school environmental concerns. 
143 

We also urge you to support increases for EPA’s Healthier Indoor Air and for 

school and community air toxics monitoring, and for expanding EPA’s asthma programs and pesticide-use reductions with schools. Children are 100 percent of our future and promoting healthy learning environments is a task that EPA is uniquely 

poised to tackle, in collaboration with Education and CDC. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS

To the chair and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for this opportunity 

to provide testimony on behalf of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

(AAPG) about the importance of the geological programs conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

AAPG is the world’s largest scientific and professional geological association. The 

purpose of the association is to advance the science of geology, foster scientific research, and promote technology. AAPG has nearly 34,000 members around the 

world, with roughly two-thirds living and working in the United States. These are 

the professional geoscientists in industry, Government, and academia who practice, 

regulate, and teach the science and process of finding and producing energy resources from the Earth. 

AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial role that the geosciences, 

and particularly petroleum geology, play in our society. The USGS is crucial to 

meeting these societal needs, and several of its programs deserve special attention 

by the subcommittee. 

GEOLOGIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS

Energy Resources Program 

The USGS Energy Resources Program (ERP) conducts both basic and applied geoscience research focused on geologic energy resources (both domestic and international), including oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed methane, gas hydrates, geothermal, oil shale, and bitumen and heavy oil. In the President’s fiscal year 2011 

budget request, he also included funding for ERP to participate in the New Energy 

Frontier (wind) initiative. ERP also conducts research on the environmental, economic, and human health impacts of the production and use of these resources. This 

research provides both the public and private sectors with vital information. 

An urgent problem addressed through the ERP is the preservation of geological 

and geophysical data. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005, Public Law 109– 

58) includes section 351 Preservation of Geological and Geophysical Data. This program is designed to preserve geological, geophysical data, and engineering data, 

maps, well logs, and samples. It includes development of a national catalog of this 

archival material, and providing technical and financial assistance related to the 

samples and materials. As the Act stipulated, the USGS created the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program (NGGDPP). Since the beginning 

of this program, however, it has received insufficient funding to accomplish all of 

the objectives set out in the authorizing language. 

Why is preservation important? Responsible management and efficient development of natural resources requires access to the best available scientific information. Over many years industry, such as petroleum and mining companies, has invested billions of dollars to acquire geological and geophysical data. Because of 

changing company focus and economic conditions this data may no longer have 

value to the company that acquired it, and is in jeopardy of being discarded. 

But this data still has value to society. The data is valuable for further natural 

resources exploration and development, and can be applied to basic and applied 

earth systems research, environmental remediation, and natural-hazard mitigation. 

It is the type of data that will enable future generations of scientists and policy 

makers to address the Nation’s energy, environmental, and natural hazard challenges of the 21st century. 

The NGGDPP was authorized at $30 million annually in EPACT 2005. Historical 

allocations for this program have ranged from $750,000 to $1,000,000 per year. 

These funding levels are inadequate to achieve the program’s objectives. 

AAPG supports President Obama’s fiscal year 2011 request to fund the Energy 

Resources Program activities at $30.8 million, and asks the Subcommittee to additionally appropriate $30 million in fiscal year 2011 for the preservation of geological 

and geophysical data, bringing the total Energy Resource Program budget to $60.8 

million. 
144 

Mineral Resources Program 

The United States is the world’s largest consumer of mineral commodities. They 

form the building blocks of our economy. 

It is therefore essential to this Nation’s economic and national security that the 

Federal Government understands both the domestic and international supply and 

demand for minerals and mineral materials. This data is used throughout government (Departments of Commerce, the Interior, Defense, and State; the Central Intelligence Agency; the Federal Reserve) and the private sector. 

The USGS Mineral Resources Program (MRP) is the only Federal and publicly 

available source for comprehensive information and analysis of mineral commodities 

and mineral materials. 

AAPG supports President Obama’s fiscal year 2011 request for the Mineral Re- sources Program at $52.5 million, and urges the Subcommittee to appropriate at 

that level. 

GEOLOGIC LANDSCAPE AND COASTAL ASSESSMENTS

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program 

AAPG supports the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP). 

This unique partnership between the Federal and State governments and the university community further demonstrates the importance of geoscience to society. The 

geologic maps produced by this program are used for natural resource management, 

natural hazard mitigation, water resource management, environmental conservation 

and remediation, and land-use planning. 

NCGMP deserves special commendation for its EDMAP initiative. This university 

partnership enables students, working in a close mentoring relationship with faculty, to produce maps while learning essential mapping skills. As such, the program 

delivers an immediate return on the Federal investment in terms of beneficial maps, 

as well as a future return in the form of a trained and competent next generation 

workforce. 

AAPG applauds President Obama’s support for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program. However, the funding request of $28.3 million is essentially the 

amount authorized for fiscal year 1999. Authorizing legislation envisaged annual increases up to $64 million in appropriated funds. AAPG urges the Subcommittee to 

fund NCGMP at this level in fiscal year 2011. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the subcommittee. And 

thank you for your leadership and support for the geosciences. As you deliberate appropriate funding levels for these USGS programs, please consider the important 

public policy implications these choices entail. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: On behalf of the Association of American Universities (AAU), an organization of 60 leading U.S. public 

and private research universities, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you 

today on the fiscal year 2011 budget of the National Endowment for the Humanities 

(NEH). We believe that our country’s ability to meet the complex changes of today 

and tomorrow requires a renewed commitment to the humanities. AAU supports 

$204 million in program funds for the NEH in fiscal year 2011, including $144 million for national programs (an increase of $44.4 million above fiscal year 2010) and 

$60 million for the Federal/State partnership (an increase of $19.6 million above fiscal year 2010). We strongly oppose the $7.2 million in cuts the administration has 

proposed for NEH programs in fiscal year 2011. 

The Endowment is the single most important source of Federal support for humanities research and humanities public education. We believe that the Nation 

would benefit from a significant funding increase for the NEH, in part as a complement to the Federal investment in science and engineering research. It is 

through the humanities that we can better understand and address the social, economic, and political changes associated with technological development and 

globalization. We also believe that as teachers and supporters of the humanities, we 

have an obligation and an opportunity to support through history, literature, and 

language a culture of tolerance and civility, which is greatly needed today. NEH 

strengthens and benefits the nation by promoting excellence in the humanities and 

conveying the lessons of history to all Americans. 

The History of AAU and the Humanities 

AAU universities are devoted to maintaining a system of high-quality academic 

research and education in a wide range of fields at the undergraduate, graduate, 
145 

and professional levels. Our member universities perform about 60 percent of Federal funded university-based scientific and engineering research. But our schools 

also are leaders in humanities through their support of academic departments, public performance and lecture facilities, museums, and centers. For our institutions, 

the humanities are both subjects of research and a critical element of undergraduate 

and graduate education. AAU institutions use NEH grants for research and scholarship that help preserve the Nation’s diverse heritage, educate the next generation 

of Americans, and bring the humanities to the wider public. 

Indeed, AAU institutions are engaged in a wide range of activities that focus attention on the benefits of a humanities education. AAU’s 2004 report, Reinvigorating the Humanities: Enhancing Research and Education on Campus and Beyond, 

not only called for university presidents and chancellors to give increased attention 

to the humanities but also provided an inventory of exciting campus projects and 

programs around the country. 

Restoration of NEH Funds to Support Competitive Programs 

The President’s proposed fiscal year 2011 budget would cut the Endowment’s resources at a time when the agency is operating at only about one-third of the capacity it had in 1979, which in inflation-adjusted dollars would amount to $429.2 million today. In the 1980s, the agency sustained some of the most severe funding reductions of any Federal agency. In 1994, the NEH budget was cut by 41.5 percent 

from the previous year. Over time, the combined impact of budget cuts and inflation 

has reduced the number, diversity, and buying power of grants provided by the 

NEH. It is worth noting that the NEH received no funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 request would cut funds for national programs 

by $5.3 million (5.7 percent) below fiscal year 2010. The relatively small amount of 

money saved by the proposed cuts would contribute little to overall budget savings 

but would have a serious impact on the Endowment’s ability to support humanities 

research and education. NEH application rates already demonstrate significant 

unmet need. In fiscal year 2009, the NEH received 4,366 competitive grant applications representing more than $402 million in requested funds. But the Endowment 

was able to fund less than 17 percent of these peer-reviewed project proposals. 

While universities have tried to close some of this funding gap with their own 

funds, it is increasingly difficult for them to do so. Public and private colleges and 

universities across the country continue to feel the effects of the recent economic recession, including budget cuts, hiring freezes, staff layoffs, course reductions and 

more. Institutions are struggling to maintain continued access to high-quality programs, which is particularly evident in the humanities disciplines. As recently reported by the National Governors’ Association, States face an $18.8 billion budget 

gap in fiscal year 2010 which many States will address, in part, by making further 

reductions in higher education. Beyond significant declines in State funding, colleges 

and universities are in the midst of a perfect storm of decreased endowment values, 

tightened credit, declining private contributions from individuals and corporations, 

increased student financial need, and reduced tuition revenue. Despite the loss of 

revenue, colleges and universities have worked to increase their aid to students in 

order to preserve student access. AAU members alone provided almost $5 billion in 

student aid last year. We cannot assume that higher education can continue to compensate for a lack of growth in Federal funds for the humanities. 

In addition, foundation support for the humanities has slipped during the past 

decade. Foundation assets are down about 22 percent, with giving down about 10 

percent. This is a larger dip than in previous recessions. The humanities community 

is concerned that not only is overall foundation support going down, but that the 

share of foundation support for the humanities also is dropping. Moreover, there has 

been a long-term shift among foundations away from funding for scholarship and 

core disciplines toward funding for public programming. These funding trends are 

of particular concern to AAU institutions because unmet need is forcing humanities 

students (particularly graduate students) to assume growing debt. 

AAU Funding Priorities for the NEH 

The humanities community’s fiscal year 2011 request of $204 million in program 

funds for NEH represents an important step in restoring the Endowment to its historic funding levels. This request would support an increase of $144 million for national programs, including $36.9 million to increase the award rate for seriously underfunded grant competitions and $7.5 million for a new, competitively awarded 

graduate student-faculty program. National programs are our first priority, representing the pool of funds that support peer-reviewed, competitive grant opportunities for a wide range of educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and indi-
146 

vidual scholars around the country. They encompass NEH core programs, divisions, 

and special initiatives. These areas include research, education, preservation & access, challenge grants, public programs, the Office of Digital Humanities, We the 

People, and Bridging Cultures. 

Within the education division, AAU is particularly supportive of the Summer 

Seminars and Institutes, which fund national faculty development programs that 

provide a critical forum for leading scholars and faculty to deepen their knowledge 

of current scholarship. Similarly, Faculty Humanities Workshops support local and 

regional professional development programs that allow faculty and scholars to engage in collaborative study. Within the research division, several programs, including Summer Stipends and Fellowships, support individuals or teams of two or more 

scholars (not including graduate students) pursuing advanced research that will 

contribute to scholarly knowledge or to the public’s understanding of the humanities. 

One of the problems that humanities researchers and scholars face is that the reinterpretation of history and other scholarly work that often define the work of humanists do not fit the traditional concept of ‘‘research,’’ as we think of it in the 

science and engineering disciplines. AAU is working with others in the humanities 

community to find ways to better communicate how research in the humanities differs from research in the sciences, but is still essential to addressing many of today’s 

challenges. 

The second priority for AAU is a new competitively awarded graduate studentfaculty program. We have engaged in extensive discussions during the past 2 years 

with the White House, the Office of Management and Budget, the NEH, and Congress (particularly the House Humanities Caucus Co-Chairs) and believe that we 

have support, particularly with the leadership of the Endowment, for such a program. It would simultaneously expand scholarship in key areas of inquiry, support 

the education of graduate students in the conduct of research, and bring faculty and 

graduate students together in collaborative arrangements that have long characterized the sciences. In the sciences, such collaborations foster creativity by combining 

the knowledge and experience of faculty with the energy and creativity of graduate 

students. The benefits of faculty mentorship, early and in-depth engagement of 

graduate students in research, and the enrichment of scholarly endeavors by the 

close interaction of faculty and graduate students have been all too lacking in the 

humanities. 

While we are flexible as to how the program should be structured, our initial proposal is a national competitive program in which proposals from universities would 

be judged on the scholarly inquiry to be conducted; the manner in which the proposed research topic would be enhanced by faculty-supervised graduate student research; the intellectual, social, or cultural significance of the research; the contribution of the research to interdisciplinary research; and the plans to communicate the 

research within and beyond the academic community. We believe that the first step 

should be internal competitions within institutions, with each university selecting 

which proposals should be submitted to the NEH national competition. The institutional proposals might involve a team of one faculty member and one graduate student, or two or more faculty members working with several graduate students on 

an interdisciplinary topic. 

This new program would build on the Endowment’s decision to allow graduate 

students to participate in the NEH summer seminars, as the humanities community 

requested. Still, the NEH does not currently support graduate research in the humanities. While the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, 

the Departments of Defense and Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Science 

Administration, have graduate education components to complement their university-based research, the NEH stands as one of the few Federal agencies that does 

not support or train the next generation of researchers or support collaboration between students and faculty. The Endowment once funded a small dissertation fellowship program, but the program was de-funded when the agency sustained significant budget cuts in the mid-1990s. 

Many details of the proposed program remain to be worked out, but we believe 

that NEH is uniquely positioned to promote collaboration between faculty and graduate students in a manner that both enriches humanities scholarship and helps to 

supply our Nation with the talented and knowledgeable individuals who will contribute to a culturally competent workforce. This is a two for one in a single program. We believe it is a vital element in sustaining the pipeline of young humanities researchers and scholars. 

The third priority for AAU is improved humanities data collection. AAU supports 

the administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget language citing the NEH’s intentions 

to ‘‘enter into a partnership with the American Academy of Arts and 
147 

Sciences . . . to sustain and extend AAAS’s developmental work on the Humanities 

Indicators Project.’’ The project, which is responsive to NEH’s legislative mandate 

to develop a system of national information and data collection, is making a wide 

range of humanities data available to researchers, educators, and the general public. 

These data will equip policymakers and institutional administrators with statistical 

tools to help inform decisionmaking about K–12, higher education, the humanities 

workforce, and other areas of concern to the humanities community. 

AAU encourages you to consider the importance of the humanities in our society 

today. NEH helps colleges and universities around the country ensure that the humanities remain central to their missions and to the cultural life of the Nation. In 

its role as the largest Federal supporter of the humanities, the NEH broadens public 

awareness of and participation in the humanities through teaching, scholarship, and 

research. 

AAU, as part of the larger humanities advocacy community, supports a significant 

increase in the Endowment’s budget to enable the agency to more broadly support 

the research and education programs our Nation needs to better understand an increasingly complex world. In addition, we believe that Congress has a unique opportunity to support a new program to facilitate more interaction between students and 

faculty in the humanities. We look forward to discussing the details of such a program as you develop the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I welcome any questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY

American Bird Conservancy’s testimony focuses on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s (FWS) Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) grants program and the Joint Ventures (JV) program. American Bird Conservancy requests 

NMBCA be funded at $6.5 million ($1.5 million above fiscal year 2010’s level) and 

JVs be funded at $18 million ($4 million above fiscal year 2010’s level). An increase 

in funding for these programs would benefit the songbirds that are soon to arrive 

back from their wintering grounds and to the backyards and birdfeeders of millions 

of anxiously awaiting Americans. We further request $5 million for reforestation in 

Appalachia, and a spending limitation on the logging of mature forests and trees 

on Federal lands. 

American Bird Conservancy leads a coalition of conservation organization that includes National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Point-Reyes Bird Observatory, and The Wildlife Society—who, together, advocate for Federal programs crucial for bird conservation. These programs are the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation grants program, JVs, the FWS’s Office of Migratory Bird Management, 

the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, State Wildlife Grants, the USGS 

Breeding Bird Survey, Wildlife Without Borders, and the International Programs 

within the USDA Forest Service. 

As members of this subcommittee know well, America is blessed with a spectacular abundance and rich diversity of birds, with more than 800 species inhabiting 

the mainland, Hawaii, and surrounding oceans. So it’s easy to understand why 75 

million Americans engage in bird watching—and how this activity generates more 

than $45 billion to our economy every year. 

Unfortunately, we found out in last year’s FWS’s groundbreaking State of the 

Birds Report that many of our bird species are in decline and some are threatened 

with extinction. For example, Eastern Meadowlarks, historically found in great 

abundance in our prairies, have dropped 70 percent over the past 30 years. The 

Northern Bobwhite quail has similarly lost 70 percent of its population in just 45 

years. Rusty Blackbirds have declined by a staggering 99 percent. On Hawaii, the 

Akikiki and Akekee have undergone severe population declines leading to their recent listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

The 2010 State of the Birds Report on Climate Change finds that most U.S. bird 

species will be imperiled by climate change, including common birds that are currently not of conservation concern. All 67 species of U.S. seabirds are rated as vulnerable, and islands also top the list of habitats where birds will be at greatest risk, 

indicating the efforts to conserve Hawaiian bird species need to be intensified. 

Furthermore, American Bird Conservancy’s report, Saving Migratory Birds for Future Generations: The Success of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 

found that of our 341 species that are neotropical migrants—meaning birds that 

breed in the United States and Canada and winter in Latin America and the Caribbean—127 are in decline. Sixty of those species, including 29 songbirds, are in se-
148 

vere decline having lost 45 percent or more of their population in the past 40 years. 

If these trends continue, future generations of Americans may never be able to see 

a bright blue Cerulean Warbler, Bell’s Vireo, or Black-chinned Sparrow. 

This trend can be seen all throughout the country. Here in Washington, DC for 

example an annual census of birds in Rock Creek Park that started in the 1940s, 

found that the number of migratory songbirds breeding there has dropped by 70 

percent over the past half-century. Three species of warbler (Black-and-white, Hooded, and Kentucky) no longer breed there at all. 

The main reasons for these precipitous declines are well established and reported 

in the 2009 State of the Birds Report: The largest source of bird mortality is due 

to habitat loss through conversion for human uses. Resource extraction and a growing human population have resulted in more development and land conversion for 

suburban sprawl so there are simply fewer and fewer large blocks of unbroken habitat for our native birds. 

The second major impact is from habitat degradation from ecologically harmful 

land uses, such as unsustainable forestry or destruction of grasslands to create farm 

land. Deforestation, especially in Latin America, is accelerating at an alarming rate, 

driven by the needs of the rapidly expanding human population, which has tripled 

from 1950–2000. Estimates of the percentage of remaining forests that are lost each 

year in the Neotropics are between 1–2 percent. 

NMBCA 

To address these two problems—habitat loss and degradation, both of which are 

rapidly increasing south of our border—ABC respectfully suggests that Congress act 

to help mitigate their impact by improving the appropriations level for the NMBCA 

grants program. As the subcommittee knows, the NMBCA supports partnership programs in the United States, Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean to conserve 

migratory birds, especially on their wintering grounds where birds of nearly 350 

species, including some of the most endangered birds in North America, spend their 

winters. Projects include activities that benefit bird populations such as habitat restoration, research and monitoring, law enforcement, and outreach and education. 

Saving Migratory Birds for Future Generations also found the grant program has 

a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of Neotropical birds that populate America and the Western 

Hemisphere. The public-private partnerships along with the international collaboration they provide are proving themselves to be integral to preserving vulnerable bird 

populations. 

From 2002–2008, grant money has gone out to 44 U.S. States and 34 countries, 

funding 260 projects, impacting almost 3 million acres of critical bird habitat. More 

than $25 million in federally appropriated dollars have leveraged more than $116 

million in partner contributions. However, demand for funding of high-quality conservation projects far outstrips current appropriations, and in 2008, 63 projects requesting nearly $10,000,000 were not funded. From these numbers, it is clear that 

conservation that would benefit our migrant songbirds is not able to take place due 

to a lack of funding for this program. 

We respectfully request that NMBCA be funded at $6.5 million ($1.5 million 

above fiscal year 2010’s level). 

JVs 

JVs also exemplify a highly successful, cost-effective approach to conservation and 

are now being looked to as model for the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. By 

applying science and bringing diverse constituents together, JVs across the United 

States have created a model for solving wildlife management problems and restoring 

habitats critical to conserving declining species. Nationally, JVs have protected, restored, or enhanced more than 13 million acres of important habitat for migratory 

bird species. There are currently 21 JVs in the United States that provide coordination for conservation planning and implementation of projects that benefit all migratory bird populations and other species. 

JVs have a long history of success in implementing bird conservation initiatives 

mandated by Congress and by international treaties. Projects are developed at the 

local level and implemented through diverse public/private partnerships. These 

projects reflect local values and needs, while addressing regional and national conservation priorities. The projects benefit not only birds, but many wildlife species, 

and have a positive impact on the health of watersheds and local economies. 

Every dollar invested in JVs leverages more than $44 in non-Federal partner 

funds (1999–2004) for on-the-ground habitat conservation and restoration projects, 

biological planning, and outreach. ABC believes JVs should be funded at 

$18,000,000 in fiscal year 2011 to allow them to meet their increased responsibil-
149 

ities. This increase in funding would help strengthen the public/private partnerships 

that leverage increasingly scarce public funds for on-the-ground habitat restoration 

and acquisition projects; continue to incorporate recent scientific advances in the development of landscape-conservation plans; and build capacity within the newer 

Joint Ventures, while maintaining expertise within established ones. 

ABC strongly believes increased funding for NMBCA and JVs is essential to 

achieving conservation goals critical to our environment and economy. Just as importantly, these Federal programs are good values for taxpayers, leveraging more 

than $4 and $44, respectively, in partner contributions for each one that the taxpayers spend. 

We respectfully request that JVs be funded at $18 million ($4 million above fiscal 

year 2010’s level). 

Conserving Forest Carbon and Restoring Wildlife Habitat 

Lastly, we believe land management activities that are ecologically unsustainable, 

or that are contrary to the recommendations of the 2010 State of the Birds report 

should be discontinued. Of particular concern is the continued logging of mature forests on Federal lands. While the cutting of large fire-resistant trees and older forests has been greatly reduced, it still continues on Federal lands, engendering 

strong public opposition, needless controversy, environmental harm, and a significant waste of scarce agency resources. 

We respectfully request the subcommittee include in the bill a funding limitation 

for projects that would log mature and old-growth forests or individual trees 100 

years or older on all Federal forest lands. These forests and trees should be held 

in trust to both help mitigate the impacts of climate change by keeping these immense volumes of carbon from being released into the atmosphere, and to help wildlife adapt to changing conditions. 

There are also opportunities to reforest abandoned minelands in Appalachia that 

would greatly enhance carbon storage above current levels, as well as provide much 

needed wildlife habitat in forest areas that have been heavily fragmented. Of particular concern is the Cerulean Warbler whose population has declined 70 percent 

since surveys began 40 years ago. The species needs large-blocks of unfragmented 

habitat, which is currently in short supply in the eastern forests. 

The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative developed by Federal and State 

government scientists, State wildlife agencies, and conservation organizations proposes to create 2,000 jobs over the next 5 years restoring these lands and returning 

them back into productive forests. We respectfully request the subcommittee approve $5 million to begin this Appalachian reforestation initiative. 

In conclusion, Madam Chairman, let me just say that America faces a serious 

challenge to reverse the decline of many of our bird species, but we can do it. Since 

birds are sensitive indicators of how we are protecting our environment as a whole, 

this decline signals a crisis that Congress must act now to reverse it. If the State 

of the Birds reports tell us anything, it is that when we apply ourselves by investing 

in conservation, we can save imperiled wildlife, protect habitats, and solve the multiple threats at the root of this problem. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

My name is John L. Nau, III, and I am pleased to submit my testimony to the 

subcommittee. I serve as Chairman of Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP). Let me note at the outset ACHP’s appreciation for the subcommittee’s continued support and interest in the Nation’s historical and cultural resources. ACHP 

is dedicated to the preservation of our Nation’s historic and cultural resources. I 

support maintaining fiscal year 2010 funding levels for the historic preservation programs within the Department of the Interior, including Preserve America and Save 

America’s Treasures Grants in the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Both programs are important to economic vitality 

in communities throughout America, providing jobs in the construction and tourism 

industries while concurrently enabling the preservation of historic properties and 

artifacts for the benefit of current and future generations. 

In 2007, Senators Hillary Clinton and Pete Domenici and Representatives Brad 

Miller and Mike Turner introduced legislation to authorize the Preserve America 

and Save America’s Treasures programs. I was delighted when this important legislation was overwhelmingly passed and then signed into law as part of the Omnibus 

Public Land Management Act of 2009. 

Preserve America serves as a driver of economic activity and a powerful tool for 

preserving significant historic and cultural resources throughout the country. The 
150 

program enables local communities to create viable strategies to use their historic 

assets to meet contemporary needs. In doing so, it helps to inform our citizens about 

the past while also fulfilling our shared commitment to ensuring that future generations can benefit from historic preservation as we have. 

Since the program was launched in 2006, Preserve America has awarded nearly 

$20 million for 259 projects in 49 States with an additional group of grant awards 

pending. More than 700 projects proposals have been received by the National Park 

Service requesting over $60 million. A recent assessment of the program concluded 

that Preserve America Grants: 

—Address a broad range of heritage tourism and historic preservation needs that 

are unmet by other Federal assistance programs; 

—Stimulate the creation and development of innovative programs and projects of 

all types; 

—Are helping to support economic development by stimulating local economic activity; 

—Provide scarce seed money to leverage investment and in-kind support for heritage tourism; and 

—Encourage education initiatives that foster appreciation for history among 

young people. 

In addition, Preserve America serves as a valuable complement to other important 

historic preservation programs, in particular the Save America’s Treasures program. 

Save America’s Treasures is the Nation’s only bricks-and-mortar preservation grant 

program. Established by Executive Order in 1998, it is a public-private partnership 

that includes the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Park Service, the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities, and the Federal cultural agencies. 

Over the past 10 years, SAT has been a driver of economic development and the 

Federal Government’s most successful tool to preserve the important places that tell 

our Nation’s story. Since its creation, Save America’s Treasures has designated more 

than 1,100 projects in all 50 States, created an estimated 16,000 jobs, and awarded 

approximately $300 million in grants to preservation efforts across the country. The 

projects range from such iconic objects as the Star-Spangled Banner to historically 

and architecturally significant structures like the Acoma Pueblo and the Conservatory of Flowers. 

In order to build upon these successes, it will be necessary to ensure that more 

cities and communities can benefit from Preserve America in the future. Level funding in fiscal year 2011 will provide the momentum needed for this program to remain viable going forward. Absent this continuity in funding resources, I fear the 

demise of this widely supported bipartisan program. 

Since 2004, a total of 814 municipalities, counties, Indian tribes, and urban neighborhoods have applied for and received designation as Preserve America Communities. All of these designated communities are eligible to apply for competitive 50/ 

50 matching Preserve America Grants from the National Park Service, along with 

State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and Certified Local Governments that are in the process of applying for Preserve America 

Community designation. The grants are given for projects that help preserve, promote, and use historic resources for cultural heritage tourism and related economic 

development and educational purposes. Grants are given in five categories: Research 

and Documentation; Planning; Interpretation and Education; Promotion; and Training. 

Preserve America Grants totaling $783,754 for eight projects in California have 

been awarded since 2006 to five different cities, one group of urban neighborhoods, 

and one Indian tribe. While much of the multi-year grant work has not yet been 

completed, below are summaries of two of these grant projects. 

One such award went to Monterey, California for $100,000. 

The grant focused on a coordinated interactive way-finding and signage program 

to promote the many significant historic and cultural resources in Monterey. A high 

proportion of the local economy is geared to tourism, and downtown Monterey is a 

National Historic Landmark historic district. There are many remnants of the Spanish and Mexican colonial periods prior to 1846, structures from the later territorial 

and statehood period, and the Cannery Row area made famous by John Steinbeck. 

Work under the grant has included three principal components: 

Develop signage for public and privately-owned historic assets in the downtown 

Monterey business area, including ‘‘virtual’’ interpretation via Internet-based and 

cell phone technology in order to guide and orient visitors as well as residents to 

heritage attractions. 
151 

Produce an inclusive print and web-based brochure to highlight Monterey’s story, 

a timeline of Monterey’s history, and a citywide walking map with different historic 

trails delineated. 

Create an interactive, downloadable Internet-based resource map of historic assets and working tour information encompassing the entire City of Monterey, to 

complement the onsite and distance way-finding program. 

According to the City’s 2009 project assessment, ‘‘The funding received by the City 

of Monterey has had a stimulating effect on the promotion of Monterey’s multiple 

levels of heritage, [and] the Preserve America designation and receipt of the grant 

has proven a catalyst for new programs and projects throughout all of Monterey 

County . . . We could not have developed these programs without the Preserve 

America grant. We continue to refine our signage program, which included a local 

designer who was paid from the grant funds. The prototype signs designed as part 

of the grant have proven to be popular and will, at some time, replace 49 more signs 

throughout the city. That is economic redevelopment based on heritage tourism. We 

are now increasing our use of electronic way-finding and cell phone tours that we 

could not accomplish without the grant funding. That expansion of way-finding will 

lead to a contract with a cell phone tour company, and possibly a position for a Web 

page administrator within the next year. For the City of Monterey, the grant received in 2006 was an early stimulus package... The success of the grant has 

made it clear that this type of funding, so difficult to justify in a city budget, is vital 

to the promotion of heritage tourism.’’ 

Another award in California went to an ‘‘Indian Island Interpretation and Education Project’’ for the Wiyot Tribe, in Loleta, California. 

The project will help promote and manage public access to a National Historic 

Landmark Native American village site with the development of educational materials, the design and installation of interpretive kiosks and signage, and establishment of special events, tours and field trips to an important site in Humboldt Bay. 

In conjunction with environmental clean-up and restoration work, the Indian Island 

Cultural and Environmental Restoration Project is a collaborative partnership between the Wiyot Tribe and the City of Eureka, with assistance and support from 

the Humboldt Bay Maritime Museum, the Humboldt County Visitors and Convention Bureau, and other local partners. The location that will be interpreted is the 

important archaeological site of Tuluwat Village on Indian Island, portions of which 

date to A.D. 900. Tuluwat Village is the ‘‘center of the universe’’ for the Wiyot people, and the site is the historic as well as the more recent location of a week-long 

World Renewal ceremony each February where a massacre of more than 200 native 

inhabitants took place in 1860. In addition to the economic potential related to area 

tourism, a significant feature of the project is the development of curriculum materials for school and other youth groups. 

By way of further example, in Tennessee, eight communities are designated as 

Preserve America communities, and six more have applications pending. In addition, three grants totaling $267,000 have been awarded for Preserve America 

projects in Franklin, Jonesborough and Oak Ridge. 

I support funding Preserve America at the fiscal year 2010 amount, and I welcome an opportunity to meet with you or your staff to provide any additional information and to discuss this with you further. 

Thank you for your consideration of this written testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMIGOS DE LA SEVILLETA

Madam Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land at Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico. An appropriation of $1.5 million is needed 

in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in order for the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire the 250-acre first phase of the 1,250-acre 

Indian Hill Farms property. 

Covering an area of approximately 360 square miles and located just 40 miles 

south of Albuquerque, the largest city in the State, the Sevilleta National Wildlife 

Refuge serves as a vast protected landscape in the heart of New Mexico. The refuge 

supports four major ecological habitats, encompassing two mountain ranges and 

containing approximately 4 miles of the Rio Grande River. Much of the refuge is 

managed to enhance riparian habitat and compensate for marsh loss along the Rio 

Grande basin. The refuge provides important habitat for a large variety of birds, insects, reptiles, and mammals such as beaver, coyote, bobcat, fox, jackrabbit, and elk. 

Parts of the refuge are flooded from November to February in order to provide habitat for migrating shorebirds and waterfowl including herons, ducks, geese, and 
152 

sandhill cranes. The refuge is also managed to combat nonnative species such as 

the extremely invasive salt cedar. This nuisance species is being cleared and replaced with native willow and cottonwood to restore the natural bosque/riparian 

habitat native to the area. 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 is the first 250-acre phase of the 

1,250-acre Indian Hill Farms property, which lies adjacent to 3 miles of the Rio 

Grande as well as current refuge lands. Indian Hill Farms comprises more than 600 

acres of prime irrigated farmland and a very significant quantity of senior water 

rights which will provide the refuge with excellent opportunities for the creation of 

wildlife habitat, including moist soils, wetlands, and restored river bosque. The 

Sevilleta NWR is home to the second largest population of the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher along the Rio Grande River. If Indian Hill Farms is added 

to refuge ownership, there are plans to restore a portion of the property to provide 

additional prime flycatcher habitat. Because the farm is the first to take water 

rights off the important San Acacia Dam, located just off the edge of the farm, control of the water rights by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should also provide 

additional protection and benefit to the endangered silvery minnow, found within 

portions of the Rio Grande that run through the refuge. Given the water rights associated with the property and its location along the Rio Grande, acquisition of the 

Indian Hill Farms property could provide the refuge system a tremendous opportunity for habitat manipulation for a number of different wildlife uses, including endangered species habitat, wintering waterbird habitat, migratory landbird use, as 

well as raptor and resident big game habitat. Its location between two major wintering waterfowl areas, Ladd S. Gordon Complex to the north and Bosque del 

Apache NWR to the south, makes this a key acquisition to enhance waterfowl populations in the Middle Rio Grande area. 

Currently, Sevilleta NWR offers limited public access as much of its acreage has 

been designated to ongoing research projects. Sevilleta NWR is the host to the University of New Mexico’s (UNM) Long-Term Ecological Research program initiated in 

1988 and funded through the National Science Foundation. This program examines 

the responses of different ecological communities to climate change and UNM has 

expressed great interest in research projects that would be associated with the 

planned conversion of farmland to wildlife habitat should Indian Hill Farms be acquired by the refuge. 

An appropriation of $1.5 million in fiscal year 2011 will be combined with an appropriation of $500,000 provided in fiscal year 2010 to ensure that the first phase 

of the Indian Hill Farms property is protected in perpetuity. The USFWS is pursuing the administrative steps necessary to include the entire Indian Hill Farms 

property within refuge boundaries, and an appraisal is also underway to determine 

the property’s value. 

The addition of this priority parcel to the Sevilleta NWR will allow for the creation and restoration of important wildlife habitat types along the Rio Grande 

River, increase public access to refuge lands, and increase unique research opportunities for local scientists. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation’s premier Federal program 

to acquire and protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and 

at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting 

healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, 

improving wildfire management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing 

the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the subcommittee for 

its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise 

investment in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one that will permanently 

pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in New 

Mexico, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS

Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies sup-
153 

porting fiscal year 2011 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at 

a level of $180 million. 

April 13, 2010 was Arts Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill, an annual grassroots gathering hosted by Americans for the Arts and cosponsored by 86 national organizations representing dance, theater, music, literature, and the visual and media artsthe full landscape of American culture. Collectively these national groups represent 

tens of thousands of nonprofit and governmental cultural organizations at the State 

and local levels across the country. 

At the annual hearing on arts funding held by the House Interior Appropriations 

Subcommittee Americans for the Arts witnesses represented a broad cross-section 

of stakeholders who partner with the Federal Government to promote, support, and 

deliver the highest quality arts to the farthest-reaching parts of America, ranging 

from rural communities like Chelsea, Michigan and Minot, North Dakota to large 

urban centers such as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The subcommittee heard unique 

perspectives of how the arts in America play out as an important diplomatic and 

strategic instrument within the global community, how corporate investment in the 

arts is working hand in hand with government support to enrich the cultural life 

and opportunities within communities. The subcommittee also heard about how investments in nonprofit arts groups in small and large towns across the country have 

created the foundation for today’s artists to ignite their talent, perfect their craft, 

pursue their dreams. The nonprofit arts industry is a $166.2 billion economic sector that supports 5.7 million full time equivalent jobs and pumps $29.6 billion in tax revenue back into 

local, State, and Federal treasuries. Quite simply put, the arts equal jobs. More importantly, these are jobs that are part of the new and growing information and innovation economy. These are not the kind of jobs that can be outsourced abroad. They 

are home-grown, made in America jobs. 

The National Endowment for the Arts did a superb job of quickly and effectively distributing $50 million of economic recovery funds, included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, across the country to save jobs in the arts. Within 

a few short months, the NEA had developed an application process, reviewed thousands of requests, and administered hundreds of grants both directly to individual 

arts institutions and through a re-granting process by regional, State, and local arts 

agencies in order to broaden the reach of these funds. I’d like to share a few examples of how these NEA recovery funds were used: —In Los Angeles, California, the NEA awarded $420,084 to the Los Angeles 

County Arts Commission and the city of Los Angeles’ Department of Cultural 

Affairs. The two organizations distributed the money to 16 local arts organizations to help pay the salaries of 21 administrative staffers whose jobs were to 

be eliminated. These organizations included the H.E. Art Project, Hollywood 

Entertainment Museum, Jazz Bakery Performance Space, Ryman/Carroll Foundation, Contra-Tiempo, East Los Angeles Classic Theater, Friends of Chinese 

American Museum, Greenways Arts Alliance, L.A. Stage Alliance, Latino Theater Company, Pan African Film and Arts Festival and the Unusual Suspects 

Theater Company. 

—In Tennessee, the Allied Arts of Greater Chattanooga received $100,000 in stimulus funds to preserve jobs within local arts agencies. The local groups receiving 

these funds were Ballet Tennessee, Chattanooga Boys Choir, Chattanooga Girls 

Choir, Chattanooga Symphony & Opera, Chattanooga Theatre Centre, Choral 

Arts of Chattanooga, Creative Discovery Museum and Shaking Ray Levi Society. 

—In Idaho, the Idaho Shakespeare used recovery funds to guarantee a fourth 

show will be produced for its 2010 season. This in effect secured jobs for nine 

Equity actors, five directors/designers, a stage manager, and a production assistant for a Shakespearean production. Opera Idaho hired a marketing director, a position it lost in 2007. The Cabin, a literary program, sustained its 12 

staff writers for its Writers in the Schools program and for its summer camps, 

which reaches kids from Cambridge to Fort Hall, and Boise to Pocatello. 

—In Virginia, direct NEA grants to nonprofit arts organizations supported the 

preservation of jobs at such places as Signature Theater in Arlington and the 

venerable Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts. The Virginia Arts 

Commission received $331,000 in critical funding that was used for the retention or reinstatement of critical staff positions that have been jeopardized by the 

current economy. The Piedmont Arts Association in Martinsville received 

$10,300 to be used for the preservation of the part time Education Coordinator 

position. 

—Seattle’s Office of Arts & Cultural Affairs received a $250,000 local arts agency 

recovery grant from the NEA to specifically re-grant to local Seattle arts organi-
154 

zations. Funds helped to preserve 16 arts administrator positions, eight educational staff, 40 artists, and 15 production personnel positions at 22 arts organizations. 

—The Oklahoma Arts Council disbursed $306,800 in Federal recovery funds to 16 

nonprofit organizations across the State. Funds specifically helped to restore a 

costume designer’s position from part-time back to full-time at the Lawton Community Theatre, save a music director’s position at Cimarron Circuit Opera in 

Norman, and kept the arts education coordinator position at the Arts and Humanities Council of Tulsa. At Oklahoma Children’s Theatre in Oklahoma City, 

a $15,000 recovery grant was used to prevent the executive director’s position 

to go from full-time to part-time. 

—Through another $250,000 local arts agency economic recovery re-grant from 

the NEA, the Broward County, Florida Cultural Division provided salary support at several local arts organizations. The salaries they supported were for positions that would have otherwise been laid off during the recession, including 

nine local jazz musicians at the Gold Coast Jazz Society, the director of education at the Coral Spring Museum of Arts, and a part-time education coordinator at the Art and Culture Center of Hollywood. 

—In Ohio, recovery grants supported many positions, including two community 

cultural project managers as well as the school residency supervisor at the 

Great Lakes Theatre Festival. 

Real People. Real Jobs.—The $50 million investment that this subcommittee made 

in the nonprofit arts sector reached all 50 States. $16.8 million was regranted 

through the State arts agencies, $4.8 million was re-granted through the local arts 

agencies, and approximately $28 million was awarded directly to cultural institutions through the NEA. According to the Federal Government’s Recovery.org Web 

site, 1,408 jobs have been funded through the NEA’s economic recovery direct grants 

as of March 2010. This has been a lifeline to the arts community and we are truly 

grateful that artists and arts administrators were recognized as an important economic sector to the Nation’s recovery. 

But, unfortunately, it’s still not enough to offset the major declines in public and 

private support of the arts that have occurred. Last year, State government arts appropriations dropped 10 percent, local government support fell 8 percent, and private giving to the arts fell 6.5 percent. If you total up these losses, it’s approximately less than $1 billion going into the arts in just 1 year. 

According to the Americans for the Arts National Arts Index, while there are 

signs of economic recovery for the country as a whole, we know from our trend data 

that the creative sector lags a full year behind business trends. While all indications 

point to another difficult year for arts organizations for 2010–2011, we have seen 

wonderful and creative signs of perseverance. Many arts groups have re-doubled 

marketing efforts as a means of increasing earned income potential, resulting in 

great ticket sale seasons and bringing in new audiences. 

The NEA plays an important role in helping these arts organizations leverage 

both contributed income as well as earned income. During this economic downturn, 

I encourage this subcommittee to increase funding for the NEA in order for it to 

carry out its important mission of leveraging more funds for the arts. 

Leveraging Other Federal Agency Support 

The NEA plays a very important role in developing partnerships with other Federal agencies—such as the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Transportation—in order to open new channels for arts organizations to 

work with all aspects of government. For example, CDBG funds can be used for restoring cultural facilities, transportation funds can be used for public art, and education funds to deliver quality arts education programs to kids in- and after-school. 

Leveraging State and Local Government Support 

The NEA helps to leverage State and local governments to fund the arts as well. 

Forty plus years ago, something as simple as requiring States to match funds that 

it receives from the NEA helped create State arts councils in every State that now 

appropriate $297 million of state funds to support the arts. 

At the local level, the NEA’s original local arts agency program created an even 

higher 2 to 1 match that was welcomed by local governments. Since 1984, the NEA’s 

Local Arts Agency program has supported more than 800 grants totaling $47 million. This program spurred unprecedented growth in local government support for 

the arts in large part due to higher matching requirements, sensitivity to local 

standards and tastes, and their proven track record of being trustworthy stewards 

of public funds. Today, local governments invest $765 million of their own funds to 

support artists and community-based nonprofit arts organizations, ranging from tra-
155 

ditional symphonies and operas to ethnically specific cultural programs and arts 

education initiatives. 

With this record of accomplishment in mind, I want to encourage this subcommittee to enhance the formal re-granting partnership program for local arts 

agencies to help the NEA better serve arts organization of all sizes in communities 

across the country. 

Leveraging Private Contributed and Earned Income Support 

An NEA grant embodies a reputation of a national seal because of its rigorous 

review standards and the high level of competition. As a result, when the NEA 

awards direct grants to arts organizations across the country, the strong leveraging 

effect of attracting additional contributed dollars is unparalleled. The NEA has also 

served an important role of leveraging an arts organization’s earned income potential by supporting marketing initiatives ranging from investments in centralized 

ticketing offices, online community-wide cultural calendars to market research studies of audience trends and habits. 

In conclusion, I want to again express the nonprofit art community’s gratitude for 

your efforts thus far. I respectfully ask the subcommittee to continue its commitment to the creative sector by supporting an increase in the NEA fiscal year 2011 

budget to $180 million to save jobs, educate our children, and maintain America’s 

cultural dynamism. 

LETTER FROM BY THE AMERICAN FOREST FOUNDATION; CALIFORNIA FOREST PEST

COUNCIL; CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF STREETS AND SANITATION, BUREAU OF

FORESTRY; DAVEY INSTITUTE; INTERNATIONAL MAPLE SYRUP INSTITUTE; MULCH & 

SOIL COUNCIL; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS; NATIONAL PLANT

BOARD; THE NATURE CONSERVANCY; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION; NORTH AMERICAN MAPLE SYRUP COUNCIL, INC.; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; PURDUE UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF EN- TOMOLOGY; SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FLORISTS; AND UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; 

MARCH 19, 2010. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: Fiscal year 2011 Appropriation for the USDA Forest Service 

DEAR CHAIRPERSON FEINSTEIN AND RANKING MEMBER ALEXANDER: We urge the 

Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to appropriate 

adequate funding for the USDA Forest Service (USFS) to manage non-native insects 

and plant diseases that threaten America’s forests. We recommend an fiscal year 

2011 appropriation of $145 million for the USFS Forest Health Management Program. This level is about $7 million above the current level of funding. 

In addition, we ask that you provide an increase of $3 million above the fiscal 

year 2010 appropriations level for the ‘‘Invasives R&D’’ line item within the USFS 

Research program. This increase reflects the significant gaps in knowledge about 

monitoring techniques and tools, as well as in how populations of non-native pests 

will develop, expand and impact our U.S. forested systems. We ask the Congress 

to support further research to be better able to develop and implement appropriate 

management programs for these non-native pests. 

We thank the subcommittee for substantially increasing funding for the Forest 

Health Management Program in fiscal year 2010. The increase resulted in substantial new resources being devoted to improving detection and control methods for the 

emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, and sudden oak death (SOD; also called 

the phytophthora leaf and stem blight pathogen); and maintenance of programs targeting the gypsy moth and other non-native forest pests and diseases. The added 

funding also allows the USFS to address new pests threatening forests across the 

country, including thousand canker disease (which threatens black walnuts nationwide); gold-spotted oak borer (which is killing oak trees in southern California); and 

laurel wilt disease (which is killing redbay, sassafras, and other trees and shrubs 

in coastal regions of the Southeast). Funding at our recommended level supports 

continued expansion of these important programs, which benefit both rural and 

urban communities. 
156 

The Forest Health program provides vital expertise in forest pests’ biology and detection and management methodology that is crucial to the success of pest eradication and containment programs implemented by the USDA Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). As these forest pests are detected in new areas, 

the importance of the USFS’s contribution rises. The USFS has the lead responsibility for detecting and responding to any outbreaks of SOD in the forest. The USFS 

has provided most of the funds utilized by Oregon in its SOD containment program; 

this program has succeeded in containing spread of the disease through vulnerable 

forests in the southwest corner of the State. Detection programs managed under the 

Forest Health Monitoring Program have surveyed 320 watersheds across the country. Watersheds have been found with evidence of the SOD pathogen—outside the 

infested areas in California and Oregon. These include streams in four Southeastern 

States with substantial vulnerable oak forests—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi. Both programs must continue in order to protect vulnerable forests. 

The emerald ash borer has now been detected in 13 States. The USFS’s Forest 

Health Protection program provides expertise in detecting this elusive insect, in developing more effective tools to curtail its spread, and in advising landowners on 

how to respond to the threat. For example, the USFS helps to fund a website maintained by the Continental Forest Dialogue (www.dontmovefirewood.org) in order to 

educate the public not to transport potentially infested wood that can spread pests. 

The USFS, involved cooperatively with APHIS, is evaluating mitigation tools and 

strategies to be utilized by newly infested regions to slow or curtail the spread of 

this devastating pest. It is vitally important that the USFS effort targeting this insect not be reduced. The USFS is working with State forestry departments through 

the Great Plains Initiative to help those States prepare for the widespread tree mortality that the emerald ash borer will cause. 

Finally, the Forest Health Management Program needs adequate funding to expand its Early Detection project. This program has been responsible for detecting 

more than a dozen introduced insects, including two which threaten the economically important pine forests of the Southeast: the sirex woodwasp and the Mediterranean pine beetle. The detection program now covers all States on a 3-year rotation. It now must develop and deploy methodologies to detect the highly damaging 

wood-boring beetles. 

As the majority of southern forests are in private ownership, a landowner assistance program for early detection and rapid response for these pine pests should be 

considered. 

The agency bearing the principal responsibility for eradicating newly introduced 

forest pests is not the USFS, but rather APHIS, an agency under the jurisdiction 

of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee. The USFS plays a critical support 

role by providing both management expertise and critical research—in close coordination with APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine and through cooperative funding agreements with State forestry, State departments of agriculture, and State 

land grant universities. 

Nevertheless, the subcommittee cannot achieve its goal of protecting the health 

of the nation’s forests as long as funding shortfalls undermine USDA APHIS eradication programs. We encourage the subcommittee to work with the Agriculture Ap-
157 

propriations Subcommittee to find ways to increase funding for forest pest line items 

in the USDA APHIS Emerging Plant Pest account. 

Sincerely, 

TOM MARTIN, 

President and CEO, 

American Forest Foundation. 

BOB RYNEARSON, 

Chairman, 

California Forest Pest Council. 

JOSEPH J. MCCARTHY, 

Senior City Forester, 

City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation, Bureau of Forestry. 

ANAND B. PERSAD, PH.D., B.C.E., 

Regional Technical Advisor, 

Davey Institute. 

GARY GAUDETTE, 

President, 

International Maple Syrup Institute. 

ROBERT C. LAGASSE, 

Executive Director, 

Mulch & Soil Council. 

JAY FARRELL, 

Executive Director, 

National Association of State Foresters. 

CARL P. SCHULZE, JR., 

President, 

National Plant Board. 

ROBERT L. BENDICK, 

Director—Government Relations, 

The Nature Conservancy. 

ROBERT K. DAVIES, 

Director of Lands and Forests, 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 

RICK MARSH, 

President, 

North American Maple Syrup Council, Inc. 

RUSSELL C. REDDING, 

Secretary, 

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. 
158 

CLIFFORD S. SADOF, 

Professor—Department of Entomology, 

Purdue University. 

LIN SCHMALE, 

Senior Director—Government Relations, 

Society of American Florists. 

PHYLLIS N. WINDLE, PH.D., 

Senior Scientist and Director—Invasive Species, 

Union of Concerned Scientists. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION

Introduction 

The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is the national trade association of the forest products industry, representing forest landowners and pulp, paper, 

packaging, and wood products manufacturers. AF&PA companies make products essential for everyday life from renewable and recyclable resources. 

The U.S. forest products industry accounts for approximately 6 percent of total 

domestic manufacturing GDP (putting it on par with the automotive and plastics 

industries). Forest industry companies produce $200 billion in products annually, 

employ 1 million people, and provide $54 billion in annual payroll. The industry is 

among the top 10 manufacturing sector employers in 48 States. Lumber, panel, 

pulp, and paper mills are frequently the economic hub of local communities, making 

the industry’s health critical to the economic vitality of hundreds of rural areas 

across the country. 

Declining Federal timber harvests have adversely affected many rural communities, resulting in thousands of jobs lost. Many actions are needed to help preserve 

the industry’s remaining jobs and contribute to the broader revitalization of the 

economy. Congress and the administration must continue to improve credit markets, 

stimulate demand for housing, and craft policies that recognize the significant contributions made by the wood and paper industries towards renewable energy and 

climate goals. Within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, we urge you to direct 

the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to do everything it can to help preserve the competitiveness of the forest products industry and the vital jobs it supports. Specific suggestions follow. 

National Forest System, Forest Products—Increase Funding to Create New Jobs 

The President’s budget request for the National Forest System (NFS) proposes to 

create a new ‘‘Integrated Resource Restoration’’ account incorporating NFS programs previously funded under the Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management, Forest 

Products, and Vegetative and Watershed Management accounts and including a new 

activity, ‘‘Landscape and Watershed Restoration.’’ 

AF&PA understands the administration’s desire to ‘‘accelerate the refocusing of 

national forest management to forest ecosystem restoration project work, including 

global climate change adaptation and mitigation.’’ However, we have numerous unanswered questions that preclude us from endorsing this initiative at this time. 

These are our primary concerns: 

—Uncertain funding allocation among activities.—The three programs referenced 

above received a total of $668 million in fiscal year 2010 funding. The President’s budget request proposes $694 million for the consolidated ‘‘Integrated Resource Restoration’’ account, but States that $90 million is to be used for ‘‘Landscape and Watershed Restoration.’’ Thus, it appears that one or more of the existing programmatic activities (Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management, Forest 

Products, and/or Vegetative and Watershed Management) will receive reductions of at least $64 million. How are those reductions to be allocated? 

—Restoration, as a concept, is undefined.—As evidenced by our signature on the 

joint February 16 letter to former Chairman Norm Dicks (copy attached), 

AF&PA has begun a dialogue with the Administration about how best to restore 

the health and vitality of the national forests, increase active management of 

more NFS acres, and revitalize the U.S. forest products industry. Given that 

this discussion is in its nascent stage, we have more questions than answers, 

including these: 

—How will a national emphasis on ‘‘restoration’’ affect timber sale programs on 

national forests that are not in need of restoration? 
159 

—How will a national emphasis on restoration dovetail with the forest plans, 

which focus on the statutory direction for multiple use and sustained yield 

without necessarily singling out ‘‘restoration’’ as a goal or objective? 

—If the subcommittee were to adopt the administration’s recommendation, how 

would the Integrated Resource Restoration funds and outputs be allocated to 

the various Regions and Forests? 

—Absence of resource-specific targets.—AF&PA and numerous other conservation 

and natural resource organizations believe that USFS managers must be accountable to the citizens of the United States who are—collectively—the owners 

of the national forests. And, while it is true that some forest metrics are difficult to quantify (e.g., forest ecosystem resiliency), we rely upon quantifiable 

measures (e.g., wood removals) to judge how well the stewards of our collective 

patrimony are doing on a year-to-year basis. The President’s budget request 

predicts timber outputs of 2.4 billion board feet, but does not contain an explicit 

timber sales target. We urge the Committee to maintain its past practice of including a statutory timber sale target. Without a specific target, how will the 

USFS be held accountable for meeting or exceeding its ‘‘predicted’’ volume? 

—To create forest industry jobs, more Federal timber should be made available for 

sale.—At a time when most Americans are concerned about jobs and our economy, studies indicate that the USFS timber sale program could produce more 

than 6,000 jobs with an additional annual investment of $57 million, and even 

more jobs could be produced with higher investments. Without a specific NFS 

timber volume target and by eliminating the forest products account, how will 

new jobs be created? 

AF&PA supports the concept of ‘‘restoration’’ as applied to the national forests. 

Well managed forests are critical to the United States, providing recreation, clean 

air and water, and fish and wildlife habitat. They also support jobs, rural communities, local education, and the paper and building materials vital to economic recovery. We intend to work with the Administration to help rebuild support for proactive 

national forest management and, where necessary, ‘‘restoration.’’ However, while 

this discussion is ongoing, we urge this subcommittee to continue to provide funding 

for a separate forest products account, increase fiscal year 2011 funding to $393.722 

million, and set a national timber sales target of 3 billion board feet. We also urge 

you to provide funds for road construction/reconstruction necessary to implement 

projects and to reduce the $10 billion road maintenance backlog that exists primarily on level 3, 4, and 5 roads. 

National Forest System, Hazardous Fuels Reduction—Increase Funding and Integration 

As we have testified in previous years, hazardous fuels reduction is essential to 

the Federal forest health restoration effort and AF&PA supports a modest ($10 million) increase over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for this vital program. We also 

urge the subcommittee to instruct the USFS to implement these projects in forested 

stands, using mechanical treatments that produce merchantable wood fiber for utilization by local mills. Prescribed burns and debris removal will not solve the hazardous fuel overload by themselves. The forest products industry can and does play 

a key role in reducing hazardous fuels from Federal lands as evidenced by the fact 

that mechanical hazardous fuel reduction costs are frequently significantly lower in 

regions with a substantial forest industry presence. The agency must take advantage of these synergies. 

We also continue to believe the agency must move away from using ‘‘acres treated’’ as the sole metric of accomplishment in the hazardous fuels reduction program. 

Exclusive focus on this measure incentivizes the agency to treat low-priority acres 

repeatedly and discourages the treatment of higher-priority forested acres in condition class 3. More aggressive pursuit of mechanical treatments, including more frequent use of Healthy Forest Restoration Act authorities, will result in treatments 

that produce usable wood fiber and—more importantly—longer-lasting and more 

meaningful positive impacts on the long-term fire problem. 

National Forest System, Forest Health Management—Increase Bark Beetle Control 

Funding 

This subcommittee has recognized the urgent need to increase funding to fight 

bark beetle epidemics and following the final fiscal year 2010 allocation, region 2 

received an additional $40 million, Montana received $20 million, and Idaho received $14 million to address this urgent problem. Those funds, while tremendously 

important and appreciated, are far short of what is necessary. Unfortunately, the 

President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request is silent on how, or whether, to pay for 

remaining work associated with the bark beetle epidemics. AF&PA urges this sub-
160 

committee to provide full funding to fight this insidious forest pest. Failure to act 

now will not only increase NFS firefighting costs in future years, but will cost the 

Treasury millions in revenue from lost timber sale receipts. 

Firefighting—Fund the FLAME Program 

AF&PA applauds the leadership by this subcommittee in including the Federal 

Land Assistance Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act of 2009 within the 

fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. We 

urge you to continue this leadership by ensuring sufficient FLAME funding to cover 

the cost of emergency fires and eliminate the need to transfer funds from nonfire 

programs. In the past, ‘‘fire borrowing’’ has been disruptive to the management of 

affected Federal agencies and led to inefficient resource management. We also urge 

you to provide direction to USFS and Bureau of Land Management officials to use 

the most current and best-informed means of estimating annual suppression instead 

of the traditional 10-year average. 

Forest and Rangeland Research—Increase USFS R&D Funding Moderately 

Targeted research and data collection is needed to support forest productivity, forest health, and economic utilization of fiber. Increased funding for the Research and 

Development budget area is needed in order to allow the agency to focus on several 

critical priorities. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is the backbone 

of our knowledge about the Nation’s forests, and is a critical tool that allows us to 

assess their sustainability and health. We request $76 million for the FIA program, 

which represents full funding. This level is needed to allow the USFS to cover 100 

percent of U.S. forest lands and expedite data availability and analysis, and to support our growing data needs in the areas of bioenergy and climate mitigation. 

We also recommend increased funding within the USFS R&D program in support 

of the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance. Working in partnership with universities 

and the private sector, Forest Service funding for the Agenda 2020 program supports research to develop and deploy wood production systems that are ecologically 

sustainable, socially acceptable, and economically viable, in order to enhance forest 

conservation and the global competitiveness of forest product manufacturing and 

biorefinery operations in the United States. In particular, we encourage greater support for research on forest productivity and utilization at the Forest Products Lab 

and Research Stations. Innovative wood and fiber utilization research, including 

nanotechnology research, contributes to conservation and productivity of the forest 

resource. The development of new forest products and important research on the efficient use of wood fiber directly address the forest health problem through exploration of small diameter wood use and bioenergy production. 

Finally, AF&PA recommends $15 million to implement section 9012 of the 2008 

farm bill, which authorized a competitive R&D program to encourage the use of forest biomass for energy. This funding is needed to unlock the bioenergy potential 

from our Nation’s forests while simultaneously benefitting communities that rely on 

current forest resources. More renewable energy, more sustainable wood-based products, more carbon sequestration, and healthier forest-based communities are all possible with additional support for forest tree research. 

State and Private Forestry—Maintain Fiscal Year 2010 Funding Levels for Key Programs 

AF&PA applauds the subcommittee’s sustained support for USFS State and Private Forestry programs and we are especially appreciative of last year’s $42.2 million increase. With ongoing droughts, invasive species infestations, and significant 

forest health problems, private forest resources remain vulnerable to damage from 

threats that do not respect public/private boundary lines. 

As you know, private forests provide the bulk of the Nation’s wood fiber supply, 

while also sequestering huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, providing millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and supplying clean drinking water for millions of 

Americans. USFS State and private forestry programs protect these resources from 

threats that are beyond the capability of small landowners to effectively combat. 

Therefore, we urge you to provide funding at no less than their fiscal year 2010 enacted levels for the cooperative forest health, cooperative fire assistance, forest legacy roads, forest stewardship, and forest legacy programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates the opportunity 

to submit testimony in support of increased appropriations for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal year 
161 

2011. AIBS requests that Congress provide the USGS with $1.3 billion in fiscal year 

2011, with at least $240 million for the biological resources discipline (BRD). We 

further request that Congress provide the EPA’s Office of Research and Development with at least $646.5 million, with at least $273 million for human health and 

ecosystem research. 

USGS 

As a broker of unbiased, independent research, data, and assessments, the USGS 

provides needed information to public and private sector decisionmakers. Data generated by the USGS save taxpayers money by reducing economic losses from natural 

disasters, allowing more effective management of water and natural resources, assisting the necessary preparation for climate impacts, and providing essential 

geospatial data that are needed for commercial activity and resource management. 

Much of these data are collected only by the USGS. Our Nation cannot afford to 

sacrifice this information; rather, we should increase our investments in this work. 

Increased funding for the USGS is a wise investment that will bear real returns and 

benefits for the country. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the USGS is inadequate to sustain the 

agency’s critical work. The budget request appears to provide a 1.9 percent increase. 

However, when $13.5 million in fixed costs and $11.7 million in Interior-wide cuts 

are accounted for, the proposed budget would only increase funding for the USGS 

by 0.7 percent from fiscal year 2010 enacted. Given the agency’s critical activities 

for the environmental and economic health of the Nation, more support is justified. 

The proposed budget would cut funding for the BRD within the USGS. Interiorwide cuts and absorption of fixed costs will result in a net decline of $6.2 million 

from fiscal year 2010 enacted. This erosion of funding will undercut BRD’s ability 

to fulfill its valuable programmatic missions. BRD’s science programs inform natural resource managers and reduce economic losses from invasive species and pathogens. The BRD provides scientific data that help us understand how ecosystems are 

influenced by climate change, and that help us address these changes. Research conducted by the BRD addresses the risks of environmental contaminants to our citizens and living resources. The BRD also provides the science necessary to understand and manage endangered fish, wildlife, and plants. All told, these services contribute significantly to the health of our Nation’s environment and economy. 

Federal investment in the BRD is further leveraged through partnerships with 

other Federal, State, local, tribal, and private organizations. Through efforts such 

as the Cooperative Research Units (CRUs), the USGS and their partners address 

pressing issues facing natural resource managers, such as invasive species, wildlife 

diseases, and endangered species recovery. In addition to providing research expertise, these partnerships at 40 universities in 38 States serve as important training 

centers for America’s next generation of scientists and resource managers. Yet although these joint ventures between USGS scientists and university researchers are 

effective investments of proven worth, funding for the CRUs would decline by 

$170,000 under the administration’s budget request. 

Also of note within the BRD is the biological research and monitoring budget line, 

which develops new research methods, inventories populations of plants and animals, and monitors changes in these species and their habitats over time. This information is used by Federal and State natural resource managers to maintain 

healthy and diverse ecosystems while balancing the needs of public use. The science 

conducted by the biological research and monitoring program is also vital for informing management actions by other Interior bureaus. The President’s budget would 

provide an additional $4 million for USGS science support to the National Park 

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management. We strongly 

support this increase and encourage Congress to further increase funding for these 

initiatives. 

The National Streamflow Information Program within the water resources discipline of the USGS also provides needed information for resource managers. Its national network of stream-gages records changes in streamflow due to alterations in 

land use, water use, rainfall, drought, and climate change. This information is vital 

to resource managers who make decisions about water use, for scientists charged 

with protecting and restoring aquatic species and habitats, and ultimately for farmers making decisions about crop management. 

Additionally, we ask Congress to fully fund fixed costs at the USGS. The President’s budget request does not fully fund these expenses, creating a $13.5 million 

budget cut for USGS programs. Within the BRD, the absorption of fixed costs will 

remove $2.6 million from funds needed for research, monitoring, and public education activities. 
162 

The USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of the Nation’s biological and 

environmental challenges, including energy independence, climate change, water 

quality, and conservation of biological diversity. Biological science programs within 

the USGS gather long-term data not available from other sources. These data have 

contributed fundamentally to our understanding of the status and dynamics of biological populations and have improved our understanding of how ecosystems function, all of which is necessary for predicting the impacts of land management practices and climate change on the natural environment. This array of research expertise not only serves the core missions of the Department of the Interior, but also 

contributes to management decisions made by other agencies and private sector organizations. In short, increased investments in these important research activities 

will yield dividends. 

EPA 

As EPA’s scientific division, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) supports valuable extramural and intramural research that is used to understand, prevent, and mitigate environmental problems facing our nation. ORD research informs 

decisions made by public health and safety managers, natural resource managers, 

businesses, and other stakeholders concerned about climate change, air and water 

pollution, and land management and restoration. In short, ORD provides the scientific basis upon which EPA monitoring and enforcement programs are built. 

Funding, however, for ORD has declined since fiscal year 2004, when it peaked at 

$646.5 million. At $605 million, the budget request for fiscal year 2011 falls far 

short of addressing past budget deficits. We ask that Congress restore funding for 

ORD to at least the fiscal year 2004 level. 

The Ecosystem Services Research (ESR) program is one important area within 

ORD that would benefit from increased funding. The ESR is responsible for enhancing, protecting, and restoring ecosystem services, such as clean air and water, rich 

soil for food and crop production, pollination, and flood control. ‘‘EPA’s Ecosystem 

Services Research Program is bold, innovative, and necessary,’’ wrote Dr. Judith 

Meyer, chair of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board in a 2009 Committee consultation. She also wrote that ‘‘[t]he considerable potential of the program is unlikely to be achieved with its current level of 

funding and staff.’’ The President’s budget request would do little to solve the problem, with a proposed $1.5 million cut in funding for the program. More troubling 

is potential elimination of FTEs that could accompany this budget cut. We ask that 

Congress fully fund the program. 

The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Fellowship is another program 

that has been chronically underfunded. The fellowship contributes to the training 

of the next generation of scientists by supporting graduate students pursuing an advanced degree in environmental science. The President’s request of $17.3 million 

represents the first real increase for the program since fiscal year 2006 and would 

provide 240 new fellowships. Since its inception in 1995, this successful program has 

supported the education and training of approximately 1,500 STAR Fellows who 

have gone on to pursue careers as scientists and educators. 

In conclusion, we urge Congress to restore funding for the ORD to historic levels 

and to proportionally increase funding for human health and ecosystem research 

within the program. These appropriation levels would allow ORD to address a backlog of research needs. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM

REQUEST SUMMARY

On behalf of the Nation’s Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), which compose 

the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2011 appropriations recommendations for the 29 

colleges funded under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance 

Act (Tribal College Act), the two Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) postsecondary 

institutions, and the Institute of American Indian Arts. The U.S. Department of the 

Interior, BIE, administers these programs, save for the Institute of American Indian 

Arts, which is congressionally chartered and funded through the Interior Department. 

In fiscal year 2011, TCUs seek $92.5 million to fund all of the programs under 

the Tribal College Act. Specifically, we seek $89.9 million for institutional operations grants; of which, $63.2 million is for title I grants (26 TCUs); $17.7 for title 

II (Dine ́ College); and $9 million for title V ($5.5 million for United Tribes Technical 
163 

College and $3.5 million for Navajo Technical College). This request represents an 

increase over fiscal year 2010 levels of $12.6 million for title I grants; $4.7 million 

for Dine ́ College; and $2.33 million for title V. Additionally, we seek $601,000 for 

the technical assistance contract authorized under the act, which is the same level 

as annually appropriated since fiscal year 2006, and $2 million to help the TCUs 

establish and fund endowments under title III of the act, which has been severely 

cut over the past few budget/appropriations cycles. Lastly, we are very grateful for 

the funding appropriated last year to transition TCUs’ institutional operations 

grants to a forward-funded program. Unfortunately, the BIE erred in its implementation of the transition to a forward funded program. We strongly urge Congress 

and the BIE to work together to rectify the funding issues of at least three title I 

TCUs that have occurred as a result of the flawed transition schedule used by the 

BIE in implementing a forward funded program for the TCUs’ institutional operations grants. 

AIHEC’s membership also includes three other institutions funded under separate 

authorities within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 

namely: Haskell Indian Nations University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; and the Institute of American Indian Arts. AIHEC supports the independently 

submitted requests for funding of the institutional operations budgets of these colleges. 

BRIEF BACKGROUND

Today there are 36 TCUs located in 14 States, which were begun specifically to 

serve the higher education needs of American Indians. Annually, these institutions 

serve students from more than 250 federally recognized tribes, more than 80 percent 

of whom are eligible to receive Federal financial aid. 

TCUs receiving Federal funding are accredited by independent, regional accreditation agencies and like all institutions of higher education, must undergo stringent 

performance reviews on a periodic basis to retain their accreditation status. TCUs 

are young, geographically isolated, and poor. Our oldest institution, Dine ́ College, 

was established in 1968. Most TCUs are located in areas of Indian country that the 

Federal Government defines as extremely remote. They serve their communities in 

ways that reach far beyond college level programming and are often called beacons 

of hope for American Indian people. Our institutions provide much needed high 

school completion (GED), basic remediation, job training, college preparatory 

courses, and adult education programs. They serve as community libraries and centers, tribal archives, career and business centers, economic development centers, 

public meeting places, and elder and child care centers. It is an underlying goal of 

all TCUs to improve the lives of students through higher education and to move 

American Indians toward self-sufficiency. This goal is fundamental because of the 

extreme poverty in which most American Indians live. In fact, 3 of the 5 poorest 

counties in America are home to TCUs, where unemployment rates are consistently 

well above 60 percent. By contrast, the current national unemployment rate, which 

is considered to be alarmingly high, is 9.9 percent. 

TCUs, the U.S. military academies, and Howard and Gallaudet Universities are 

the only institutions of higher education that depend on the Federal Government 

for their basic institutional operating funds. TCUs remain the most poorly funded 

institutions of higher education in the Nation. 

JUSTIFICATIONS

TCUs provide critical access to vital postsecondary education opportunities. TCUs 

provide access to higher education for American Indians and others living in some 

of the Nation’s most rural and economically depressed areas. The 2000 Census reported the annual per capita income of the U.S. population as $21,587. However, 

the annual per capita income of Native Americans was $12,923 or about 40 percent 

less. In addition to serving their students, TCUs serve their communities through 

a wide variety of community outreach programs. 

TCUs are producing a new generation of highly trained American Indian teachers, 

tribal government leaders, engineers, nurses, computer programmers, and other 

much-needed professionals. By teaching the job skills most in demand on their reservations, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for tribal economic growth, with benefits for surrounding communities. In contrast to the high rates of unemployment on 

reservations, graduates of TCUs are employed in ‘‘high need’’ occupational areas 

such as Head Start teachers, elementary and secondary school teachers, and nurses/ 

healthcare providers. Just as important, the vast majority of tribal college graduates 

remain in their tribal communities, applying their newly acquired skills and knowledge where they are most needed. 
164 

TCUs meet the strict standards of mainstream accreditation boards offering top 

quality academic programs and serve as effective bridges to 4-year institutions of 

higher learning. A growing number of TCUs have attained a 10-year accreditation 

term, the longest term granted to any higher education institution. While most 

TCUs are 2-year institutions offering certificates and associate degrees, their transfer function is significant. An independent survey of TCU graduates conducted for 

the American Indian College Fund indicated that more than 80 percent of respondents who attended a mainstream college prior to enrolling at a TCU did not finish 

the degree they were pursuing at the mainstream college. The rate of completion 

markedly improved for those who attended a TCU prior to beginning a degree program at a mainstream institution. After completing tribal college coursework, less 

than half of respondents dropped out of mainstream colleges and nearly 40 percent 

went on to earn a bachelor’s degree. This clearly illustrates TCUs’ positive impact 

on the persistence of American Indian students in pursuit of baccalaureate degrees. 

The overwhelming majority of respondents felt that their TCU experience had prepared them well for further education and noted that it had a very positive influence on their personal and professional achievements. 

Despite a proven track record of success, TCUs still face serious disparities in institutional operations funding. Title I of the Tribal College Act authorizes funding 

for the basic institutional operating budget of one qualifying institution per Federal 

recognized tribe based on a full-time American Indian student enrollment formula. 

Distribution of funds under title I of the Tribal College Act is enrollment driven. 

Currently 25 of TCUs are funded under title I of the Tribal Colleges Act, with 

Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College expected to be added as the 26th, in fiscal year 2011. Title I institutions are currently receiving $5,784 per Indian student 

toward their institutional operating budgets. If you factor in inflation, the buying 

power of the current appropriation is $965 LESS per Indian student than it was 

when it was initially funded almost 30 years ago, when the appropriation was 

$2,831 per Indian student. Additionally, TCUs do not receive any Federal funding 

toward their operations for non-Indian students, which account for approximately 

21 percent of their enrollments. Because they are located on Federal trust lands, 

States have no obligation to fund these institutions. While TCUs do seek funding 

from their respective State legislatures for the non-Indian State-resident students 

or nonbeneficiary students, who account for 21 percent of our enrollments, their successes have been, at best, unreliable. TCUs are accredited by the same regional 

agencies that accredit mainstream institutions, yet they have to continually advocate for basic operating support for their non-Indian State students, within their respective State legislatures. If these nonbeneficiary students attended any other public institution in the State, the State would provide that institution with ongoing 

operations funding. 

While the other TCUs’ operating funds allocations are not enrollment driven and 

therefore the disparity is not as easily illustrated, they too suffer from a lack of stable operating revenue. This is not simply a matter of appropriations falling short 

of an authorization; it effectively impedes our institutions from having the necessary 

resources to grow their programs in response to the changing needs of their students and the communities they serve. 

SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS

Enrollment Gains and New TCUs.—Compounding existing funding disparities is 

the fact that although the numbers of TCUs and students enrolled in them have 

dramatically increased since 1981, appropriations have increased at a disproportionately low rate. Since they were first funded, the number of tribal colleges has quadrupled and continues to grow; Indian student enrollments have risen more than 310 

percent. Between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2011, five more TCUs have or will 

become eligible for title I funding under the Tribal College Act. TCUs are in many 

ways victims of their own successes. The growing number of tribally chartered colleges and universities being established and increasing enrollments have forced 

TCUs to slice an already inadequate annual funding pie into even smaller pieces. 

Local Tax and Revenue Bases.—TCUs cannot rely on a local tax base for revenue. 

Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax, high reservation poverty rates, 

the trust status of reservation lands, and the lack of strong reservation economies 

hinder the creation of a reservation tax base. On Indian reservations where TCUs 

are located, there is sweeping unemployment that is more than 80 percent higher 

than that of the Nation at large. 

Trust Responsibility.—The emergence of TCUs is a direct result of the special relationship between American Indian tribes and the Federal Government. TCUs are 

founded and chartered by their respective American Indian tribes, which hold a spe-
165 

cial legal relationship with the Federal Government, actualized by more than 400 

treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior congressional action, and the ceding 

of more than 1 billion acres of land to the Federal Government. Beyond the trust 

responsibility, the fact remains that TCUs are providing a public service that no 

other institutions of higher education are willing, or able, to provide by helping the 

Federal Government fulfill its responsibility to the American people, particularly in 

rural America. Despite the fact that only enrolled members of a federally recognized 

tribe or the biological child of a tribal member may be counted as Indian students 

when determining an institution’s share of the operating funds, TCUs have open enrollment policies. Approximately 21 percent of TCU enrollments are non-Indians. 

These institutions are simply and effectively providing access to quality higher education opportunities to reservation community residents. 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET

The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget recommends level funding for all of the 

programs authorized under the Tribal College Act. While the fiscal year 2010 budget 

included a one-time payment to transition the institutional operations grants for 

TCUs to a forward funded program so that the colleges have their operating funds 

prior to the start of each academic year, this transition funding did not increase the 

day-to-day operating budget of the colleges. 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

As noted earlier, it has been almost 30 years since the Tribal College Act was first 

funded and the TCUs have yet to receive the congressionally authorized per Indian 

student funding level. To achieve full funding would require an additional $19.4 million. However, we do recognize the current budget constraints Congress is facing 

and therefore request that this funding shortfall be corrected over the next 2 fiscal 

years. To that end, the TCUs respectfully request a total appropriation of $92.5 million for all of the programs authorized under the Tribal College Act (25 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.) Specifically, we seek $89.9 million for institutional operations grants; of 

which, $63.2 million for title I grants (26 TCUs); $17.7 for title II (Dine ́ College); 

and $9 million for Title V ($5.5 million for United Tribes Technical College and $3.5 

million for Navajo Technical College). Additionally, we seek $601,000 for the technical assistance contract authorized under the act, which is the same level as annually appropriated since fiscal year 2006, and lastly, $2 million to help the TCUs establish and fund endowments under title III of the act, which has been severely cut 

over the past few budget/appropriations cycles. Lastly, we respectfully request that 

Congress, working with the BIE, rectify the collective $1.5 million shortfall of the 

three known title I TCUs that is a result of the flawed transition schedule used by 

the BIE to transition the TCUs’ institutional operations grants program to forward 

funding. 

CONCLUSION

TCUs provide quality higher education to many thousands of American Indians 

who might otherwise not have access to such opportunities. The modest Federal investment that has been made in TCUs has paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, and economic development. Continuation of this investment makes 

sound moral and fiscal sense. 

We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the Nation’s TCUs and 

your serious consideration of our fiscal year 2011 appropriations requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION

FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS 

[In millions of dollars] 

Environmental Protection Agency Amount 

Healthier Outdoor Air ......................................................................................................................................... 811 .3 

Federal Stationary Source Regulation ....................................................................................................... 34 .9 

Federal Support of Air Quality Management ............................................................................................ 142 .3 

Clean Air Allowance Trading Program ...................................................................................................... 31 .1 

Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards ....................................................................................................... 100 .7 

State and Local Air Quality Management (STAG) .................................................................................... 309 .1 

Air Monitoring ................................................................................................................................... 15 
166 

FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS—Continued 

[In millions of dollars] 

Environmental Protection Agency Amount 

Diesel Emission Reductions (STAG) .......................................................................................................... 100 

Human Health Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 48 .9 

Healthier Indoor Air ............................................................................................................................................ 47 .1 

Clean, Green and Healthy Schools Initiative ............................................................................................ 6 .2 

Research: Clean Air ........................................................................................................................................... 85 .3 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, the American Lung Association is 

pleased to submit testimony in support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) program to improve the Nation’s air. The American Lung Association was 

founded in 1904 to fight tuberculosis and today, our mission is to save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease. We accomplish this through research, advocacy and education. Today, we would like to share our support for 

EPA’s fiscal year 2011 budget for its Clean Air Program. This program will improve 

public health and more effectively protect those with lung disease from the adverse 

effects of air pollution. As Congress addresses global warming and energy issues 

through exciting new technology, cleaner energy sources and new policies, there is 

an opportunity to ensure that the air is cleaner. We urge this subcommittee to ensure that the Clean Air Act’s promise of clean, healthy air for all Americans is kept. 

Lung Disease and Air Quality 

Lung disease is a significant health problem in the United States. Lung disease 

is the third leading cause of death in the United States—responsible for 1 in every 

6 deaths. More than 35 million Americans suffer from a chronic lung disease. According to the National Institutes of Health, lung diseases cost the U.S. economy 

an estimated $173.4 billion annually. Nearly all lung diseases are impacted by air 

pollution. How well or poorly our lungs perform depends on the quality of the air 

we breathe, making the impact of air pollution inescapable. Air pollution remains 

a primary contributor to the burden of respiratory diseases in our healthcare system 

as well. 

The Clean Air Act has proven to be a powerful tool to improve the quality of our 

Nation’s air. Since 1990, when Congress strengthened the Clean Air Act, the annual 

average emissions of sulfur dioxide nationwide have dropped by 59 percent, nitrogen 

oxide emissions have been reduced by 35 percent and carbon monoxide has plunged 

by 68 percent. Ambient or outdoor ozone levels are 14 percent lower on average. 

Fine particle levels are down by 19 percent. However, much remains to be done. 

Millions of Americans live in counties that do not meet current Clean Air Act health 

standards, including those in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The EPA estimates that 126.8 million Americans in 2008 lived in areas where they were exposed 

to unsafe levels of air pollution. 

We are pleased to see that the President’s budget increases the EPA budget for 

Healthier Outdoor Air to $811.3 million and for Healthier Indoor Air to $47.1 million. These increases will help the EPA address the significant health and environmental impact of air pollution. 

Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide and lead every 5 years. We are pleased to see EPA address this obligation 

in a timelier manner. Historically, EPA has not met the deadlines for these reviews 

and has been obligated to complete such reviews under court order. Last year, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA needed to reconsider the scientific evidence for much stronger particulate matter standards, sending their 2006 standards 

back to EPA for corrective action. The American Lung Association is pleased that 

EPA is on track to propose a new fine particle standard in November 2010 and issue 

a final standard in July 2011. In 2008, EPA set national air standards for ozone 

that ignored the unanimous agreement among the independent scientific advisory 

committee on the need for much more protective new standards, despite the Clean 

Air Act’s clear requirements to establish science-based standards that protect public 

health. We are especially pleased that EPA has proposed a much stronger ozone 

standard, reflecting that earlier scientific assessment. EPA is expected to finalize 

the ozone standard in August. It is critical that the committee support setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards at levels that are appropriate for the protection of public health. To accomplish the important air standards work, we support 
167 

EPA’s budget request of $48.9 million to support the Human Health Risk Assessment and we strongly support funding for Federal Stationary Source Regulations at 

$34.9 million that includes work to set the standards. 

Meeting National Air Pollution Health Standards 

Efforts to clean up power plants and other measures to implement pollution cleanup are finally moving forward, but much work remains. EPA is working on new 

rules to implement the ozone standards and PM standards. EPA also must move 

forward with regulations to clean up power plants including the Clean Air Interstate Rule replacement and a MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) 

rule for electric generators, as well as additional rules to regulate other large emission sources—tools that our communities must have in order to meet the national 

air standards. EPA must also support state and tribal efforts to meet the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. We support funding Federal Stationary Source Regulations at $34.9 million, Federal Support for Air Quality Management budget of 

$142.3 million, and the Clean Air Allowance Trading program budget of $31.1 million. 

Cleaning-up Cars and Trucks 

EPA has continued to make progress reducing pollution from motor vehicles. However, light duty cars and trucks remain a significant source of air pollution. We 

strongly support EPA’s planned work in fiscal year 2011 on Tier 3 standards that 

could include tighter NOX standards, off-cycle standards and PM standards for gasoline vehicles as well as lower sulfur gasoline that will enable advanced pollution 

control technology. This work is vital to mitigate any adverse air quality impacts 

that may result from increased use of renewable fuels. We strongly support increasing the Federal Vehicle and Fuel Standards and Certification budget to $100.7 million. 

Funding for State and Local Air Agencies and Air Pollution Monitoring 

State and local air pollution control agencies are on the front lines in the effort 

to improve air quality across the Nation. These agencies will be called on to adopt 

and enforce a range of new emissions reduction programs designed to meet the 

needs of each area that violate the standards. State and local air pollution agencies 

need additional resources to meet the obligation to implement the Clean Air Act. 

One area in need of significant resources and attention from this committee is the 

air pollution monitoring network. Monitors provide the most reliable and consistent 

information on air pollution in our communities. Monitoring tracks both the levels 

of pollution in the outside air as well as emissions from specific sources. This also 

enables policymakers and the public to see what measures are effective and where 

air quality management efforts have fallen short. Further, emerging science warns 

that the air quality in areas with no monitoring, like the areas adjacent to major 

highways or in poorer neighborhoods, carries serious health risks. We are pleased 

to see EPA deploy new monitors in response to the new nitrogen dioxide standards. 

Without adequate monitors in place, pollution in those areas will not be tracked and 

effectively reduced. To protect populations at risk and to assess the efficacy of pollution control programs, EPA must work with scientists and State officials to lower 

the costs of monitoring and expand its reach. We are pleased that the President’s 

budget includes $15 million for enhancing air pollution monitoring. Further, we 

strongly support the $82.5 million increase to $309.1 million for State and Local Air 

Quality Management. 

Funding for Diesel Retrofits 

Diesel pollution kills. Researchers have found that adults and children show increased health risks associated with living or working in close proximity to busy 

roadways. Children are especially vulnerable to the effects of traffic-related air pollution. Studies show children exposed to higher levels of traffic-generated air pollution have smaller lung function and worsened asthma. In addition, many components of diesel emissions have been found to be carcinogenic. Over the past decade, 

EPA has issued new regulations that will significantly reduce emissions from new 

diesel engines used in trucks, buses, heavy equipment and other vehicles. Last year, 

EPA issued new rules to clean up pollution from ocean going vessels. Ocean going 

vessels are a significant source of particle pollution. We urge the committee to support EPA’s efforts to combat this pollution through the International Maritime Organization. However, it will take many years to replace the oldest and dirtiest vehicles with new ones that meet new, more stringent Federal emissions standards for 

diesel engines. We support increasing funding to at least $100 million per year for 

fiscal year 2011 for the Diesel Emission Reduction Act program. 
168 

Indoor Air 

We thank the subcommittee for its support of the healthier indoor air program 

at EPA. EPA has provided great leadership in addressing radon, the second leading 

cause of lung cancer. EPA should continue its work to mitigate this risk. We are 

pleased to see EPA increase funding for the Healthy Schools Initiative. More than 

23 million Americans suffer from asthma. Air pollution can trigger asthma attacks 

both indoors and outdoors. The programs funded by the Indoor Air program raise 

awareness about asthma and environmental factors that trigger asthma attacks; 

help people with asthma and their families manage environmental triggers in their 

homes; work to reduce children’s exposure to indoor asthma triggers at schools and 

day care centers and promote environmental management as a component of medical and healthcare asthma management practices. The American Lung Association 

is proud to partner with EPA in this important work. We strongly urge the committee to fund the healthier indoor air program for fiscal year 2011 at $47 million. 

We are also pleased to support the Clean, Green and Healthy Schools Initiative 

funded at $6.2 million for fiscal year 2011. 

Research: Clean Air 

We thank the subcommittee for its continuing support for air pollution research 

at EPA. EPA’s work to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards must be 

grounded in the best scientific research. EPA’s Clean Air Research program will 

continue the work to improve the understanding of the impact of pollution on health 

and assist with crafting innovative solutions. We urge the subcommittee to fund the 

clean air research program for fiscal year 2011 at $85.3 million. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the recommendations of 

the American Lung Association. Every day we are fighting for air—clean, healthy 

air for all Americans to breathe. A robust EPA air pollution program is vital to our 

success. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB

Dear Madam Chairwoman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of our more than 100,000 members, advocates, and supporters in the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) is honored to present this 

testimony in support of much needed funding for conservation and recreation programs in the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, including: 

—$150 million for the USDA—Forest Service Forest Legacy Program; 

—$600 million for the Department of the Interior—Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (including $425 million for Federal-side and $175 million for State-side 

programs); 

—$11 million for the Department of the Interior—Highlands Conservation Act; 

—$12 million for the Department of the Interior—National Parks Service Rivers, 

Trails, and Conservation Assistance program.; 

—$10 million for the USDA—Community Forest and Open Space Conservation 

Program; 

——$2.35 million for the Department of the Interior—Challenge Cost Share Program; and 

—Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act. 

These programs provide economic, ecological, and recreational benefits to Americans across the country. Land conservation and recreation program funding are vital 

to maintaining the health and well being of the Nation’s lands and our citizens. We 

greatly appreciate the increases many of these programs received last year. However, the demands on these programs continue to grow so we are hopeful that these 

increases will continue into fiscal year 2011. There is a great need to fund these 

programs at the above requested amounts and to work toward their full funding. 

Established in 1876, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) is the oldest conservation and recreation organization in the country. Our mission is to promote the 

protection, enjoyment, and understanding of the mountains, forests, waters, and 

trails of the Appalachian region. More than 100,000 AMC members, advocates, and 

supporters in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic promote this mission with great enthusiasm. 

Open space conservation in the East is a vital investment that ensures clean air 

and water, a sustainable supply of timber products produced from private and public forests, local food and farm products for millions of people, and diverse recreational opportunities including hiking, cross-country skiing, wildlife viewing, photography, and paddling. Conservation of these resources is needed now more than 
169 

ever. According to a report by the USDA Forest Service (USFS), Forests on the 

Edge, more than 44 million acres of private forestland in the East will be developed 

in the next 30 years. 

Priority Fiscal Year 2011 Forest Legacy Program Needs in the Northeast 

For fiscal year 2011, we have assembled a list of exemplary Forest Legacy projects 

in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Some of these projects, like the Katahdin Forest, 

Androscoggin Headwaters North, and Cardigan Highlands, need this funding to be 

completed. Others projects, such as the Scantic River Headwaters and Little 

Bushkill Headwaters Forest Reserve, are new priorities that will protect unique and 

critical forests in the Eastern United States. 

AMC respectfully requests an increase in overall funding for the Forest Legacy 

Program to $150 million in fiscal year 2011. For fiscal year 2011, the USFS received 

60 project proposals from 41 States and territories to protect 361,604 acres with a 

total project value of more than $200 million. The Forest Legacy Program conserves 

working forests threatened by conversion to development or other uses, and promotes economic sustainability as well as recreation, open space protection, and wildlife habitat. Public lands provide innumerable social and economic benefits including 

promoting public health through outdoor recreation, protection of watersheds and 

drinking water supplies, wildfire reduction and prevention, and supporting wildlife 

and fisheries as they adapt to climate change. 

For fiscal year 2011, we support funding for the following Forest Legacy projects 

in the AMC region: 

State Project 

ME ..................................................................................................................... West Grand Lake Community Forest 

ME ..................................................................................................................... Katahdin Forest Expansion 3—Gulf Hagas 

NH ..................................................................................................................... Cardigan Highlands 

NH ..................................................................................................................... Androscoggin Headwaters North 

MA ..................................................................................................................... Brushy Mountain 

CT ...................................................................................................................... Scantic River Headwaters 

NY ..................................................................................................................... Hurley Mountain 

NY ..................................................................................................................... Follensby Pond 

PA ...................................................................................................................... Little Bushkill Headwaters Forest Reserve 

MD ..................................................................................................................... Wicomico

Priority Fiscal Year 2011 Land and Water Conservation Fund Program Needs in the 

Northeast 

AMC respectfully requests an increase in overall funding for the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF), specifically $425 million for the Federal LWCF and 

$175 million for the LWCF stateside program. We applaud the substantial LWCF 

funding increases provided by this subcommittee in fiscal year 2010. And we are 

most thankful that the Obama administration’s budget recognizes the importance 

of this program by proposing significant increases for fiscal year 2011 as well as setting a goal of full funding for the LWCF in the next four years. 

The LWCF is our Nation’s premier program to acquire and protect lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, Bureau of Land Management units, and other Federal land systems. This program faces an extensive and 

growing backlog of land acquisition needs across the Nation. The LWCF will provide 

important funds to obtain inholdings and lands adjacent to Federal lands such as 

the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Silvio O. Conte National NWR, 

Wallkill NWR and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. 

The LWCF stateside program provides close-to-home recreation by helping to create thousands of State and local parks across the country. These parks provide millions of urban and suburban residents the benefits of access to natural areas while 

promoting much needed tourism in local communities. 

In fiscal year 2011, the AMC supports funding for the following LWCF projects 

in our region: 

State Federal Land Unit 

ME ...................................................................................................................... Rachel Carson NWR 

ME/NH ................................................................................................................ White Mountain National Forest 

NH, VT, CT, MA .................................................................................................. Silvio O. Conte NWR 

NH ...................................................................................................................... Lake Umbagog—Androscoggin Headwaters 

NWR 

CT ....................................................................................................................... Stewart McKinney NWR 
170 

State Federal Land Unit 

NJ ....................................................................................................................... Wallkill NWR 

NJ ....................................................................................................................... Great Swamp NWR 

PA ....................................................................................................................... Delaware Water Gap NRA 

Fiscal Year 2011 Highlands Conservation Act Needs 

AMC respectfully requests an increase in overall funding for the Highlands Conservation Act (HCA), including $10 million for land conservation and $1 million for 

USFS technical assistance funding. We greatly appreciate the increase provided by 

Congress to this program in fiscal year 2010. We are also thankful for the increase 

included in the fiscal year 2011 Obama administration’s budget. The HCA, passed 

in 2004, authorizes land conservation partnership projects and open space purchases 

from willing sellers in the four State Highlands region of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 

New York, and Connecticut. The Act includes authorization of $10 million in annual 

grants to the Highlands states from the Department of the Interior for land acquisition and easements. It also includes $1 million annually in technical assistance from 

the USFS to work with Highlands’ States and local municipalities to implement the 

conservation strategies outlined in the three comprehensive Forest Service studies 

of the region completed in 1992, 2002, and 2008. 

The four State Highlands Region is the backyard for the more than 25 million 

people living in or around the major metropolitan areas of the Mid-Atlantic States, 

and provides critical drinking water, wildlife habitat, and abundant and accessible 

recreation opportunities. Current projects in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, 

and Connecticut share strong local support, commitments from State and private 

sources to provide matching funding, and will protect important water supplies, forests, farmland, recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat. 

In fiscal year 2011, the AMC supports funding for the following HCA projects: 

State Project 

CT ...................................................................................................................... Naugatuck/Mad River Headwaters 

NY ..................................................................................................................... Greater Sterling Forest/Torne Valley 

NJ ...................................................................................................................... Northern Highlands 

PA ...................................................................................................................... Hopewell Big Woods 

Fiscal Year 2011 Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program Needs 

AMC respectfully requests funding of $10 million for this important program. The 

Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program will provide communities 

matching funds to purchase critical forestland tracts and provide technical assistance through State forestry agencies for outstanding forest management. The program provides 50–50 matching funds to help local governments, tribes, and nonprofit organizations acquire forest areas that are economically, culturally, and environmentally important to that locality and threatened by development. The program 

provides grants directly to local governments and nonprofits for full fee acquisition, 

not conservation easements. The program’s criteria are built around evaluation of 

a project’s community impact and it requires public access and active community 

engagement in forest planning for parcels. 

Priority Fiscal Year 2011 Recreational Programs Needs 

Fiscal Year 2011 Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Needs 

AMC respectfully requests an increase in overall funding for the Rivers, Trails 

Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program and requests $12 million nationwide. 

Through this National Park Service program: partners protect 700 miles of rivers; 

create 1,300 miles of trails; conserve over 60,500 acres of open space annually; promote alternative transportation; brownfield redevelopment; youth conservation, and 

floodplain planning. This $12 million in funding would reverse the steady erosion 

of funding and reduced staffing RTCA has experienced in recent years. This program receives less than 1 percent of National Park Service funding, but Federal 

funds are leveraged many times over with State, local, and partnership cooperation, 

and in-kind matches. 

Fiscal Year 2011 Challenge Cost Share Program (CCSP) 

We also request $2.35 million for the CCSP program. The purpose of this program 

is to increase participation by qualified partners in the preservation and improvement of National Park Service natural, cultural, and recreational resources. It is a 

matching fund program and an equal amount of eligible and matching share (min-
171 

imum 50 percent) of cash, goods, or services from non-Federal sources is required. 

One-third of CCSP funding is set aside for National Trails System projects, supporting work under the National Trails System Act, including the New England National Scenic Trail in Connecticut and Massachusetts. 

Other Priority Programs 

Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement 

Act (FLAME) 

We respectfully request that the subcommittee reaffirm the commitment to the 

USFS and Department of the Interior for FLAME Act funds and ensure the program is funded at appropriate levels that would cover the cost of emergency fires 

and eliminate the need to transfer funds from nonfire programs. Additionally, we 

urge the Subcommittee to provide direction to the agencies to use the most current 

and best informed means of estimating annual suppression rather than using the 

traditional 10-year average. 

Thank you for this opportunity and your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC AND LAND-GRANT

UNIVERSITIES

On behalf of the APLU Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank you for your 

support of science and research programs within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We appreciate the opportunity to provide detailed recommendations for the following programs within 

USGS: $8.8 million for the Water Resources Research Institutes, $22 million for the 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units; $64 million for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program; $75 million for the Mineral Resources Program. 

Within EPA, we ask support of the administration’s request of $87.2 million for the 

EPA Science to Achieve Results (STAR) competitive grants program and $17.3 million for the STAR Graduate Fellowships. 

APLU BNR requests $8.8 million for the Water Resources Research Institutes 

(WRRI). The APLU BNR request is based on the following: $7,000,000 in base 

grants for the WRRI as authorized by section 104(b) of the Water Resources Research Act, including State-based competitive grants; and $1,800,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of the act, and a national competitive grants 

program. Federal funding for the WRRI program is the catalyst that moves States 

and cities to invest in university-based research to address their own water management issues. State WRRI take the relatively modest amount of Federal funding appropriated, match it 2:1 with State, local, and other funds and use it to put university scientists to work finding solutions to the most pressing local and State water 

problems that are of national importance. The Institutes have raised more than $15 

in other funds for every $1 funded through this program. The added benefit is that 

often research to address State and local problems helps solve problems that are of 

regional and national importance. Many of the projects funded through this program 

provide the knowledge for State or local managers to implement new Federal laws 

and regulations. Perhaps most important, the Federal funding provides the driving 

force of collaboration in water research and education among local, State, Federal, 

and university water professionals. This program is essential to solving State, regional, and inter-jurisdictional water resources problems. Institutes in Louisiana, 

California and North Carolina, for example, made major contributions in emergency 

planning and hurricane recovery, protecting groundwater aquifers from sea water 

intrusion and reducing water treatment costs. The institutes also train the next generation of water resource managers and scientists. 

APLU BNR supports a funding request of $22 million for the Cooperative Fish 

and Wildlife Research Units (CRU). This program serves to (1) train the next generation of Fish and Wildlife managers; (2) conduct research designed to meet the 

needs of unit cooperators; and (3) provide technical assistance to State and Federal 

personnel and other natural resource managers. 

Originally established to provide training for students in fish and wildlife biology, 

the units were formally recognized by the Cooperative Units Act of 1960 (Public 

Law 86–686). While the CRU still provide experience and training for approximately 

600 graduate students per year, they also provide valuable research for their biggest 

clients, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and cooperating State agencies. 

Today, there are 40 BRD Cooperative Research Units in 38 States, from pre-existing 

research programs of the FWS. 

Each unit is a true Federal/State/university collaboration in that it is a partnership between USGS, a State natural resource agency, a host university, and the 
172 

Wildlife Management Institute. For every $1 the Federal Government puts into the 

program, three more are leveraged through the other partners. The United States 

economy has long relied on the bountiful natural resources bestowed upon this land. 

Federal investment in the CRU will be returned many times over though the training of future natural resource managers who will guide the nation in sustainable 

use of our natural resources despite ever-increasing pressures on those resources. 

The APLU BNR also supports funding at a level of $64 million for the National 

Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) within the USGS budget. The 

mission of the NCGMP is to provide accurate geologic maps that help sustain and 

improve the quality of life and economic vitality of the United States and mitigate 

geologic hazardous events and conditions. Universities are involved in this program 

in two ways. First, universities participate through the production of new geologic 

maps to meet needs in stewardship of water, energy, and mineral resources; risk 

reduction from natural hazards such as earthquakes and landslides; and environmental protection. Second, through EDMAP, universities train the next generation 

of geologic mappers through a competitive matching-fund grant program. Since 

EDMAP’s inception in 1996, more than $5 million from the NCGMP have supported 

geologic mapping efforts of more than 600 students working with more than 214 

professors at 131 universities in 44 States plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. A 2007 survey by NCGMP demonstrated that students who participated in 

EDMAP (1) fall well above the national average for pursuing advanced academic degrees in the geoscience field; (2) easily obtain geoscience positions due to the knowledge gained through EDMAP; and (3) frequently use the skills gained through 

EDMAP. 

The APLU BNR supports $75 million for the Mineral Resources Program (MRP). 

The 2008 National Research Council’s (NRC) report ‘‘Minerals, Critical Minerals, 

and the U.S. Economy’’ clearly lays out the danger of continuing cuts to the services 

this program provides to our Nation’s economy. Items such as LCDs, catalytic converters, rechargeable batteries, and other electronics all use minerals designated as 

‘‘critical’’ based on the risk that they may become unavailable for any number of 

reasons. The role of minerals information is becoming ever more vital as the Nation 

works to remain competitive and searches for emerging technologies to solve some 

of our most pressing environmental issues. 

BNR also supports Senate bill 1462 American Clean Energy Leadership Act title 

IV, subtitle E Strengthening Education and Training in the Subsurface Geosciences 

and Engineering for Energy Development. There have been substantial cuts to the 

number of professionals in the MRP since 1996. At the same time, the NRC report 

cited above calls for the ‘‘need to maintain adequate, accurate and timely information and analysis on minerals at a national level in the Federal government with 

additional, not fewer, professionals having appropriate backgrounds to perform the 

work.’’ For example, as society pushes toward sustainability, the importance of experts designing products with an eye toward recycling minerals will only increase. 

Currently, only a few formal training programs have emerged to train a new generation in the field. For this reason, we request support for Mineral Resources External Grants programs of at least $5 million. The USGS committed $1,000,000 toward Mineral Resources External Research for fiscal year 2006, but cut the program 

to $0 in fiscal year 2007 and committed only $250,000 in fiscal year 2008. Sustained 

and additional funds are needed to expand upon the first step in fiscal year 2006. 

Apart from this small program, there is virtually no funding to sustain applied 

science research and education related to mineral resources. The establishment of 

a consistently well-funded Minerals Resources External Grants program would follow the recommendations of three recent NRC reports and would help arrest the 

dramatic decline of minerals expertise in the United States. 

APLU BNR recommends that the subcommittee provide funding $87.2 million for 

competitive grants of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program and $17.3 million for STAR graduate fellowships. One of the most effective programs for improving the agency’s science capabilities is the STAR program. In 2003, the National Research Council strongly endorsed STAR in its report, ‘‘The Measure of STAR.’’ The 

investment EPA ORD makes in STAR is especially significant and effective, because 

STAR is not a stand-alone grants program. It is coordinated with EPA program and 

regional offices, and targeted at high-priority needs that support the agency’s mission. The program is leveraged by the participation of other Federal agencies and 

the private sector, and involves thousands of research scholars in universities. 

APLU universities have used STAR extramural research funding to accomplish the 

following: improve air quality modeling nation wide; develop evaluations of U.S. estuarine and coastal water quality degradation; analyze ecosystem health and impairment; establish effective multi-university research collaborations; and develop 
173 

techniques to assess the risks to fish in the Great Lakes associated with exposure 

to endocrine disrupting chemicals. 

STAR graduate fellowships are also an excellent investment in the next generation of scientists and engineers, and provide opportunities for some of the brightest 

minds to develop the skills to enhance and replenish this Nation’s environmental 

science expertise. Moreover, these grants are often a way to get minority graduate 

students engaged in high-level scientific research. STAR funding is a very important 

tool in the effort to address the future workforce needs of EPA. These investigatorinitiated research grants are significantly expanding the number of scientists conducting EPA-related research and enhancing the overall quality of EPA S&T. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with the subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION

The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national service organization representing the interests of more than 2,000 municipal and other State and 

locally owned electric utilities in 49 States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public 

power utilities deliver electricity to 1 of every 7 electric consumers (approximately 

45 million people), serving some of the Nation’s largest cities. However, the vast majority of APPA’s members serve communities with populations of 10,000 people or 

less. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining our fiscal year 

2011 funding priorities within the jurisdiction of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. 

Environmental Protection Agency: ENERGY STAR Programs 

APPA is disappointed in the modest 5 percent increase in the EPA ENERGY 

STAR program. We request an additional $20 million in funding for the program 

to bring the total amount to $75 million. 

ENERGY STAR is a voluntary partnership program pairing EPA with businesses 

and consumers nationwide to enhance investment in underutilized technologies and 

practices that increase energy efficiency while at the same time reducing emissions 

of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. APPA member systems across the country have been active participants in ENERGY STAR programs to reduce electricity 

consumption. 

According to the EPA, ENERGY STAR is saving businesses, organizations, and 

consumers more than $17 billion a year, and has been instrumental in the more 

widespread use of technological innovations like LED traffic lights, efficient fluorescent lighting, power management systems for office equipment, and low standby energy use. 

Environmental Protection Agency: Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

APPA supports robust funding for the Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

(LMOP) at EPA under the Environmental Program Management, Climate Protection Program budget. While we recognize that LMOP is not a budget line-item, 

APPA encourages the subcommittee to highlight the importance of LMOP by including report language directing the EPA to provide adequate funding for the program. 

The Landfill Methane Outreach Program helps to partner utilities, energy organizations, States, tribes, the landfill gas industry and trade associations to promote the 

recovery and use of landfill gas as an energy source. According to EPA, LMOP has 

more than 700 partners that have signed voluntary agreements to work with EPA 

to develop cost-effective landfill-gas-to-energy (LFG) projects. There are approximately 509 operational LFG projects in the United States. LMOP has also developed 

detailed profiles for more than 530 candidate landfills. 

Landfill gas is created when organic waste in a landfill decomposes. This gas consists of about 50 percent methane and about 50 percent carbon dioxide. Landfill gas 

can be captured, converted, and used as an energy source rather than being released 

into the atmosphere as a potent greenhouse gas. Converting landfill gas to energy 

offsets the need for non-resources such as coal and oil, and thereby helps to diversify 

utilities’ fuel portfolios and to reduce emissions of air pollutants from conventional 

fuel sources. 

In 2005, all operational LFG energy projects in the United States prevented the 

release of 19 MMTCE (million metric tons of carbon equivalent). This reduction is 

the carbon equivalent of removing the emissions from 13.3 million vehicles on the 

road or planting 19 million acres of forest for 1 year. This reduction also has the 

same environmental benefit as preventing the use of 162 million barrels of oil or 

offsetting the use of 341,000 railcars of coal. 
174 

As units of local and State governments, APPA’s member utilities are uniquely 

positioned to embark on LFG projects. EPA’s LMOP facilitates this process by providing technical support and access to invaluable partnerships to our members and 

the communities they serve. 

Council on Environmental Quality 

APPA supports the President’s budget request of $3.4 million for fiscal year 2011 

for the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and urges the subcommittee to maintain this funding level. Public power utilities have experienced a 

general lack of consistency in Federal Government regulations, particularly involving environmental issues. While additional layers of Government should be avoided, 

a central overseer can perform a valuable function in preventing duplicative, unnecessary and inconsistent regulations. CEQ is responsible for ensuring that Federal 

agencies perform their tasks in an efficient and coordinated manner. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALABAMA RIVERS ALLIANCE, ET AL. 

The undersigned organizations support fully funding the President’s budget request of $4.3 million for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue its study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water 

resources. This study is being conducted under the Research and Development 

Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. 

The EPA has commenced with a congressional fiscal year 2010 directed study on 

hydraulic fracturing and its effects upon drinking water. EPA budgeted $1.8 million 

in this fiscal year to begin the study, and proposes an additional $4.3 million in the 

coming fiscal year to continue on with it. This funding will ensure that EPA can 

conduct a robust and transparent study with full public participation. EPA needs 

congressional support to engage communities across the country, and we respectfully request that you maximize the resources of the EPA Research and Development so that this study can be fully funded. 

Several steps of the hydraulic fracturing process affect drinking water. First, hydraulic fracturing uses hundreds of undisclosed chemicals, which are mixed with 

water and pumped underground, directly through aquifers, to fracture rock. This 

process has been linked to surface and groundwater contamination across the country. The following is a sampling of contamination reported during hydraulic fracturing. The resources provided by this study will help determine the causes of reported incidents like these: 

—Silt, Colorado.—In 2001, two families reported a water well blow-out and contamination of their drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of four nearby 

natural gas wells owned by Ballard Petroleum, now Encana Corporation. Their 

drinking water turned gray, had strong smells, bubbled, and lost pressure. One 

family reported health symptoms they believe are linked to the groundwater 

contamination. 

—Seneca County, New York.—In 2007, a family reported contamination of drinking water the morning after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well 

owned by Chesapeake Energy Corporation. The water turned gray and was full 

of sediment. 

—Bainbridge Township, Ohio.—In 2007, there was an explosion of a water well 

and contamination of at least 22 other drinking water wells in Bainbridge 

Township after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Ohio 

Valley Energy Systems. More than 2 years later, more than 40 families are still 

without clean drinking water and are waiting to be connected to a town water 

system. 

—Gibbs Hill, Pennsylvania.—In 2008, two families reported contamination of 

drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned 

by Seneca Resources Corporation. Their water had strong fumes, caused burning in lungs and sinuses after showering, and caused burning in the mouth immediately upon drinking. 

—Grandview, Texas.—In 2007, three families who share an aquifer reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby well owned 

by Williams. They experienced strong odors in their water, changes in water 

pressure, skin irritation, and dead livestock. Water testing found toluene and 

other contaminants. 

—Pavillion, Wyoming.—Families have been reporting contamination of their 

drinking water for at least 10 years. Hydraulic fracturing has been used in the 

many wells in the area owned by Encana Corporation. Drinking water has 

turned black, smelled bad, and tasted bad. Individuals report medical symptoms 
175 

they believe are related to water contamination. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is investigating and has found contamination in 11 water wells, 

including toxic chemicals that may be from hydraulic fracturing fluids. Further 

tests are needed to determine the source of contamination. 

In addition to the contamination that has been linked to hydraulic fracturing, millions of gallons of water are used to fracture each well. Using fresh water to fracture 

a well can be unsustainable use of water resources, and its impact upon our Nation’s freshwater supply—including small and seasonal streams—must be evaluated. 

And finally, appropriate treatment and disposal of the waste generated from hydraulic fracturing is critical to protecting the Nation’s waters. Aging and failing 

wastewater treatment plants cannot adequately treat and take on new waste. Many 

of the plants in areas new to gas development were not designed to treat the heavy 

metals and dissolved solids present in wastewater from hydraulic fracturing and 

cannot adequately handle it. EPA must have adequate resources to complete a comprehensive scientific study in order to accurately assess the impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on our Nation’s waters. Only with on-the-ground data collection and monitoring at several fracturing sites in different regions of the country will a true assessment of the impacts of fracturing be complete. 

This Congress has invested billions of dollars in the restoration and protection of 

our Nation’s waters, and has invested billions more in upgrading our Nation’s clean 

water and drinking water infrastructure; Congress should take every opportunity to 

fully fund a thoughtful and robust study that will proactively protect our Nation’s 

waters and not undermine the money it has already wisely invested in protecting 

and restoring water quality for the people of the United States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. 

Alaska’s Big Village Network 

Alliance for the Great Lakes 

American Rivers 

Appalachian Center for the Economy and 

the Environment 

Audubon Naturalist Society 

Cahaba River Society 

Carpenter Environmental Associates, 

Inc. 

Catholic Health East 

Center for Environment, Commerce & 

Energy—African American 

Environmentalist Association 

Chenango Delaware Otsego Gas Drilling 

Opposition Group 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

Chester-Ridley-Crum Watersheds 

Association 

Choctawhatchee Riverkeeper 

Citizens Campaign for the Environment 

Clean Water Action 

Clean Water for North Carolina 

Clean Water Network 

Colorado Watershed Assembly 

Committee to Preserve the Fingerlakes 

Community Environmental Defense 

Council, Inc. 

Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition 

Dakota Resource Council 

Damascus Citizens for Sustainability 

Delaware County Neighbors 

Delaware Riverkeeper Network 

District IV, Florida Federation of Garden 

Clubs 

Earth Action 

Earthjustice 

Environmental Advocates of New York 

Enviroscapes Landscape Design 

Farmington River Watershed Association 

Friends of Grays Harbor 

Friends of the North Fork and White 

Rivers 

Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland 

County 

Gila Resources Information Project 

Great Egg Harbor Watershed 

Administration 

Great Salt Lakekeeper 

Green Valleys Association 

Gulf Restoration Network 

Hackensack Riverkeeper 

Haw River Assembly 

Herring Run Watershed Association 

High Country Citizens’ Alliance 

Hilltown Anti- Herbicide Coalition 

Honor Our Pueblo Existence 

Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the 

Environment 

Izaak Walton League of America— 

Central New York Chapter 

Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. 

Kittatinny Group of the PA Chapter of 

the Sierra Club 

Lake Superior Greens 

Land Loss Prevention Project 

Little Beaver Creek Land Foundation 

Maine Rivers 

Montana Environmental Information 

Center 

National Committee for the New River 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation 

New Yorkers for Sustainable Energy 

Solutions Statewide 

New Yorkers Residents Against Drilling 

North Carolina Conservation Network 

Northeast Organic Farming Association 

of New York 

Northern California River Watch 

NYH2O 

Otsego 2000 

Partnership for Onondaga Creek 

Peach Bottom Concerned Citizens Group 
176 

Pennsylvania Organization for 

Watersheds and Rivers 

Province of St. Joseph of the Capuchin 

Order 

Putnam County Coalition to Preserve 

Open Space 

Rivers Unlimited 

Schoharie Valley Watch 

Sierra Club 

St. Mary’s River Watershed Association 

Sullivan Area Citizens for Responsible 

Energy Development 

Sustainable Tompkins 

The Watershed Project 

Town of Ulysses Citizens Advisory Board 

on Gas Drilling 

US Environmental Watch 

Western Watersheds Project—Wyoming 

Office 

Wild South 

Wilderness East 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES

APRIL 26, 2010. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN FEINSTEIN AND RANKING MEMBER ALEXANDER: On behalf of the 

Association of Research Libraries (ARL), I write to express strong support for funding of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Division of Preservation 

and Access. With NEH’s support, libraries engage in numerous activities to preserve 

and provide access to our local, State, national, and international cultural heritage. 

ARL also urges you to support the overall funding for NEH at the level of $232.5 

million, an increase of $65 million over fiscal year 2010. Additional appropriations 

would permit ARL to address the high level of unmet needs by supporting a greater 

number of humanities projects including those focused on preserving our heritage. 

NEH funding is central to libraries across the country as this funding supports 

core activities including the preservation of unique collections, the training of librarians to preserve these culturally valuable resources, and importantly, making research tools broadly available for use by scholars and the public. For example, NEH 

funding supports regional field offices and academic programs in conservation as 

well as providing individual awards that support basic preservation activities in libraries, archives, museums, and historical organizations throughout the United 

States. This support includes preservation training programs that reach thousands 

of individuals across the United States. NEH support of workforce development and 

training efforts is critically important as librarians, archivists, and museum professionals employ digital and networked-based technologies while, at the same time, 

preserve books, manuscripts, photographs, and other artifacts in many other formats. Recent examples of NEH grants in each of these areas include: 

—A regional preservation field service program will provide preservation surveys, 

workshops, technical consultations, and educational materials to museums and 

historical organizations in California, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington; Balboa 

Art Conservation Center, San Diego, California. 

—Curriculum modules and a virtual laboratory for graduate-level coursework in 

preserving and enhancing access to digital humanities resources will be developed. In addition, these will be used in the Digital Preservation Management 

Workshop, a continuing education program by the Interuniversity Consortium 

for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). Access to these educational resources 

via the Internet vastly expands the number of individuals who can benefit from 

this training; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

—The digitization of 10,000 rare or unique late 19th and early 20th century musical scores and books for online access through the university’s digital repository, 

the re-housing of original materials, and the production of preservation photocopies will be undertaken; University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 

In addition to funding training and preservation activities, the NEH Division of 

Preservation and Access also provides awards to support the creation of a wide 

range of research tools and reference works such as online encyclopedias, ancient 

language dictionaries, and catalogs of rare materials. Support of these diverse 

projects results in broad access to important educational reference works and creates new analytical capabilities that allows for widespread participation in research 

by students and teachers. Such projects and authoritative reference tools build the 
177 

foundation for research, and in digital form, enable broad and effective access to 

these resources. Examples of recent awards include: 

—A project to add 30,000 additional entries to the comprehensive Encyclopedic 

Discography of Victor Recordings (1900–1950), which is a freely available, 

searchable electronic database of master recordings and published discs made 

by the Victor Talking Machine Company; University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California. 

—Digital archiving of endangered Mexican and South American linguistic materials to be made accessible by the Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin 

America; University of Texas, Austin, Texas. 

—The collaboration among the Autry National Center/Southwest Museum of the 

American Indian, the National Museum of the American Indian, the National 

Anthropological Archives, and the National Museum of Natural History to federate databases focused on Native American collections and share the data in 

new ways with tribal colleges and community members; American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Alexandria, Virginia. 

—The digitization of 29 unique audio collections created on lacquer and aluminum 

discs and fragile reel-to-reel tape that document Native American, AfricanAmerican, and Anglo-American oral traditions, as well as those of other immigrant populations in the United States; Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana. 

Finally, the Division of Preservation and Access has provided support to stabilize 

humanities collections for institutions whose collections and facilities were adversely 

affected by disasters. Learning from the experiences of cultural institutions during 

and after hurricanes Katrina and Rita, NEH now funds emergency response projects 

so that these institutions are prepared in the case of an emergency. For example: 

—The hiring of a preservation consultant to conduct a training workshop in emergency response procedures and provide advice for the purchase of basic emergency supplies for the Coachella Valley Emergency Preparedness Network. This 

consortium includes three historical societies, an historic home, two Native 

American museums, a separate tribal collection, an aviation museum, a military 

museum, and a modern art museum. Collectively, these institutions hold 400 

cubic feet of archeological materials, 600 baskets, 150 paintings, 16,000 color 

slides, 1,500 photos, 100 maps, 25 linear feet of archival materials, 825 audio 

and video recordings, 3,000 volumes and 84 periodical titles; Agua Caliente Cultural Museum, Palm Springs, California. 

In fiscal year 2009, the NEH Division of Preservation and Access received 512 

funding applications for a total of $68.007 million. NEH was able to support 170 

of those requests for a total of $20.462 million (some of these funds also supported 

We the People grants). Clearly, the need for Federal funding in support of preservation and access activities far exceeds available resources. ARL urges members of the 

Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to consider additional funds for the NEH Preservation and Access Division activities and for NEH 

overall. 

ARL very much appreciates the subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies’ support for NEH’s preservation and access activities in the past 

and requests your ongoing support as you and other members of the subcommittee 

consider the NEH fiscal year 2011 budget request. Thank you in advance for your 

consideration of this request. Please let me know if there is additional information 

that I can provide. 

Sincerely, 

PRUDENCE S. ADLER, 

Associate Executive Director. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION

Dear Chairman and Ranking Member: The American Sportfishing Association 

(ASA) recommends the following as the subcommittee considers appropriations for 

the Department of the Interior for fiscal year 2011. ASA is the sportfishing industry’s trade association, committed to looking out for the interests of the entire 

sportfishing community. We give the industry a unified voice, speaking out when 

emerging laws and policies could significantly affect sportfishing business or 

sportfishing itself. We invest in long-term ventures to ensure the industry will remain strong and prosperous as well as safeguard and promote the enduring economic and conservation values of sportfishing in America. 

ASA makes these recommendations on the basis of briefings with agency staff and 

from years of experience with fisheries management in this Nation. 
178 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

National Fish Habitat Action Plan.—ASA and its member companies pride themselves on being conservationists first and foremost. The sportfishing industry is dependent upon healthy and abundant fish populations and habitat being available to 

the public. The landscape-scale projects now being conducted by partnerships under 

the umbrella of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan will help to ensure our Nation’s aquatic resources are conserved and available for future generations to enjoy 

through recreational fishing and boating. Because it will provide a significant boost 

to America’s fisheries resources and the recreational fishing community, ASA fully 

supports the National Fish Habitat Action Plan. 

Implementation of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan is well underway and 

making important strides in aquatic habitat conservation all across the United 

States. FWS has been a strong leader and State partner in the implementation of 

the plan, and we appreciate the administration’s continuing strong commitment to 

it. FWS appropriations in recent years have been instrumental in delivering habitat 

improvement projects on the ground, in cooperation with the States and in consultation with the National Fish Habitat Board, and in supporting the Board’s work. The 

fiscal year 2011 budget recommendation is level funded at $7.2 million. Given that 

17 Fish Habitat Partnerships have now been recognized by the Board and that 

there are a number of planning milestones to achieve in 2011 (e.g., completion of 

a national fish habitat assessment), ASA recommends an appropriation of $10 million to assure adequate financial resources for these base operational needs. 

National Fish Hatcheries.—ASA recognizes the importance of developing ecosystem-based solutions for restoring, conserving, and managing native fish populations. National Fish Hatcheries are an important tool in support of that goal, providing stocks to supplement or jump-start restoration efforts for at-risk species such 

as Pacific and Atlantic salmon, several species of trout, pallid sturgeon, and freshwater mussels—many of which are identified as species of concern in the State wildlife action plans. ASA is concerned that the administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget 

request of $50.307 million cannot sustain all national fish hatchery operations and 

reverses a multi-year priority of the FWS, the sportfishing industry and States to 

adequately address the aquatic resource mission of the agency. ASA believes that 

continued, long-term funding is critical to prevent hatchery closures. Therefore, ASA 

recommends funding for National Fish Hatchery operations at the fiscal year 2010 

enacted level of $54.370 million. 

ASA also supports funding at the level of $485,000 for ongoing operation of the 

Ouray Fish Hatchery which is critical in the Upper Colorado River restoration effort. 

ASA is very concerned about the nearly $2 million reduction in the Aquatic 

Invasive Species program area. Prevention, control, and management of aquatic 

invasive species is vital to continuing priority actions intended to protect aquatic 

wildlife and water resources. These actions include such activities as implementing 

enforceable inspection and decontamination at infested waters to prevent the spread 

of aquatic invasive species like quagga and zebra mussels, and interdiction at 

waters that remain at high risk of infection. We therefore, recommend this program 

be funded at the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $8.244 million. 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).—ASA deeply appreciates the subcommittee’s vision and leadership regarding the funding increases realized in fiscal 

year 2008 through fiscal year 2010, and the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). While it does not reduce the annual needs of the NWRS, the 

ARRA is providing a jolt to local economies by providing refuges across the country 

with the means to hire local contractors and purchase local materials for important 

infrastructure and habitat restoration projects. Following a period of essentially flat 

annual budgets, the recent increases in annual appropriations allowed for the suspension of workforce downsizing plans that called for an eventual 20 percent reduction in overall staffing levels. However, with more than 10 percent of staff already 

eliminated since 2004, additional funding increases that build upon the last 3 years 

are essential if this valued system of conservation lands is to rebound to its full potential. With the goal of fulfilling the progressive conservation vision that President 

Theodore Roosevelt first espoused more than a century ago, ASA respectfully requests a fiscal year 2011 funding level of $578 million for the operations and maintenance accounts of the NWRS. 

Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act.—ASA recommends that Congress 

fund the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act (GLFWRA) in fiscal year 

2011 at its full authorization of $16 million, and to include funding for the proposed 

‘‘Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative.’’ The GLFWRA supports the Service’s mission in the Great Lakes region. Since major reauthorizations in 1996 and 2006, this 

act has supported essential projects to conserve native fish and wildlife species, un-
179 

derstand the impact of invasive species, restore habitat, and undertake other 

projects related to the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Projects under the Act 

require a non-Federal cost-sharing partner, so the program fosters collaboration 

among Federal, State, tribal, and local interests. The GLFWRA also authorizes regional projects that benefit the Great Lakes basin as a whole. 

One proposed regional project, the ‘‘Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative,’’ is a 

cooperative undertaking among Federal, State, and tribal authorities to employ new 

technologies to mark all hatchery reared fish that are stocked into the Great Lakes. 

Currently, not all stocked fish are marked or coded-wire-tagged, which limits the 

information fishery managers have about the status of the fishery and their restoration efforts. The mass marking technology—known as the AutoFish system—has 

been used with great success in the Pacific Northwest, where all stocked fish must, 

by law, be marked and coded-wire-tagged. The fishery management agencies of the 

Great Lakes region have explored the use of this mass marking technology, have 

field-tested its applicability, and have concluded that the marking of all hatchery 

reared fish would significantly enhance Great Lakes fishery management and research. Fishery managers, working together, have proposed this mass marking technology for funding under the GLFWRA. Full funding for the GLFWRA, and funding 

for the Great Lakes Mass Marking Initiative, are needed for the service to continue 

its important role in Great Lakes restoration. ASA requests the full authorization 

of $16 million for the GLFWRA, including full funding for the Great Lakes Mass 

Marking Initiative. 

Atlantic Salmon.—Atlantic salmon management in the Connecticut River is an 

important multi-State and agency restoration effort. Although primarily supplemented by hatchery production, a long-term goal is the establishment of a self-sustaining population. Management of genetic diversity is critical to achieve this longterm management goal. Due to very few adult Atlantic salmon returning to the Connecticut River, genetic concerns such as inbreeding and estimates of genetic diversity are potential threats to the long-term sustainability of the population. Monitoring the genetic diversity and variability of broodstock and sea-run returners is 

important to management and greatly assists other program evaluation efforts. ASA 

supports the addition of $250,000 to the FWS budget to complete this work. 

ASA is also concerned with proposed cuts to the Fish and Wildlife Assistance Program component. ASA is concerned with elimination of several earmarks that provide funds for ongoing projects that support critical State management functions. 

Specifically, ASA is concerned with the elimination of the funding that supports the 

West Coast Regional Mark Processing Center, the Washington State Mass Marking 

Program, and the National Partnership for the Management of Wild and Native 

Coldwater Fisheries. ASA urges Congress to restore funding for these programs. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Fisheries Management.—The BLM Fisheries Program continues to sustain the 

deep budget cut taken in fiscal year 2008, funded at a slightly increased amount 

of $13,765 in fiscal year 2010, to support the National Landscape Conservation System program. ASA opposes the reduction requested by the administration to $13.516 

million in fiscal year 2011 for the fisheries management subactivity. ASA remains 

deeply concerned about this permanent reduction in funding brought about by program transfers during establishment of the National Landscape Conservation System. 

Energy development, especially coalbed methane gas, is greatly impacting fisheries. BLM fisheries staff funding is woefully inadequate to address these issues or 

provide necessary input into the BLM’s Resource Planning. Currently, nonaquatic 

specialists are providing much of the BLM Fisheries Program work, with many not 

possessing aquatic expertise or interest. To adequately implement current program 

levels the BLM needs an additional 10.5 full-time employees in the aquatic specialist series. ASA strongly encourages Congress to provide a significant increase 

over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for the fisheries management subactivity— 

to a total of $20 million—in order to address pressing fisheries needs throughout 

the agency. Within this requested $6.5 million increase, ASA requests an annual increase of $750,000 specifically for hiring new staff within the fisheries program. 

Riparian Management Activity.—ASA supports the BLM attention and project application directed at riparian areas, but remains concerned that the requested 

$22.632 million for this program, which is an $86,000 decrease from the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level, falls far short of meeting many of the identified needs. ASA opposes the administration’s proposal to reduce base funding for these fundamental 

responsibilities by $200,000; instead, ASA requests that Congress add $1.386 million to the administration’s request to address its long-standing responsibilities. 

ASA also urges BLM to continue its coordination with State fish and wildlife agen-
180 

cies and other Federal bureaus in order to achieve goals outlined in the National 

Fish Habitat Plan and to improve water quality on BLM-managed lands. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

National Forest System Line Item.—ASA has expressed concerns about the USFS 

budget structure for fish and wildlife, because it makes it very difficult to understand the budget request and to make meaningful comparisons with the previous 

year’s appropriations. In fiscal year 2011, the USFS is proposing to merge several 

programs and their budgets—vegetation and watershed management, wildlife and 

fisheries habitat management, and forest products—into a single integrated resource restoration activity. While ASA commends the USFS for working to better 

coordinate programs within the agency, we are concerned about the melding of activities and money and believe that without specific budget line items and expenditures for specific purposes this proposed approach will make accountability to the 

State partners, the public, and Congress even more difficult. It is also counter to 

a 2004 recommendation made to the USFS after a nationwide evaluation of the 

agency’s fisheries program. In that report, the merging of budget line items and the 

subsequent lack of accountability was highlighted and recommendations were made 

to separate budget line items. We respectfully request that Congress require individual line items specific to fish, wildlife, and endangered species and habitat management be established in the fiscal year 2011 budget and similarly, that expenditures be tracked and reported in the same manner. 

This breakdown would vastly improve performance accountability and improve opportunities for integrated activities with the State fish and wildlife agencies. We encourage the USFS to communicate to leadership at all levels that the expectation 

is that fish and wildlife needs should be considered and incorporated as projects are 

designed and implemented. Further, we suggest that the USFS establish planning 

and accountability protocols to ensure adequate attention to fish and wildlife needs. 

Having stated those reservations, ASA supports the request of $693.772 million for 

integrated resource restoration and urges the USFS to be more forthcoming demonstrating spending accountability on the ground. 

The sportfishing industry has long depended on the strong management of our 

Nation’s fisheries by the Federal agencies within the Department of the Interior. We 

look forward with working with the subcommittee to ensure that the conservation 

of our Nation’s fisheries is upheld for the recreational enjoyment of our Nation’s citizens, which in turn leads to a healthy and robust sportfishing industry. Thank you 

for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY, CROP SCIENCE

SOCIETY OF AMERICA, AND SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA

Dear Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), I am pleased to 

submit comments in strong support of enhanced public investment in the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as critical components of Federal appropriations for fiscal year 

2011 and beyond. With more than 25,000 members and practicing professionals, 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA are the largest life science professional societies in the 

United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop, and soil sciences. ASA, CSSA, and 

SSSA play a major role in promoting progress in these sciences through the publication of quality journals and books, convening meetings and workshops, developing 

educational, training, and public information programs, providing scientific advice 

to inform public policy, and promoting ethical conduct among practitioners of agronomy and crop and soil sciences. 

Summary 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA understand the budgetary challenges the Senate Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee faces in fiscal 

year 2011. We also recognize that the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations bill has many valuable and necessary components, and we applaud 

the efforts of the subcommittee to fund the USFS, USGS, and EPA. 

USFS sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and 

grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Soils are a vital 

component of forest management, and their understanding is essential to achieve 

EPA’s strategic goals, yet vital programs that are essential for improved soil quality 

have been consistently underfunded. 
181 

The Societies are concerned with past transfers of funding for the USFS away 

from base programs to support wildland fire suppression. For the USFS, ASA, 

CSSA, and SSSA recommend that the subcommittee appropriate $5.6 billion, a 5 

percent increase over fiscal year 2010, putting the EPA back on track towards properly managing the 749 million acres of forests in the United States. for the services 

they provide: clean water and air; recreational opportunities; hunting; fishing; forest 

products; and, scenic values. 

The USGS provides reliable scientific information to describe and understand the 

Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; and protect the Nation’s natural resources. For fiscal year 2011, we recommend $1.3 billion for the 

USGS. Only a concerted, long-term effort to boost USGS funding will produce the 

knowledge and tools needed to appropriately manage and meet the many challenges 

facing the Nation’s water, biological, energy, and mineral resources, while enhancing and protecting our quality of life. 

In order to fulfill its mission, the EPA needs increased investments in socioeconomic, sustainability, ecological, and exploratory research as well as partnerships 

with academia and State and local government. These areas are essential to move 

environmental protection from a command-and-control regulatory system to a more 

rational, compliance-based approach. For EPA science and technology, for fiscal year 

2011, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of $888 million a 5 percent 

increase over fiscal year 2010. 

USFS 

Forest and Rangeland Research 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA applaud the increase provided by the subcommittee for forest and rangeland research in fiscal year 2010. For fiscal year 2011, we recommend 

increasing forest and rangeland research funding by 7 percent bringing total funding to $334 million. 

Soil is the natural filter, often overlooked, vital for healthy watersheds. Past investments in NFS have yielded enormous benefits to society. Soil scientists annually 

provide critical soil resource information to Burned Area Emergency Response 

teams evaluating the environmental effects and developing rapid management responses for hundreds of wildfires. The NFS developed the CarbonPlus Calculator 

(http://nrs.fs.fed.us/carbon/local-resources/downloads/CCTlNRS13.pdf) to help land 

owners estimate their forest carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The calculator provides 

tips on how to reduce carbon footprints and teaches users about the benefits of 

planting trees to absorb carbon. 

National Forest System 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support a funding level of $182 million, a 7 percent increase, for inventory and monitoring program in fiscal year 2011. Strong funding for 

inventory and management will allow USFS to continue efforts to inventory remaining national forest land. This would support a comprehensive carbon inventory for 

forest ecosystems as well as provide other information critical to understand U.S. 

forest systems. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes establishment of the integrated resource restoration budget line by combining the wildlife and fisheries habitat management, 

forest products, and the vegetation and watershed management budget lines, as 

well as the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund and the watershed improvement and job stabilization lines. 

The integrated resource restoration program will facilitate implementation of the 

USDA priority for focused, large-scale ecosystem restoration and provide ecosystem 

services that are important to the public including clean and abundant water, renewable energy from biomass, restored wildlife and fish habitat, and resilient forests and rangelands. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support appropriation for the integrated resource restoration line at $715 million, a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 

2010 and $21 million greater than requested in the President’s budget. 

Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets (USDA Office of Environmental 

Markets) 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support appropriation of $2 million to support the mission 

and goals of the USDA Office of Environmental Markets (OEM). The OEM was established to support development of new opportunities for American agriculture and 

forestry through environmental services markets. 
182 

USGS 

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing 

Land use and change are major issues of concern for the Nation. Satellite imagery 

is used by a variety of stakeholders: government agencies such as USGS, EPA, NSF, 

and USDA; Universities-land grants and private; and private sector environmental 

managers and planners. 

Precision agriculture utilizes remote sensing, in combination with GIS and GPS, 

to develop farm-specific management maps reducing over-application of nutrients 

and loss in sensitive areas. 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA are supportive of the President’s request for geographic research, investigations, and remote sensing for fiscal year 2011 and recommend a 

funding level of $153 million. We urge the subcommittee to fund the Geographic 

Analysis and Monitoring Program at $11.7 million, a 5 percent increase over fiscal 

year 2010. This funding level will help ensure access to a common set of current, 

accurate, and consistent data and scientific information that describe the Earth’s 

land surface to help inform decisions by policymakers, resource managers, researchers, citizens, and the private sector. 

Water Resources Investigations 

Water is a limiting resource for many regions of the United States; certain regions 

have been in a sustained drought for years. Aquifers are the leading source of fresh 

water across the country. Therefore it is essential that we monitor and maintain 

this ecosystem service. Nutrient loading of the Mississippi River has been linked to 

the hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico. As more farm acreage is converted to crops 

to be converted into biofuels, there is a growing potential for these systems to load 

major river systems with unwanted nutrients and sediments. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA 

recommend $168 million in funding, a 5 percent, for hydrologic, monitoring, assessments, and research (HMAR) for fiscal year 2011. Within HMAR, critical programs—Ground water resources, toxic substances hydrology, and hydrologic research and development—deserve special funding consideration. 

Biological Research 

For fiscal year 2011, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend funding for biological research be increased to $215 million, an increase of 5 percent which will provide 

strong support for biological research and monitoring, biological information management and delivery, and cooperative research units. 

Science Support 

Climate change is a major focus for many agencies in fiscal year 2011 and ASA, 

CSSA, and SSSA which are interested in the role agriculture can play to mitigate 

climate change. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the President’s requested $72.1 million for fiscal year 2011. We find that the need to identify new tools that help land 

managers adapt to climate change is an essential endeavor. We applaud the subcommittee for its foresight and encourage it to fund USGS climate research at this 

level so the Department of the Interior can continue to expand much needed work 

in the areas of biological carbon sequestration and science applications and decision 

support. 

EPA 

In order to fulfill its mission, EPA needs increased investments in both its intramural and extramural science programs as well as associated services such as environmental education and libraries. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend that EPA increase investments in socioeconomic, sustainability, ecological, and exploratory research as well as partnerships with academia and State and local government. 

These areas are essential to move environmental protection from a command-andcontrol regulatory system to a more rational, compliance-based approach. 

For EPA science and technology, for fiscal year 2011, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of $888 million a 5 percent increase over fiscal year 2010. 

The Office of Research and Development (ORD) is the scientific research arm of 

EPA. The ORD funds and conducts essential research in pollution prevention; air, 

water, and soil dynamics; and management and behaviors to improve the way we 

use and conserve our resources. 

To help enhance workforce development by recruiting outstanding scientists to 

participate in the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, ASA, CSSA, and 

SSSA ask the Subcommittee to place special emphasis on funding for this program. 

The STAR program has not only provided an outstanding source of research results 

during its tenure, it has also trained bright young minds to explore and expand the 

basic concepts behind environmental science and related innovations. 
183 

1 ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country’s oldest national civil engineering organization. It represents 144,000 civil engineers in private practice, government, industry, and academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil engineering. 

ASCE is a non-profit educational and professional society organized under Part 1.501(c)(3) of 

the Internal Revenue Code. 

For the National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways program, we recommend an appropriation of $35 million. Finally, for the Wetlands program, we recommend 

an appropriation at the President’s requested level of $28 million, for fiscal year 

2011. The study of wetlands occurs under EPA’s Office of Research and Development, Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP). The program emphasizes the 

study of wetland ecosystem services to provide the decision support tools needed to 

target, prioritize, and evaluate policy and management actions that protect, enhance, and restore the ecosystem goods and services provided by wetlands. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 1 is pleased to submit to the subcommittee a statement on the proposed budgets for the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for fiscal year 2011. 

ASCE RECOMMENDS AN APPROPRIATION OF $3 BILLION FOR THE CLEAN WATER ACT

STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND (SRF) IN FISCAL 2011

The administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for the EPA totals $10 bil- lion. This is slightly less than the agency’s fiscal year 2010 enacted budget of $10.3 

billion. 

The President has requested $2 billion for the Clean Water SRF. Although this 

request reflects the President’s desire to deal forcefully with the funding needs of 

the Nation’s aging wastewater infrastructure, ASCE believes that the wastewater 

investment ‘‘gap’’ of approximately $400 billion requires an even greater annual 

commitment. 

Aging wastewater treatment systems discharge billions of gallons of untreated 

wastewater into U.S. surface waters each year. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the Nation must invest $390 billion over the next 20 years to update or replace existing systems and build new ones to meet increasing demand. Since 1972, Congress has directly invested more than $80 billion in the construction of publicly owned sewage treatment works (POTWs) and their related facilities. 

State and local governments have spent billions more over the years. Total non-Federal spending on sewer and water has been billions more. Nevertheless, the physical 

condition of many of the Nation’s 16,000 wastewater treatment systems is poor, due 

to a lack of investment in plant, equipment and other capital improvements over 

the years. 

In 2008, EPA reported that the total investment needs of America’s publicly 

owned treatment works as of January 1, 2004, were $202.5 billion. This reflects an 

increase of $16.1 billion (8.6 percent) since the previous analysis was published in 

January 2004. 

Many systems have reached the end of their useful design lives. Older systems 

are plagued by chronic overflows during major rain storms and heavy snowmelt and, 

intentionally or not, are bringing about the discharge of raw sewage into U.S. surface waters. 

EPA estimated in August 2004 that the volume of combined sewer overflows 

(CSOs) discharged nationwide is 850 billion gallons per year. Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), caused by blocked or broken pipes, result in the release of as much 

as 10 billion gallons of raw sewage yearly, according to the EPA. 

Wastewater infrastructure is expensive as are the monetary and social costs incurred when infrastructure fails. The Nation’s wastewater systems are not resilient 

in terms of current ability to properly fund and maintain, prevent failure, or reconstitute services. 

Additionally, the interdependence on the energy sector contributes to the lack of 

system resilience that is increasingly being addressed through the construction of 

dedicated emergency power generation at key wastewater utility facilities. Aging, 

under-designed, or inadequately maintained systems discharge billions of gallons of 

untreated wastewater into U.S. surface waters each year. 

Future investments must focus on updating or replacing existing systems as well 

as building new ones to meet increasing demand; improved operations processes including ongoing oversight, evaluation, and asset management on a systemwide 
184 

basis; and watershed approaches to look more broadly at water resources in a coordinated systematic way. 

ASCE RECOMMENDS AN APPROPRIATION OF $2 BILLION FOR THE SAFE DRINKING WATER

ACT SRF IN FISCAL YEAR 2011

America’s drinking water systems face an annual shortfall of at least $11 billion 

to replace aging facilities that are near the end of their useful life and to comply 

with existing and future Federal water regulations. This does not account for 

growth in the demand for drinking water over the next 20 years. Leaking pipes lose 

an estimated 7 billion gallons of clean drinking water a day. 

Of the nearly 53,000 community water systems, approximately 83 percent serve 

3,300 or fewer people. These systems provide water to just 9 percent of the total 

U.S. population served by all community systems. In contrast, 8 percent of community water systems serve more than 10,000 people, and they provide water to 81 

percent of the population served. 

Eighty-five percent (16,348) of nontransient, noncommunity water systems and 97 

percent (83,351) of transient noncommunity water systems serve 500 or fewer people. These smaller systems face huge financial, technological, and managerial challenges in meeting a growing number of Federal drinking-water regulations. 

Federal assistance has not kept pace with demand, however. Between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2010, Congress provided more than $11 billion for the DWSRF 

through annual appropriations. This total is approximately equal to the annual capital investment gap for each of those years as calculated by EPA in 2002. 

Although drinking-water treatment plant operators are often able to provide 

workarounds during system disruptions, the Nation’s drinking-water systems are 

not highly resilient based on present capabilities to prevent failure and properly 

maintain or reconstitute services. 

Additionally, the lack of investment and the interdependence on the energy sector 

contribute to the lack of overall system resilience. These shortcomings are currently 

being addressed through the construction of dedicated emergency power generation 

at key drinking water utility facilities, increased connections with adjacent utilities 

for emergency supply, and the development of security and criticality criteria within 

the sector. Investment must be prioritized to take into consideration system 

vulnerabilities, interdependencies, improved efficiencies in water usage via market 

incentives, system robustness, redundancy, failure consequences, and ease and cost 

of recovery. 

ASCE RECOMMENDS AN APPROPRIATION OF $1.3 BILLION FOR THE USGS IN FISCAL YEAR

2011

In a time of fiscal restraint, the USGS budget proposal for fiscal year 2011 is up 

nearly 4 percent over the current fiscal year appropriation, but we believe the request falls short of the amount needed to support the science needs of the Nation. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request for USGS totals $1.1 billion, $21.6 million 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The President is asking for increases in 

programs for renewable energy, climate change, water availability and use, natural 

hazards, and Landsat. 

The Water Resources Investigations activity is funded at $228.8 million in the 

2011 budget, which is $3.5 million below the 2010 enacted level. The budget proposes $158.7 million for Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments, and Research for collection, management, and dissemination of hydrologic data, analysis of hydrologic 

systems through modeling or statistical methods, and research and development 

leading to new methods and new understanding, with a focus on water conservation. 

The tight budget lead the Department to request budget reductions for the Cooperative Water Program ($63.6 million, which is $1.9 less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level) and for the National Streamflow information Program ($27.1 million, a 

reduction of $563,000). 

Program increases were requested for the National Water Availability and Use 

Assessment, including $1.1 million for the Groundwater Resources program and 

$6.4 million for Hydrologic Networks and Analysis. 

The WaterSMART Quality Assessment program describes status and trends in 

water quality, provides an improved understanding of the natural factors and 

human activity affecting these conditions, and provides information to Federal, 

State, and local regulatory and policy decisionmakers. A net reduction of $1.5 million is proposed in Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments, and Research to focus on 

the WaterSMART program. 

The Cooperative Water program is funded at $63.6 million, $2 million below the 

2010 level. The program builds on efforts to leverage State, local, and tribal funds 
185 

to support the majority of the national hydrologic data network of streamgages, 

wells, and monitoring sites. The Water Resources Research Act program is funded 

at $6.5 million to promote State, regional, and national coordination of water resources research and training and a network of Water Resources Research Institutes to facilitate research coordination and information and technology transfer. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER

ADMINISTRATORS

SUMMARY OF REQUEST

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 11, the subcommittee appropriate funding for three State 

drinking water programs at levels commensurate with Federal expectations for performance and at levels that ensure appropriate public health protection. ASDWA requests $200 million for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program; 

$1.287 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) program; and $10 million for State drinking water program security initiatives. A more 

complete explanation of the needs represented by these requested amounts and a 

further explanation of these requested levels follows. 

HOW STATES USE FEDERAL FUNDS

States Need Increased Federal Support To Maintain Overall Public Health Protection.—State drinking water programs strive to meet public health protection goals 

through two principal funding programs: the PWSS and the DWSRF Program. 

These two programs, with their attendant State match requirements, provide the 

means for States to work with drinking water systems to ensure that American citizens can turn on their taps with confidence the water is both safe to drink and the 

supply is adequate. In recent years, State drinking water programs have accepted 

additional responsibilities to work with all public water systems to ensure that critical drinking water infrastructure is protected and that plans are in place to respond to both natural and manmade disasters. 

Vibrant and sustainable communities, their citizens, workforce, and businesses 

are dependent upon a safe and adequate supply of drinking water. Economies only 

grow and sustain themselves when they have reliable water supplies. More than 90 

percent of the population receives water used for bathing, cooking, and drinking 

from a public water system. Even people who have their own private wells to meet 

their daily water needs will visit other homes or businesses served by a public water 

system. Children and seniors are the most susceptible to illness and death from several of the contaminants regulated by Federal drinking water laws including lead, 

mercury, nitrates, bacteria, and viruses. As important as public water systems are 

to the quality of water we drink, and therefore our health, the majority of water 

produced by public water systems is used by businesses and for fire protection. Businesses need adequate supplies of good quality water for processing, cooling, and 

product manufacturing. The availability of adequate supplies of water is often a critical factor in attracting new industry. Public water systems, including, cities, villages, schools, and businesses rely on State drinking water programs to ensure they 

are in compliance with Federal requirements. 

The PWSS Program.—To meet the requirements of the State Drinking Water Administrators, States have accepted primary enforcement responsibility for oversight 

of regulatory compliance and technical assistance efforts for more than 155,000 public water systems to ensure potential health-based violations do not occur or are 

remedied in a timely manner. Since 1996, State drinking water programs have participated in the development and implementation of more than 25 new Federal regulations and strategic initiatives designed to enhance the protection of public health. 

States are also implementing an array of proactive initiatives to protect public 

health from ‘‘source to tap.’’ These include source water assessments and controls; 

technical assistance with water treatment and distribution; and enhancement of 

overall water system performance capabilities. In recent years, States have taken 

on an increasingly prominent role in working with Federal and local partners to 

help ensure sufficient water quantity. In short, State activities go well beyond simply ensuring compliance at the tap. 

The DWSRF Program.—Drinking water in the United States is among the safest 

and most reliable in the world, thanks to significant investments made over the decades. The payback on this investment has been exceptional: in the core DWSRF program, $10.7 billion in capitalization grants from Congress since 1997 has been leveraged by States into nearly $19 billion in infrastructure loans to small and large 
186 

communities across the country. Everyone agrees this is an investment that pays 

great dividends both economically and in protection of our citizens’ health. State 

drinking water programs have also used DWSRFs to support the technical assistance and training needs of small drinking water systems and to help these water 

systems obtain the technical, managerial, and financial proficiency needed to meet 

the requirements of the SDWA. States also leapt into action to utilize the infrastructure funds provided to the DWSRF through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) and maximized the depth and breadth of these funding opportunities across all drinking water system sizes and types. Through a herculean effort, 

all States met the February 17, 2010 deadline (1 year from enactment) for having 

$2 billion in ARRA funds under contract or construction. 

State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.—Since the events of September 

2001, as well as the more recent experiences of devastating hurricanes, wildfires 

and floods, States have taken extraordinary measures to meet the security and 

emergency response-related needs of the drinking water community. State drinking 

water programs have responded to requests for assistance, training, information, 

and financial support from the water systems under their purview as well as supported utility-based ‘‘mutual aid’’ networks. States continually work toward integrating security considerations throughout all aspects of their drinking water programs. 

WHY INCREASED FUNDING IS URGENTLY NEEDED

State Drinking Water Programs are Hard Pressed.—States must accomplish all of 

the above-described activities, and take on new responsibilities, in the context of the 

current national economic crisis. This has meant further cutting their budgets, 

streamlining their workforces, and operating with less State-provided financial support. State drinking water programs have often been expected to do more with less 

and States have always responded with commitment and ingenuity. However, State 

drinking water programs are now in crisis. Insufficient Federal support for this critical program increases the likelihood of a contamination event that puts public 

health at risk. 

State Funding Gap Continues To Grow; States Cannot Keep Up.—Although the 

1996 SDWA Amendments authorized the PWSS Program at $100 million per year, 

appropriated amounts have only recently reached or come close to that originallyauthorized level. $105.7 million was appropriated for the PWSS program in fiscal 

year 2010. However, as explained below, with Congress’ zeroing out of the State 

drinking water program security grant of $5 million, the net gain to States—from 

fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010—was only $1 million. Even the fully authorized 

level of $100 million annually is now, nearly 14 years after enactment, woefully inadequate for the enormity of the task faced by State drinking water programs. A 

few years ago, State drinking water program administrators identified an annual 

shortfall nationally of approximately $360 million between available funds and 

those needed to administer their programs. That gap only continues to grow and has 

negative consequences. Many States are simply unable to implement major provisions of the newer regulations, leaving the work undone or ceding the responsibility 

back to EPA where it is likely to languish because of their own resource constraints 

and lack of ‘‘on the ground’’ expertise. This situation could create a significant implementation crisis in several regions of the country and ultimately delay implementation of critically needed public health protections. 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REQUEST LEVELS AND SDWA PROGRAM OBLIGATIONS

The PWSS Program.—The number of regulations requiring State implementation 

and oversight as well as performance expectations continue to grow while, at the 

same time, the Federal funding support necessary to maintain compliance levels 

and meet expectations has been in decline. Last year’s fiscal year 10 appropriated 

level of $105.7 million—after subtracting the above-mentioned $5 million for drinking water security—reflects a downward trend from the enacted budget high point 

of $101.9 million appropriated in fiscal year 2004—an already insufficient amount. 

Inflation has further eroded these inadequate funding levels. State drinking water 

programs are hard pressed to understand a justification for these funding levels 

since they are engaged in the critical phases of implementing the LT 2/Stage 2 Rule 

cluster (two sophisticated and complex initiatives to control disinfection by-products 

and microbial contaminants), the recently promulgated Ground Water Rule, and 

changes to the Lead and Copper Rule. States want to offer the flexibilities allowed 

under these and other rules to local water systems; however, fewer State resources 

mean less opportunity to work one-on-one with water systems to meet their individual needs. Looking ahead, States expect that new rules for contaminants on 
187 

EPA’s Contaminant Candidate List will be forthcoming as well as revisions to the 

Total Coliform Rule. 

ASDWA therefore respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2011 funding for the 

PWSS program be appropriated at $200 million. This figure was calculated by starting with a baseline of $124.3 million (the fiscal year 2004 appropriated figure, adjusted for inflation); adding $50.7 million to implement recently promulgated rules 

(per EPA’s Economic Analyses for these rules); and adding $25 million for other new 

program requirements (e.g., emerging contaminants, modernizing data systems, and 

supporting small water systems). 

The DWSRF Program.—States were very encouraged by the $1.387 billion appropriated for the DWSRF in fiscal year 2010 and the $1.287 billion requested in the 

President’s fiscal year 2011 budget. States strongly support that request level. The 

primary purpose of the DWSRF is to improve public health protection by facilitating 

water system compliance with national primary drinking water regulations through 

the provision of loans to improve drinking water infrastructure. Water infrastructure is needed for public health protection as well as a sustainable economy. For 

instance, industries have opted not to move to locations with inadequate water and 

other utility capacity to meet their needs. States have very effectively and efficiently 

leveraged Federal dollars with State contributions by turning over $10.67 billion in 

cumulative Federal capitalization grants (not counting ARRA funds) into almost $19 

billion in water infrastructure loans since 1997. In so doing, States have provided 

assistance to more than 6,905 projects improving health protection for millions of 

Americans. Approximately 72 percent of projects and 38 percent of assistance has 

been provided to small communities (serving less than 10,000 people). However, 

EPA’s most recent National Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (2007) indicated that water system needs total $334.8 billion over the next 20 years to comply with SDWA mandates. States believe the $2 billion in ARRA funds and the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level were very substantial down payments on addressing those needs and filling the infrastructure gap. In light of these indicators of success and documented needs, we believe the $1.287 billion level requested in the 

President’s fiscal year 2011 budget will better enable (as compared to levels provided in recent years) the DWSRF to meet the SDWA compliance and public health 

protection goals for which it was designed. 

ASDWA, therefore, respectfully requests $1.287 billion in fiscal year 2011 funding 

for the DWSRF Program; consistent with the President’s budget request. 

Security Responsibilities.—After 7 years of supporting State security programs 

through a small grant of approximately $5 million in EPA’s appropriation, no funds 

were provided for this purpose in fiscal year 2010 and none are requested for fiscal 

year 11. State drinking water programs need funds to continue to expand their security activities, particularly for small and medium water systems and to support utility-based mutual aid networks for all drinking water systems. It is very difficult to 

understand why this grant has been zeroed out of EPA’s proposed budget. Given the 

realities exemplified by ongoing Homeland Security initiatives, the goals of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the lessons learned from Hurricanes 

Katrina, Rita, and Gustav, State drinking water programs are working more closely 

than ever with their water utilities to evaluate, assist, and support drinking water 

systems’ preparedness, response, and resiliency capabilities. Beyond the mandates 

of the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, States are being directed to expand their efforts to 

reflect an ‘‘all hazards’’ approach to water security and to focus their efforts toward 

smaller water systems not covered by the act. These systems rely heavily on the 

States to help them meet their needs and identify potential funding sources 

(DWSRF). 

ASDWA therefore respectfully requests $10 million in fiscal year 2011 funding for 

the State security initiatives. These funds would be commensurate with the security 

tasks State drinking water programs must take on. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, ASDWA respectfully recommends that both State and Federal fiscal 

year 2011 budget needs for the provision of safe drinking water be adequately funded by Congress. A strong drinking water program supported by the Federal-State 

partnership will ensure that the quality of drinking water in this country will not 

deteriorate and, in fact, will continue to improve—so that the public can be assured 

that a glass of water is safe to drink no matter where they travel or live. States 

are willing and committed partners. However, additional Federal financial assistance is needed to meet ongoing and ever growing regulatory and security needs. In 

1996, Congress provided the authority to ensure that the burden would not go un-
188 

supported. For fiscal year 2011, ASDWA asks that the promise of that support be 

realized. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Task Force is pleased to provide this testimony on the fiscal year 2010 (fiscal 

year 2011) budget request for research and development programs in the Department of Energy (DOE). 

INTRODUCTION

The 127,000-member ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide educational and technical 

society. It conducts one of the world’s largest technical publishing operations, holds 

more than 30 technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each 

year, and sets some 600 industrial and manufacturing standards. 

BACKGROUND

Scientists and engineers have a long-standing professional interest in applying 

science and technology (S&T) to improve the environment and human health in the 

United States. Mechanical engineers increasingly collaborate with other professionals to develop innovative and cost-effective environmental technologies and systems. 

The EPA plays an essential role in the Nation’s efforts to protect human health 

and safeguard the environment, and EPA’s S&T research and development (R&D) 

activities are instrumental in improving environmental protection in a sound, sustainable, and cost-effective manner. R&D efforts are needed to improve environmental health and ecology, environmental monitoring, environmental technology development, and implementation. Additionally, pollution prevention is also necessary 

in order to address the emerging concerns of climate change, as well as the environmental issues of homeland security and infrastructure protection. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request for EPA is $10.02 billion, a $277 million decrease from the fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount of $10.3 billion. The EPA’s 

S&T Directorate would be essentially flat at $846.7 million in fiscal year 2011, up 

slightly from the $846 million appropriated amount for fiscal year 2010. After several years of funding decreases, followed by a significant boost to funding for fiscal 

year 2010, the EPA Task Force feels that a higher appropriation is warranted for 

fiscal year 2011. The R&D funds are needed in order to enhance study responses 

to climate change, terrestrial carbon sequestration and management, biofuels and 

oil shale waste issues, and nanotechnology development. 

OVERVIEW OF THE ASME TASK FORCE REVIEW

We will focus our analysis on the R&D activities of the S&T portfolio within the 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the Superfund program that 

support eight strategic programmatic research areas: 

—Clean air and global climate change; 

—Clean and safe water; 

—Land preservation and restoration; 

—Human health and ecosystems; 

—Compliance and environmental stewardship; 

—Toxic research and prevention; 

—Sustainability; and 

—Homeland security. 

The change in funding levels supporting these core objectives between fiscal year 

2010 and fiscal year 2011 is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Change 

Clean air research ..................................................................................... 102.7 107.3 ∂4.6 

Clean water ................................................................................................ 111 121.1 ∂10.1 

Land protection and restoration ................................................................ 14.1 13.8 ¥0.3 

Human health and ecosystems ................................................................. 246.8 256.2 ∂9.4 

Toxic research and prevention ................................................................... 27.3 27.6 ∂0.3 

Sustainability ............................................................................................. 27.2 25.2 ¥2.0 
189 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Change 

Homeland security ..................................................................................... 65.2 51.3 ¥13.9 

Total .............................................................................................. 594.3 602.5 ∂8.2 

EPA ORD

Through research and technical assistance, ORD provides the scientific foundation 

for EPA by performing research and development to identify and solve present and 

future environmental issues and providing responsive technical support to its scientific partners. The ORD administers programs addressing both foundational research to improve the scientific tools used to understand and evaluate environmental health as well as problem-driven research designed to provide scientific solutions to high-priority environmental problems. It is an invaluable national resource. 

We note that the ORD workforce has declined by more than 10 percent over the 

past several years and now is not sufficient to permit action on various topics of 

national importance. Effort should be made to ‘‘rightsize’’ the ORD staff so that it 

can continue to support R&D on current and future environmental problems. 

We support the increases requested for the EPA’s S&T directorate, which reverses 

several years of funding decreases. An evaluation of EPA’s resources is needed to 

ensure that it can balance between existing priorities and new challenges. Program 

specifics issues are outlined below: 

CLEAN AIR RESEARCH 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Change 

Global change ............................................................................................ 20.8 21.9 ∂1.1 

Clean air .................................................................................................... 102.7 107.3 ∂4.6 

Total .............................................................................................. 123.5 129.2 ∂5.7 

The EPA Task Force views Global Change as a critical issue and is supportive 

of this increase in funding. We urge Congress to appropriate these additional funds 

for Global Change to at least the fiscal year 2011 requested level. The Task Force 

supports the current request for Clean Air and Global Change Research. 

CLEAN WATER RESEARCH 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Change 

Clean water ................................................................................................ 111 121.1 ∂10.1 

Overall, the fiscal year 2011 budget request calls for an increase of about $10 million more than the fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount. This increase will help 

support the long-term development of infrastructure related to water quality issues. 

The Task Force is pleased with the increases for Clean Water Research and urges 

Congress to sustain funding for the Drinking Water and Water Quality programs 

consistent with the fiscal year 2011 request. 

LAND PROTECTION AND RESTORATION 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Change 

Land protection research ........................................................................... 14.1 13.8 ¥0.3 

The $311,000 decrease in land protection and restoration research comes as ecosystem research and sustainability and environmental management are being 

raised. Still, further support would greatly assist this program with studies related 

to the impact of carbon sequestration, something that may be implemented in the 

U.S. This research is expensive but necessary. Therefore, the Task Force rec-
190 

ommends that additional funding for land protection and restoration be appropriated for fiscal year 2011. 

SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Change 

Sustainability ............................................................................................. 27.3 25.3 ¥2 

Funding for Sustainability research is slated for a decrease of almost $2 million 

for this year. The Task Force recommends that funding for sustainability research 

be funded at the previously appropriated levels for fiscal year 2010. 

TOXIC RESEARCH AND PREVENTION 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Change 

Toxic research and prevention ................................................................... 27.3 27.6 ∂0.3 

Funding for Toxic Research and Prevention is slated for an increase of $298,000 

for fiscal year 2011. The Task Force recommends that funding for Toxic Research 

and Prevention be appropriated at requested levels for fiscal year 2011. 

HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Change 

Endocrine disruptors .................................................................................. 11.4 17.4 ∂6.0 

Fellowships ................................................................................................. 11.1 17.3 ∂6.2 

Computational toxicology ........................................................................... 20.0 21.8 ∂1.8 

Total .............................................................................................. 42.5 56.5 ∂14.0 

The Task Force supports the fiscal year 2011 proposed budget for ecosystems research, which will foster new technologies that minimize future environmental damage. The Task Force is also very pleased to see such a bold increase for Fellowships. 

Although other agencies are receiving increased funding for research to support 

long-term energy reliability and sustainability, such as oil shale, biofuels, and carbon capture and sequestration, EPA has not received funding to assess the ecosystem impacts of these major initiatives. 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Change 

Water sentinel ............................................................................................ 18.5 11.6 ¥6.9 

Decontamination ........................................................................................ 24.8 21.7 ¥3.1 

Total .............................................................................................. 43.3 33.3 ¥10.0 

Homeland security activities are a significant element of EPA’s S&T activities, focusing on critical infrastructure protection and disaster preparedness and response. 

The Task Force plans to review the proposed cuts to insure that the reductions do 

not delay the completion of the program’s objectives. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

The fiscal year 2011 EPA budget requests $17.3 million to support research fellowships, a large increase from the previous fiscal year. The STAR (Science to 

Achieve Results) fellowship program is the only Federal fellowship program designed exclusively for students pursuing advanced degrees in environmental 

sciences and engineering. This is an important investment and the Task Force fully 

supports this program. The Task Force is pleased with the proposed increase. It is 
191 

essential to encourage students to pursue careers in environmental science and engineering. Such investments are critical to addressing environmental concerns, bolstering our Nation’s workforce, and maintaining its competitiveness. 

CONCLUSION

The administration’s fiscal year 2011 request is generally flat overall, while this 

is appropriate within current budget constraints, the Task Force requests that additional funding for the Homeland Security programs be considered and added if necessary to insure security enhancements to our water supply are not delayed nor disrupted. 

The proposed fiscal year 2011 EPA Science and Technology budget includes increases for a number of program areas, specifically Clean Air, and Research Fellowships, and the overall research budget has decreased slightly from last fiscal year’s 

historic highs. This is necessary to preserve EPA’s important contribution in meeting the challenges of our natural resource and policy issues in compliance with its 

regulatory mission. 

This statement represents the views of the EPA Task Force of the Environmental 

Engineering Division of ASME’s Technical Communities and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK

RESERVATION

On behalf of the Fort Peck Tribes, I am pleased to present testimony on the fiscal 

year 2011 BIA and IHS Budget. We are a large, land-based tribe. The Fort Peck 

Reservation encompasses 2.09 million acres of which only 378,000 are tribally 

owned, with another 548,000 held as individual allotments. The Reservation population is growing and our tribal enrollment is nearly 12,000 members. Our greatest 

need is healthcare, public safety and education. The United States must live up to 

its trust responsibilities to the Indian people. With the historic action by Congress 

to extend health insurance to an additional 32 million Americans, we hope that Congress will more closely examine the state of healthcare in Indian country today. The 

health conditions of the Nation’s first Americans are substandard. My recommendations are as follows: 

—Healthcare.—Substantially increase funding for Tribal health programs and facilities construction and maintenance so that we may live with dignity; 

—Public Safety and Education.—Expand Tribal access to Federal public safety 

programs (police, prosecutors, corrections officers, and tribal courts) and the facilities to house them so that we may tackle crime and public safety issues in 

a comprehensive manner. At the same time, expand opportunities for tribal education to give our children a brighter future and hope; 

—Economic Development and Infrastructure.—Economic development and infrastructure are interconnected. Address infrastructure needs on Indian reservations by increasing funding for safe drinking and water projects, road construction and road maintenance so that we may keep our communities safe and 

healthy and promote economic development; 

—Transparency.—Direct the Bureau and IHS to develop their budgets with meaningful consultation with Tribes to reflect local, Tribal priorities, rather than 

Federal. 

The tribes’ unemployment rate on the reservation is 57 percent (latest BIA Labor 

Force Report, 2005). Of our tribal members who are working, approximately 43 percent live below the poverty level (BIA Labor Force Report, 2005). Given the enormous unemployment and poverty rates on the reservation, our needs for both Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) programs and services 

are substantial. 

The United States must assist tribes address basic governmental services such as 

safe drinking water, safe streets and communities, and healthcare. More than 20 

years ago, an earlier Congress noted that when there is community stability—with 

core governmental services being met—‘‘Indian tribes are in the best position to implement economic development plans, taking into account the available natural resources, labor force, financial resources and markets.’’ If the Federal Government 

could provide greater assistance to us with these core governmental services, our 

members would be so much better off. Here are a few of our key funding requests 

which we ask the Congress and the administration to support. I will address the 

IHS budget first, then the BIA budget. 
192 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

Indian country continues to suffer higher rates of infant mortality, teenage suicide, accident, alcoholism, diabetes, and heart disease when compared with other 

minorities and the general American population. Yet money directed to healthcare, 

especially preventative care—such as routine checkups and health education that 

clearly improves the quality of life and helps avoid more expensive healthcare costs 

in the future—has not been provided to Tribal communities. The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to provide healthcare to Native Americans, an obligation that was paid for by the Native people of this county with millions of acres 

of land, resources, and our traditional way of life. 

Facilities Construction and Dialysis Center.—There is a desperate need for fully 

staffed and equipped health facilities capable of providing a full range of medical 

services. The IHS needs to evaluate and plan the process for new in-patient facilities in Montana, including the urgent expansion of the Fort Peck Tribal Dialysis 

Unit to 18 stations (from 10) or construction of a new dialysis unit. We are now at 

capacity, serving 33 patients 6 days a week, including non-Indian patients. If we 

cannot expand our services, these patients will have to travel long distances for this 

life-sustaining care. 

Contract Health.—We recognize the significance of the requested $84 million increase in Contract Health Care but this increase is inadequate to address the growing healthcare crisis in Indian country. The Fort Peck Tribes alone need a near doubling of our inadequate Contract Health Care budget—to $11 million—to meet the 

growing health demands of our more than 11,000 tribal members. Far too many 

members are not referred out for Contract Health Care Services that their primary 

healthcare professionals determine are medically necessary because we are at level 

12. Members are told that no funds are available for Contract Health Services medical services. Patients requiring surgeries are mostly given prescriptions for pain instead of receiving Contract Health Services, which can lead to dire consequences. 

I would like to provide an example of the danger of underfunding Contract Health 

Care. It involves our Vice-Chair, Roxann Bighorn. She suffered an injury to her 

knee from a fall. After several weeks her knee did not heal. She sought a referral 

from the IHS to obtain an MRI. Instead the IHS Clinic provided her a prescription 

for the pain and one for the inflammation. After several weeks on these medications, 

her kidneys began to falter and she was on the verge of kidney failure. One would 

think that after all of this she would have risen to the level of care to repair her 

knee. Unfortunately, that is not the case. This is unacceptable, yet it is typical in 

Indian country. Please ensure that Contract Health resources are increased in the 

fiscal year 2011 budget. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System.—The health status of a community is directly related to the quality of water available, which is why the Fort Peck 

Tribes took the lead in building the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System, a 

system that will provide quality drinking water to the reservation and surrounding 

communities. However, we need increased funding for the operation, maintenance 

and replacement (OM&R) costs associated with the System. For nearly 2 years, we 

informed the BIA that our OM&R costs would rise as our water treatment plant 

came on line. We request $636,000 for fiscal year 2011, a $436,000 increase above 

the President’s request. 

Congress enacted the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000, 

Public Law 106–382, to ensure safe and adequate municipal, rural and industrial 

water supply to all of the residents of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The law 

directs that funding for the operation and maintenance of the water system is to 

be fully paid for by the BIA. The Tribes and the Bureau of Reclamation have completed construction of many components of this project, including the raw water intake facility and will soon complete the water treatment facility. This means that 

in fiscal year 2011 this Project will be delivering water to the largest towns on the 

Reservation. This will require additional training and oversight. Unfortunately, 

OM&R funding has not kept pace with our progress. We need an additional 

$436,000 above the President’s budgeted amount of $200,000 to ensure that we can 

carry-out the additional certification training and oversight, security for the intake 

and sludge lagoon and water treatment plant operation. We have provided detailed 

budgets and budget narratives to the BIA explaining our OM&R program needs. 

The BIA has not adjusted our OM&R funding level to reflect our growing needs. 

Funding for Law Enforcement and Tribal Court Programs.—The need for increased law enforcement and Tribal Courts remains a priority for the Fort Peck 

Tribes. We greatly appreciate the increases Congress provided last year for public 
193 

safety programs. These increases, however, are insufficient to fulfill the United 

States’ basic trust responsibility in the areas of health and safety. Our reservation 

needs more officers and the resources they require to patrol a large land base. This 

must be matched with additional resources for tribal courts. Congress should ensure 

that the $20 million proposed increase in law enforcement funding for fiscal year 

2011 translates into more officers on the Fort Peck Reservation. More officers mean 

more detentions so our tribes must have increased funding for tribal court personnel. 

The Fort Peck Tribes’ Public Safety Department currently has 22 sworn public 

safety officers, less than half the number needed to provide adequate coverage for 

our large reservation. These officers cannot adequately patrol a 2 million-acre reservation with a population of more than 11,000 and a high incidence of substance 

abuse and violent crimes. A survey of current officers has shown that they will not 

continue to work for the tribes under conditions where they must patrol alone, respond to calls without backup, and work longer hours for the same or less pay. I 

hope that Congress will provide adequate resources so that Indian communities, especially rural communities like Fort Peck, can recruit and retain public safety officers. 

An independent ‘‘Gap Analysis’’ study prepared in 2006 for the BIA’s Office of 

Law Enforcement Services confirms the glaring shortage of law enforcement officers 

in Indian country. The BIA’s Office of Law Enforcement Services divides Indian 

country into six Districts. Montana is located in District 5. In 2006, District 5 had 

87 law enforcement officers, including criminal investigators and telecommunication 

operators. To reach the recommended level of 3.3 law enforcement officers per 1,000 

population, District 5 would need to increase its law enforcement personnel by 135 

to reach 222 law enforcement officers. Of this amount, 111 or 50 percent would be 

police officers. Unlike far less violent non-Indian communities, which have on average 2.9 officers to every 1,000 inhabitants, Indian country averages about 1.3 officers for every 1,000 inhabitants. The Gap Analysis revealed that BIA District 5 is 

at 39 percent capacity for law enforcement. That is one of the primary reasons our 

crime statistics are so high. 

On the seven reservations in Montana for the 2-year period of 2004–05 (the period 

for which we have the most complete data), there were 10 murders, 62 forcible 

rapes, 1,147 aggravated assaults and 529 burglaries. In 2007, the Tribes’ Public 

Safety Department was responsible for addressing 3,956 offenses committed on the 

Fort Peck Reservation, including 595 violent or serious offenses and 1,004 juvenile 

offenses. During fiscal year 2009, the Court processed 3,247 criminal cases; 1,512 

delinquency/status offenses, 535 civil actions, and 757 family court cases. Indian 

Country needs more resources in every area of law enforcement from police staffing, 

tribal courts, detention, and equipment. The Tribes already subsidize the tribal 

courts budget at the level of 73 percent. 

I would be remiss if I did not also call for increased funding for detention facilities, for both operations and construction. The Fort Peck Tribes received a $1 million stimulus grant from the Department of Justice to rebuild our detention facilities. We are excited about this and are now in the process of implementing this 

grant. However, this new facility will require additional staffing and maintenance 

funding to ensure that the new facility is properly maintained. By industry standards we will need to double our detention personnel. 

Education.—As President Obama has stated, education is the key to lift people 

out of poverty and put them on the road to success. But we must have healthy communities to raise our children in and they must be given the resources to overcome 

the ills of poverty. We need the resources to address our high drop out rates and 

poor school attendance. There are too few educational, recreational, and constructive 

social outlets available to our tribal youth. Without addressing these funding shortfalls we will continue to experience unacceptable levels of juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, suicide and violence. 

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to present the views of the Fort Peck 

Tribes. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CONSERVANCY

Dear Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee: In behalf of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC), for reasons described below, I am requesting a fiscal year 2011 appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

in the amount of $1,505,000 for the National Park Service (NPS) and $13,899,000 

for the USDA Forest Service (USFS) for the acquisition of lands and interests in 

lands surrounding or bordering the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST) in 
194 

the States of Vermont, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and 

Georgia. 

Background.—The Appalachian Trail (AT) is America’s premier long-distance 

footpath. Initially established between 1923 and 1937 as a continuous footpath extending from western Maine to northern Georgia, the trail gained Federal recognition in 1968 with the passage of the National Trails System Act. Amendments to 

that act in 1978 expanded the authorization for Federal and State land acquisition 

to establish a permanent, publicly owned right-of-way as well as a protective corridor or ‘‘greenway’’ along the trail. Since 1978, with the strong support of the subcommittee and the Congress as a whole, the ANST land-acquisition program of the 

NPS and USFS has become one of the most successful land-conservation efforts in 

the Nation’s history with the acquisition of more than 189,000 acres, more than 

3,370 parcels, in 14 States. Today, only approximately 7 miles of the 2,179-mile AT 

remain to be protected through public ownership. 

Resource Characteristics.—The AT is a 2,179-mile footpath extending along the 

crests and valleys of the Appalachian Mountains through 14 States from Maine to 

Georgia. Often characterized as a ‘‘string of pearls,’’ the trail, which is considered 

a unit of the National Park System, connects eight National Forests, six other units 

of the National Park System, and approximately 60 State parks, forests, and gamemanagement units. With an estimated 2 to 3 million visitors per year, it ranks 

among the most heavily visited units of the National Park System and also ranks 

among the top 10 units from the standpoint of natural diversity with more than 

2,200 documented occurrences of federally and State-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species at more than 500 discrete sites. 

The AT is equally well known as a remarkable public/private partnership. Since 

the initial construction of the trail in the 1920s and 1930s, volunteers affiliated with 

the ATC have constructed, reconstructed, and maintained the footpath as well as 

a system of more than 250 shelters and associated facilities such as privies, improved campsites, bridges, signs, and parking lots. In 2009, for example, more than 

6,800 volunteers contributed more than 220,500 hours of labor along the trail. As 

an outgrowth of an agreement between the NPS and ATC, ATC has accepted management responsibility for most lands acquired by that agency along the trail. ATC, 

through its network of 30 club affiliates, is now responsible for virtually all phases 

of ‘‘park’’ operations, ranging from trail and facility maintenance and construction 

to land and resources management to visitor education and services. ATC also provides ongoing, volunteer-based stewardship for other trail lands, totaling more than 

250,000 acres. 

Need for Appropriations.—As noted previously, while the ANST protection program represents one of the most successful land-acquisition programs in the history 

of the conservation movement in the United States, that program is not yet complete. Although our hope had been to complete the program by the year 2000, escalating land values coupled with diminished administrative capacity in the affected 

agencies have conspired to delay full program completion. Nevertheless, a number 

of critical parcels are now ‘‘ripe’’ for land acquisition from willing sellers and we are 

seeking fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriations to secure those properties. A brief description of each of those critical parcels follows. 

Chateauguay: No Town Project, Vermont.—This project involves four parcels, totaling 1,000 acres, in the towns of Barnard and Bridgewater, Vermont, to be acquired in fee-simple and an additional 81.39-acre parcel in Pomfret, Vermont, to be 

placed under a conservation easement. Negotiations have been spearheaded for several years by The Conservation Fund, which also has secured a pledge for a significant private contribution toward the project. The four properties straddle more than 

11⁄2 miles of the AT in an area where earlier acquisitions by the NPS provided only 

a narrow buffer for the footpath. They include a high-value wetland complex and 

feeding habitat for migratory birds, black bears, and moose as well as the headwaters of the Locust Creek watershed, a Vermont Class A stream. The fifth, easement parcel is situated on a hillside adjacent to and above the trail in the Town 

of Pomfret that is under threat of residential subdivision. A partial appropriation 

for this project was included in the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. ATC and The Conservation Fund are requesting 

second-installment funding for this project: an fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation 

of $1.25 million for the NPS. 

Hauser Tract, Pennsylvania.—This project affects a 172-acre farm property in 

Carbon County, Pennsylvania, situated on the north slope of Kittatinny Ridge adjacent to the AT. The property also borders Pennsylvania Game Commission lands, 

the Lehigh Gap Nature Center, and a Pennsylvania Turnpike tunnel. It also includes the State’s largest native grassland habitat and is highly sought after by the 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PA–DCNR) as 
195 

part of its Pocono Forest and Waters Conservation Landscape Initiative. We are requesting an fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation of $255,000 for the NPS to acquire 

this parcel. 

Dismal Creek, Virginia/Jefferson National Forest.—ATC and the USFS are seeking to acquire in fee-simple this 89-acre farm property consisting of two parcels adjacent to Forest Service Road 201. The two parcels are proximate to the AT and are 

located within a special biological area encompassing a number of rare plants, such 

as the Yellow Sedge. Dismal Creek also flows through the properties and conservation of the two properties is considered important for assuring stream-water quality 

as well as the quality of the associated trout fishery. ATC is requesting an fiscal 

year 2011 LWCF appropriation of $190,000 for acquisition of the two properties by 

the USFS. 

Rocky Fork, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.—In mid-December, 2008, the 

USFS acquired approximately 2,200 acres of this 10,000-acre property in eastern 

Tennessee situated midway between Johnson City and Asheville, North Carolina, 

and adjacent to Interstate 26. The Conservation Fund provided bridge funding to 

acquire the balance of the property in anticipation of future sale to the USFS and 

the State of Tennessee. The property includes many game and non-game wildlife 

values, including 16 miles of ‘‘blue-ribbon’’ trout streams and outstanding black 

bear, white-tailed deer, and wild turkey habitat. The property also includes 1.2 

miles of the ANST and its acquisition will permit future construction of a 3-mile 

relocation to provide a much-improved alignment for the footpath. Total costs for the 

acquisition were approximately $43 million and ATC is working closely with TCF, 

the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy (SAHC), and a number of other 

conservation and sportsmen organizations to complete the overall funding package 

for the project. ATC and The Conservation Fund are requesting an fiscal year 2011 

LWCF appropriation of $11 million for the USFS which will permit the USFS to 

acquire the remaining approximately 2,750 acres of the property. 

Rich Mountain, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.—This 100-acre privately 

owned in-holding is situated in the northwest corner of the Rocky Fork property (see 

above) and unfortunately was carved out by New Forestry, LLC—the previous owners of the Rocky Fork property—at the time the remainder of the property was sold 

to the USFS and The Conservation Fund. It includes the highest point of land for 

the overall property as well as prominent cliffs locally known as Buzzard Rock. The 

cliffs are only a short distance from the AT through a high elevation health bald. 

The property provides sweeping views of the Sampson Mountain Wilderness and 

northeast Tennessee/southwest Virginia. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2011 

LWCF appropriation of $1,000,000 for the USFS to acquire this critical in-holding. 

Shook Branch, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.—This 20-acre property is situated in eastern Tennessee in the Cherokee National Forest. The AT currently follows a dangerous road-walk and crosses US 321 at a location with limited site distances to on-coming traffic. A proposed new route has been identified and a number 

of parcels have been acquired by the USFS to establish the route. The Shook Branch 

property is necessary in order to complete the proposed relocation. The current property owner has expressed a willingness to sell the property. ATC is requesting a fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation of $829,000 for the USFS to acquire the property 

at appraised value. 

Wesser Bald, North Carolina/Nantahala National Forest.—This property is situated in western North Carolina in the Nantahala National Forest. The AT passes 

within 200 feet of the property and affords a number of outstanding scenic views 

at several locations along the northern portion of the property and from a viewing 

platform atop the Wesser Bald fire tower with 360-degree views encompassing the 

Great Smoky Mountains skyline, the Nantahala Mountains, and northern Georgia. 

The property was acquired in fee in several phases by the SAHC with the aid of 

a bridge loan from The Conservation Fund. The requested fiscal year 2011 appropriation will be used to repurchase a 20-acre portion of the property at a bargainsale price with ownership transferred to the USFS. SAHC also has secured a conservation easement affecting an additional 41 acres of the property. The total value 

of the fee and easement interests is approximately $450,000. ATC is requesting an 

fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation in the amount of $180,000 for the USFS. 

Blood Mountain, Georgia/Chattahoochee National Forest.—ATC and the USFS 

have sought for decades to extinguish an outstanding road right-of-way through this 

22.9-acre in-holding within the Blood Mountain Wilderness Area that also crosses 

the Appalachian Trail. The property is within the viewshed from the summit rock 

outcroppings of Blood Mountain—one of the most heavily visited trail segments in 

the southern national forests (Region 8). The ATC local affiliate, the Georgia Appalachian Trail Club, is proposing to contribute $100,000 toward the overall costs of 
196 

this acquisition. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation of 

$700,000 for the USFS to acquire the property. 

With the acquisition of the above-described properties, ATC hopes to complete a 

substantial portion of the remaining land-acquisition needs in the ANST program. 

Again, we respectfully request an fiscal year 2011 LWCF appropriation of $1.505 

million for the NPS and $13.899 million for the USFS. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF APS FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT; AURORA WATER; CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT; COLORADO RIVER ENERGY

DISTRIBUTERS ASSOCIATION; COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT; 

COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITITES; COLORADO WATER CONGRESS; DENVER WATER; 

DOLORES WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT; GRAND VALLEY WATER USERS ASSOCIATION; JICARILLA APACHE NATION; NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY

DISTRICT; ORCHARD MESA IRRIGATION DISTRICT; PNM RESOURCES, INC.; SAN JUAN

WATER COMMISSION; SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE; THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

AND WESTERN RESOURCES ADVOCATES; TRI COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT; UNCOMAHGRE VALLEY WATERS USERS ASSOCIATION; UTAH WATER USES ASSOCIATION; AND WYOMING WATER ASSOCIATION

Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am requesting your support 

for appropriations in fiscal year 2011 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River 

Basin Recovery Implementation Program, consistent with the President’s recommended budget. 

Appropriation of $709,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds to FWS to allow FWS to continue 

its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program. 

Appropriation of $485,000 in operation and maintenance funds within the $50, 

271,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery Operations’’ to support the ongoing 

operation of the FWS Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah. 

Allocation of $200,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery 

Implementation Program to meet FWS Region 2 expenses in managing the San 

Juan Program’s diverse recovery actions. 

We greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s past support and request your assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation 

in these vitally important programs. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN M. FRACHINI, 

Site Manager. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) respectfully requests that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriate a total of $88.3 million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) including 

an additional $45 million to increase and expand activities of the Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), $26.2 million for special agents, $3.1 million for ports of entry, and 

$5 million for the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, 

and $9 million to explore the potentially devastating effects of White Nose Syndrome (WNS) on bats. The administration’s fiscal year 2011 proposed budget falls 

far short of providing the funds needed by agencies within the Department of the 

Interior to protect, preserve, recover and manage America’s wildlife, including 

threatened and endangered species, as required by law and by their public trust obligations to the American people. AWI also asks Congress to include language to 

preserve and protect wild horses. 

OLE.—The administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposes a decrease in funding to one of the most important lines of defense for America’s wildlife, the FWS 

OLE. Even those who may not concern themselves with wildlife are reaping benefits 

as OLE protects against smuggling illegal substances from invasive species to contraband and even helps to thwart potentially devastating human health threats. 

Still, each year, OLE is increasingly underfunded and understaffed, placing the public at greater danger unnecessarily. AWI requests an additional $45 million be allocated to the FWS to increase and expand the activities of OLE in its critical role 

combating wildlife crime. Currently, OLE is tasked with enforcing and implementing more than a dozen Federal wildlife and conservation laws that frequently 

impact both domestic and global security. 
197 

1Law Enforcement at a Glance. Office of Law Enforcement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

January 2010. 

It is disheartening that the new budget proposals have chosen to decrease funding 

to such an imperative office and its programs in the wake of success. Year after 

year, OLE protects the public against the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products, which is third only to the illicit trade in narcotics and weapons in terms of 

revenue generated globally, and despite the fact that the United States remains a 

source of or destination for much of this contraband. Congress must act rapidly to 

make available those funds that are crucial to OLE, its programs, and the safety 

of the American public. 

FWS Special Agents.—Staff tasked with enforcement of U.S. wildlife laws risk 

their lives in an effort to protect our Nation’s wildlife. In fiscal year 2009, FWS 

agents pursued more than 13,097 investigations resulting in more than $6.1 million 

in fines, 39.9 years of jail time for the perpetrators, and 512.3 years of probation.1

FWS cases documented illegal trafficking in U.S. leopard sharks, coral reef organisms, live reptiles, and paddlefish. On the global front, FWS agents, together with 

the Royal Thai Police, broke up an illegal ivory trading ring, spanning three continents. The case, to date, has secured the U.S. indictment of two individuals and 

four criminal arrests in Thailand, as well as seizures of elephant tusks and carved 

ivory in both countries. If convicted on the 23-plus indictments, prison terms for 

both defendants in the United States could collectively total 78 years. This impressive record merits advancement and proper funding. FWS Special Agents have proven time and time again their work deserves funding levels beyond the administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposal, to aid in the reduction of illegal trade in 

wildlife and wildlife products, which continues to imperil wildlife species in the 

United States and around the world. 

Currently, there are only 190 FWS agents responsible for the enforcement of Federal wildlife laws throughout the entire United States. This number is 11 fewer 

than in fiscal year 2009, which was 9 fewer than existed in fiscal year 2008. There 

are 71 agent vacancies. AWI respectfully requests an additional $14.2 million to fill 

these 71 agent vacancies and an additional $12 million to ensure sufficient operational funds for existing agents and for those hired in the future. 

Port Inspectors.—Keeping our ports and boarders secure remains America’s single 

best opportunity to prevent potential attacks. Whether intercepting bioterrorism 

agents or uncovering security threats, FWS Port Security, along with U.S. Coast 

Guard, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies involved, holds the 

daunting task of keeping our Nation safe. The noble individuals employed by these 

agencies are charged with precluding a wide variety of potentially disastrous 

threats, including: minimizing illegal contraband shipments, often transported in 

body cavities of vicious species; uncovering smuggled goods and illegal trade rings 

at the border, which include products of severely endangered species; and thwarting 

national and global health risks by shielding the American public from the disease 

and safety risks associated with importing non-native species (e.g. avian flu, Newcastle’s disease, and foot and mouth disease). 

The current lack of sufficient operational funds for the FWS port inspection program weakens FWS efforts to promote the conservation of species of international 

concern, to protect all natural resources, and to sustain biological processes. Most 

recently, FWS port agents, together with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, uncovered shipments originating from the Virgin Islands containing protected black coral (CITES Appendix II). Black coral when removed, threatens the 

marine ecosystem and damages the habitats of several species. This case resulted 

in the arrest and conviction of two Taiwanese nationals on nine counts of conspiracy, including conspiracy, false statements, and violations of both the Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act. It is critical that these programs remain fully 

funded to protect domestic and international wildlife, and to ensure our Nation’s 

safety through hiring and training staff at each designated U.S. ports of entry. AWI 

requests an additional $3.1 million for the ports of entry. 

The Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory.—The successful outcomes stated previously would not have been possible without the essential work of the FWS forensic laboratory, used by FWS agents and inspectors to 

gather hard evidence in wildlife crime cases. The lab uses state-of-the-art science, 

along with years of institutional knowledge, to identify wildlife products by species, 

determine the cause of death, and make other findings critical to a successful legal 

case. All such findings must adhere to exacting evidentiary standards to be used in 

court, thus increasing the cost of testing each sample. The lab and its personnel 

have worked diligently over the past year to nearly clear a 7-month computer case 
198 

backlog but remain challenged in tackling the 4- to 8-month hard case backlog. The 

Bavin Laboratory desperately needs to hire and train essential staff to help alleviate 

some of the backlog, which has delayed investigations and potential prosecutions by 

FWS investigators, inspectors, and Federal prosecutors. 

All 50 States and the 175 Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) member countries depend on this facility to prosecute their wildlife 

crimes; however, this partnership is jeopardized by the lab’s inability to churn out 

timely results. To reduce both staffing shortages and existing analytical workload 

and backlog, $5 million is requested for the lab, including $1 million to fill the eight 

essential vacancies. A timely hire is crucial to train second generation forensic morphologists prior to the departure of current staff. Such funds would also allow for 

the construction of a new building to house the lab’s comparison standards collection 

($3.5 million). 

Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act.—The wild horse is as much a symbol 

of American heritage as the image of Uncle Sam and baseball. Currently, these wild 

horses are at risk of mistreatment by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

which misuses most of its budget to round up and warehouse wild horses and burros 

to make room for privately owned cattle. Wild horses have been removed from more 

than 19 million of the 52 million acres allocated to them by Congress. Since 2004, 

wild horses have been at risk of being sold to killer-buyers who make a profit by 

sending horses to slaughter for human consumption. More than 35 years ago, Congress acted on behalf of these wild animals to protect their natural habitat and lifestyle. It is now time for Congress to act again to ensure these animals are neither 

sent into long-term holding facilities nor sentenced to slaughter. AWI requests that 

this ‘‘no-kill’’ language be maintained to ensure the BLM does not kill healthy wild 

horses and burros: 

‘‘Provided, that appropriations herein made shall not be available for the sale or 

destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau 

or its contractors.’’ 

WNS in Bats.—Last year, there were dire reports that as many as a 1 million 

hibernating bats throughout the Eastern United States had died over the previous 

3 years—with some hibernacula (caves and mines where bats hibernate) experiencing 95–100 percent mortality—and that the problem was moving to other States. 

The news this year is even worse: WNS has indeed continued its march south and 

west. In February, West Virginia’s Division of Natural Resources announced a WNS 

outbreak in one of the State’s caves, housing 200,000 hibernating bats (including 

5,000 Virginia big-eared bats and 13,000 Indiana bats, both endangered species). 

That same week, wildlife officials in Tennessee reported that two bats from Worley 

Cave in Sullivan County had tested positive for WNS. Hundreds and thousands of 

bats hibernate in 9,600 caves in Tennessee, and biologists fear devastation of the 

endangered Indiana and grey bats. And then in early March, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources reported a likely WNS outbreak in a cave in Allegany 

County. 

This die-off is an unprecedented animal welfare, environmental, and economic disaster. Bats play a crucial role in the ecosystem, including pollinating crops and consuming insects that pose a threat to human health and agriculture. The million bats 

that have been lost could have consumed as many as 649,000 tons of insects each 

year. A consensus statement issued in May 2009 by a group of scientists and wildlife managers working on this problem calls WNS ‘‘the most precipitous decline of 

North American wildlife in recorded history,’’ and they fear it could wipe out some 

endangered bat species and cause others to be listed. A fungus, called WNS for the 

white patches that appear on the bats’ noses and elsewhere, seems to be the culprit, 

and scientists are working furiously to prevent its spread and find a cause and a 

treatment. Additional funds are needed to enable them to get this disease under 

control and avert an even bigger ecological and financial catastrophe later. 

We respectfully ask Congress to do the following: (1) support the $4 million increase the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requested for Declining Species; (2) approve the 2 additional FTEs FWS requested, which we understand are to be the 

WNS coordinators for regions 3 and 4; (3) Support the $3 million increase the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) requested for science support for FWS and National Park 

Service priority research, monitoring, and technical assistance needs; (4) Support 

the $600,000 increase USGS requested for wildlife: terrestrial and endangered resources; and (5) Include an additional $5 million in FWS’ Endangered Species: Recovery of Listed Species programming funds. 

We are grateful that Congress provided the FWS with an additional $1.9 million 

in fiscal year 2010 for WNS research and monitoring activities, but as recent developments show, the spread of WNS is outpacing efforts to control it. With an addi-
199 

tional $5 million in its endangered species recovery program, the FWS will be able 

to offer another year of WNS research grants targeting disease transmission and 

spread, control and treatment, bat genetics, and population modeling—critical to our 

understanding of this disease. Funding will be available to support development and 

implementation of Federal and State WNS response plans, baseline data collection, 

WNS surveillance and monitoring, and related tasks, as well as public outreach. 

Without sufficient resources to accelerate these efforts, WNS will continue its relentless assault, potentially devastating the majority of our Nation’s bat species. 

LETTER FROM THE BIRD CONSERVATION ALLIANCE

MAY 14, 2010. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

Chairman, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Ranking Member, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN FEINSTEIN AND RANKING MEMBER ALEXANDER: On behalf of the 

undersigned Bird Conservation Alliance members, we want to thank you Chairman 

Moran and Ranking Member Simpson for this opportunity to speak to you and the 

members of this subcommittee about the need to increase funding to Federal bird 

conservation programs that have proven effective. The Bird Conservation Alliance 

(BCA) is a network of bird conservation organizations, scientific societies, environmental groups, and birding clubs working together to conserve wild birds. Funding 

for these programs is crucial for restoring and maintaining healthy and abundant 

bird populations throughout the United States. For many of these programs, the 

need is far greater than the levels that we are advocating for. 

For the purposes of this letter, we will focus on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) grants program 

and the Joint Ventures (JV) program. The BCA requests NMBCA be funded at $6.5 

million ($1.5 million above fiscal year 2010’s level) and JVs be funded at $18 million 

($4 million above fiscal year 2010’s level) to allow them to meet their increased responsibilities. An increase in funding for these programs would benefit the songbirds that are soon to arrive in the backyards and birdfeeders of millions of anxiously awaiting Americans. 

America is blessed with a spectacular abundance and rich diversity of birds, with 

more than 800 species inhabiting the mainland, Hawaii, and surrounding oceans. 

Currently 75 million Americans engage in bird watching generating over $45 billion 

to our economy every year. Unfortunately, we found out in last year’s FWS 

groundbreaking State of the Birds Report that many of our bird species are in decline and some are threatened with extinction. The 2010 State of the Birds finds 

that most U.S. bird species will be imperiled by climate change, including common 

birds that are currently not of conservation concern. 

NMBCA 

To address two of the primary causes for the decline of bird species; habitat loss 

and degradation, both of which are rapidly increasing south of our border—the BCA 

respectfully suggests that Congress act to help mitigate their impact by improving 

the appropriations level for the NMBCA grants program. As the subcommittee 

knows, the NMBCA supports partnership programs in the United States, Canada, 

Latin America, and the Caribbean to conserve migratory birds, especially on their 

wintering grounds where birds of nearly 350 species, including some of the most endangered birds in North America, spend their winters. Projects include activities 

that benefit bird populations such as habitat restoration, research and monitoring, 

law enforcement, and outreach and education. 

From 2002–2008, grant money has gone out to 44 U.S. States and 34 countries, 

funding 260 projects, impacting almost 3 million acres of critical bird habitat. More 

than $250 million in Federal appropriated dollars have leveraged more than $116 

million in partner contributions. However, demand for funding of high-quality conservation projects far outstrips current appropriations, and in 2008, 63 projects requesting nearly $10,000,000 were not funded. From these numbers, it is clear that 

conservation that would benefit our migrant songbirds is not able to take place due 

to a lack of funding for this program. 
200 

JVs 

JVs also exemplify a highly successful, cost-effective approach to conservation and 

are now being looked to as model for the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. By 

applying science and bringing diverse constituents together, JVs across the United 

States have created a model for solving wildlife management problems and restoring 

habitats critical to conserving declining species. Nationally, JVs have protected, restored, or enhanced more than 13 million acres of important habitat for migratory 

bird species. There are currently 21 JVs in the United States that provide coordination for conservation planning and implementation of projects that benefit all migratory bird populations and other species. 

JVs have a long history of success in implementing bird conservation initiatives 

mandated by Congress and by international treaties. Projects are developed at the 

local level and implemented through diverse public/private partnerships. These 

projects reflect local values and needs, while addressing regional and national conservation priorities. The projects benefit not only birds, but many wildlife species, 

and have a positive impact on the health of watersheds and local economies. 

Every $1 invested in JVs leverages more than $44 in non-Federal partner funds 

(1999–2004) for on-the-ground habitat conservation and restoration projects, biological planning, and outreach. Additional dollars would help JVs strengthen the public/ 

private partnerships that leverage increasingly scarce public funds for on-theground habitat restoration and acquisition projects; continue to incorporate recent 

scientific advances in the development of landscape-conservation plans; and build 

capacity within the newer JVs, while maintaining expertise within established ones. 

BCA strongly believes increased funding for NMBCA and JVs is essential to 

achieving conservation goals critical to our environment and economy. Just as importantly, these Federal programs are good values for taxpayers, leveraging more 

than $4 and $44, respectively, in partner contributions for every $1 that we spend. 

DARIN SCHROEDER, 

Vice President of Conservation Advocacy, American Bird Conservancy. 

JOHN FAABORG, 

American Ornithologists Union. 

ELLIE COHEN, 

President and CEO, PRBO Conservation Science. 

DAN SILVER, 

Executive Director, Endangered Habitats League. 

THOMAS PARCHMAN, 

President, Audubon Society of Greater Denver. 

MILAN G. BULL, 

Senior Director of Science and Conservation, Connecticut Audubon Society. 

BILL STEWART, 

Conservation Chair, Delmarva Ornithological Society. 

LISA SORENSON, PH.D., 

President, Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds. 

CHARLES H. TROST, PH.D., 

Field Trip Chair and Board Member, Portneuf Valley Audubon Society. 

DONNIE DANN, 

Advocacy Chair and Past President, Bird Conservation Network. 

MARCIA T. FOWLE, 

Bird-Safe Glass Foundation, New York City Audubon. 

DIANA VAN BUREN, 

President & Program Chair, North Fork Audubon Society. 

W. HARDY ESHBAUGH, 

President, Audubon Miami Valley. 

TOM ROMITO, 

President, Western Cuyahoga Audubon Society. 

STEVE SHERROD, 

Sutton Avian Research Center. 

ANI KAME’ENUI, 

Oregon Wild. 

DAVID HARRISON, MD, 

Conservation Chair, Salem Audubon Society. 
201 

LAURIE GOODRICH, 

Senior Biologist, Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association. 

BILL HILTON, JR., 

Executive Director, Hilton Pond Center for Piedmont Natural History. 

DR. JOHN W. FITZPATRICK, 

Director, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. 

RODNEY SIEGEL, 

Executive Director, The Institute for Bird Populations. 

CATHERINE RICH, 

Executive Officer, The Urban Wildlands Group. 

KURT R. SCHWARZ, 

Conservation Chair, Maryland Ornithological Society. 

TIM RICHARDSON, 

Wildlife Forever & American Land Conservancy. 

KAY CHARTER, 

Executive Director, Saving Birds Thru Habitat. 

GIL RANDELL, 

Chairman, Hawk Migration Association of North America. 

DAVID GOVATSKI, 

Chairman, Friends of Pondicherry NWR. 

ELIZABETH HURST-WAITZ, 

Chapter President, Central New Mexico Audubon Society. 

JANE ALEXANDER, 

Board member, American Birding Association, 

Advisory Board member, American Bird Conservancy. 

ALAN WEEDEN, 

Trustee, Weeden Foundation. 

RON MARTIN, 

North Dakota Birding Society. 

DICK PRESTON, 

President, Tennessee Ornithological Society. 

LEAH PUMMILL, 

President, Audubon Outdoor Club of Corpus Christi, TX. 

WALLACE ELTON, 

Ascutney Mountain Audubon Society. 

BRUCE JOHNSON, 

President, Audubon Society of Northern Virginia Virginia. 

STEPHEN ECCLES, 

Chair, Conservation Committee, Virginia Society of Ornithology. 

PAUL HUNTER, 

Secretary, Milwaukee Olmsted Bird Conservation, Alliance of Wisconsin. 

ANN SHAHID, 

Important Bird Areas Coordinator, Audubon South Carolina. 

LETTER FROM THE BIRD CONSERVATION FUNDING COALITION

APRIL 19, 2010. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, 

Washington, DC. 

CHAIRMAN FEINSTEIN AND RANKING MEMBER ALEXANDER: The Bird Conservation 

Funding Coalition (BCFC) consists of national organizations that jointly advocate 

for Federal funding to advance bird conservation. Birds are not only beautiful and 

interesting creatures eagerly welcomed by millions of Americans into their backyard 

every year; bird watching is also a big business. According to a report released by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), birdwatchers contributed $36 billion to 

the U.S. economy in 2006, the most recent year for which economic data are available. The report, ‘‘Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Anal-
202 

ysis,’’ shows that total participation in bird watching is strong at 48 million and has 

remained steady since 1996. Birds also naturally provide billions of dollars worth 

of pest control each year, benefiting farmers and consumers alike. 

We ask that you once again provide funding to programs we believe are crucial 

for maintaining healthy and abundant bird populations throughout the United 

States. For many of these programs, the need is far greater than the recommended 

levels. However, we recognize our Nation’s severe fiscal constraints and are thereby 

requesting a modest increase for this coming fiscal year. These programs are: 

NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT (NMBCA) GRANTS PROGRAM

The NMBCA Grants Program supports partnership programs to conserve birds in 

the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean, where approximately 5 billion 

birds representing 341 species spend their winters, including some of the most endangered birds in North America. Between 2002 and 2008, the program supported 

260 projects, coordinated by partners in 44 U.S. States/territories and 34 countries. 

More than $25 million in federal appropriated dollars have leveraged more than 

$116 million in partner contributions. The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee prioritize fiscal year 2011 funding for the NMBCA at $6.5 million, an increase of $1.5 million from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2010. 

JOINT VENTURES (JVS)

JVs exemplify a highly successful and cost-effective approach to the conservation 

of all migratory bird populations. JVs are regionally based partnerships of public 

and private organizations dedicated to the delivery of bird conservation within their 

boundaries. They also have a long history of demonstrated success in implementing 

bird conservation initiatives mandated by Congress and by international treaties. 

For every Federal dollar that was invested in JVs from 1999–2004, more than $44 

in non-Federal partner funds was brought to the table for on-the-ground habitat 

conservation and restoration projects, biological planning, and outreach. The BCFC 

respectfully requests the subcommittee allocate $18 million for fiscal year 2011, an 

increase of $4 million from the appropriated amount in fiscal year 2010. 

SCIENCE AND MONITORING

Science and Monitoring done within the FWS Office of Migratory Bird Management provides invaluable information on the status and trends of bird species necessary for sound management decisions. This scientific information helps to ensure 

that funds are allocated wisely within all other BCFC priorities. The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee provide $35 million for this important program, an 

increase of approximately $4 million from the appropriated amount in fiscal year 

2010. 

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT (NAWCA)

NAWCA provides funding for conservation projects for the benefit of wetland-associated migratory birds in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Unfortunately, 

more than half of the original wetlands in the United States have been lost, contributing to the steady decline of migratory birds. Approximately 4,000 partners 

through 1,943 projects have received more than $1 billion in grants from 1990–2009 

which have contributed another $2.06 billion in matching funds to affect 25.2 million acres of habitat. The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee prioritize 

fiscal year 2011 funding for NAWCA at $52.6 million, an increase of approximately 

$5 million from the level appropriated in fiscal year 2010. 

STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS PROGRAM

The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the Nation’s core program for 

preventing wildlife from becoming endangered and supports strategic conservation 

investments in every State and territory. The conservation actions funded by this 

program puts thousands of Americans to work to remove invasive species, restore 

and protect habitat, reintroduce native wildlife and to work with private landowners 

to improve habitat for at risk birds and wildlife. In order to ensure the states and 

territories can implement needed conservation actions that will retain and create 

thousands of jobs that will save both wildlife and taxpayer dollars, we ask you to 

support the reduction in the non-Federal match requirement from 50 percent to 35 

percent to help financially strapped States. The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee allocates $100 million for fiscal year 2011, an increase of $10 million 

from the level appropriated in fiscal year 2010. 
203 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS WITHIN THE FWS

Wildlife Without Borders (WWB), located within the FWS Division of International Conservation, is a mainstay of bird conservation in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. WWB programs are a foundation for long-term conservation 

efforts because they focus on developing in-country capacity and leverage $4 for 

every Federal dollar appropriated. The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee prioritize fiscal year 2011 funding at $22 million which is an increase of 

$8 million from the level appropriated in fiscal year 2010. 

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS WITHIN THE USDA FOREST SERVICE (USFS)

International Programs within the USFS support an array of extremely effective 

bird conservation projects with a relatively small budget. Among these are restoration of Kirkland’s Warbler with programs in Michigan and the Bahamas, and conservation of breeding habitat in Canada’s Boreal Forest. This modest increase in 

funding would be used to expand and accelerate work on these projects, as well as 

projects benefiting the rapidly declining Cerulean Warbler, declining prairie grasslands birds, declining forest birds such as the Wood Thrush, conservation of 

mangroves and wetlands of Mexico’s Pacific Coast and conservation of habitat for 

migratory hummingbirds in forests of Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee provide $16 million for fiscal year 

2011, an increase of $6.2 million over fiscal year 2010. 

USGS AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY (BBS)

BBS has been providing data crucial for migratory bird conservation planning 

since 1966. Today, the BBS provides the foundation for nongame, land bird conservation in North America with more than 3,200 skilled volunteer participants 

sampling 3,000 routes annually across the continental United States and Southern 

Canada. The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee provide this important 

program with the highest possible level of funding. 

Birds, other wildlife, and their habitats are perhaps the greatest legacy we have 

to leave to our children and subsequent generations. Money that is spent now on 

wildlife programs will be repaid many times over in a cleaner healthier environment 

from which we will all benefit. 

Again, we thank you for your steadfast support of these critically important programs. 

Sincerely, 

DARIN C. SCHROEDER, 

Vice President of Conservation Advocacy, 

American Bird Conservancy. 

RON REGAN, 

Executive Director, 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

MICHAEL DAULTON, 

Senior Director for Government Relations, 

National Audubon Society. 

MICHAEL HUTCHINS, 

Executive Director, 

The Wildlife Society. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL

On behalf of the undersigned organizations and researchers, with more than 4 

million combined supporters, we submit the following testimony requesting an additional $5 million in designated Federal funding to support research and management on white-nose syndrome (WNS) in fiscal year 2011. We also encourage approval of the pending appropriations requests from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This funding is urgently needed 

to understand the cause, transmission, and control of WNS and to reduce the impacts of this devastating wildlife disease. 

WNS is an infectious disease that has already killed more than 1 million bats 

throughout the Eastern United States. The disease is named for a newly described 

fungus that grows on the noses (and sometimes wings, ears, and tails) of affected 

bats. Hibernating bats affected by WNS experience some or all of the following 

symptoms: (1) frequent arousals during hibernation, leading to depleted fat reserves 

and starvation; (2) suppressed immune system; (3) damage or scarring of the wings; 
204 

and (4) abnormal behavior (for example, bats emerge too soon from hibernation and 

are often seen flying around in midwinter, which usually means they will freeze or 

starve to death). 

The unprecedented mortality associated with WNS has caused the most precipitous wildlife decline in the past century in North America, with significant ecological and economic consequences throughout the United States. In the Northeastern 

United States, where WNS was first discovered in 2006, mortality rates of nearly 

100 percent are reported for some bat colonies. Over the past 2 years, this disease 

has spread rapidly beyond the Northeast. This past winter, the WNS-associated fungus has been documented in Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, and Missouri. WNS 

has already killed thousands of endangered Indiana bats and now threatens some 

of the largest hibernating populations of endangered gray bats, Virginia big-eared 

bats, and Ozark big-eared bats. Ultimately, more than half (25 of 46) of bat species 

in the continental United States are at risk. 

Bats play a critical role in maintaining the balance of nature. They are primary 

predators of vast numbers of insects, including pests that annually cost American 

farmers and foresters billions of dollars. Additionally, the droppings of bats that live 

in caves support unique ecosystems, including microorganisms that potentially could 

provide invaluable resources for detoxifying industrial wastes and producing safer 

pesticides and antibiotics. Loss of bats would have serious, potentially irreversible 

consequences, both ecologically and economically. 

In June 2009, bat expert Dr. Thomas Kunz of Boston University presented testimony to Congress that outlined a need for WNS funding in excess of $45 million 

over a 5-year period, with $17 million in the first year. This was developed through 

extensive collaboration among scientists and wildlife managers deeply concerned 

about the consequences of WNS. Congress appropriated $1.9 million for WNS in the 

fiscal year 2010 FWS Recovery of Listed Species program. Of these appropriated 

funds, FWS distributed $1 million to WNS research, $450,000 to State WNS response activities and $450,000 to FWS WNS coordination efforts. 

Since October 2009, when Congress appropriated this funding, the WNS-associated fungus has been found in four additional States (Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, and Missouri) as well the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. WNS 

is now within 100 miles of the crown jewel of the National Park System’s cave 

parks: Mammoth Cave National Park. And it has crossed the Mississippi River into 

the American Midwest (see FIGURE 1). This past winter, at least 36 additional 

United States counties and 8 Canadian counties were infected, and WNS now occurs 

within the range of two additional endangered species (the Virginia big-eared bat 

and gray bat). A cave used by the largest hibernating colony of Virginia big-eared 

bats (in Pendleton County, West Virginia) has been diagnosed with WNS, and we 

expect the largest caves used by gray bats to be impacted within the next year. At 

the current rate of spread, WNS will very likely be within range of the endangered 

Ozark big-eared bat within 1 year. 
205 

FIGURE 1. Map showing the current distribution and predicted spread of WNS 

across the Eastern United States Red areas depict counties where WNS has been 

detected as of May 2010. Blue areas show regions in the United States where major 

hibernating colonies are present. Yellow arrows indicate probable transmission 

routes as the fungal infection spreads across the United States. 

In addition to the significant risk WNS poses to federally listed endangered species, the little brown bat, a relatively common and widespread species in the United 

States, could decline to the point that it warrants listing as threatened or endangered. Already this year, the Center for Biological Diversity has petitioned for endangered species listing of two bat species (Northern long-eared bat and Eastern 

small-footed bat) due to threats posed by WNS and other factors. 

Listing species under the Endangered Species Act is very expensive. According to 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO–06–463R), the average cost for recovery 

of an endangered species is $15.9 million; the highest estimate on record is $125 

million to recover the whooping crane. Bat species affected by WNS have broad geographic distributions and complex life histories, which likely would require even 

higher recovery costs. The economic consequence of additional bat listings would undoubtedly affect operational costs of a number of industries, including defense, energy, mining, timber, agriculture, construction, transportation, tourism/recreation, 

and others. We believe it makes better economic sense to fund WNS research and 

prevention now, rather than bear the cost of endangered species recovery for years 

to come. 

The need for support of research, monitoring and management of WNS is substantial, but we recognize that the current economic climate may not allow for funding 

at previously proposed levels. Nonetheless, the geographic scope and expected ecological and economic consequences of WNS will require a substantial financial response. 

With an additional $5 million in appropriated funds for WNS, resources could be 

available for research grants targeting control and treatment, disease transmission 

and spread, population genetics, and other topics critical to our understanding of 

this devastating disease and how to combat it. Funding could also support muchneeded development and implementation of Federal and State WNS-response plans, 

critical data collection, surveillance and monitoring and program administration. Finally, resources could be available to fund public outreach and communication ef-
206 

forts to disseminate information to constituents of States within the impact zone of 

WNS and those expected to become infected within the next few years. 

Congressional support is critical because other funding sources are extremely limited. State budgets have been drastically reduced and Federal agencies cannot absorb this cost within their existing resources. We strongly urge Congress to approve 

the pending appropriations requests from the FWS and the USGS. A portion of 

these requested funds will provide some support for WNS research, management 

and outreach activities, but the fiscal year 2011 Federal budget requests will not 

be sufficient to address this devastating disease. For this reason, we are requesting 

an additional $5 million in designated funds for WNS. 

Unless additional funding is provided in the fiscal year 2011 budget, WNS will 

continue to spread across the landscape unchecked, killing enormous numbers of 

North American bats. We desperately need designated support for WNS research, 

monitoring, management, and outreach. Without targeted funds, agencies may be 

forced to expend their budgets on internal operating costs, leaving little or nothing 

to truly address the cause and possible cure of WNS. As a result, we may see significant ecological and economic changes that will have a negative impact on America’s 

taxpayers and the U.S. economy, while adding new species to the ranks of endangered and extinct animals. 

We appreciate the opportunity to share our position concerning this serious matter, and respectfully ask you to consider our urgent request. 

Sincerly yours, 

10,000 Birds, NY; Adirondack Council, NY; Allegheny Defense Project, 

PA; Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, WV; 

Appalachian Voices, NC. 

Bat Conservation International, TX; Bat World Sanctuary, TX; Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, WY; Biodiversity Research Institute, ME; 

Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, NY. 

Center for Biological Diversity, AZ; Center for North American Bat Research and Conservation, IN; Connecticut Audubon Society, CT; Conservation Northwest, WA; Defenders of Wildlife, DC. 

Foundation for Deep Ecology, CA; Friends of Blackwater, WV; Global 

Wildlife Conservation, CA; Green Berkshires, MA; Hilton Pond Center for Piedmont. 

Natural History, SC; Maine Organic Farmer’s and Gardener’s Association, ME; Massachusetts Forest Watch, MA; Midwest Bat Working 

Group, IN; National Speleological Society, AL. 

National Cave and Karst Research Institute, NM; Natural Resources Defense Council, NY; New Jersey Audubon Society, NJ; Northeast Organic Farmers Association: Connecticut; Northeast Organic Farmers 

Association: Massachusetts. 

Northeast Organic Farmers Association: New Hampshire; Northeast Organic Farmers Association: New Jersey; Northeast Organic Farmers 

Association: New York; Northeast Organic Farmers Association: 

Rhode Island; Northeast Organic Farmers Association: Vermont. 

North American Symposium for Bat Research; Northeastern Cave Conservancy, NY; Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, OR; 

Organization for Bat Conservation, MI; Predator Defense, OR. 

RESTORE: The North Woods, MA; Save the Cumberland, TN; South 

Carolina Audubon Society, SC; Southeastern Bat Diversity Network, 

MS; Sweet Water Trust, VT. 

The Enviro Show, MA; The Lands Council, WA; The Nature Conservancy, 

Tennessee Chapter, TN; The Northeast Ecological Recovery Society, 

NY; Sierra Club, DC. 

The Wildlife Society, MD; Vermont Law School: Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, VT; Walden’s Puddle Wildlife Rehabilitation and Education Center, TN; Western Bat Working Group, SD; 

Western Watersheds Project, UT. 

Wild Farm Alliance, CA; Wild South, NC; Wildlife Alliance of Maine, ME; 

Wildlife Conservation Society, DC; Women, Food and Agriculture 

Network, IA. 

Hazel Barton, Ph.D., cave biologist, KY; Brad Bergstrom, Ph.D., 

mammalogist, GA; Angie Doerr, Ph.D., ecologist, CA; Winifred Frick, 

Ph.D., bat biologist, CA; John Hayes, Ph.D., mammal ecologist, FL. 

Thomas Kunz, Ph.D., bat ecologist, MA; Gary Kwiecinski, Ph.D., bat biologist, PA; Kathleen LoGiudice, Ph.D., wildlife biologist, NY; Gary 

McCracken, Ph.D., ecologist, TN; Marianne Moore, Ph.D., bat biologist, MA. 
207 

1The formula for calculating Tribal Grant Support Costs (previously called ‘‘Administrative 

Cost Grants’’) is set out at 25 USC § 2008. 

Phil Myers, Ph.D., ecologist, MI; DeeAnn Reeder, Ph.D., bat biologist, PA; 

Fraser Shilling, Ph.D., ecologist, CA; Merlin Tuttle, Ph.D., bat biologist, TX. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BLACK MESA COMMUNITY SCHOOL

BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION (BIE) PROGRAMS

Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC); Student transportation; Indian School 

Equalization Formula (ISEF); and facilities operations. 

Black Mesa Community School is a K–8 school located on a 6,700-foot high mesa 

in an extremely remote portion of the Navajo Reservation in Arizona. Our testimony 

focuses on the challenges of operating a very small school in an extremely isolated 

area and asks for your help. 

Costs of Isolation.—Neither of the two roads leading onto Black Mesa is paved. 

To get on or off the mesa, we must travel 16 miles of dirt road north to Rough Rock, 

or 26 miles south to Pinon. From either location, it is yet another hour’s drive to 

our closest town—Chinle. During periods of snow or heavy rain, both dirt roads to 

our community are impassible or, if we are lucky, we can make the journey in 6 

or 7 hours. 

This extreme isolation requires us to be as self-sufficient as possible, as we can’t 

depend on vendors, service-providers, repair people, and other outsiders being able 

to get to our school. Even when they can get to us, the time they must spend in 

travel makes their goods and services very expensive. When we have to send staff 

out to pick up supplies or go to the bank, a roundtrip can take a full day or more. 

Last year, when our large freezer broke down, impassable roads made it impossible 

for the repairman to get to us. As a result, we lost a whole month’s worth of food 

for the school cafeteria. 

Let us give you an idea of some measures we have had to institute due to our 

remote location. Our student transportation program is a vital part of our operations because so many of our children live far away from the school campus. Bus 

break-downs were so frequent that we had to purchase our own service truck and 

a back-hoe to dig out buses that get stuck in the mud. We have also had to buy 

our own school buses (at a cost of approximately $80,000 each) in an effort to reduce 

bus malfunctions. The General Services Administration (GSA) refuses to lease new 

buses to us because our roads are so bad, but the used buses they supplied broke 

down too often. It cost us enormous sums to tow a bus to the GSA for repairs, deprived students of educational days, and put our children at risk. Thus, the school 

board determined that the only course was to use our scarce transportation dollars 

to buy our own buses. This means we also have high insurance bills for the buses 

we own. 

Because our children live so far from the school and our roads are so bad, a oneway bus ride takes at least 2 hours—in good weather with no bus break-down—and 

up to 4 hours in bad weather. Can you imagine elementary-age children spending 

4 to 8 hours per day on a school bus? They arrive at school too tired to learn. We 

wish we could operate more bus routes to make the journeys shorter but we don’t 

get enough student transportation funding to allow for this. As it is, our student 

transportation budget was exceeded last year, and we had to make up this shortage 

by taking funds from our education program. 

Costs of Operating a Small School.—As you know, most of the funding we receive 

from the BIE is based on the number of students we enroll. Our community is very 

sparselyn populated so our student enrollment is small—it varies from 40 to 60 students. The consequence of being such a small school is that we do not attract much 

funding from the ISEF for our education program, nor do we generate much funding 

under the formula for calculating TGSC. 

The TGSC law requires that each tribally operated school receive at least 

$200,000 each year for its administrative and indirect costs, and Black Mesa should 

qualify for this small school minimum. But we routinely receive less than that 

amount because Congress never supplies the full amount required by the law for 

these costs. This year, we received only $172,800 in TGSC funding. Overall, BIE 

paid TGSC at only 61 percent of the amount the law requires.1

Even though ours is a small school, we nonetheless must perform all of the fundamental administrative tasks required of a school board—including executive direction; curriculum development; financial, personnel, property and procurement man-
208 

agement; recordkeeping; auditing; and maintaining prudent internal controls. But 

our TGSC funding is so low that we can’t afford to employ a business manager to 

keep track of our grant funds and capital assets, reconcile bank statements, arrange 

for audits and perform other vital financial management services. Nor can we afford 

to employ a human resources manager. All of these functions, therefore, must be 

performed by one business office technician and the school principal—who is also 

responsible for directing the education program and supervision of the teaching 

staff. In other words, we have one person essentially performing three jobs. A large 

portion of our TGSC funds must be reserved to pay for our audit which costs 

$40,000 each year. 

Our facilities operations budget also falls far short of the amount we need to pay 

our utilities, clean our school buildings, and maintain our Internet, telephone, and 

telecommunications systems. Even though the BIE has a formula for calculating facilities operations funding needs, we receive less than one-half of the amount the 

formula produces. When our equipment malfunctions, we often have to wait days 

or even weeks for a technician to travel to the school to make repairs—and these 

service calls to our remote location are very expensive. 

ISEF Budget.—For the current school year, we received $338,300 under the ISEF 

formula for our education program. These funds must support teaching personnel 

to staff seven classrooms and special education. The low salaries we offer makes recruitment and retention of certified personnel very difficult. 

Conclusions.—The Federal Government made a commitment to the Indian children who attend BIE-funded schools, but that commitment is not being met. How 

can our children be expected to reach achievement targets when they must spend 

many hours getting to/from school, have school cancelled because of bad roads, and 

then find when they do get to school the funds for their education program has to 

subsidize inadequate funding for administrative costs and facilities operation expenses? 

All of us connected with the Black Mesa School work hard every day to keep our 

school in operation because we know that if we fail in this mission, most of the children in our community would not have access to an education. The United States 

made a commitment to the Indian children enrolled in the 183 BIE schools, including the Indian children at Black Mesa. We need you to fulfill that commitment by 

providing us with the resources we need to make their path toward a quality education easier to navigate. We promise you that if you provide the resources, all of 

us in the Black Mesa Community will re-double our efforts to provide our children 

with a challenging and satisfying educational experience. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COOPERATIVE ALLIANCE FOR REFUGE ENHANCEMENT

Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2011 

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) stands alone as the only land and water conservation 

system with a mission that prioritizes wildlife and habitat conservation and wildlifedependant recreation. Since 1995, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

(CARE) has worked to showcase the value of the NWRS and to secure a strong congressional commitment for conserving these special places. Located in every U.S. 

State and territory, refuges conserve a diversity of America’s environmentally sensitive and economically vital ecosystems, including oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, 

tundra, prairie, and forests. We respectfully request a funding level of $578 million 

for the operations and maintenance accounts of the NWRS for fiscal year 2011. 

The NWRS needs strong and incremental increases to fulfill its mission and purposes, and with the tragedy unfolding before our eyes in the Gulf of Mexico with 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, potentially impacting up to 60 national wildlife refuges should the oil reach the Gulf Loop, funding the NWRS adequately is more important than ever. While NWRS staff is feverishly working to protect refuges and 

wildlife from the oil itself, the pervasive lack of funding is noticeably apparent by 

the lack of baseline data at each of the 25 refuges expected to be first impacted. 

Not one of the refuges in the immediate path of the oil spill has baseline inventories 

for all the resources that could be impacted by the oil. Refuges in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida are scrambling to do baseline inventories of wildlife 

and water quality. While we thank the subcommittee for funding the NWRS’s Inventory and Monitoring program in the fiscal year 2010 budget, the strain on this 

program due to years of funding shortages has put America’s wildlife at a distinct 

disadvantage. Unless refuges get this information now, it will be too late to prove 
209 

how the oil impacted refuge resources. This baseline inventory information is not 

a luxury item; it’s an essential tool. 

This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE’s 22 member organizations, which 

represent more than 15 million Americans passionate about wildlife conservation 

and related recreational opportunities. 

American Birding Association 

American Fisheries Society 

American Sportfishing Association 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 

Izaak Walton League of America 

Marine Conservation Biology Institute 

National Audubon Society 

National Rifle Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

National Wildlife Refuge Association 

Safari Club International 

The Corps Network 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Wilderness Society 

The Wildlife Society 

Trout Unlimited 

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance 

Wildlife Forever 

Wildlife Management Institute 

CARE deeply appreciates the subcommittee’s vision and leadership regarding the 

funding increases realized in fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010, and the 2009 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). While it does not reduce the annual needs of the NWRS, the ARRA is providing a jolt to local economies by providing refuges across the country with the means to hire local contractors and purchase local materials for important infrastructure and habitat restoration projects. 

Following a period of essentially flat annual budgets, the recent increases in annual 

appropriations allowed for the suspension of workforce downsizing plans that called 

for an eventual 20 percent reduction in overall staffing levels. But with more than 

10 percent of staff already eliminated since 2004, additional funding increases that 

build upon the last 3 years are essential if this valued system of conservation lands 

is to rebound to its full potential. With the goal of fulfilling the progressive conservation vision that President Theodore Roosevelt first espoused more than a century ago, CARE respectfully requests a fiscal year 2011 funding level of $578 million 

for the operations and maintenance accounts of the NWRS. 

As our 2010 CARE report shows, the NWRS needs to reach an annual funding level of $900 million over the long term. The $578 million for fiscal year 2011 is 

considered an essential next step on a long path toward adequate funding. This annual funding is needed to properly patrol and enforce laws on 150 million acres, provide nature programs to the public, maintain high-water-quality, complete habitat 

restoration projects, address scores of mothballed mission-critical projects, respond 

to the adverse impacts of climate change, and more. An appropriation of $578 million in fiscal year 2011 would stabilize the workforce 

by keeping the workforce downsizing plans securely on the shelf and thereby reducing pressure on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to cut refuge staff below 

already insufficient levels. This funding level would enable FWS staff to return to 

what they do best: protecting, restoring, and enhancing America’s wildlife and habitat, providing a haven for a growing list of threatened and endangered species, and 

guaranteeing a positive experience for more than 41 million annual visitors, whether hunting, fishing, watching wildlife, or learning from educational programs. 

Prior to fiscal year 2008, several years of appropriations failed to even cover increases in fixed costs. Simply to keep fuel in the trucks, pay for rising utilities and 

building rent, allow for salary adjustments, and cover other fixed costs, the NWRS 

needs at least a $15 million annual increase. 

Many years of inadequate budgets have ballooned the operations and maintenance backlog to more than $3.7 billion. While the appropriation for fiscal year 2008 

through fiscal year 2010 helped immensely, too many visitors still show up to find 

roads and visitor centers closed, viewing platforms and hiking trails in disrepair, 

and habitat restoration and nature education programs eliminated. 

Today, more than 35 percent of America’s wildlife refuges have no on-site staff, 

leaving no one there to unlock the gates, teach the schoolchildren, or administer the 

hunting programs, let alone recover endangered species or perform major habitat 

restoration projects. Non-native, invasive plants have infested more than 2.3 million 

acres (only 14.6 percent of this acreage was treated in 2008). Further, a crippling 

deficiency of law enforcement officers has led to a rise in illegal activities such as 

drug production and trafficking, wildlife poaching, illegal border activity, assaults, 

and many types of natural resource violations. Currently, only 213 full-time law enforcement officers are tasked with responsibilities and risks that the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police suggests be tackled by a force of 845 professional officers. 

When refuges are short-staffed, not only are activities inside refuge boundaries affected, but refuge employees are unable to devote sufficient attention to threats be-
210 

yond refuge boundaries, such as water rights disputes, upstream contamination, or 

encroaching developments. Overworked staff cannot take advantage of land acquisition or easement opportunities, and conservation opportunities often slip away. 

When staff levels are reduced to only one or a few people per refuge, opportunities 

to partner with other interested stakeholders are lost, dramatically and adversely 

affecting volunteer involvement and the leveraging of additional dollars. 

In addition to their integral role in American wildlife conservation, refuges are 

critically important on local and regional scales. Visitors in 2006 generated more 

than $1.7 billion in sales to local economies, creating nearly 27,000 U.S. jobs and 

$543 million in employment income. While these figures are undeniably significant, 

the NWRS’s potential remains largely untapped and unquantified. In addition to 

being local economic engines, the sustainable use of natural resources on America’s 

refuges provides innumerable environmental benefits to communities. For example, 

many refuges in urban or suburban settings filter storm water before it runs downstream to municipal water supplies and, in many areas, reduce flooding by capturing excess rainwater and attenuating coastal storm surges. The vegetation on 

America’s refuges captures atmospheric carbon, while natural filtration and sound 

water management promotes healthy fisheries within and beyond refuge boundaries. 

Of increasing importance, national wildlife refuges provide a way for children to 

connect with the natural world. There is a refuge within an hour’s drive of most 

metropolitan areas in the United States. As today’s children spend more time inside 

on computers, watching television, or playing video games, the need for a place to 

bring our younger generations to experience and explore the outdoors has never 

been more important. Many refuges work with local volunteer organizations such 

as ‘‘Friends groups’’ to provide environmental education programs to local schools, 

but they are often the first programs to be curtailed when budgets are tight. 

In a Nation with ever-shrinking natural areas, we must act quickly to safeguard 

our unique natural heritage for the benefit of wildlife and millions of present and 

future Americans. It was Theodore Roosevelt who reminded America that ‘‘our duty 

to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled 

present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations.’’ CARE 

agrees that 41 million annual visitors and all future generations deserve the opportunity to see and appreciate 150 million acres of the most visually stunning and biologically rich lands and waters in North America. Simply put, the way to ensure 

a future with clean water, thriving wildlife populations, and hunting and fishing opportunities is to increase the NWRS’s fiscal year 2011 appropriation to $578 million 

and continue the restoration of America’s commitment to healthy public lands. 

On behalf of our more than 15 million members and supporters, CARE thanks 

the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill and extends our sincere 

appreciation for the subcommittee’s strong commitment to the NWRS. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITIZENS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE) is an 80,000 member non-profit, 

non-partisan advocacy organization that works to empower communities and advocate solutions that protect public health and the environment. CCE appreciates the 

opportunity to comment on the EPA’s budget request. 

The Environmental Protection Agency represents a mere 1 percent of the entire 

Federal budget, therefore CCE believes that, at a minimum, the EPA’s proposed 

budget should be funded in its entirety, and also believes Congress should increase 

funding for the EPA. The EPA is responsible for protecting the precious natural resources of our country and ensuring the protection of human health from pollutants. 

CCE strongly believes that a healthy environment translates to healthier communities. 

CCE top four budget priorities for fiscal year 2011 include: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Long Island Sound Funding, Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF 

programs, and the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. 

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Long Island Sound Study should 

be fully funded at $475 million and $20 million respectively. These programs support on the ground restoration projects that are creating jobs and revitalizing our 

communities. The health of the Great Lakes and the Long Island Sound is imperative to the sustainability of communities throughout New York. 

The Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds received a muchneeded boost last year. For too long the importance of repairing and maintaining 

our water infrastructure has been ignored. The EPA has proposed to cut the SRF 
211 

programs by $400 million. CCE urges SRF funding levels do not drop below fiscal 

year 2010 levels. The state of much of our Nation’s water infrastructure and requires sustained Federal investment. CCE encourages you to increase funding for 

SRF programs. Waiting lists are long, and Congress must ensure that people have 

access to clean and safe drinking water and properly working sewage infrastructure 

systems. 

The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program is currently funding a critically 

important study on the effects to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing. CCE believes the previous study, conducted in 2004, was flawed and it only addressed coalbed methane. It is imperative that the STAR program is fully funded and the EPA 

directs the promised resources—$4.3 million—to the study. EPA must engage communities, stakeholders, and citizens to ensure an open and transparent process. 

CCE encourages Congress to fully fund the STAR program at $87.2 million with instructions to the EPA that it use $4.3 million to conduct a robust study with ample 

opportunities for public participation and engagement. 

EPA has proposed to reduce Superfund cleanup due to a lack of funds in the Trust 

Fund. EPA recommends reinstating the Superfund tax in order to replenish the 

Trust Fund. CCE supports reinstating the Superfund tax, which ensures that those 

responsible for contaminating our air, land, and water fund the clean up of those 

areas. 

In addition to our specific budget requests, CCE supports the following budget requests: 

—The EPA has requested budget increases in the following areas which CCE supports: 

—$20.8 million for Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; 

—$55.5 million for Energy Efficiency/ENERGY STAR; 

—$30 million for Greenhouse Gas Permitting; 

—$6 million for Greenhouse Gas standards for Transportation Sources; 

—$7.5 million for Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standards; 

—$215 million for Brownfield Remediation; 

—$6.3 million for Clean, Green and Healthy Schools; 

—$10.9 million for Sustainable Communities; 

—$6 million for Air Toxics; 

—$9.5 million for Community Water Priorities Program; 

—$241.1 million for State and Local Air Quality Grants; 

—$274.3 million for Water Pollution Control Grants; and 

—$21.9 million for Computational Toxicology Research. 

Thank you for reviewing our comments. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal year 2011 appropriations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Children’s Environmental Health Network (CEHN) urges the subcommittee to support the EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection (OCHP), the Children’s Environmental Health 

Research Centers of Excellence, the Office of Research & Development (ORD), EPA’s 

school environmental health programs, the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (PESHU), and the National Children’s Study (NCS). We urge full funding of all activities that advance healthy school and child care environments for all 

children, such as the relevant components of the Healthy Communities Initiative, 

including but not limited to the Clean, Green and Healthy Schools Initiative. We 

urge the subcommittee to support chemical policy reform by providing adequate resources for EPA oversight and regulation of these chemicals 

In brief, CEHN appreciates the wide range of priorities that you must consider 

for funding at the EPA. We urge you to give priority to those EPA programs that 

directly protect and promote children’s health. In so doing, you will protect all populations as well as our environment. 

I am a pediatric deontologists and I currently serve as the Mary Gray Cobey Professor and Division Chief of Neonatology at the University of Maryland. I am submitting this statement as Chair of the Board of the CEHN. CEHN is a national organization whose mission is to promote a healthy environment and to protect the 

fetus and the child from environmental health hazards. CEHN was created to promote the incorporation of basic facts of pediatric environmental health into policy 

and practice. In general, children have unique vulnerabilities and susceptibilities to 

toxic chemicals. In some cases, an exposure which may cause little or no harm to 

an adult may lead to irreparable damage to a child. 
212 

The world in which today’s children live has changed tremendously from that of 

previous generations, including a phenomenal increase in the substances to which 

children are exposed. Every day, children are exposed to a mix of chemicals, most 

of them untested for their effects on developing systems. Many of these chemicals 

are readily passed across the placenta to the fetus, to the infant via breast milk or 

through skin, or via food, toys and other children’s products. Many of these chemicals are also ingested in food and water or through the lungs. 

In addition to providing the necessary resources for the Federal programs and activities that help to protect children from environmental hazards, CEHN urges the 

subcommittee to also direct the EPA to assure that all of its activities and programs—including regulations, guidelines, assessments, and research—specifically 

consider children. Our traditional approaches have been to use a one-size-fits-all 

template, and that template is usually the healthy adult male. The EPA’s work 

must always assure that children and other vulnerable subpopulations are protected, especially poor children, minority children, farmworker children, and others 

at risk. 

We ask the subcommittee to direct the EPA to report on their activities to protect 

children from environmental hazards in child care settings as well as to assess the 

EPA’s needs for assuring that children in these settings are protected from such 

hazards. 

OCHP

Since 1997, EPA’s efforts to protect children from environmental hazards have 

been led by the OCHP, which was highly effective and well-regarded. However, 

funding for OCHP has been level, at approximately $6 million since its creation, and 

its resources were further diluted by the addition of new and unrelated missions, 

without any concurrent increase in resources. 

CEHN strongly supports additional resources dedicated to children’s health for 

the office, and to restore the office’s strong focus on children. We are especially supportive of the Clean, Green, and Healthy Schools Initiative, especially the interagency effort to integrate existing school programs including asthma, IAQ, chemical 

cleanout, green practices, and enhanced use of integrated pest management. We 

urge the subcommittee to provide funds above the proposed $6.3 million to OCHP 

for this Initiative. The program addressing the issue of PCB-laden caulk in schools 

is also a priority. 

CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

The Children’s Environmental Health Research Centers, jointly funded by the 

EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, play a key role 

in providing the scientific basis for protecting children from environmental hazards. 

With their modest budgets (unchanged over more than 10 years), these centers generate valuable research. A unique aspect of these centers is the requirement that 

each center actively involves its local community in a collaborative partnership, 

leading both to community-based participatory research projects and to the translation of research findings into child-protective programs and policies. Researchers 

have chosen to participate in this funding mechanism because of the ability to do 

interdisciplinary research, to break ground in a relatively new field and to be involved in the community—all things that are not easy to do using other grant mechanisms. The scientific output of these centers has been outstanding. 

The Congress recognized this last year, when it supported increased funding, resulting in the upcoming addition of a child care component and additional research. 

These goals call for a continued effort, yet the administration’s fiscal year 2011 

budget proposal did not continue this funding. We strongly urge that the subcommittee reinstate these funds and direct EPA to sustain this effort. 

SCHOOL AND CHILD CARE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: CONNECTED TO HEALTHY

COMMUNITIES

Millions of preschoolers enter care as early as 6 weeks of age and can be in care 

for more than 40 hours per week. Yet little is known about the environmental 

health status of our child care centers nor how to assure that they are protecting 

this important group of children. Environmental health is rarely if ever considered 

in licensing centers or training child care professionals. 

Each school day, about 54 million children and nearly 7 million adults—20 percent of the total U.S. population—spend a full week inside schools. Unfortunately, 

many of the Nation’s 121,000 public and private K–12 school facilities are shoddy 

or even ‘‘sick’’ buildings whose environmental conditions harm children’s health and 

undermine attendance, achievement, and productivity. 
213 

No agency is authorized to intervene to protect children from environmental hazards in schools. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration does not protect schoolchildren. Thus, every day we require our children to spend hours in an 

environment where they and their parents have no options, alternatives or recourse 

if the environment is not healthy. 

Thus, CEHN urges full funding for the proposed Clean, Green and Healthy 

Schools Initiative in the EPA’s fiscal year 2011 budget. Under this Initiative, EPA 

will co-lead an interagency effort in integrating existing school programs including 

asthma, indoor air quality, and enhanced use of integrated pest management. We 

urge the subcommittee to provide additional resources and direction to assure that 

the child care environment is also included in this Initiative. 

CEHN also supports other aspects of the Healthy Communities Initiative, particularly: 

—an additional $1.1 million for the Indoor Air Program for efforts to improve children’s health; 

—increased funding for the Pesticides Program to expand its work with schools; 

—increased funding to address air toxics pollution focused on children’s environments, including $2.3 million for community pilot programs 

CEHN urges the subcommittee to continue its support for EPA’s existing healthy 

schools activities, such as the Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Program. 

We also urge the subcommittee to appropriate the $10 million authorized for EPA 

under the healthy schools provisions of the High Performance Green Buildings Act. 

This statute authorizes EPA to create Federal guidelines on school siting and (advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) school environmental 

health programs. This statute also authorizes an important study of the impacts of 

green schools on the health of children and communities. 

EPA ORD

The Clean, Green, and Healthy Schools Initiative is envisioned as an interagency 

as well as intra-agency effort, yet resources were not proposed for ORD involvement. 

We urge the subcommittee to strengthen Clean, Green, and Healthy schools by providing additional resources of $1.5 to $2 million to ORD so that the office can fund 

additional research to fulfill its role in this Initiative. 

CEHN urges funding for research to better understand how the school and child 

care environment (both physical factors and potential exposures) impacts the performance of children. 

NCS

The NCS is examining the effects of environmental influences on the health and 

development of more than 100,000 children across the United States, following them 

from before birth until age 21. This landmark longitudinal cohort study—involving 

a consortium of agencies including the EPA—will be one of the richest research efforts ever geared toward studying children’s health and development and will form 

the basis of child health guidance, interventions, and policy for generations to come. 

This study may be the only means that we will have to find answers to some key 

questions regarding links between exposures and health effects on children. 

A study of this scope is calls for the participation of multiple agencies. EPA’s involvement has been limited by the lack of dedicated resources. We urge the subcommittee to provide dedicated funds of $1 million or more in fiscal year 2011 to 

ensure that EPA has sustained funding for the necessary infrastructure for data access and the ability to collaborate with its partners on the NCS. EPA has specific 

expertise to offer and the NCS will benefit if the EPA has the ability to contribute. 

PEHSUS

Funded by the EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 

the PEHSUs form a valuable resource network, with a center in each of the U.S. 

Federal regions. PEHSU professionals provide medical consultation to healthcare 

professionals on a wide range of environmental health issues, from individual cases 

of exposure to advice regarding large-scale community issues. PEHSUs also provide 

information and resources to school, child care, health and medical, and community 

groups to help increase the public’s understanding of children’s environmental 

health. PEHSUs assist policymakers by providing data and background on local or 

regional environmental health issues and implications for specific populations or 

areas. These centers, all based in universities, have done tremendous work, covering 

large geographic areas, on very limited budgets. We urge the Committee to fully 

fund EPA’s portion of this program’s fiscal year 2011 budget of $1.8 million. 
214 

In conclusion, investments in programs that protect and promote children’s health 

will be repaid by healthier children with brighter futures, an outcome we can all 

support. That is why CEHN asks you to give priority to these programs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these critical issues. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY, AMERICAN RIVERS, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION, DEFENDERS OF

WILDLIFE, EARTHJUSTICE, ENVIRONMENT AMERICA, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE

FUND, INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, LANDS COUNCIL, 

LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, MARINE CONSERVATION BIOLOGY INSTITUTE, 

MARINE FISH CONSERVATION NETWORK, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, NATIONAL

ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, OCEANA, OCEAN CONSERVANCY, PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP, RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY, RIVERKEEPER, SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, SIERRA CLUB, SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE, AND THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity 

to submit to you written testimony regarding fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The administration has requested 

$3,448,000 for fiscal year 2011. To increase CEQ’s effectiveness and help to fulfill 

Congress’ original intent in establishing the Council, we believe that an increase in 

that amount to $4,694,093 is warranted. 

CEQ was created by Congress in 1969 as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this country’s ‘‘environmental magna carta.’’ Congress placed CEQ 

in the Executive Office of the President because it recognized that environmental 

issues warranted the same degree of attention at the highest levels of the executive 

branch as trade, economics, national security and other cross-cutting issues of top 

tier importance to the Nation. In the words of Senator Henry ‘‘Scoop’’ Jackson, ‘‘the 

Council will provide an institution and an organizational focus at the highest level 

for the concerns of environmental management. It will provide the President with 

objective advice and a continuing and comprehensive overview of the fragmented 

and bewildering Federal jurisdiction involved in some way with the environment.’’ 

Congressional Record, Senate 40416, December 20, 1969. 

In NEPA, Congress gave CEQ the responsibility for, among other things: 

—advising the President on environmental issues; 

—developing and recommending to the President national policies to improve environmental quality so that the nation can meet its conservation, social, economic, health and other goals; 

—assisting in interagency coordination of the many departments and agencies 

within the executive branch that implement or affect environmental policies; 

—overseeing the implementation of the environmental impact assessment process 

within the executive branch; and 

—identifying and interpreting environmental trends. 

In December 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established 

as the result of President Nixon’s use of Presidential reorganization authority. CEQ 

recommended that EPA be established to begin addressing responsibilities under 

the newly passed pollution control laws. The two agencies have distinctively different roles. CEQ’s role involves directly advising the President on environmental 

issues, developing environmental and natural resources policy and ensuring interagency coordination, and interpreting Federal agencies’ responsibilities under 

NEPA. As an office in the Executive Office of the President, it is positioned to resolve interagency disputes in a way that no line agency can do. It does not regulate 

the private sector, provide grants, run laboratories or undertake many of the important—but different responsibilities—carried out by EPA. CEQ’s functions are distinct from EPA’s just as the role of the National Security Council’s is distinct from 

that of the Departments of Defense and State. 

Over the past 40 years, as shown in the chart below, CEQ’s budget and staffing 

has fluctuated wildly. Between 1970 and 1981, staff levels were between 49 and 70 

people. Since 1981, staff levels have ranged from 3 full-time employees to 32 employees. Clearly, the trend has been going the wrong way. 
215 

The understanding of the complexity of environmental and natural resource problems and their relationship to the social, economic and security needs of Americans 

has improved since the 1970’s, but the challenges in developing effective and feasible policies to address the issue are much more daunting. We now know with 

greater certainty what we were beginning to understand when NEPA was passed— 

i.e., that our relationship with the environment is a synergistic one, and that how 

we affect the air, water, soil and wildlife around us in turn significantly affects us. 

The interrelationships between our economic and social activity and our well being 

and that of the other inhabitants of the planet challenge our ability to balance competing short and long term interests. 

In our view, an increased staff level is necessary to fulfill CEQ’s responsibilities. 

Currently, the agency’s budget allows for 24 staff, and the administration’s request 

would allow for 26 staff. The increase over the administration’s request that we are 

proposing would be the first step in ramping up CEQ’s capacity and would allow 

for approximately 30 staff. This may seem like a large leap, but not when put in 

the context of either the nature or the number of environmental challenges. Nor is 

it out of line in an administrative context. Indeed, from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal 

year 2008, the U.S. Trade Representative Office’s budget increased by 72.1 percent, 

the Office of Management and Budget by 22.8 percent and the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy grew by 15 percent. In contrast, CEQ’s budget shrank by 4.4 

percent. 

Our understanding is that CEQ has indicated that the increased funding proposed 

in the 2011 President’s budget would be used for positions relating to oversight of 

NEPA and to ocean policy issues. These are good and much needed choices, which 

we fully support. In addition, while the ultimate choice of how any additional positions would be used should be made by the Chair of CEQ with any applicable guidance from Congress, here are our thoughts on how additional positions might be 

used: 

Oversight of NEPA.—CEQ has unique responsibilities for oversight of the implementation of NEPA in the executive branch. It is the ultimate interpreter of the 

statute, a role the Supreme Court has acknowledged in several decisions, holding 

that the lower courts should give ‘‘substantial deference’’ to CEQ’s interpretations. 

CEQ’s most comprehensive interpretation of NEPA comes through its promulgation 

of regulations that implement the procedural requirements of NEPA. 40 C.F.R. sections 1500–1508. Those regulations proscribe the process by which all departments 

and agencies implement the environmental impact assessment to their particular 

mission activities. From time to time, CEQ issues guidance interpreting various requirements of NEPA; indeed, there are three draft guidance documents out for public review and comment at present. Each department and agency publishes its own 
216 

NEPA procedures adapted to its mission and those procedures are reviewed and approved by CEQ. CEQ grants alternative arrangements for compliance with its regulations in certain extraordinary circumstances and also has the authority to resolve 

certain procedural disputes between agencies in the context of NEPA compliance. 

There is also a formal dispute resolution process that can be invoked by the head 

of a department or agency. 40 C.F.R. section 1504 et seq. 

Further, from time to time, Congress passes particular requirements in respect 

to NEPA. A current example is section 1609(c) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that requires CEQ to report to Congress on the status and 

progress of NEPA reviews for Recovery Act funded projects. CEQ so far has submitted five reports to Congress, demonstrating that to date; NEPA has not been an 

impediment to implementation of these projects. The February 1, 2010 and May 3, 

2010 reports include information on how NEPA helped improve decisionmaking for 

particular actions. 

Finally, beyond the immediate drumbeat of the in-box, there is much that CEQ 

can and should do to improve the understanding of and implementation of NEPA 

among the public and agencies. The purpose of the NEPA process is not to produce 

paperwork, but to improve decisionmaking. There are real gains that could be made 

in effectiveness, both from an environmental and efficiency perspective, were CEQ 

to have the ability to provide additional oversight and guidance to the Federal agencies, and work with the state, tribal and local agencies that are often partners with 

Federal agencies in this context. 

For the past 10 years, there has been only one full time person devoted to NEPA 

oversight. Despite the incredibly hard work, long hours and admirable dedication 

and diligence demonstrated by that individual, no one person can meet all of these 

goals. There are over 85 Federal agencies that comply with NEPA and that turn 

to CEQ for assistance. The assistance requested may range from meeting analytical 

challenges in the face of new scientific or technological developments such as climate change or nanotechnology, addressing complex interrelationships of environmental, economic and public health issues, responding to emergency situations, consulting with agencies on legal issues that arise from time to time, and many other 

types of requests. CEQ very much needs additional staff in this area. 

Public Lands and Wildlife.—This country enjoys a wide variety of public lands 

and waters administered for a variety of purposes: national parks, national wildlife 

refuges, national forests, marine sanctuaries, national recreation areas, wild and 

scenic rivers, and national preserves, to name a few. Responsibility for administration of these public lands and waters is spread out through multiple agencies, including the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation. Further, 

two agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, share responsibilities for protecting endangered species. 

It is no surprise then that from time to time there are different interpretations of 

responsibilities and conflicts arise between agencies. Agencies frequently call on 

CEQ to consider and resolve these issues. Agencies often welcome this role of CEQ 

so that progress can be made on long-standing issues. CEQ’s current level of staffing 

in this area is, in our view, inadequate to meet these challenges. 

Global Environmental Issues.—When Congress passed NEPA in 1969, it recognized ‘‘the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems’’ and directed agencies to lend support to initiatives and programs ‘‘to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline’’ in the world’s environment. Today, we recognize a wide range of problems that are best addressed 

through treaties, international agreements and bilateral and multilateral initiatives. 

The issues include climate change, of course, but also include deforestation, 

desertification, acidification of the oceans, decline of species and many other challenges. Environmental expertise is needed within CEQ to assist in the development 

and coordination of policy in this complex area. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony. We hope that the Subcommittee will recognize the needs as outlined above and act accordingly. We would 

be pleased to address any issue in further detail. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHIPPEWA FLOWAGE AREA PROPERTY OWNERS

ASSOCIATION

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: The Chippewa 

Flowage Area Property Owners Association (CFAPOA) was incorporated in early 

1983 by a small group of citizens who had grown increasingly concerned about proposed alterations in the way that the lands and waters of Wisconsin’s largest semi- 
217 

wilderness area would be managed. The Articles of Incorporation propose ‘‘to 

promote... and protect.’’ The Bylaws Preamble identifies major goals as being ‘‘to 

keep the Chippewa Flowage area clean and safe for all peoples; to protect the environment; . . . to pursue... objectives that... benefit this... reservoir.’’ 

While the name is still ‘‘Property Owners’’, membership is open to anyone who resides within 2 miles of the Flowage for 30 days anytime during the year. The 

CFAPOA has engaged in a number of efforts pursuant to its stated mission. Habitat 

improvement, community cleanups, water-quality monitoring, invasive species research and control, and the $1.1 million Chippewa Islands Project are just some of 

the accomplishments achieved in the past few years. The multi-jurisdictional co-operation of the U.S. Forest Service, the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe, the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, and the local citizens have provided a model in 

partnership that has been acclaimed by prestigious institutions. 

I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the Chippewa Flowage project in Wisconsin. I am advised that an appropriation of $4.5 million 

from the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is needed in order to complete the protection 

of this 18,259-acre forestland property. I am thankful that the project was included 

in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2011 at a funding level of $2.5 million. That is so greatly appreciated. But, I am told the project can be completed this 

year with an appropriation of $4.5 million. 

The diversity of wood/species types within Wisconsin’s northern forest is rarely 

matched anywhere in the United States. The Northwoods remains blessed with 

stands of aspen, balsam, spruce, and a variety of pine, hardwoods such as red oak, 

maples, hemlock, and birch, and swamp forests containing black spruce, tamarack, 

black ash, and white cedar. The combination of forestland with an abundance of 

lakes, rivers, and streams offers some of the best recreational opportunities in the 

country, especially fishing and canoeing. Recognizing the unique attributes of its forests, the State of Wisconsin is focused on forest protection and easement acquisitions that benefit recreational and natural resources. The great attraction of easements is that several times as much acreage can be effectively protected for the 

same amount of money. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has proposed FLP projects over the last several years to implement this critical protection 

effort. 

I believe that in fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $1.5 million to the FLP and the State of Wisconsin committed $2.5 million in matching funds toward the 

protection of this more than 18,000 acres of outstanding conservation easement 

lands. An additional $4.5 million from the FLP is needed in fiscal year 2011 to finish the project. The easement is an important opportunity to create a unified block 

of more than 1 million acres of protected forest and natural lands in the Chippewa 

Flowage watershed, which is an ecological gem. The Chippewa Flowage is one of the 

wildest lakes in Wisconsin, drawing recreationists from around the world for its 

fishing. More than 30,000 acres within the flowage area are managed jointly by the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Lac 

Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (LCO). The western boundary of 

the easement property adjoins nearly 24,000 acres of primarily natural LCO tribal 

land. The property extends the critical migratory corridor surrounding the 

Chequamegon portion of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, which covers 

858,400 acres in six northwestern Wisconsin counties. 

Many natural resources used by the Lac Courte Oreilles band traditionally, and 

currently, are found on the property and adjoining tribal lands, including birch and 

pole oak for wigwam poles, morel mushrooms, and abundant wildlife for trapping 

and hunting. Pipestone rock, used to craft peace pipes, holds traditional significance 

for the LCO band and is present in the northwest corner of the property. Benefits 

for surrounding communities include water supply and watershed protection. The 

Village of Radisson’s municipal water flows from parts of this property. The Federal 

listed endangered Gray Wolf is known to frequent the property, which also contains 

State Species of Concern, State Threatened, and State Endangered species. 

The Chippewa Flowage is a major tourist destination, helping to generate $8 million annually in Wisconsin from fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing. The Chippewa Flowage is considered a world-class fishery for muskellunge and walleye. Public access on this property will continue to support the local economy. Forest-based 

recreation accounts for about $5.5 billion of the $14 billion spent on recreation in 

the State. The Wisconsin Northwoods is also a common destination for migratory 

and forest interior birdwatchers. Wisconsin ranks third in the Nation for bird 

watching, which adds $1 billion annually to the State’s economy. This property delivers wood to 66 different customers; products include coated paper, corrugated 

packaging, cabinets, lumber, moldings, paneling, and more. If this property is not 

protected by a FLP easement, it will be divided and sold like other nearby 
218 

timberlands, thereby eliminating one of the sources of fiber that makes jobs in the 

mills in Radisson, Birchwood, Hayward, and Drummond, viable. 

The property will also offer unique values for addressing climate change, as it 

holds important forestlands and wetlands containing large carbon stores that will 

help mitigate climate change. Carbon sequestration on the lands will be further enhanced by the sustainable forestry guidelines of the FLP easement. The project 

lands also offer significant benefits for climate adaptation: public-private partnership efforts are underway in the region to protect key habitat refugia and habitat 

connectivity in response to anticipated climate shifts. The project lands will be essential to maintain connectivity among the large, conserved habitat blocks in the 

region. The property also extends and protects a critical migratory corridor surrounding the national forest, which will help wildlife important to the State’s economy adapt to a changing climate. 

Supporting parties include Chippewa Flowage Area Property Owners Association, 

Couderay Waters Regional Land Trust, Gathering Waters Conservancy, Lac Courte 

Oreilles Tribal Governing Board, Ruffed Grouse Society, Sawyer County Board of 

Supervisors, Town of Hunter, Town of Ojibwa, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin Conservation Congress, Wisconsin Representative Gary E. Sherman, 

and Wisconsin State Senator Bob Jauch. 

The protection of these forestlands will have significant local and regional benefits. An appropriation of $4.5 million in fiscal year 2011 from the FLP will complete 

the effort to conserve 18,259 acres of high-quality Wisconsin forest. Protecting this 

large block of land within the checkerboard of public and private ownership is an 

exciting opportunity to create a unified area of 1 million protected acres that can 

support the local economy by preserving vast wildlife habitat, helping climate mitigation and adaptation, ensuring public access for recreation, and maintaining sustainable forestry practices, while at the same time protecting the watershed and 

semi-wilderness esthetic in the historically and culturally significant southeastern 

quadrant of Wisconsin’s third largest inland water resource. 

I ask you to do all you can to ensure that this worthwhile program is funded adequately in fiscal year 2011 and that the Chippewa Flowage project receives $4.5 million in fiscal year 2011. 

I want to thank the chairman and all the members of the subcommittee for this 

opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Wisconsin, and I truly do appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COALITION FOR HEALTHIER SCHOOLS

Dear Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Senator Alexander: On behalf of 

the Coalition’s thousands of members and supporters across the country and tens 

of millions of children whose health, learning and behavior are daily impacted by 

dank, dark, dirty, and polluted conditions of our PreK–12 public schools, we urge 

you to fund the EPA’s ‘‘Clean Green Healthy Schools Initiative’’ at $8.2 million, $2 

million above the President’s $6.2 million request in the fiscal year 2011 EPA request. 

The national SICK SCHOOLS 2009 collaborative report assembled by more than 

30 contributing public interest nonprofits, analyzed Federal data from EPA, Education, and CDC, as well as peer reviewed published sciences in healthy school environments. Result: at least 60 percent of all 55 million school children endure lower 

test scores and poor attendance due solely to the environmental conditions of their 

schools. See www.healthyschools.org/sickschools. 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 EPA budget supports EPA’s critical Office of Children’s Health Protection and the agency’s voluntary schools-focused programs that 

help local schools and districts to create healthier school environments for all children. EPA will co-lead a Federal interagency effort to integrate existing voluntary 

schools programs across the agencies, including asthma, indoor air quality, chemical 

clean outs, green practices (highly cost-effective as New York State has learned) and 

enhanced use of integrated pest management; promote safe handling and management of PCB-containing caulk in schools and build regional technical support and 

outreach; assesses the impacts of noncompliance with existing environmental laws 

on health risks in schools; and increase technical assistance on voluntary EPA 

guidelines under the Energy Independence Security Act (EISA of 2007) regarding 

school siting and other school environmental concerns. 

We also urge you to support increases for EPA’s Healthier Indoor Air and for 

school and community air toxics monitoring, and for expanding EPA’s asthma programs and pesticide-use reductions with schools. Children are 100 percent of our fu-
219 

ture and promoting healthy learning environments is a task that EPA is uniquely 

poised to tackle, in collaboration with Education and CDC. 

A copy of the national Coalition for Healthier Schools Position Statement is attached, along with a list of its national supporters. 

POSITION STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... PROVIDING THE PLATFORM AND

THE FORUM FOR SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ... SINCE

Each school day, 55 million children and 7 million adults—that’s 20 percent of the 

total U.S. population and 98 percent of all children—spend their workdays inside 

school buildings. Unfortunately, too many of our Nation’s 125,000 public and private 

K–12 schools are ‘‘unhealthy’’ buildings that can harm their health and hinder 

learning. Today, clear and convincing research shows that improving specific factors 

such as school indoor environmental quality improves attendance, academic performance, and productivity. 

About children 

Children are more vulnerable than adults to environmental hazards because 

they’re smaller, have developing organs, and breathe more air per pound of body 

weight. They cannot identify hazards. Adverse exposures and injuries during childhood may have a lifetime impact. See www.epa.gov/children. 

School factors affecting health 

Many school environmental factors can affect the health of children and employees. Too many schools are sited near industrial plants or toxic waste sites; some are 

sited on abandoned landfills. Many school facilities are poorly maintained. Schools 

are more densely occupied and more intensively used than office buildings, magnifying problems. Thousands of schools are severely overcrowded, which compromises 

ventilation systems, acoustics, food service, recess, and sanitation and lavatories. 

Children also spend extra hours in vehicles or buses when their schools are beyond 

safe walking and biking distances. 

The U.S. EPA has estimated that up to half of all schools have problems with indoor environmental quality. Children and staff are a affected by: polluted indoor air 

and outdoor air, including toxic chemical and pesticide use; chemical spills; mold infestations; asbestos, radon, lead in paint and drinking water; inadequate chemical 

management; poor siting, design; hazardous materials purchased and stored onsite; 

and heavy metals and other toxics, such as mercury, CCA, PCBs. 

Results of unhealthy schools: 

—60 percent of all children endure health and learning problems due SOLELY 

to the conditions of their schools: 

—poor health and absenteeism; 

—asthma, allergies, headaches, fatigue, nausea, rashes and chronic illnesses; 

—more medication use by children and staff; 

—learning and behavior difficulties; 

—liability for school districts; 

—lower achievement, and reduced revenues due to poor attendance. 

Coalition Position 

When the Nation is committed to raising academic performance and honoring 

each child’s potential, and to improving the environment of every neighborhood, we 

have a moral obligation to protect all children and to accommodate children who already have impairments, and personnel. 

For children, for health, for environment, for education, and for communities, we 

support: 

—The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget for EPA’s Healthy Schools Initiative, 

plus $2 million 

—Full staffing and resources for U.S. EPA children’s health protection and schools 

programs (at greater than fiscal year 2006 levels) 

—Full funding and staffing for Federal agencies to coordinate Federal strategy to 

address healthy school environments (CDC, EPA, Education, Energy, Labor, 

Homeland Security), including high performance school design, siting, construction, and the greening of schools with preventive maintenance (IAQ, IPM, green 

cleaning, and more) 

—Fund the Healthy High Performance Schools (Subtitle E) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

—Fund the Healthy and High Performance Schools Act in No Child Left Behind 

—Fund school construction/renovation and urgent repairs, consistent with enacted 

laws promoting healthy school environments. 
220 

This message sponsored by: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; Alliance for Healthy Homes; American Lung Association; American Public 

Health Association; Apollo Alliance; Beyond Pesticides; Children’s Environmental 

Health Network; Healthy Children-Healthy World; Connecticut Foundation for Environmentally Safe Schools; Environmental Defense; Funders Forum on Environment and Education; Healthy Kids: The Key to Basics (MA); Green Schools Initiative/CA; Healthy Schools Network; Improving Kids Environment (IN); Initiative for 

Children’s Environmental, Health; Learning Disabilities Association of America; 

Marin Golden Gate Learning Disabilities Association (CA); Massachusetts Healthy 

Schools Network; National Center for Environmental Health Strategies; National 

Education Association; National Education Association Health Information Network; 

National PTA; Natural Resources Defense Council; New Jersey Work Environment 

Council; New Jersey Environmental Federation; Oregon Environmental Council; 

Physicians for Social Responsibility; Preventing Harm Minnesota; Public Education 

Network; Twenty-first Century Schools Fund (DC); West Harlem Environmental Action; and League of Conservation Voters, Washington, DC; National Clearinghouse 

for Educational Facilities; National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners; and 

over 200 more organizations nationwide. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT COALITION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the California Industry and Government Coalition for the Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (KCVFHCP), we are pleased to submit this statement for the record 

in support of our funding request for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011. 

First, the Coalition supports the President’s budget request for the Department 

of the Interior’s Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, especially 

funding for Habitat Conservation Plan land acquisition. 

Second, the Coalition urges the subcommittee to appropriate additional funding 

for land acquisition above the funding requested by the President. The additional 

funding requested by the Coalition anticipates that $1 million will be needed by the 

Kern County program to be used for purposes of acquiring and maintaining habitat 

preserves. 

The Coalition’s request is supported by the timely need to implement the 

KCVFHCP. The county’s local oil and gas production industry and water districts 

have contributed more than $550,000 to the development of this program. In 1997, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) allocated $500,000 of Federal Endangered 

Species Act section 6 funds to assist in program implementation. The California 

State Government has authorized $1 million to augment the Federal funds. In order 

to secure the $3 million total necessary to assist in the implementation of the plan, 

we will require $1 million for fiscal year 2011 and $500,000 for fiscal year 2012. 

The Coalition requests that the subcommittee appropriate the maximum possible 

amount for this program, so that the funding pool can accommodate our request and 

need. We are confident that the plan’s merits and urgency support this request. 

Kern County’s program is unique from other regions in the Nation in that it contains some of the highest concentrations of plant and animal species protected by 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the continental United States. The region 

is occupied by 11 wildlife species and 14 plant species covered as threatened or endangered under the program. The potential for conflict with the Federal ESA is 

great in Kern County because of the extensive oil and gas production activities, 

water conveyance efforts and the urbanization that is occurring. Since Kern County 

is the top oil producing county in the Nation and experiencing rapid urban growth, 

potential conflicts with the ESA and their resolution through a proactive conservation program has significant national importance. 

In recognition of the conflicts posed to economic growth by Federal and State endangered species laws, a joint agency Memorandum of Understanding was entered 

into by the FWS, Bureau of Land Management, California Energy Commission, 

California Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources, California Department of Fish and Game, and Kern County. The participating agencies agreed to develop a unified conservation strategy with the goal of providing a streamlined and 

consistent process of complying with State and Federal endangered species laws, yet 

at the same time allow important industry activities such as oil and gas, water conveyance and other industry activities to continue. 
221 

Preparation of the KCVFHCP began in 1989 and involved a number of Federal, 

State and local government agencies, as well as the oil and gas industry, agricultural interests, utilities, and environmental groups. 

KCVFHCP is one of the largest and most diverse endangered species conservation 

programs under development in the Nation encompassing more than 3,110 square 

miles. The program represents a departure from traditional endangered species conservation programs which utilize prohibitory controls to assure conservation of species habitat. Instead, it is based on an incentive-based system of selling or trading 

habitat credits in an open market. This innovative approach, for the first time, provides landowners with real incentives and more importantly, the ability to choose 

how best to manage their own private property. The KCVFHCP is in the final 

stages of preparation. The HCP document is completed. An environmental impact 

statement is being prepared for public review in the near future. Final approval will 

occur in 2011. 

Numerous agencies, in concert with the State of California and local government 

entities, as well as the private oil and gas industry have contributed funding, time 

and other resources toward developing the KCVFHCP. The KCVFHCP program will 

be completed in 2011, provided there is the necessary Federal funding for the acquisition of habitat to mitigate for oil and gas operations and development. Additional 

funding is critical to completing the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). This is one 

of the final steps necessary to implement the conservation strategy. Because of the 

extensive private, local and State government financial support that went into the 

development of this program, Federal participation in program implementation will 

demonstrate that the burden of ESA compliance is not being placed exclusively on 

private property owners. Program funding will also contribute to eventual species 

recovery. 

PROGRAM FUNDING NEEDS

In order for the KCVFHCP to be implemented, the program requires funding in 

the amount of $1.5 million (augments the $1.5 million in State and Federal funding 

received in 1997) that could be funded in increments over the first 2 years of the 

program. The purpose of this funding is described as follows: 

Oil Development Issue 

A mitigation strategy has been devised that is intended to acknowledge existing 

oil field activities within Kern County. The strategy proposes to acquire 3,000 acres 

of endangered species habitat to mitigate for species loss resulting from oil field development outside of established oil field production areas, but within proximity of 

those areas. This is to allow for reasonable expansion of oil field activities over the 

life of the HCP program. The program strategy allocates $3 million for acquisition 

and perpetual maintenance of species reserve areas. With this type of strategy, oil 

field expansion activities would be provided for in the program. This strategy would 

be of great benefit to the small independent oil and gas companies within the program area. 

Urban Development/County Infrastructure Issue 

The conservation program includes an urban development/county infrastructure 

mitigation strategy that mitigates for species habitat loss through the use of an incentive-based system of selling or trading habitat credits in an open market. This 

innovative program will add market value to land that is needed by project proponents to comply with endangered species laws which will encourage the owners 

of such properties to offer lands for the benefit of species conservation. Protected 

species of plants and animals will benefit from a program that promotes private 

property owners to conserve permanent habitat preserves consistent with the objectives of the ESA. 

Water District Activity Issue 

A water district strategy is included in the program to address covered species 

protection due to the construction of new facilities and the operation and maintenance of existing water management and conveyance facilities. The covered species 

will benefit from reduced and less intrusive operation and maintenance measures 

than have been conducted historically due to concerns for conflicts with endangered 

species laws. 

Federal Funding Support Will Augment Local Government and Private Industry Efforts To Comply With the Endangered Species Act 

The $1.5 million required for the oil field strategy would help contribute to satisfying the program’s endangered species conservation goals, while also providing for 
222 

continued economic growth of Kern County’s oil and urban development activities. 

Protected species would benefit from a comprehensive long-term program that promotes the creation of permanent habitat preserves. 

Numerous private businesses, in concert with the State of California and local 

government entities, are attempting to do their part, and we come to the appropriations process to request assistance in obtaining a fair Federal share of financial support for this important effort. This unique cooperative partnership involving State 

and local government, as well as private industry, has contributed substantial funds 

to date, to assist in the development of this program. 

The California Industry and Government Coalition appreciates the subcommittee’s consideration of this request for a fiscal year 2011 appropriation to support implementation of this significant program. 

UNDERSIGNED ORGANIZATION

Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan; Western States Petroleum 

Association; Independent Oil Producers Association; Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc.; 

and Buena Vista Water Storage District 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

On behalf of Chief Gregory E. Pyle, of the Great Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, 

I extend to you the support of the people of the Choctaw Nation to work with you 

in addressing the priority issues of Contract Support Costs (CSC), Contract Health 

Services, (CHS) and Sanitation Facilities Construction (SFC). Thank you Chairwoman Feinstein for allowing the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to submit written 

testimony on these needs. 

ISSUE

CSC Funding.—$99.3 million in fiscal year 2010 and $100 million in fiscal year 

2011. 

The fiscal year 2010 final appropriation provides a $116 million increase for CSC 

and signals an end to a sad chapter of neglect for Indian Self-Determination (ISD) 

and Self-Governance (SG). The growth of SG compacting was seriously undermined 

from 2002 through 2009, by the failure to pass adequate funding increases, to not 

only support existing contractors, but those who wanted to participate in SG opportunities. SG tribes appreciate the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 support of 

the administration and Congress to address the CSC funding shortfall and acknowledge the commitment to sustain and expand ISD. The well-documented achievements of ISD and SG policies have consistently improved service delivery, increased 

service levels, and strengthened tribal governments, institutions, and services for 

Indian people. 

It is estimated that the CSC shortfall will be $99.3 million in fiscal year 2010 and 

$100 million in fiscal year 2011. The chronic underfunding of CSC represents the 

single greatest impediment to the expansion of tribal SG. CSC funding is vital to 

support the infrastructure needed to operate IHS programs. The present shortfall 

creates a disincentive for tribes to pursue SG compacts, and diminishes available 

healthcare funding as tribal budgets must absorb the shortfall amounts. Adequate 

CSC funding assures that tribes, under the authority of their IHS contracts and 

compacts, have the ability to deliver the highest-quality healthcare services to their 

members. Tribal programs have significantly increased the quality and level of services in their health systems compared to direct service programs. Failing to adequately fund CSC defeats the very program that has most improved health conditions for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Finally, underfunding CSC disproportionately hurts SG/ISD tribes because it protects direct service operations 

from sharing in overall funding reductions and limitations. And again, underfunding 

CSCs costs jobs in Indian country. 

Recommended Action.—We strongly urge consideration of this line item, and recommend an increase of $99.3 million in fiscal year 2010 (by supplemental appropriations) and $100 million in fiscal year 2011 to alleviate the shortfall for current contracting and compacting with IHS. To the extent fully funding CSC in fiscal year 

2011 is deemed infeasible, the Choctaw Nation recommends that a plan be developed by the administration and implemented immediately to sustain CSC funding 

in the appropriations process by eliminating the IHS CSC shortfall over a defined 

period of time. The objective would be to (1) annually provide sufficient CSC increases to adequately cover expanded CSCs associated with program increases and 

inflation ($45.8 million in fiscal year 2011 and a similar sum in fiscal year 2012, 
223 

1Taken from the Tribal Self Governance Strategic Plan and National Priorities for the Obama 

Administration and the 111th Congress, 2nd Session, 2010–2011, updated February 2010. 

and (2) include an additional CSC increase to phase-out the overall shortfall in 3 

years (by adding $35 million to the $45.8 million). 

Pacing increases in this manner would permit the administration to fulfill its 

commitment to support ISD and SG in a responsible manner that reflects the current difficult fiscal environment. It will allow tribal governments to support the administration and congressional efforts currently underway to create jobs in the most 

severely impoverished parts of the country. If these increases begin in fiscal year 

2012, it will eliminate the shortfall entirely in the fiscal year 2014 budget (after 

which annual increases would drop back to cover future inflationary, program increase, and ISD requirements). 

Finally, the administration should budget for CSC requirements associated with 

future IHS budget increases. For instance, today any new program dollar requires 

a matching increase of 13.5 cents in contract support costs, because the CSC requirement is an average 25 percent of each direct service dollar that is under contract, and 54 percent of all IHS service dollars are presently under contract. Developing appropriations increases in the future along these lines will prevent any future expansion of the historic CSC shortfall. Once that shortfall is eliminated (as 

proposed above) this approach will guard against any recurrence of shortfalls in the 

future.1

CHS

CHS is the most complex service delivered by the Indian Health Service (IHS), 

Tribally Operated Health Program (TOHP) healthcare delivery system. CHS is designed to refer patents and reimburse providers outside the IT system for medical 

services provided to American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) patients. CHS services 

consist of those services not provided by the TOHP hospitals and clinics. 

IHS and TOHP are taking positive steps to improve the way we deliver care in 

the CHS program. Dr. Yvette Roubideaux, Director of the IHS, will soon form a new 

workgroup to review the CHS program and initiate a ‘‘best practices’’ process that 

will allow the sharing of successful programs. We are heading down a positive road 

and we applaud the director for listening to our concerns and seeking a process to 

address the needs of Tribal health providers. 

The fiscal year 2010 appropriation from Congress for CHS was a good faith begin- ning. The $117 million increase is very much appreciated. The large problem with 

CHS is that no one is sure what the dollar figure is to fully fund this program. It 

is not just the total of dollars spent, plus denied referrals, plus deferred referrals. 

We know of providers who do not submit referrals because they know they will 

never meet the criteria for payment. So IHS and tribes must come up with a formula to provide Congress with a true number. 

Until this amount can be provided to Congress, all we know is that the program 

is woefully underfunded. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma requests that Congress 

support the $83 million increase in the President’s budget request for CHS in fiscal 

year 2011. Also, we strongly recommend that the funding methodology used in fiscal 

year 2010 be used to distribute the funds. 

SFC

In mainstream America it is difficult to imagine citizens living without access to 

clean water or waste disposal facilities; after all it is 2010. Yet in many areas where 

AI/ANs reside, this is the rule rather than the exception. We know this is a fact 

in many of the reservation areas, but it is also a fact in rural Oklahoma. The southeast corner of Oklahoma is the homeland for the Choctaw Nation. It is the size of 

Vermont. Some Choctaw members and other Indians live in small towns and communities served by rural water districts or city systems, but most live in homes far 

from major highways and communities. The terrain is rough, distances are significant, landscape is mountainous with many large trees. Many of our citizens do not 

have access to the most basic of services. Then we question, why are our people sicker than the non-Indian population? 

Speaking specifically for the Oklahoma City area, IHS, SFC (and this is typical 

for all areas of IHS) we are unnoticed and underfunded. SFC is preventive in nature 

and is not prioritized as a health delivery need by many tribal leaders and tribal 

health directors. it is hard to compete with cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. It 

is a major need in our system. 

The Oklahoma City area, IHS covers Oklahoma, NE Kansas, SE Nebraska, and 

one tribe in Texas. The Area Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) is a prioritized list 
224 

of needed water, sewer, and solid waste projects. In November 2009 the SDS indicated a need of $77 million; the SFC funding was $7,113,000. The priority list grows 

at a much higher rate than the appropriations. Within the Oklahoma City Area, the 

IHS and tribal programs will begin a canvassing process throughout Indian country 

to identify a true unmet need. We anticipate the unmet need will actually triple 

once this process is completed. The President’s 2011 budget request for SFC is $97,710,000, an increase of only 

$1,853,000 more than 2010 which was equal to the 2009 level. We are requesting 

that Congress increase the SFC budget line item $7,000,000 more than the President’s mark so that we can begin to close the gap in this important service. 

Mandatories.—Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population 

growth increase to maintain existing health care services. 

Mandatory costs increases are necessary to maintain the current level of services. 

These ‘‘mandatories’’ are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay 

costs and population growth. Maintaining current services is a fundamental budget 

principle. Failure to do so would result in cuts in healthcare and delivery. We estimate the current services need in fiscal year 2011 is $474 million. 

Office of Tribal Self-governance.—Increase $5 million to the IHS Office of Tribal 

Self-Governance 

In 2003, Congress reduced funding for this office by $4.5 million, a loss of 43 percent from the previous year. In each subsequent year, this budget was further reduced due to the applied congressional rescissions. As of 2010, there are 330 SG 

tribes managing approximately $1.2 billion in funding. This represents 57 percent 

of all federally recognized tribes and 33 percent of the overall IHS funding. The SG 

office supports tribes operating programs under the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 2000. The SG process serves as a model program for Federal Government 

outsourcing, which builds tribal infrastructures and provides quality services to Indian people. 

The Choctaw Nation supports the fiscal year 2011 budget requests included in the 

National Tribal Self-Governance Strategic Plan and Priorities, by the National Indian Health Board and by the National Congress of American Indians. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Support for fiscal year 2011 Federal funding of $5.9 million for the Department 

of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to assist in the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Program, with $1,500,000 to be designated specifically to 

identified salinity control efforts. 

This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2011 funding for BLM for the subactivity that assists title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Public 

Law 92–500). This successful and cost-effective program is carried out pursuant to 

the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 

92–500). 

The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is the State agency 

charged with protecting California’s interests and rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system. In this capacity, California and the other six 

Basin States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the 

interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin States’ salinity control 

efforts, established numeric criteria in June 1975, for salinity concentrations in the 

River. These criteria were established to lessen the future damages in the Lower 

Basin States, as well as, assist the United States in delivering water of adequate 

quality to Mexico in accordance with Minute 242 of the International Boundary and 

Water Commission. California’s Colorado River water users are presently suffering 

economic damages in the hundreds of million of dollars per year due to the River’s 

salinity. 

The BLM’s budget justification document has stated that the BLM continues to 

implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in cooperation with the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

and report salt retaining measures in order to further the Plan of Implementation 

of Federal Salinity Control Program in the Colorado River Basin. The BLM budget, 

as proposed in the BLM budget justification document, calls for five principal program priorities within the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of the 

priorities is reducing saline runoff in the Colorado River Basin to meet the interstate, Federal, and international agreements to control salinity of the Colorado 

River. 

As you are aware, BLM is the largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin. Due 

to geological conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and managed by the 
225 

BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past management practices have led to humaninduced and accelerated erosion processes from which soil and rocks, heavily laden 

with salt have been deposited in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result, 

salts are dissolved into the Colorado River system causing water quality problems 

downstream. 

Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River. BLM’s rangeland improvement 

programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures available. These measures significantly complement programs and activities being considered for implementation by the USBR through its Basin-wide Program and by 

the USDA through its on-farm Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 

In keeping with the congressional mandate to maximize the cost-effectiveness of 

the salinity control program, the Advisory Council at its meeting in October 2009 

in Phoenix, Arizona, recommended that Congress appropriate $5,900,000 to BLM in 

fiscal year 2010 for activities that help control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River Basin. In the past, BLM has used $800,000 of this 

funding for proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM’s salinity control coordinator for projects that focus on salinity control. The Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Advisory Council report states that the BLM has now identified projects 

that in fiscal year 2011 could use $1.5 million. The Colorado River Board requests 

that Congress appropriate $5,900,000 to BLM in fiscal year 2011. The Colorado 

River Board supports the Advisory Council’s recommendation and urges the subcommittee to specifically designate $1,500,000 for the Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Program as has been the direction to BLM from the subcommittee in past 

years. 

Since the congressional mandates of more than two decades ago, much has been 

learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system. Reclamation estimates that the quantified economic impacts and damages to water users in the 

United States alone is about $376 million per year. However significant 

unquantified damages also occur. For example, damages can be incurred related to 

the following activities: 

—A reduction in the yield of salt-sensitive crops and increased water use for 

leaching in the agricultural sector; 

—A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector; 

—An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water softening, and 

a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector; 

—An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment, and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector; 

—A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector; 

—Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, an 

increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation of salts 

in groundwater basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling and reuse of the 

water due to groundwater quality deterioration; and 

—Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of desalination and 

brine disposal for recycled water. 

For every 30 milligram per liter increase in salinity concentrations, there are an 

additional $75 million damages within the United States. In addition, the Federal 

Government has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the 

seven Colorado River Basin States with regard to the delivery of quality water to 

Mexico. In order for those commitments to be honored, it is essential that in fiscal 

year 2011, and in future fiscal years, that the Congress provides adequate funds to 

BLM for its activities related to salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. 

The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital water resource 

to the 18 million residents of southern California, including municipal, industrial, 

and agricultural water users in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San 

Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties. Preservation and improvement of 

Colorado River water quality through an effective salinity control program will 

avoid the additional economic damages to users in California and the other States 

that rely on Colorado River water resources. 

Sincerely, 

GERALD R. ZIMMERMAN, 

Executive Director. 
226 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM

In support of $5,200,000 to assist in Colorado River Salinity Control, title II from 

the soil, water and air management effort, and with support for the President’s request for that activity. Also a request that $1,500,000 be spent on identified salinitycontrol-related projects and studies. 

This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) for the subactivity that assists the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Program authorized by the Congress. The BLM budget, as proposed by the administration in the BLM budget justification document, calls for five principal program 

priorities within the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of these priorities is reducing saline runoff to meet the interstate, Federal, and international 

agreements to control salinity of the Colorado River. 

The BLM’s budget justification documents have stated that the BLM continues to 

implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in cooperation with the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

and report salt-retaining measures in order to further the Plan of Implementation 

of the Federal Salinity Control Program in the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) believes that fiscal year 2011 funds appropriated by the Congress for the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program 

should be used, in part, for reducing saline runoff in the Colorado River Basin. 

The seven Colorado River Basin States, through the Forum, have engaged the 

BLM in a partnership with the Basin States as has been done previously with the 

two other Federal agencies implementing salinity control in the Basin. The Forum 

has requested and the BLM has selected a salinity control coordinator for this 

basinwide effort. This person now serves with the two full-time coordinators in place 

for the USBR and the USDA efforts. This enhanced working relationship has taken 

advantage of the availability of Basin States’ cost-sharing monies to leverage Federal funds. The Forum is encouraged by the words in the BLM budget document. 

The Forum supports the funding request for the soil, water, and air management 

subactivity. As one of the five principal Soil, Water, and Air Program priorities, the 

Forum believes that the BLM needs to specifically target $5,200,000 to activities 

that help control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River 

Basin. In the past, the BLM has used $800,000 of the Soil, Water and Air Program 

funding for proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM’s salinity control coordinator for projects that focus on salinity control. The Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Advisory Council has recognized that the BLM has now identified projects 

that in fiscal year 2010 could use $1.5 million. For years, Congress has dedicated 

$800,000 on the effort and now the Forum believes $1.5 million should be so designated. 

The success of the BLM in controlling erosion and, hence, salt contributions to the 

Colorado River and its tributaries is essential to the success of the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Program, including adherence to the water quality standards 

adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will result in very significant additional economic damages to water users downstream. 

The Forum submits this testimony in support of adequate funding so that the BLM 

program can move ahead at a pace that is needed to sustain these water quality 

standards. 

Overview 

This testimony is in support of funding for a portion of the title II program. The 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by the Congress in 

1974. The title I portion of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act responded 

to commitments that the United States made, through a minute of the International 

Boundary & Water Commission, to Mexico specific to the quality of water being delivered to Mexico at the international boundary. Title II of the Act established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado River water users in the 

United States and to comply with the mandates of the then newly enacted Clean 

Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the Interior and the USBR were given the lead 

Federal role by the Congress. 

After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the Basin States concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be amended. In response to the Basin 

States’ requests, the Congress revised the Act in 1984 to give new salinity control 

responsibilities to the USDA and to the BLM. That revision, while leaving implementation of the salinity control policy with the Secretary of the Interior, gave new 

salinity control responsibilities to the USDA and to the BLM. The Congress has 

charged the administration with implementing the most cost-effective program prac-
227 

ticable (measured in dollars per ton of salt removed). The Basin States are strongly 

supportive of that concept and have proceeded to implement salinity control activities for which they are responsible in the Colorado River Basin. 

Since the congressional mandates of over two decades ago, much has been learned 

about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system. The USBR estimates that 

the quantified economic impacts and damages to United States’ water users alone 

is about $353 million per year and there are very significant additional damages yet 

to be quantified. Damages occur from: 

—a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use for leaching in the agricultural sector; 

—a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector; 

—an increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water softening, and 

a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector; 

—an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment, and an increase 

in sewer fees in the industrial sector; 

—a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector; 

—difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, an 

increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation of salts 

in groundwater basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to groundwater quality deterioration; and 

—increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of desalination and 

brine disposal for recycled water. 

The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven 

State coordinating body for interfacing with Federal agencies and the Congress in 

support of the implementation of the Salinity Control Program. In close cooperation 

with the EPA and pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 years 

the Forum prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, 

anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep the 

salinities at or below the concentrations in the river system in 1972 at Imperial 

Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams. 

In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system, the salinity concentrations at these three locations have been identified as the numeric criteria. The 

plan necessary for controlling salinity and reducing downstream damages has been 

captioned the ‘‘Plan of Implementation.’’ The 2008 review of water quality standards 

includes an updated plan of implementation. The level of appropriation requested 

in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If adequate funds are 

not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salt concentrations in the 

water will be more widespread in the United States and Mexico. 

Justification 

The BLM is, by far and away, the largest land manager in the Colorado River 

Basin. Much of the land that is controlled and managed by the BLM is heavily 

laden with salt. Past management practices, which include the use of lands for 

recreation; for road building and transportation; and for oil, gas, and mineral exploration have led to man-induced and accelerated erosional processes. When soil and 

rocks heavily laden with salt erode, the silt is carried along for some distance and 

ultimately settles in the streambed or flood plain. The salts, however, are dissolved 

and remain in the river system causing water quality problems downstream. 

The Forum believes that the Federal Government has a major and important responsibility with respect to controlling salt contributions from public lands. The 

Congress has explicitly directed specific Federal agencies, including the BLM, to 

proceed with measures to control the salinity of the Colorado River, with a strong 

mandate to seek out the most cost-effective options. It has been determined that 

rangeland improvements can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control 

measures available. These salinity control measures may be more cost-effective than 

some now being considered for implementation by the USBR and by the USDA. 

They are very environmentally acceptable as they will prevent erosion, enhance 

wildlife habitat, increase dependable stream flows and increase grazing opportunities. 

Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah, Colorado and 

Wyoming, consortiums of Federal and State agencies, including the BLM, have selected several watersheds where very cost-effective salinity control efforts could be 

implemented immediately. In keeping with the congressional mandate to maximize 

the cost-effectiveness of salinity control, the Forum is requesting that the Congress 
228 

appropriate and the administration allocate adequate funds to support the BLM’s 

portion of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program as set forth in the Forum’s 

adopted plan of implementation. 

LETTER FROM THE COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION OF NEVADA

MARCH 5, 2010. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, 

Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management 

DEAR CHAIRMAN FEINSTEIN AND SENATOR ALEXANDER: As a Nevada representative of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and Advisory Council, the 

Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRCN) submits this written testimony in 

support of funding for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the subactivity 

that assists the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. The CRCN believes 

the BLM needs to specifically target $5,200,000 to activities that help control salt 

contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River Basin. In the past, 

the BLM has used $800,000 of the Soil, Water and Air Management Program funding for proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM’s salinity control coordinator 

for projects that focus on salinity control. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Advisory Council has recognized that the BLM has now identified projects that in 

fiscal year 2011 could use $1.5 million. For years, Congress has dedicated $800,000 

on the effort; the CRCN believes $1.5 million should be so designated for fiscal year 

2011. 

Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River. Congress has 

recognized the need to confront this problem with its passage of Public Law 93–320 

and Public Law 98–569. Your support of the current funding recommendations that 

support the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is essential to move the 

program forward so that the congressionally directed salinity objectives are 

achieved. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE M. CAAN, 

Executive Director. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission is pleased to share its view on the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) fiscal year 2011 budget and has specifically identified 

two funding needs: 

—$7,712,000 (an increase of $3,232,000 more than fiscal year 2010 enacted) for 

Columbia River Fisheries Management under the other recurring programs, 

wildlife and parks, rights protection implementation areas to restore base program funding to the Commission and the fisheries programs of its member 

tribes to meet management obligations, including efforts for species listed under 

the Endangered Species Act, and; 

—$4,800,000 (an increase of $680,000 more than fiscal year 2010 enacted) for 

U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty under the Other Recurring Programs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection Implementation areas to achieve base program 

funding adequacy and to implement new obligations under the recent agreement adopted by the United States and Canada under the Treaty. 

The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) was founded in 1977 

by the four Columbia River treaty tribes: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and Nez Perce Tribe. 

CRITFC provides coordination and technical assistance to these tribes in regional, 

national, and international efforts to protect and restore our shared salmon resource 

and the habitat upon which it depends. The collective ancestral homeland of the 

four tribes covers nearly one-third of the entire Columbia River Basin in the United 

States. 
229 

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. 2See ‘‘Salmon Win A Triple Crown’’ at http://www.critfc.org/text/wanalw09.pdf. 

In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four tribes 1 whereupon 

we ceded millions of acres of our homelands to the United States. In return, the 

United States pledged to honor our ancestral rights, including the right to fish. Unfortunately, a perilous history brought the salmon resource to the edge of extinction 

with 12 salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin listed under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Today, the CRITFC tribes’ are leaders in fish restoration efforts and work with 

State, Federal, and private entities. CRITFC’s member tribes are principals in the 

region’s efforts to halt the decline of salmon, lamprey and sturgeon populations and 

rebuild them to levels that support ceremonial, subsistence and commercial harvests. To achieve these objectives, the tribes’ actions emphasize supplementation of 

natural stocks, healthy watersheds, and collaborative efforts. 

The programs in this testimony are carried out pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Assistance Act. We have successfully secured other funds to support 

our efforts, including funds from the Bonneville Power Administration, the Pacific 

Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, and the Southern Fund of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, to name a few. Our programs are integrated as much as possible with State and 

Federal salmon management and restoration efforts. Following several years of 

court supervised collaboration our member tribes have successfully forged three key 

10-year agreements including a coordinated plan for salmon restoration to meet the 

objectives for the Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System, 

while ensuring protection of our treaty reserved rights. 

Columbia River Fisheries Management Program Needs Under the Other Recurring 

Programs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection Implementation.—Tribal natural resource management issues continue to increase in complexity, requiring greater 

data collection and more sophisticated analyses and funding has not kept pace with 

inflation. Funding shortfalls are undermining efforts to fulfill tribal self-determination goals for fisheries management, ESA recovery efforts, protecting nonlisted species, conservation enforcement and treaty fishing access site maintenance. Since fiscal year 2003, our funding has decreased under the weight of inflation and rising 

operation costs. We are seeking an increase of $3,232,000 more than fiscal year 2010 

for a new program base of $7,712,000 for Columbia River Fisheries Management as 

explained below: 

Restore Base Program and Meet Unfunded Program Needs.—The BIA’s Columbia 

River Fisheries Management line item is the base funding that supports the fishery 

program efforts of CRITFC and the four member tribes. Unlike State fish and game 

agencies, the tribes do not have access to Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson or 

Wallop-Breaux funding. The increase will be directed to support the core functions 

of the fisheries management programs of the Commission’s member tribes. 

In 2008 CRITFC and its member tribes successfully concluded lengthy negotiations resulting in three landmark agreements: (1) a Columbia Basin Fish Accords 

with Federal action agencies overseeing the Federal hydro system in the Columbia 

Basin; (2) a Ten-Year Fisheries Management Plan with Federal, tribal, and State 

parties under U.S. v OR, and (3) a new Chinook Chapter of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.2 These agreements establish regional and international commitments on harvest 

and fish production efforts, commitments to critical investments in habitat restoration, and resolving contentious issues by seeking balance of the many demands 

within the Columbia River basin. While through these agreements the tribes have 

committed to substantial on-the-ground projects with some additional resources 

from the Bonneville Power Administration, the overall management responsibilities 

of the tribal programs have grown exponentially without commensurate increases 

in BIA base funding capacity. For example, the tribes’ leadership in addressing Pacific Lamprey declines is this species’ best hope for survival and recovery. The tribes 

are taking the lead in developing needed lamprey management plans. The tribes are 

also addressing unmet mitigation obligations, such as fish losses associated with the 

construction of John Day and The Dalles dams. 

Public safety continues to be a high priority for CRITFC and the four tribes. Tribal law enforcement infrastructure is a necessary component of fisheries management. Tribal infrastructure needs include additional conservation officers, tribal 

code improvements, courts and prosecutorial capacity increases, and modern detention facilities. CRITFC conservation officers are also the cornerstone of the search 

and rescue, and subsequently recovery efforts. In the popular and heavily used Columbia Gorge they provide the most continuous on-river presence for both the tribal 
230 

and nontribal community who depend on the river for commercial, cultural, and recreational opportunities. 

The Columbia River in lieu and treaty fishing access sites were authorized by 

Congress to fulfill the promises beginning in 1939 when the U.S. Government built 

the first of four Federal dams that flooded traditional fishing sites and villages on 

the lower Columbia River. After nearly 70 years, 29 sites are in place with two more 

sites slated for completion in 2011 thereby fulfilling the Government’s pledge. Eighteen of the sites are along the Washington shores of the Columbia River between 

Bonneville and McNary Dams. Tribal fishers from the four tribes use the sites to 

support their harvest for ceremonial, subsistence and commercial purposes. The 

sites vary with improvements including boat launches, fish drying sheds, fish cleaning stations, and camping facilities. 

Compounding the challenges in implementing tribal fish management agreements 

are the impacts that climate change will have on the interior Columbia Basin and 

the tribe’s treaty resources. The University of Washington Climate Impact Group 

predicts new challenges to salmon management due primarily to thermal effects and 

runoff timing changes. The CRITFC is being asked to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies on behalf of our member tribes. CRITFC and its member tribes 

currently have insufficient funds to do the technical work and allow policy-level participation in the co-management arena. 

The funding provided through the BIA to support tribal fishery programs is crucial to the tribes’ and CRITFC’s ability to successfully carry out tribal rights protection, including these agreements, by providing sound technical, scientific and policy 

products to diverse public and private forums. Lost buying power through rising 

costs, inflation and lack of pay-cost adjustments to tribal funding has further challenged us to deliver these essential services. 

U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty under the Other Recurring Programs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection Implementation.—For tribal participants in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the U.S. Section has identified a program need of $4,800,000 

for BIA. 

The United States and Canada entered into the Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1985 

to conserve and rebuild salmon stocks, provide for optimum production, and control 

salmon interceptions. The treaty established the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) 

as a forum to collaborate on intermingled salmon stocks. The U.S. section of the 

PSC annually develops a coordinated budget for tribal, State and Federal programs 

to ensure cost and program efficiencies. Congress increased funding in 2000 in order 

to implement the 1999 Agreement but funding has significantly eroded since then. 

In 2008, the United States and Canada adopted a new long-term Treaty agreement 

after nearly 3 years of negotiations. Both parties agreed to significant new management research and monitoring activities to ensure the conservation and rebuilding 

of the shared salmon resource 

The $4,800,000 provides for direct tribal participation with the Commission, panels and technical committees. The funding enables the tribes to assist in Treaty implementation and facilitates management protecting trust resources. This funding 

maintains tribal resource assessment and research programs structured to fulfill required Treaty implementation activities. We are seeking to restore this capacity 

through reprogramming existing BIA funds in a manner consistent with policy and 

law. The fiscal year 2011 recommended level for this program is an increase of 

$680,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The recommendation follows 

the U.S. section’s recommendation, includes pay cost adjustments and brings the 

program back in line with previous levels of participation. 

Pacific Salmon Treaty obligations add significantly to the tribes’ administrative 

management, and research responsibilities. To effectively implement the treaty, 

tribal representatives must meet frequently to review technical information and develop informed policy input for use by the tribes’ Pacific Salmon Commission representatives. These treaty-mandated responsibilities result in additional expenses 

for the tribes. Because each of the 25 tribes covered by this funding source is a separate government and manages its own fisheries, these obligations require direct tribal involvement. 

The tribal management programs provide needed and beneficial and technical 

support to the U.S. section. The Pacific Salmon Commission relies heavily on the 

various technical committees established by the Treaty. The work of these committees is integral to the task of implementing fishing regimes consistent with the 

Treaty and the goals of the Parties. Numerous tribal staff appointed to these committees and all of the tribal programs generate data and research to support their 

efforts. For example, indicator stock tagging and escapement monitoring provides 

key information for estimating the parties’ annual harvest rates on individual 
231 

stocks, evaluating impacts of management regimes established under the Treaty, 

and monitoring progress toward the Chinook rebuilding program started in 1984. 

In summary, through combined efforts of the four tribes supported by a staff of 

experts, we are proven natural resource managers. Our activities benefit the region 

while also essential to the U.S. obligation under treaties, Federal trust responsibility, Federal statutes, and court orders. We ask for your continued support of our 

efforts. We are prepared to provide additional information you may require on the 

Department of the Interior’s BIA budget. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHUGACH REGIONAL RESOURCES COMMISSION

As Executive Director of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC), located in Alaska, I am pleased to submit this testimony, which reflects the needs, 

concerns and requests of CRRC regarding the proposed fiscal year 2011 budget. 

CRRC respectfully requests that the subcommittee restore $500,000 in recurring 

base funding in the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) Trust-Natural Resources Budget. Of this amount, CRRC requests $350,000 for its core administrative operations, 

and $150,000 to restart and continue operations at the Alutiiq Pride Shellfish 

Hatchery in Seward, Alaska. 

I request that this funding be returned to the base budget due to the difficulties 

CRRC has had receiving its legally and contractually bound funding from the BIA 

over the last few years. Despite entering into a legally binding Self-Determination 

contract with CRRC in 1993, a contract that was subsequently renewed, the BIA 

has, in recent years, failed to request funding for CRRC in its budget. Recently, we 

brought suit against the BIA, which resulted in a legally binding agreement that 

the BIA would continue to honor its contract with CRRC and continue to fund it. 

Unfortunately, once again, the BIA failed to request funds in its budget. Because 

we do not want funding for other BIA programs to suffer, we request that Congress 

restore CRRC’s funding to the base budget to assist the BIA in meeting its legal 

obligation to provide funding to CRRC. 

Commission History.—CRRC is a nonprofit coalition of Alaska Native Villages. 

CRRC was organized in 1987 by the seven Native Villages of the Chugach region 

of Alaska: Tatitlek Village IRA Council, Chenega IRA Council, Port Graham Village 

Council, Nanwalek IRA Council, Native Village of Eyak, Qutekcak Native Tribe, 

and Valdez Native Tribe. 

CRRC was created by these Villages to address environmental and natural resource issues and to develop culturally-sensitive economic projects at the community 

level to support the sustainable development of the region’s natural resources. The 

Native Villages choice to create a separate entity demonstrates the level of their 

concern for environmental and natural resource management and protection—the 

creation of CRRC ensured that natural resource and environmental issues received 

sufficient attention and focused funding. 

In recognition of the level of concern the Chugach region Villages had, and the 

importance of CRRC’s work, the BIA awarded CRRC a self-determination contract 

(‘‘self-determination contract’’) with the Department of the Interior through the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (‘‘ISDEAA’’), Public Law No. 

93–368, in 1993, and received $350,000 as part of the BIA’s base budget from fiscal 

year 1994 through fiscal year 2002. CRRC was able to leverage this funding into 

almost $2 million annually to support its several community-based programs. While 

the base funding of $350,000 allowed CRRC to maintain core administrative operations, specific projects have received funding from sources such as ANA Grants, the 

EVOS Trustee Council, the State of Alaska, the BIA and the Forest Service. With 

these funds, CRRC has managed to develop and operate several important programs 

that provide vital services, valuable products, and necessary employment opportunities. These programs include: 

Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.—The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery is the only 

shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska. A 20,000 sq. ft. shellfish hatchery located 

in Seward, Alaska, the Alutiiq Pride houses shellfish seed, brood stock and algae 

production facilities. The Hatchery is operated by CRRC and, when funded, has employed four individuals. Alutiiq Pride is undertaking hatchery nursery and grow out 

operations research to adapt mariculture techniques for the Alaskan Shellfish industry, as well as conducting scientific research on blue and red king crab as part of 

a larger federally sponsored program. As the only shellfish hatchery in the State, 

CRRC is the only organization in Alaska that can carry out this research. While 

CRRC planned to expand the production of the Hatchery so that it can support some 

of CRRC’s base operating costs once it becomes self-sustaining, reduction and delays 
232 

in funding since 2001 has led to the hatchery slowing down its operations and laying off most of its employees. 

Alutiiq Pride has been successful in culturing geoduck, oyster, littleneck clam, and 

razor clam species, and is currently working to develop culture, nursery, and growout techniques for red king crab and blue king crab. This important research cannot 

continue without base operational funding. 

The production and sale of geoducks and razor clam seed—two projects the hatchery is currently working on—has the potential to raise substantial revenue. For example, the production potential from only 2 million seed sales can approach 

$400,000, which is a tenfold revenue increase. The shellfish industry in Alaska has 

not yet grown to the point where seed sales cover the cost of operations, but we expect geoduck seed sales will coincide with the expected growth of the oyster sales 

industry. Until the Hatchery is self-sufficient in 2–5 years, however, it requires operations and research and development funds if it is to meet the State’s growing 

demand for shellfish seed. 

To be able to re-hire hatchery employees and restart and continue to develop these important programs, CRRC is seeking annual funding of $150,000 for hatchery operating expenses and research and development until the Hatchery is able to 

become self-sustaining. 

Natural Resource Curriculum Development.—Partnering with the University of 

Alaska, Fairbanks, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

CRRC is developing and implementing a model curriculum in natural resource management for Alaska Native students. This curriculum integrates traditional knowledge with Western science. The goal of the program is to encourage more Native 

students to pursue careers in the sciences. So far, there 15 students have completed 

the program, earning a total of 15 credits each towards a 30-credit certificate in 

tribal management. In addition, we are working with the Native American Fish & 

Wildlife Society and tribes across the country (including Alaska) to develop a university level textbook to accompany these courses. 

Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council.—CRRC is a member of the council responsible for setting regulations governing the spring harvest of migratory 

birds for Alaska Natives. 

Statewide Subsistence Halibut Working Group.—CRRC participates in this working group, ensuring the halibut resources are secured for subsistence purposes, and 

to conduct harvest surveys in the Chugach region. 

Employment.—CRRC has provided employment for 35 Native people in the Chugach region—an area where Native people face high levels of unemployment. As a 

result of reduction and elimination of funding in the past few years, CRRC had to 

lay off 20 employees, including most of our Village employees. This amounts to six 

families per Village losing this income. In Villages with an average population of 

100, this loss of income is a devastating blow to the local community economies. If 

funding is not restored, we will be unable to rehire our employees, and these 20 

families will create a much larger burden on State and Federal financial resources. 

Several of our projects, each of which serve important and innovative goals and provide valuable products and services, have also been put on hold until we have the 

funding to resume operations and rehire the necessary employees. 

Funding History.—As mentioned above, CRRC receives its core administrative 

funding through a self-determination contract with the Department of the Interior. 

CRRC entered into its original 3-year contract in 1993. Under the contract, the BIA 

agreed to provide annual funding to CRRC to protect the region’s natural resources 

and engage in economic development for the Villages. This contract has subsequently been renewed each time it has come up for renewal. 

The ISDEAA requires the Interior to provide at least the amount of funding the 

‘‘Secretary would have otherwise provided for the operation of the programs’’ the 

contract supports (the so-called ‘‘Secretarial Amount’’) plus additional contract support costs. 25 U.S.C. § 450j–1(a)(1)–(2). This means that Interior is required to provide CRRC with the same amount that the Secretary of the Interior would have to 

run the program. The ISDEAA further specifies that the Interior generally cannot 

reduce the contract funding from one year to the next. Despite this legislative and 

contractual obligation to provide consistent annual funding to CRRC, the BIA, since 

fiscal year 2003 has avoided its funding obligation by failing to request funding for 

CRRC in its budget. 

Even though Congress has been helpful in restoring funding for CRRC in the 

BIA’s budget, the BIA has continued to avoid using those funds for CRRC. In fiscal 

year 2006, the BIA unilaterally reduced CRRC’s funding to $300,000—a significant 

cut from our previous level of funding. In fiscal year 2007, Congress again provided 

$300,000 for CRRC, but the BIA used the absence of associated targeted spending 

language to redirect CRRC’s funding elsewhere in its budget. Despite repeated ap-
233 

peals to the agency, and despite its contractual obligation to pay, the BIA did not 

provide CRRC with any funding in fiscal year 2007. As a result, CRRC was forced 

to take out a bank loan of $100,000 just to avoid closing its operations entirely. We 

were forced to lay off many employees, and several of our projects were put on hold 

because of the lack of funding and the resulting lack of employees. 

In fiscal year 2008, the BIA again sought to withhold all funding, and even tried 

to cut off CRRC’s contract, which is illegal under the ISDEAA. CRRC was forced 

to spend several thousand dollars in legal fees to file suit to obtain its rightful funding for fiscal year 2008. The BIA resolved this lawsuit and agreed that it would continue to provide funding to CRRC, but once again, in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 

2010, the BIA did not provide for CRRC funding in its budget. We fear that without 

Congressional assistance in the form of a targeted spending request, we will be 

forced to sue the BIA every year to obtain the funding that CRRC should rightfully 

receive pursuant to its contract. 

If the BIA does not request funding for CRRC, it must take the funds from its 

other programs to fulfill its legally obligated duty to CRRC. Because we do not want 

to take funds from other BIA programs, we are asking that Congress restore this 

funding the base budget to assist the BIA in meeting this legal and contractual obligation. 

Our base budget is as follows: 

Projected cost 

Chugach Region Shellfish Mariculture Development .......................................................................................... $75,000 

Oyster grow-out operations in Tatitlek 

Oyster marketing 

Nanwalek Sockeye Salmon Development Project ................................................................................................. $25,000 

Seek funds for disease free water engineering study 

Operate smolt out-migration weir 

Program Development/Regional Office Operations .............................................................................................. $250,000 

Two staff persons/supplies/quarterly board meetings 

Biological Professional Assistance 

Project Development and Planning 

Harvest Surveys 

Resource Evaluation and Management 

Total Direct Costs ................................................................................................................................... $350,000 

Indirect Cost (27.7 percent) ................................................................................................................................ $96,950 

Total projected base budget .................................................................................................................. $446,950 

Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery Operations ........................................................................................................ $150,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 $596,950 

1 $500,000 requested. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIONAL PARK ASSOCIATION

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land at Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio. An appropriation of $5.275 million is needed in fiscal 

year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in order for the National 

Park Service to acquire the remaining phase of the 580-acre Blossom property. The 

administration’s budget for this year, recognizing the national significance of this 

land protection effort at Cuyahoga Valley National Park, includes an LWCF recommendation for the Park of $6.82 million. This will permit the protection of the 

Blossom acquisition as well as several other Cuyahoga Valley National Park 

inholdings. 

Located between Cleveland and Akron, the Cuyahoga Valley National Park conserves the Cuyahoga River valley and the associated historic canal and railroad corridors in Summit and Cuyahoga counties. The park is a major year-round outdoor 

recreation attraction in northeastern Ohio. More than 2.8 million people visited 

Cuyahoga Valley in 2008, making it the sixth most visited National Park in America 

and the single most visited NPS site in the Midwest. Native Americans named the 

river Cuyahoga, or ‘‘crooked river,’’ aptly describing the river’s serpentine 

meanderings as it flows northwards beneath bluffs towards Lake Erie. The conserved forests, farmlands, and wetlands within the national park offer visitors a remarkable array of outdoor recreation, wildlife-viewing opportunities, and spectac-
234 

ular scenery including peaceful creeks, waterfalls, open prairie, and dense hardwood 

forests, all within easy access of a major metropolitan area. 

In fiscal year 2011, the National Park Service has the opportunity to complete the 

acquisition (begun in fiscal year 2010) of the 580-acre Blossom property, the toppriority inholding at Cuyahoga Valley National Park. The acquisition is crucial due 

to its location, natural and scenic resources, and likelihood of significant development if not protected. The Blossom tract is currently owned by the Cleveland Orchestra/Musical Arts Association (MAA) as part of the renowned 780-acre Blossom 

Music Center, a vital and exceedingly popular performing arts destination for residents of the Cleveland area and beyond. MAA is an important cultural presence in 

the area; in order to sustain the many public-benefit programs MAA and the Orchestra provide to the community in the face of significant financial challenges, it 

now must monetize the bulk of this key asset. MAA agreed last year to make 580 

park-quality acres surrounding its facilities available for acquisition by the National 

Park Service, and Congress responded by providing $4 million to begin the purchase 

in fiscal year 2010. Requested funding in fiscal year 2011 will allow the completion 

of the project so that MAA can set aside all other plans regarding these highly developable lands. 

As a large inholding, the acquisition of the Blossom tract would greatly benefit 

efforts to protect forest and water resources in the southern section of the national 

park. A mature forest covers most of the property, and its addition to the park will 

create 1,200 acres of unfragmented and protected forestlands. This acreage, combined with other nearby blocks of protected forest, forms a 5,000-acre forest ecosystem, the largest in the national park. This network of forestlands provides unparalleled habitat for a high diversity of species and particularly for important nesting and feeding areas for bird and other species most sensitive to habitat disturbance. Along these lines, the Blossom land is one of just two sites in the entire park 

that host cerulean warbler, black and white warbler, veery, and other bird species 

that are in decline nationally. Such rich forest communities are increasingly rare 

in northeastern Ohio. 

The Blossom property is key to improving water quality protection in the Cuyahoga Valley. Three distinct watersheds drain the Blossom land (Robinson Run, 

Adam Run, and an unnamed creek). These creeks provide many high-quality 

coldwater stream habitats that in turn support diverse fish populations and a broad 

spectrum of other sensitive species. Unlike many other tributaries of the Cuyahoga, 

these creeks have remained healthy and intact, mostly in part because of their location at the heart of the larger forest ecosystem. The Blossom tract therefore presents what likely is the best remaining watershed protection opportunity in the 

park. 

Recreational opportunities surround the inholding and will be enhanced by acquisition of the trails, creek corridors, and woodlands of the Blossom lands. Just across 

the Cuyahoga River to the west are the popular Hunt Farm Visitor Information 

Center, a boarding station on the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, the Ira trailhead on the Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath Trail, and the Beaver Marsh wetland area. 

Just to the south of the property is the 278-acre Hampton Hills Metropark, managed by Summit County, featuring its own hiking trails, soccer fields, picnic 

grounds, and natural areas. 

Acquisition of the Blossom property by the National Park Service would be a signature accomplishment in the history of the park and in the complement of public 

resources here. As noted before, Congress approved a $4 million appropriation in fiscal year 2010 to commence the project. In order to complete the protection of these 

lands, an appropriation of $5.275 million from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund directed to the Cuyahoga Valley National Park is needed in fiscal year 2011. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation’s premier Federal program 

to acquire and protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and 

at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting 

healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, 

improving wildfire management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing 

the many demands this subcommittee faces, I also want to thank the committee for 

its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise 

investment in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one that will permanently 

pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 
235 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Ohio, 

and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide written testimony. My name is James Lighthizer, and I am the president 

of the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT). I am writing to respectfully request 

that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies fully fund the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program 

(CWBPP), financed through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the 

Department of the Interior, at its authorized amount of $10 million. 

I would like to start by providing a little information about our organization. 

CWPT is a 55,000-member nonprofit organization—the only national one of its 

kind—dedicated to preserving America’s remaining Civil War battlefields. To date, 

CWPT has permanently protected more than 29,000 acres of hallowed ground in 20 

States, most of it outside National Park Service boundaries. 

I am here today to discuss with you the small but highly effective Federal land 

conservation program that has made much of our success possible: the CWBPP. This 

matching grants program encourages cooperative partnerships between State and 

local governments and the private sector to preserve targeted, high-priority Civil 

War battlegrounds. Since it was first funded in fiscal year 1999, the program has 

been used to protect more than 15,500 acres of hallowed ground nationwide. 

Time is running out for our remaining Civil War battlefields. We estimate that 

even in this depressed economy, 30 acres of battlefield land are lost every day. If 

we are to save these sites so that future generations may visit them and learn from 

them, the time to act is now. We estimate that in the next 5 to 10 years the fate 

of many of these battlefields will be determined. 

ORIGINS OF THE PROGRAM

In 1990, Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC), a 

blue-ribbon panel composed of lawmakers, historians, and preservationists. Its goal: 

determine how to protect America’s remaining Civil War battlefields. In 1993, the 

Commission released a study entitled ‘‘Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields.’’ The report identified the 384 most historically important Civil War battlegrounds and further prioritized them according to preservation status and historic 

significance. Sixteen years later, this landmark report and a recent update conducted by NPS remain our guide for determining which battlefields should be preserved. 

In addition to creating a prioritized list of battlefield preservation targets, the Commission also recommended that Congress establish an ‘‘emergency’’ $10 milliona-year Federal matching grant program for acquisition of battlefield land outside 

NPS boundaries. The intent of the matching grants formula was to encourage private sector and State and local government involvement in battlefield acquisition. 

The Commission’s proposal for an emergency Federal matching grant program was 

the genesis of the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program. 

CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING AND FIRST SUCCESSES

Five years after the ‘‘Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields’’ was released, 

Congress acted upon the Commission’s recommendation by setting aside $8 million 

from the LWCF for Civil War preservation matching grants. This first appropriation 

for the program was made available over 3 years, and required a 2 to 1 non-Federal/ 

Federal match. Grants were competitively awarded through the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP), an arm of NPS. Funding was solely for acquisition 

of properties outside NPS boundaries at battlefields identified in the 1993 report. 

Land could be purchased from willing sellers only; there was—and there remains— 

no eminent domain authority. 

Thanks to the new program, there began an unprecedented and almost-immediate 

surge in Civil War battlefield preservation. The $8 million appropriation generated 

$24 million for land acquisition by encouraging State and private investment in battlefield land protection. The program inspired the Virginia and Mississippi legislatures to appropriate $3.4 million and $2.8 million, respectively, to meet the Federal 

match. The Civil War Preservation Trust alone contributed $4 million in private sector funds to meet the match. 
236 

As a result of the non-Federal funds generated by the program, battlefields like 

Virginia’s Brandy Station and Manassas received a new lease on life. In addition, 

other sites such as Prairie Grove in Arkansas, Champion Hill in Mississippi, and 

Bentonville in North Carolina—just to name a few—were substantially enhanced. 

Largely because of the success of those first 3 years, Congress appropriated an additional $11 million for the program in fiscal year 2002, this time with a more attractive 1 to 1 non-Federal/Federal match requirement. 

AUTHORIZATION OF THE PROGRAM

After approval of the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, authorization of the CWBPP 

seemed the next logical step. Supporters on Capitol Hill felt that authorization of 

the program would convey to the Department of the Interior congressional intent 

regarding the program’s goals and objectives. Further, authorization would provide 

funding predictability for the program’s non-Federal partners, encouraging them to 

continue their involvement in battlefield preservation. 

The authorization bill, entitled the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002, 

was introduced in the House and Senate in the summer of 2002. The bipartisan bill 

formally tied the program to the 1993 CWSAC report, creating a Federal conservation program with a highly focused, prioritized list of acquisition targets. It also provided for an annual appropriation of up to $10 million per year—the level originally 

recommended by the Commission in 1993. The Civil War Battlefield Preservation 

Act was passed with the unanimous consent of both the House and Senate in the 

fall of 2002, and was signed into law on December 17, 2002 (Public Law 107–359). 

ADDITIONAL SUCCESSES AND REAUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION

Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program grants have been used to protect 15,500 acres of hallowed ground 

in 14 States. Among the many battlefields that have benefited from this program 

are: Antietam, Maryland; Averasboro, North Carolina; Chancellorsville, Virginia; 

Chattanooga, Tennessee; Corinth, Mississippi; Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; and 

Perryville, Kentucky. 

One of the program’s most notable successes occurred in 2006, when the Depart- ment of the Interior awarded a $2 million grant to help save the Slaughter Pen 

Farm on the Fredericksburg Battlefield in Virginia. This property, soaked with the 

blood of 5,000 men in blue and gray, was nearly lost to industrial development. Five 

Medals of Honor were earned by Union soldiers for heroism on that field. 

The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program was reauthorized as part of the 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (H.R. 146), which President Obama 

signed into law on March 30, 2009 (Public Law 111–11). 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND FISCAL YEAR 2011 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

We would like to thank the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for providing $9 million for the CWBPP in fiscal 

year 2010. This appropriation has allowed for the preservation of many historically 

significant lands at battlefields such as: Bentonville, North Carolina; Champion 

Hill, Mississippi; Davis Bridge, Tennessee; Perryville, Kentucky; Resaca, Georgia; 

and the Wilderness, Virginia. The ABPP, which administers the grant program, received the Treasury warrant on February 12, 2010, allowing the agency to begin obligating its fiscal year 2010 allocation. The agency has already completed an apportionment memo to obligate $1.7 million and more apportionment memos are sure 

to follow in the coming months as pending applications quickly consume the entire 

$9 million appropriation. CWPT and our nonprofit partners are certain the entire 

$9 million allocation will be obligated by the end of this fiscal year. Since the entire 

fiscal year 2010 allocation will be consumed by current deals, in order for the program to continue it will need additional funding in fiscal year 2011. 

We respectfully ask the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to fully fund the Civil War Battlefield Preservation 

Program at its authorized amount of $10 million. Please note that a letter signed 

by nine Senators was delivered to both the subcommittee and full committee in 

March. The Member letter requested that the program be fully funded at its authorized amount of $10 million in fiscal year 2011. President Obama included a $6 million request for the program as part of his fiscal year 2011 budget. 

We recognize that these are difficult economic times and appreciate the constraints on this subcommittee as you work to draft an appropriation bill that meets 

the needs of the agencies and programs under your jurisdiction. However, we believe that now is the opportune time to provide full funding for the CWBPP, especially with the Civil War sesquicentennial commemorations beginning next year. 
237 

Funding at this level will allow for the continued success of the program and the 

preservation of key battlefield lands that will serve as lasting, tangible legacies for 

the sesquicentennial. In addition, with time rapidly running out to forever protect 

these hallowed grounds, funding for this program will soon no longer be necessary. 

We estimate that in the next 5 to 10 years the remaining Civil War battlefield lands 

will be either paved over or protected. That is why we must act now in order to 

preserve as much key battlefield land as possible before time runs out. 

CONCLUSION

There is no question that the Civil War was a defining moment in our country’s 

history. For 4 long years, North and South clashed in hundreds of battles that reunited our Nation and sounded the death knell for slavery. More than 625,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians perished as a result of the war. 

Preserved battlefields not only honor the memory of our Civil War ancestors, but 

all of our Nation’s brave men and women in uniform. Further, preserved battlefields 

serve as outdoor classrooms to teach new generations of Americans about the significance of the Civil War—and remind them that the freedoms we enjoy today came 

at a terrific price. 

I sincerely hope this subcommittee will consider our request to provide full fund- ing of the CWBPP at its authorized level of $10 million. As noted, this is especially 

important as the nation begins to prepare for the upcoming sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil War, beginning in 2011. The commemoration is expected 

to stimulate renewed interest in the conflict and generate unprecedented visitation 

to preserved Civil War battlegrounds. The preserved battlefield lands will create a 

legacy that long outlasts the sesquicentennial anniversary. We look forward to 

working with this subcommittee on battlefield protection and other historic preservation issues. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DESCHUTES CHAPTER OF TROUT UNLIMITED

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land along the Crooked 

National Wild and Scenic River in Oregon. An appropriation of $1.2 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in order for the 

Bureau of Land Management to acquire the 101-acre Crooked River Canyon 

inholding. In a demonstration of the importance of this acquisition, the $1.2 million 

amount was included in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2011. 

On behalf of the Upper Deschutes Home Rivers Initiative and the Deschutes 

Chapter of Trout Unlimited, thank you for your time and interest in protecting our 

unique rivers and canyons here in Central Oregon. We are a national organization 

with more than 400 local members who support conservation and restoration of native fish habitat in the Upper Deschutes river basin. Trout Unlimited supports 

projects for our community and watershed which combine volunteers, staff support, 

and outside grant funds to care for our local and shared natural resources. We 

couldn’t imagine living and working in a better place, and we hope congress can 

help preserve our natural heritage. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act celebrated its 40th Anniversary in 2008. The act, 

championed by Senator Frank Church and signed into law by President Lyndon 

Johnson on October 2, 1968, protects the free-flowing waters of many of our Nation’s 

most spectacular rivers. The act is notable for safeguarding the special character of 

these rivers, while also recognizing the potential for appropriate use and development. These living landscapes are uniquely managed to protect the public’s enjoyment of these heritage resources for present and future generations. The managing 

agencies also try to accommodate and reflect community and landowner interests. 

Every designation preserves a sliver of traditional American experiences that are 

important to local communities, such as fishing and boating in waters our Nation’s 

forefathers would have recognized and enjoyed. Oregon enjoys a reputation for some 

of the greatest river ecosystems and river recreation in the country. Many of these 

rivers are currently protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Located in Jefferson County near the city of Terrebonne, Oregon, and available 

for acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in fiscal year 2011, is 

the 101-acre Crooked River Canyon property. The Crooked River is a nationally designated wild and scenic river which runs through the high desert in central Oregon 

and provides remote recreational opportunities including fishing, whitewater boating, wildlife viewing, and stunning scenic views. Because of the influx of cold ground 

spring water through the canyon walls, the river is home to unique ecosystems of 

lush gardens of plants rare to central Oregon’s arid climate. Near one of the fastest 
238 

growing areas in the United States, the Crooked River is a major tributary of the 

Deschutes River and in years of high water has attracted whitewater boaters from 

Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Juniper trees and big sagebrush are part of the 

spectacular scenery along the narrow, meandering, dry canyon riddled with rock 

outcrops and lined by cliffs. Shaded ledges on rock cliffs provide spring nesting sites 

for prairie falcon, bald eagle, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other raptors along 

with the ash-throated flycatcher, gray flycatcher, and Western kingbird. 

Despite the fact that this river is nationally designated, there is very limited public access. All points where the river is easily accessible are privately owned, making 

it very difficult for the public to enjoy this resource. The Crooked River Canyon 

property is one of the few areas where public access is available, but it is currently 

for sale and threatened with development. The Crooked River Canyon parcel contains the ‘‘outstandingly remarkable’’ scenic and recreational values that led Congress to designate the Lower Crooked River as a part of the national wild and scenic 

river system in 1988. Approximately a mile and a half of the river flows through 

this property, which encompasses steep walls of the gorge and unique high desert 

scenery. Among supporters of public ownership of the Crooked River Canyon property are American Whitewater, representing approximately 80,000 whitewater paddlers across the Nation, American Rivers, the Wilderness Society, and the Oregon 

Natural Desert Association. 

An fiscal year 2011 BLM appropriation of $1.2 million from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund for acquisition of this property would preserve the scenic qualities of the gorge and permanently protect public access to this section of the Crooked River. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation’s premier Federal program 

to acquire and protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and 

at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting 

healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, 

improving wildfire management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing 

the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the subcommittee for 

its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise 

investment in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one that will permanently 

pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Oregon, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. Founded in 1947, Defenders 

has more than 1 million members and supporters and is dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and plants in their natural communities. 

Defenders understands the sober fiscal realities, and, in general, we are very 

pleased with several of the high-priority initiatives in the President’s budget, including: (1) the continued emphasis on assisting wildlife and ecosystems in surviving the 

impacts of climate change and providing the necessary science; (2) the recognition 

of the importance of landscape level conservation; and (3) the commitment to reach 

full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). However, while 

the Department of the Interior (DOI) is moving ahead with praiseworthy initiatives 

to coordinate their work in addressing the impacts of climate change, it still is unclear how different efforts underway within the Department, individual agencies, 

and the Council on Environmental Quality will result in a comprehensive national 

strategy across all Federal departments and agencies in coordination with States, 

tribes, and other stakeholders to assist fish, wildlife, plants and natural systems in 

adapting to climate change, as directed in both the final fiscal year 2009 and fiscal 

year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations conference 

reports. We continue to be deeply grateful for the subcommittee’s leadership on climate change, and we ask that you maintain your excellent efforts on this critically 

important issue, including working with the administration to ensure progress in 

developing the national strategy. 
239 

However, we also are troubled by certain aspects of the request. In particular, we 

have deep concerns about the agency operating accounts, as they are the critical 

foundation on which rests the agencies’ abilities to meet their missions and implement the administration’s highest-priority initiatives. The unfortunate failure to, at 

minimum, meet fixed costs for the agencies will further erode base programs, even 

more dramatically compromising their status about which Congress has previously 

expressed concern. We also are concerned about specific aspects of the allocation of 

LWCF dollars, and, potentially, with some of the policy implications of the ‘‘New Energy Frontier Initiative’’ and with the reorganization of the Forest Service (USFS) 

budget. 

We urge the subcommittee to continue to rebuild the Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), our Nation’s premier wildlife conservation agency. We strongly support the 

following increases: 

—To continue progress in addressing the impacts of climate change on wildlife 

and ecosystems, a total of $40 million for Climate Change Adaptive Science Capacity, an increase of $20 million more than fiscal year 2010 that will allow 

needed progress in the effort to build more than 20 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives across the country. In developing the Cooperatives, it is important 

that the agency communicate in a timely and comprehensive manner with their 

own staff and with the many external partners about what these new partnerships are, how partners can participate, and how these are additive to existing 

partnerships. 

—To address the needs of our Nation’s most vulnerable plants and animals, a 

total of $217 million for the endangered species operating accounts, an increase 

of $37.7 million more than fiscal year 2010, allocated as follows: $15 million for 

candidate conservation, an increase of $2.4 million; $32 million for listing, an 

increase of $9.9 million; $95 million for recovery, an increase of $9.7 million; 

and $75 million for consultation, an increase of $15.7 million. We are deeply 

concerned that the request was essentially flat and even reduced in for listing. 

Increases are needed for addressing the backlog of 249 domestic and 20 foreign 

candidate species awaiting protection under the Endangered Species Act, for restoring a 16 percent staffing shortfall in the recovery program, for addressing 

concerns about tracking species under the consultation program and for updating Habitat Conservation Plans to incorporate climate change into existing longterm permits. We also are concerned about the decreases for the Wolf Livestock 

Loss Demonstration program and for White Nose Syndrome and ask that funding be restored. 

—To continue efforts to restore the integrity of the National Wildlife Refuge System, a total of $578.3 million, an increase of $75 million more than fiscal year 

2010 as recommended by the diverse coalition of 23 organizations in the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement. Defenders is concerned about the $3.3 

million decrease, an effective $18.3 million cut, since an increase of at least $15 

million each year is needed to keep pace with fixed costs and to have adequate 

management capability. We appreciate the $8 million requested increase for inventory and monitoring needed to manage for climate change, however, the 

amount is not a net increase. FWS also must ensure that new inventory and 

monitoring efforts are integrated with existing programs of other Federal agencies and non Federal entities to avoid duplication and to allow for easy information sharing. 

—To restore the mission critical Office of Law Enforcement, a total of $77 million, 

an increase of $11.2 million, to support hiring, training and equipping 24 special agents, 10 additional port inspectors, and 4 of 12 critically needed forensics 

scientists. The special agent force is still 23 percent below the authorized number of 261 and Defenders is extremely disappointed that the request included 

a decrease of $2.5 million, including $2 million that was specifically added in 

fiscal year 2010 for special agents. We also recommend report language directing the agency develop a plan to increase the special agent force to, and maintain it at, the authorized level. 

—To build the international affairs program, a total of $22 million, an increase 

of $7.6 million more than the fiscal year 2010 level. The request included a 9 

percent decrease in this very modest program. Even at current funding, international affairs lacks resources to implement most international treaties and 

agreements the United States is involved in; to address emerging problems at 

the global level such as human-wildlife conflict, wildlife disease, and invasive 

species; to address the growing permitting, research, and monitoring workload, 

including the effort FWS is undertaking on species native to the United States; 

and other crucial needs. 
240 

—To support the Migratory Bird Management program, a total of $68.5 million, an increase of $14 million more than fiscal year 2010. The request cut Migratory Bird Management by $1.7 million, yet increases are needed to continue development and implementation of plans for 139 focal species of highest conservation need, to cover critical gaps in inventory and monitoring, and for the 

innovative Urban Conservation Treaties for Migratory Birds. —For critical grant programs, $115 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, an increase of $25 million; $100 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species 

Fund, an increase of $15 million; $6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory 

Bird Conservation Fund, an increase of $1.5 million; and $18 million for the 

Multinational Species Conservation Fund, an increase of $6.5 million. 

The multiple-use lands of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USFS 

are becoming increasingly crucial to the conservation of wildlife and habitat in the 

United States, yet their resources are not adequate to meet significant challenges. 

While Defenders supports the administration’s efforts to move toward a clean energy economy, it must proceed in a balanced way that ensures the ability to maintain sustainable wildlife populations. We were extremely pleased that the fiscal year 

2010 conference report directed the Department of the Interior and the USFS to 

submit a comprehensive review on siting and coordination of renewable energy 

projects. We urge continued strong oversight to ensure that any energy development 

is done in an environmentally sensitive fashion. And given the overriding challenge 

posed by climate change, it is imperative that both agencies have clear climate 

change adaptation and restoration policies and incorporate these considerations into 

any energy development plans. 

Defenders supports the stated goals of the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) 

initiative to move to a restoration and resiliency based approach to forest management. However, the success of any such effort—and beneficial rather than harmful 

outcomes—will depend on establishment of science-based management objectives 

and dedicated support for planning, assessment, and monitoring. It is not clear from 

the budget that such requirements have been taken into consideration. In particular, given the merging of Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management into IRR 

and elimination of its output measures, we are concerned about the adequacy of 

wildlife diversity objectives in this new proposal. Moreover, the agency currently is 

developing new National Forest Management Act (NFMA) planning regulations—an 

effective planning rule is necessary to ensure proper implementation of any integrated program. We urge the subcommittee to work with the administration to ensure a strong policy and regulatory framework before IRR is allowed to move forward. We will be following up with more detailed recommendations. 

We recommend the following funding for BLM and FS programs: 

—For BLM climate change adaptation, we support the request of $17.5 million, an increase of $2.5 million more than fiscal year 2010. However, as was the 

case in fiscal year 2010, it is again proposed for funding under the soil, water, 

and air subactivity. Since the stated focus of this funding primarily is to assist 

native plant and animal communities in adapting to climate change, consideration should be given to funding this initiative through the wildlife and fish 

budget activities. 

—For BLM wildlife and fisheries management, a total of $65.4 million, an increase of $15 million more than fiscal year 2010 and for BLM threatened and 

endangered species management, a total of $32.6 million, an increase of $10 

million. Defenders is extremely disappointed that these two activities were cut 

by a combined total of more than $2 million, especially given the dire status 

of the sage grouse and the need for proactive conservation actions in the face 

of expanded renewable energy development. Moreover, reports are that the 

practice continues of inappropriately diverting at least 30 percent of funding to 

compliance activities of energy and other nonrelated programs. Consideration 

should be given to directing the Government Accounting Office or a reputable 

outside entity knowledgeable in natural resource management to review this 

problem and make recommendations to resolve it. 

—For the BLM Challenge Cost Share (CCS) program, a total of $19.5 million, an 

increase of $10 million directed to wildlife. Defenders is extremely disappointed 

in the decision to eliminate this program, that, given the diversion of resources 

from wildlife programs accomplishes much of the agency’s proactive wildlife and 

habitat conservation work. 

—For BLM resource management planning, a total of $55 million, an increase of 

$5 million more than fiscal year 2010. We are quite concerned about the $8.2 

million decrease in the request. As is the case with the wildlife activities, failure 

to invest in planning sets the BLM up for less than optimal results in energy 

development and adaptation policy implementation. 
241 

—For BLM’s land and realty management subactivity, we support the requested $3 million increase to support site specific National Environmental Policy Assessments for renewable energy projects. —For USFS land management planning, $80 million, an increase of $34.1 million more than fiscal year 2010 and for USFS inventory and monitoring, $180.5 million, an increase of $10 million. Defenders was concerned that these requests 

were flat. Given the new IRR proposal, parallel commitments are required to 

move toward a restoration and sustainability agenda. Moreover, robust Land 

Management Planning funding, which has declined by more than 40 percent 

since 2001, is needed to support the ongoing NFMA rulemaking process. 

—Given the IRR proposal, it is not clear if the separate Wildlife and Fisheries 

Habitat Management line item will still exist, however regardless of whether 

there is a separate or combined line item, Defenders supports a total of at least 

$163 million for wildlife and fish output measures, a $20 million increase more 

than the fiscal year 2010 level that was still nearly $15 million below the 2001 

inflation adjusted level. The program has lost 15 percent of its scientists since 

2003 and Defenders is greatly concerned about the loss of biological capability 

in the agency. 

—For USFS forest and rangeland research R&D programs, $265.1 million, an increase of $20 million more than fiscal year 2010 that includes a total of $41.9 

million for climate change research and $37.1 million for fish and wildlife R&D. 

Defenders is concerned about the $5 million reduction for climate change research in the request. 

The U.S. Geological Survey through its Biological Research Discipline (BRD) and 

National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center supports the basic science 

necessary for conservation of fish, wildlife and habitat. To provide adequate science 

support, we urge the following increases: 

—For the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, $27 million, an 

increase of $12 million more than fiscal year 2010. We thank the subcommittee 

for its past strong support, including the strong direction to the administration 

in the fiscal year 2010 conference report that the future identity and activities 

of the center remain distinct and accountable in the overarching DOI climate 

change adaptation effort and urge that strong support and oversight continue. 

We appreciate the administration’s requested increase of $8 million; however we 

believe that a larger increase is needed to move more quickly in establishing 

planned regional centers across the country. 

—For the BRD Research and Monitoring Program, a total of $170 million, an increase of $9.3 million above fiscal year 2010, which includes a $5 million increase to support Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, and for BRD Cooperative Research Units, $22.5 million, an increase of $3.2 million. We have concerns about the $3.6 million net decrease for BRD in the request, but we appreciate the increases for FWS/NPS/BLM science support ($4 million), in particular 

the $1 million for BLM, the first time specific science support funding has been 

requested for BLM. 

We urge the subcommittee to continue restoration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at a total of $600 million, $425 million for Federal LWCF 

and $175 million for stateside. We are pleased at the significant increases in the 

request, but are concerned that a substantial portion is being directed to two other 

programs. 

Finally, we deeply appreciate the subcommittee’s continued attention to the impacts of illegal immigration and related enforcement on sensitive land and wildlife 

resources along the Southwest border, and we urge continued oversight, funding and 

opposition to related riders hindering land management agency operations. In addition, we urge the subcommittee to work with the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) appropriations subcommittee to ensure that DHS provides funding to mitigate for any impacts from border security infrastructure, including the as yet 

unfulfilled commitment of $50 million in fiscal year 2009 funds and $40 million in 

fiscal year 2010 funds. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANCE/USA 

Madame Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Dance/USA 

is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of our members across 

the United States. We urge the Committee to designate a total of $180 million to 

the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2011. This testimony is 

intended to highlight the importance of the Federal investment in the arts to sustaining a vibrant cultural community and to our national character. 
242 

Dance/USA, the national service organization for not-for-profit professional dance, 

believes that dance is essential to a healthy society, demonstrating the infinite possibilities for human expression and potential, and facilitating communication within 

and across cultures. Dance/USA sustains and advances professional dance by addressing the needs, concerns, and interests of artists, administrators, and organizations. By providing services and national leadership, Dance/USA enhances the infrastructure for dance creation, education and dissemination. To fulfill its mission, 

Dance/USA offers a variety of programs, including data research and regional professional development, and works with organizations within and outside the arts 

field with whom common goals are shared. Dance/USA’s membership currently consists of more than 500 ballet, modern, ethnic, jazz, culturally specific, traditional, 

and tap companies, dance service and presenting organizations, artist managers, individuals, and other organizations nationally and internationally. Dance/USA’s 

member companies range in size from operating budgets of under $100,000 to more 

$50 million. 

The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from the performing 

arts. 

Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965, the arts were limited mostly to a 

few big cities. The Arts Endowment has helped strengthen regional theater, opera, 

ballet, and other artistic disciplines that Americans now enjoy. NEA funding provides access to the arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic 

or geographical limitations. The Endowment embodies the ideal that no one should 

be deprived of the opportunity to have art in their lives. The Arts Endowment has 

helped the arts become accessible to more Americans, which in turn has increased 

public participation in the arts. 

Despite diminished resources, the NEA continues to award grants to nonprofit 

arts organizations for projects that encourage artistic creativity. These grants help 

nurture the growth and artistic excellence of thousands of arts organizations and 

artists in every corner of the country. NEA grants also preserve and enhance our 

Nation’s diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the Nation’s cultural life results in both new and classic works of art reaching all 50 States. 

NEA grants are instrumental in leveraging private funding. On average, each 

NEA grant generates at least $8 from other sources. Government cultural funding 

plays a catalytic leadership role that is essential in generating private support for 

the arts. 

The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every community. 

The return of the Federal Government’s small investment in the arts is striking. 

The nonprofit arts industry generates $166.2 billion annually in economic activity, 

supports 5.7 million full-time equivalent jobs, and returns $12.6 billion to the Federal Government in income taxes. Few other Federal investments realize such economic benefits, not to mention the intangible benefits that only the arts make possible. Even in the face of tremendous cutbacks in recent years, the NEA continues 

to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country. 

NEA GRANTS AT WORK

NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core programs: Access 

to Artistic Excellence; Challenge America: Reaching Every Community; Federal/ 

State Partnerships; and Learning in the Arts, as well as through initiatives such 

as American Masterpieces: Dance. The following are some examples of the impact 

of NEA funding on dance programs the NEA’s 2010 Access to Artistic Excellence 

Program: 

American Dance Festival, Inc., Durham, North Carolina, $70,000 

To support What is Dance Theater?, a series that will include works that blur the 

line between dance and theater. American Dance Festival will present a variety of 

American and international companies as well as commissioned new works. 

American Tap Dance Foundation, Inc., New York, New York, $15,000 

To support Tap City, an annual summer tap festival. The festival offers training, 

education, special events, and performances. 

Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, $10,000 

To support an island tour as part of the company’s 30th anniversary. The company will offer performances and outreach activities in rural communities across 

Puerto Rico. 
243 

Dance Saint Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, $25,000 

To support presentation of the River North Chicago Dance Company, Aszure Barton & Artists, and Giordano Jazz Dance Chicago. Performances will be presented 

at the Touhill Performing Arts Center on the University of Missouri-St. Louis campus. 

Houston Ballet Foundation, Houston, Texas, $50,000 

To support the presentation of George Balanchine’s Ballo della Regina and the 

world premiere of a new work by Houston Ballet associate choreographer Christopher Bruce. The ballets will be performed at the Wortham Theater Center. 

Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival, Inc., Becket, Massachussets, $90,000 

To support residencies and performances of dance companies. The project will include a Creative Development Residency, presentation of national and international 

dance companies, and audience engagement and educational programs. 

Spectrum Dance Theater, Seattle, Washington, $15,000 

To support the development and presentation of FAREWELL: A Fantastical Contemplation on America’s Relationship with China. Through text, music, and movement, the project will explore critical human rights and social justice issues involving the United States and China. 

THE NON-PROFIT PROFESSIONAL DANCE COMMUNITY

America’s dance companies perform a wide range of styles and genres. These include both classical and contemporary ballet, classical and contemporary modern, as 

well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary fusions, and traditional to modern work rooted 

in other cultures. Over two-thirds of America’s professional dance companies are 

less than 45 years old; as an established art form with national identity and presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living memory. And, yet, 

America can boast some of the greatest dance companies of the world and can take 

credit for birthing two indigenous dance styles—tap and modern dance. 

One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the Arts instituted its Dance 

Touring Program in the 1970’s, great dance became accessible to every community 

in America. What used to be a handful of professional companies and a scattering 

of ‘‘regional’’ dance has become a national treasure spread across cities and through 

communities, schools and theaters in all 50 States. 

There are now more than 600 professional dance companies in America as well 

as more than 1,000 pre-professional and semi-professional groups. Based on recent 

surveys, Dance/USA estimates that the 81 largest and most visible nonprofit dance 

companies in the United States do the following: 

—Employed more than 6,000 people in a mix of full-time and part-time positions; 

—Performed for total home audiences of nearly 2.9 million people; 

—Paid approximately $237.5 million in wages and benefits; 

—Had operating expense budgets totaling $452.2 million; 

—Earned $156.7 million, or 38 percent of their income, from performances; 

—Earned $76.2 million from sales, tuitions, and activities other than performances; 

—Received $16.7 million from State, local, and government contributions; 

—Received $21.6 million from corporate contributions; 

—Received $46.2 million from private foundations; 

—Received $98.7 million from individual contributions through donations, benefit 

events, guilds, and United Arts drives; and 

—Had over 24,300 volunteers, including more than 2,700 members of Boards of 

Trustees. 

CONCLUSION

Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending Federal tax 

dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, and its programs are seriously underfunded. Dance/USA 

and other performing arts service organizations work hard each year to strengthen 

support for the NEA in Congress. As the NEA banner underscores, ‘‘a great nation 

deserves great art.’’ In order for there to be great art, organizations need stronger 

infrastructure and stability. Therefore, we urge you to increase the fiscal year 2011 

NEA funding allocation to $180 million. 

On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request. 
244 

1See Fall 2009 EPA Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, Index D and E, and previous editions. 2 ‘‘EPA Grants—State Cost Share’’ via email from David Bloom to Steve Brown, February 25, 

2010. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF THE STATES

SUMMARY

The States’ environmental agencies collectively support the President’s 2011 State 

and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) budget request, and specifically support the 

Categorical Grants potion of that request, with the exception that we believe the 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) grant should be provided the same increase as the Clean Water Act 106 grant. 

TESTIMONY

The States are integral partners and co-regulators with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) in the implementation of the Nation’s environmental laws. 

States conduct on EPA’s behalf most of the permitting, enforcement, inspections, 

monitoring, and data collection required by those Federal environmental laws. In 

this document, the States’ environmental agencies respectfully submit their collective comments on the 2011 budget proposal for the categorical grants portion of the 

EPA’s budget that supports States, tribes, and local governments, known as the 

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). 

In the period 2004–2009, Federal support for State environmental protection declined. With the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

and the 2010 budget, this trend reversed for the infrastructure portions of the EPA 

budget. States committed 100 percent of the safe drinking water and clean water 

ARRA funds within the time allotted, and exceeded the minimum requirements for 

expenditures on green infrastructure projects. We are grateful to Congress for the 

funding and proud of the States’ achievements in quickly committing the infrastructure funds to important projects. We expect an excellent return in terms of both jobs 

and environmental compliance as a result of this investment. 

However, another portion of the Federal support for States has not been so fortunate. States rely on the ‘‘categorical grants’’ portion of the EPA STAG budget for 

support for the delegated and assumed programs. There are 20 categorical grants 

that cover the many environmental protection programs that States conduct in partnership with EPA. During the 3-year period 2007–2009, EPA promulgated 305 new 

or modified rules, for which essentially no additional funding was provided to the 

States. In addition, EPA continues to plan about 100 more new rules under development that will affect States.1 Many of these affect States because EPA expects 

States to implement them and, therefore, they carry an additional workload. Some 

of these may carry an especially heavy cost burden as well. For example, EPA listed 

five of these rules as having ‘‘Federalism implications’’ in 2009: 

—2020–AA47.—NPDES Program Management Information Rulemaking; 

—2040–AD39.—Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed 

Forces—Phase II; 

—2040–AA94.—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radon; 

—2050–AE81.—Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals 

Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers; and 

—2070–AC64.—Lead-Based Paint Activities; 

These rules are in various stages of development, and there are others that have 

not yet been so designated that will no doubt be listed by the time the 2011 budget 

goes into effect. There are also other rules and policies that are not listed above that 

States believe will have equal or greater impact on their environmental agency 

budgets because they are new, are major modifications, or because they regulate 

previously unregulated industries. 

The primary concern of the States is that the number and complexity of new rules 

is arriving at a time when State resources are at their lowest in years. States are 

not opposing these rules, and may often be eager to implement them, but there is 

great concern among State environmental agency leaders about the resources being 

provided to accomplish these tasks. 

EPA has reported that ‘‘for every dollar EPA Obligates, states contribute approximately 22 cents, which results in states, contributing 18 percent of the project 

cost.’’ 2 This conclusion is based on the minimum match requirements for categorical 

and infrastructure grants. However, for the largest categorical grants (e.g., 106, 

clean air, etc.), States greatly ‘‘overmatch’’ the Federal grant, which EPA’s report 

does not take into account. Therefore, we find that in a typical State, 20–30 percent 

of the total categorical funding comes from EPA. The rest comes mostly from permit 
245 

3State Environmental Expenditures, 2005–2008, Environmental Council of the States, March 

2008. 4 Impacts of Reductions in fiscal year 2010 on State Environmental Agency Budgets, in publication, Environmental Council of the States, March 2010. See www.ecos.org. 

fees and State general funds.3 State environmental agencies have lost a substantial 

amount of their funding from non-Federal sources over the past year, with many 

States reducing staff and/or holding positions vacant.4 ECOS is currently documenting the cuts (or anticipated cuts) to State environmental agencies for fiscal 

years 2009, 2010, and 2011. This document is expected to be ready in June 2010. 

The combination of new and modified rules, declines in Federal funding, and loss 

of State funding sources means the State-Federal environmental partnership is 

under great strain. States are making hard decisions about which parts of Federal 

programs they can continue to implement, and which parts they may have to ask 

EPA to undertake for a while. 

Fortunately, States and EPA have worked to improve our communications on 

these matters. Part of that communication has been State input into EPA’s annual 

budget process. In 2009, as EPA began to develop its 2011 budget, ECOS was again 

asked to present its STAG budget needs. Focusing on the categorical grants (largely 

because ARRA had just passed and had addressed the infrastructure needs), ECOS 

presented the ‘‘statement of needs,’’ which outlined our assessment of the workload 

and the resources needed to accomplish it, with an emphasis on the largest categorical grants such as those previously listed. The resulting total for categorical grants 

was about double the current amount provided. However, we recognized that such 

a request would be very hard indeed to honor. So, we stated that ‘‘Our base request 

is a 2 percent increase above 2010 appropriations to address inflation’’ that would 

be applied to every categorical grant. We also explained that new rules would need 

new resources, especially this year. 

We were therefore pleased to see that EPA had listened to this request, and included an overall 14.3 percent increase for the categorical grants programs, with 

most receiving the 2 percent request and some (such as the air program and the 

clean water program which have new expansions) receiving larger amounts. This 

approach addresses some of the State needs, and is especially welcome during the 

current difficulties that States are facing in obtaining funding from State sources. 

The primary shortcoming in the agency’s budget approach is that the drinking 

water program was not provided any increase. Our understanding from the agency 

is that it believed that previous budgets had addressed these needs. However, 

ECOS’ examination of recent categorical grants budgets does not match the agency’s 

assessment. For example: 

[Dollars in millions] 

Categorical 

Grant: Public 

Water System 

Supervision 

(PWSS) 

PWSS annual 

percentage 

increase 

PWSS net 

percentage 

increase 

Comparative net 

increase for CWA 

106 

Comparative net 

increase for Air 

Quality 

Management 

2007 CR (base year) ....................... $98,274,000 Base year Base year Base year Base year 

2008 actual ..................................... 97,554,000 ¥0.738 ¥0.738 0.937 ¥1.580 

2009 actual ..................................... 99,440,100 1.897 1.187 0.312 1.494 

2010 actual ..................................... 105,700,000 5.922 7.556 6.061 2.874 

2011 proposed ................................. 105,700,000 ........................ 7.556 26.879 40.331 

This shows that the Categorical Grant for the drinking water programs is not 

keeping pace with the air and water point-source programs, and did not have a 

‘‘head start’’ over the other programs in previous years that would carry it forward 

into the present, as the agency seems to assert. Furthermore, the PWSS grant had 

been supplemented by a Homeland Security grant of nearly $6 million per year that 

was eliminated in the 2010 budget. These duties must still be conducted, but the 

Homeland Security subcommittee seems unlikely to fund these activities, which 

means there is no funding source for them. In consideration of these facts and 

trends, we respectfully suggest that the PWSS categorical grant should be increased 

in an amount commensurate with the CWA 106 grant. 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

ECOS notes that the proposed EPA budget has eliminated several programs 

added by Congress in last year’s or previous years’ appropriations. Our endorsement 
246 

1See Environmental Protection Agency (July 7, 2005), ‘‘2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Final 

Rule,’’ http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/diesel.htm. 2 Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Report to Congress: Highlights of the Diesel Emission 

Reduction Program.’’ http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/documents/420r09006.pdf p. 3. 

of the President’s budget should not necessarily be interpreted as opposition to these 

programs. 

ECOS understands that there is interest from some parties, including the General 

Accountability Office and the EPA Inspector General, in having EPA conduct a 

‘‘workforce analysis’’ for at least the Clean Water program. ECOS agrees that this 

is overdue, but suggests that the analysis will be more accurate and complete if the 

States’ role in implementing the act on behalf of the EPAis included as part of the 

workforce analysis. Should the subcommittee consider requiring EPA to conduct this 

analysis, the States’ environmental agencies encourage you to include our role as 

part of the analysis. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Tim Regan and 

I’m the President of the Emissions Control Technology Association (ECTA) and an 

executive with Corning Incorporated. ECTA is a trade association that promotes 

public policies to improve air quality by reducing mobile source emissions through 

the use of advanced technologies. ECTA represents the companies that have been 

at the cutting edge of mobile source emissions control technology for three and a 

half decades. Our members invented and developed the core, specifically the substrate and the catalyst, of the catalytic converter. 

Thank you for the providing me with the opportunity to submit written testimony 

in support of the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA). This subcommittee has repeatedly recognized the importance of funding diesel emission reduction programs, 

and on behalf of ECTA I both thank you and encourage you to continue that commitment. Specifically, we respectfully request that the Committee fund the grant 

program authorized by the Diesel Emission Reduction Act of 2005 at $100 million 

for fiscal year 2011. We are incredibly grateful for the $300 million in funding that you included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as well as the $80 

million that you included in the fiscal year 2010 budget for diesel emission reductions. This funding will not only assist in cleaning the air and protecting public 

health, but it also presents a unique opportunity to stimulate the economy in a 

timely and targeted manner. 

The Challenge 

Thirty years ago, when the catalytic converter was first introduced, our industry 

was faced with the challenge of reducing nitrogen oxides from the transportation 

sector. Today, the challenge is to reduce the black smoke and smell from diesel exhaust. Once again, our industry has risen to the challenge by developing a full 

range of devices, commonly known as ‘‘after-treatment’’ technology that remove fine 

particulate matter and other pollutants in diesel exhaust. 

Our technology is required equipment on all new on-road heavy duty vehicles entered into service after January 1, 2007. This will make a significant contribution 

toward cleaner air and better health. In fact, EPA estimated at the time the socalled 2007 Highway Rule was promulgated that the technology would generate $66 

billion in economic and health benefits annually when the new vehicles significantly 

penetrated the fleet after the year 2020.1

The challenge that we continue to face is how to retrofit this new technology onto 

existing vehicles and engines that are being used today. These vehicles and engines 

do not have the emissions control technology that is required for new vehicles. Consequently, they are the ‘‘dirtiest’’ diesel devices in use, and there are a lot of them. 

EPA estimates there are currently 20 million heavy duty diesel engines in use 

today, the so-called ‘‘legacy fleet.’’ 2 Because diesel engines are so durable, the existing equipment in the fleet will not be fully replaced until the year 2030. The best 

way to clean up the legacy fleet is to retrofit it with the same kind of technology 

that is being installed on new vehicles. This retrofit equipment could include aftertreatment devices, such as a diesel particulate filter or a diesel oxidization catalyst. 

It also could include vehicle replacement, engine replacement, engine rebuilds, and 

engine repair. 

Unfortunately, the cost of purchasing and installing diesel retrofits oftentimes 

does not introduce enough operational efficiency to generate a return on the investment. So, equipment owners are understandably reluctant to invest in a retrofit un-
247 

3See ECTA comments (February 20, 2007) in Federal Highway Administration Docket No. 

FHWA–2006–26383, http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/454896.pdf, http://dmses.dot.gov/ 

docimages/p89/454899.pdf. 4 Ibid, Table 4, p. 10, http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/454896.pdf. 

5Keybridge Research, LLC, ‘‘Green Stimulus: The Economic Impacts of Funding the Diesel 

Emission Reduction Act.’’ http://www.ectausa.com/documents/DERAEconomicImpactStudy.pdf p. 

16. 

less they are given some form of financial assistance to help defray the cost. And, 

it makes sense for the public to help finance retrofits because they generate benefits 

in the form of cleaner air and improved public health for all of society. 

Congressional Action 

To the credit of Congress, it has acted to provide the necessary financial assistance to promote the deployment of diesel retrofits. This subcommittee started addressing this problem as far back as fiscal year 2003. At that time, the subcommittee took the lead in appropriating $5 million to provide the original funding 

for the Clean School Bus USA program. 

Based on the positive experience with the Clean School Bus USA program, Congress took another big step in 2005 to advance the deployment of diesel retrofits. 

Specifically, as part of the Energy Policy Act, Congress proposed and passed DERA. 

This provision of law authorized the expenditure of $1 billion over 5 years to finance 

diesel retrofits through grants and revolving loans. The authorization calls for the 

appropriation of $200 million per year for fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011. 

Madame Chairman, your subcommittee has done a valiant job in trying to find 

the resources to fund DERA. These are difficult financial times. All Federal accounts 

are under stress, especially those under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. But 

under your leadership, your subcommittee has continued to approve funding for this 

extremely important and cost-effective program. We appreciate the subcommittee’s 

efforts. 

The Problem 

Unfortunately, the resources available to fund diesel retrofits far exceeds the de- mand, even with the $300 million of funding included in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Recovery Act). Despite increased funding in recent years, 

the DERA program continues to be oversubscribed. In fiscal year 2008, EPA received approximately $5 in requests for every available dollar. 

This trend continued with the Recovery Act funding. The national grant compo- nent of the DERA program under the Recovery Act contained funding for $155.8 

million worth of clean diesel projects. However, EPA received 598 applications requesting a total of $1.7 billion and providing $2.2 billion in matching funds. This 

translates into a request of $10 for every $1 available. 

Our Request and Rationale 

In light of this strong demand for funding, we respectfully request $100 million 

for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) in fiscal year 2011. We believe that 

this proposed increased level of funding is reasonable and appropriate for several 

reasons. 

First, the money will be well spent because diesel retrofits have been proven to 

be one of the cost-effective emission reduction strategies. Studies have shown that 

emission reduction strategies which involve the use of diesel retrofit technology can, 

in almost every case analyzed, achieve lowest cost per ton of emissions reduced compared a long list to other strategies for reducing emissions from the transportation 

sector.3 For example, installing a diesel particulate filter on a Class 7 heavy duty 

truck is 15 times more cost-effective than replacing a conventional bus and 46 times 

more cost-effective than building an HOV lane.4

Second, DERA represents a unique opportunity to simultaneously stimulate the 

economy and save jobs while improving national environmental and health outcomes. DERA funding is targeted at industries undergoing significant dislocation 

and layoffs. In particular, as a study by Keybridge Research notes ‘‘the economic impact [of DERA funding] is likely to be the greatest in auto parts manufacturing and 

heavy-duty truck (e.g., school bus) manufacturing sectors, which have sustained job 

losses at nearly 9-times and 7-times the national rate.’’ Employing a methodology 

based on the use of standard economic multipliers provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s RIMS II model, Keybridge Research concluded that DERA is likely 

to generate approximately $6 of increased economic output for every $1 of Federal 

expenditures.5

Third, spending on diesel retrofits generates a substantial return on an investment. When DERA was enacted, EPA estimated that, if fully implemented, the pro-
248 

6 Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Report to Congress: Highlights of the Diesel Emission 

Reduction Program.’’ http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/documents/420r09006.pdf p. 11. 

gram would generate $20 billion of economic and health benefit for $1.5 billion of 

cost. In a recent Report to Congress on the first year of the DERA program (fiscal 

year 2008), the EPA estimates that for every $1 spent on the DERA program, an 

average of more than $20 in health benefits are generated.6

Fourth, because DERA sets aside 30 percent of its funds for a State Grant Program, it can be used to help States reach attainment of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter. Every State in the Nation now 

has a diesel retrofit program and would benefit from DERA funding. 

Fifth, increasing the installation of clean diesel retrofits through significant funding for DERA can generate global warming benefits. While U.S. EPA and others 

continue to study the issue, recent studies show that black carbon from diesel exhaust has global warming potential. Clean diesel retrofits can reduce this black carbon by more than 90 percent. 

Finally, there is a very broad base of support for the DERA program. From the 

beginning, DERA enjoyed strong support from both sides of the aisle in Congress 

and from the entire range of private interests and nonprofit public interest groups. 

Few environmental programs enjoy such widespread support. 

State and Local Air Quality Grants 

We would also like to endorse the request for increased funding to support State 

and local air quality grants that is being requested by the National Association of 

Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) in their written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee. State and local governments hold primary responsibility for preventing 

and controlling air pollution. They rely on grants to carry out their core obligations 

under the Clean Air Act, including monitoring air quality, assessing emissions impacts, permitting and inspecting sources, and enforcing environmental regulations. 

For fiscal year 2011, NACAA recommends that grants within the STAG program 

for State and local air pollution control agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the 

Clean Air Act be funded at $309.1 million, an $82.5 million above the fiscal year 

2010 appropriation. We support NACAA in this request. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again Madam Chairman for the opportunity to appear before the sub- committee. In closing, we urge you to fund DERA at $100 million for fiscal year 

2011 because it will result in the most cost-effective use of Federal funds to achieve 

emission reductions from the transportation sector. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ENERGY MINERALS RECLAMATION COMMITTEE

Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of the coal mine reclamation agencies in the States of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, we are writing to convey our concerns with the administration’s proposed 15 

percent ($11 million) reduction in State regulatory grants in fiscal year 2011 authorized under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (issued by the Office 

of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement). More than one-half of the Nation’s coal is mined in our States. 

In fiscal year 2010, Congress approved an additional $5.8 million increase for State title V grants over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, for a total of $71.3 million. Congressional action helped avert serious problems in the funding of Western 

State regulatory programs as outlined in a report we prepared in November 2006, 

‘‘An Impending Crisis for Coal Supplies’’ (http://www.westgov.org/wieb/reclamation/ 

2006/12-01-06finalrpt.pdf). Congressional action was essential to restoring the Federal share of State regulatory programs and reversing a 12-year period during 

which OSM costs were adjusted for inflation but State regulatory grants were not. 

The administration’s proposed fiscal year 2011 budget threatens to undo the 

progress made by Congress. The administration’s proposal to cut State regulatory 

grants—a proposal that is based on the unsupported assumption that State permit 

fees can be quickly raised to fill the budget hole—is completely unrealistic. The most 

likely outcome of the administration’s proposal is serious erosion of State program 

capabilities as positions go unfilled, personnel are laid off, and needed equipment 

purchases are deferred. As State program capabilities erode, so do our abilities to 

orderly review and enforce coal mine permits and to protect the public from any potential health and environmental impacts of coal mining. 

We appreciate the support Congress has provided state regulatory programs 

through title V grants and the funding of critical OSM training and technical assist-
249 

ance programs. We urge you to block the administration’s proposals that would undercut effective regulatory of coal mining by the States and maintain the constructive course Congress has been on in the last several years. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ENEWETAK/UJELANG LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Madam chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee: Thank you 

for providing us this opportunity to the people of Enewetak to describe issues that 

relate to our ability to live on our homeland of Enewetak Atoll, which was used as 

a nuclear test site by the United States from 1947 to 1958. 

As the only people ever resettled on a nuclear test site, we face many challenges. 

Life on Enewetak Atoll is made possible through support provided by the congressionally funded Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program. That program provides 

funding for imported food, an agriculture rehabilitation program, and the operation 

of a vessel. We request that funding for that program for fiscal year 2010 be increased by the amount of $500,000, the same amount of increase as provided by 

Congress in fiscal year 2010. Also, we hope that this committee will support continued funding of the health program for the four nuclear affected atolls of which we 

are one, and funding for the environmental monitoring by the Department of Energy 

of the Runit Island nuclear waste site which is on our atoll. 

Before we discuss the particulars of this request, we would first like to thank you, 

Madam Chairman, and members of this committee, on behalf of the Enewetak people, for your support in funding the food and agriculture program for my people in 

the Compact of Free Association. We also thank you for your past support in assuring that the Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program is adequately funded, particularly your support for the $500,000 increase for fiscal year 2010 and your approval 

of our request to purchase a replacement vessel during fiscal year 2008 from previously appropriated program funds. 

As you know, Enewetak Atoll was the site of 43 of the 67 nuclear tests the United 

States conducted in the Marshall Islands. We were removed from our land by the 

U.S. Government to make that testing possible. We were exiled from our land for 

a period of more than 33 years—a period in which we suffered near starvation, poor 

health, and lack of education. 

In 1980, after a significant cleanup, soil rehabilitation, and resettlement effort undertaken by the United States, we were able to return and live on only a part of 

our land. A large part of our land and environment remain contaminated making 

it impossible for us to rely on our natural food resources and preventing us from 

developing a fishing or tourist economy. 

We now live on a former nuclear test site. In fact, we are the only people ever 

resettled on a nuclear test site. The Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program makes 

life on Enewetak possible. And that is why we are so thankful to you for assuring 

funding in the minimum amount of $1.3 million for the program in the Compact. 

However, the program was funded at a level of approximately $1.9 million in fiscal year 2010 and close to that amount for the past several years. That funding level 

needs to continue to maintain the minimum components of the program which include a soil and agriculture rehabilitation program, the importation of food, and the 

operation of a vessel. Therefore, we request your support for the additional $500,000 

for the program for fiscal year 2011 so that the components of the program will be 

funded in the total amount of $1.9 million, as has been the case these past several 

years. 

In 2008 we faced a challenge with regard to the transportation of food, material, 

equipment, supplies, and transport of people to and from our atoll. Our atoll is the 

most distant atoll from Majuro Atoll, the capital of the Marshall Islands. In fact, 

the distance between Majuro and Enewetak is 600 miles one way. All of our food, 

material, supplies, and equipment are sent to Majuro for further transshipment to 

Enewetak. Consequently, a reliable vessel is a lifeline for us. The vessel available 

to us up to fiscal year 2009 was so old that parts were difficult if not impossible 

to find. Therefore, we were in the market for a replacement vessel that would be 

even more suitable for voyages between Enewetak and Majuro than the vessel we 

had. We found a suitable vessel and greatly appreciate the approval provided by 

this committee to purchase the replacement vessel from previously appropriated 

program funds. That vessel was in service as of 2008 and provides the necessary 

sea transport to support each of the components of the program. 

A final comment on the Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program: This program 

is a true success story. It allows us to live on our homeland while providing the resources which allow us to attempt to accomplish some of the rehabilitation required 

to transform part of the atoll from a severely damaged nuclear test site to a place 
250 

that more resembles home. The additional $500,000 to maintain current funding 

levels will ensure the continued success of this program. 

Now we would like to briefly address the four atoll healthcare program. Funding 

for fiscal year 2011 is necessary to continue the program. We appreciate the funding 

for such program provided by the Congress in the amount of $1 million for fiscal 

year 2010. However, continued funding is required to maintain the key elements of 

the program which provide for an on-site physician for each of the four atolls, necessary medicines and supplies, funding for a health aide for each atoll, and funding 

for care of the people of the four atolls at the hospitals in the Marshall Islands when 

required. 

Lastly, we need to mention the nuclear waste site on Runit Island. That site was 

built by the United States and contains more than 110,000 cubic yards of material 

including plutonium and other radioactive debris. This site needs to be monitored 

to assure the integrity of the structure and to assure that no health risks from the 

radioactive waste site are suffered by us. To effect the foregoing, a long-term stewardship program of Runit Island needs to be implemented by the United States. 

Again, Madam Chairman, we thank you and members of this subcommittee for 

your support which makes life possible for us on our home atoll of Enewetak. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

I am Karen R. Diver, Chairwoman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa. We appreciate having the opportunity to provide you with testimony on 

fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the Indian programs funded through the Department of the Interior and Indian Health Service (IHS). The Fond du Lac Band provides health, education, social and other governmental services to 6,500 Indian people living on or near our reservation in northeastern Minnesota. These programs are 

essential to our ability to educate our children, care for our elderly and infirm, prevent crime, and protect and manage natural resources. 

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE): Education.—We urge Congress to substantially 

increase funding for BIE elementary/secondary school programs. The Fond du Lac 

Band relies on BIE funding for the operation of the Band’s pre-K through grade 12 

Ojibwe School. The Ojibwe School serves approximately 320 students most of whom 

are tribal members or descendants of tribal members. Most of our students come 

from very-low-income households, illustrated by the fact that more than 90 percent 

of our students qualify for free or reduced rate lunch. But although American Indian 

students are the most at-risk group of students in our Nation, the BIE elementary/ 

secondary school programs have been historically underfunded. The necessary increases in education program funding can and should be offset in part by reductions 

in BIE’s administrative costs so that more funds go directly to the schools where 

they can most effectively be used. We ask that BIE elementary/secondary school program funding be adjusted as follows: 

Increase Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula Funding by 29 Percent From Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Levels.—We urge Congress to increase by 29 

percent ($112 million) the ISEP formula funds. ISEP formula funds are the primary 

means by which we pay the costs of school operations and education programs but 

these funds have consistently fallen very far short of our need. As described in the 

President’s budget, 75 percent of the tribal and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

schools are struggling and at risk of failing to meet the adequate yearly progress 

goals required by the No Child Left Behind Act. The Fond du Lac Ojibwe School 

is among those at risk. Far too many tribal and BIA schools are in need of intervention, restructuring or corrective action under that act, but existing funding levels 

are not, and have never been, sufficient to help us meet the act’s requirements. Instead, funding shortfalls have forced us over the years to cut back programs, layoff 

teachers and school aids, and reduce working hours for others. For our students to 

succeed, our schools need a commitment of high-priority support so that we can pay 

competitive salaries to attract and retain skilled teachers; invest in research-based 

reading and math curricula; keep pace with costs of student transportation; and provide early childhood development programs. 

Increase School Facility Operations by $30 Million and School Facility Maintenance by $3 Million From Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Levels.—We urge Congress to 

increase funding for school facility operations and school facility maintenance as 

past funding has failed to keep pace with the cost of school operations or the growing backlog of Indian schools and facilities needing repair. 

Increase Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC) by $21 Million.—We appreciate the 

President’s proposal to increase funding for TGSC. However, because these funds 
251 

have seen no increase for many years even though costs have risen, we urge that 

these funds be increased by $21 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Increase Student Transportation by $6.2 Million.—We also urge Congress to in- crease funding for student transportation by $6.2 million. Rising fuel costs and the 

need to replace vehicles forces us to reallocate money needed for education programs 

to pay for transportation so we can ensure that our children are able to get to school 

safely. We should not have to choose between funding education programs and providing safe and reliable transportation services to our students. 

Proposed Decreases in BIE Administrative Costs.—In our view, these increases in 

funding for the school programs can and should be offset in part by decreasing funds 

for BIE’s administrative functions. Over the past 6 years, funding for BIE education 

management has more than tripled while funding for all of the school-based programs have remained essentially the same, with only some modest increases for 

some programs in very recent years. The funds allocated for BIE management are 

not needed. BIE has failed to provide any meaningful assistance to schools in corrective action or in restructuring under the No Child Left Behind Act. It has not provided information to schools regarding funding opportunities. Indeed, even when 

BIE has funds for grants, BIE fails to timely award them—as has occurred with the 

technology grants that should have been awarded in October 2009 and which we 

desperately need to update our technology structure for our students. For these reasons we recommend that funds allocated for BIE administrative functions be decreased. This includes: decreasing BIE education management by $10,000,000; decreasing BIE program enhancements by $12,067,000; and eliminating the proposed 

BIE ISEP program adjustments of $7,238,000. This shift in funding will better ensure that the money is targeted to our schools where it can be most effectively used 

for teacher salaries, education programs, school maintenance, and student transportation. 

BIA: Public Safety and Justice.—We urge Congress to increase BIA funding for 

law enforcement above the level proposed in the President’s budget. While we support the President’s proposal to increase law enforcement funding to enhance the 

number of FBI agents working in Indian country, this should not be at the expense 

of increased funding for tribal law enforcement. In our experience, the FBI’s work 

will be limited to targeting specific major crimes. The FBI will not address the very 

substantial day-to-day law enforcement needs that arise on most Indian reservations which must be addressed by tribal law enforcement departments like the Fond 

du Lac Band’s law enforcement department. We also ask that Congress increase the 

Band’s base funding by $2 million for court operations and law enforcement, and 

provide a one-time appropriation of $8 million to allow us to expand the facility that 

houses our law enforcement department, but which is completely inadequate for 

that purpose. 

We continue to face massive unmet needs for law enforcement on matters that 

are not addressed by the FBI. We had to assume responsibility for law enforcement 

after the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the State did not have jurisdiction 

to enforce traffic laws on roads within Indian reservations, State v. Stone, 572 

N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 1997). We have done this using a combination of tribal and Federal funds (made available through the Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS) program and the BIA), and by cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies. But because of the insurgence of methamphetamine, alcohol, illegal prescription drug use, and gang-related activities on our reservation our law 

enforcement responsibilities continue to grow. Prescription drug abuse is an epidemic. Increasing numbers of our elders and others are the victims of more frequent 

assaults and robberies that are prescription drug related. Our officers are responding to a growing number of drug-related overdoses and deaths, as well as juvenile 

offenses involving drugs, alcohol, thefts, assaults, and burglaries. In 2009 alone, we 

responded to more than 1,000 reported incidents and requests for assistance. These 

include, for example, reports and requests involving domestic disputes, disturbances, 

disorderly conduct, property damage, drug incidents, theft, medical emergencies, 

fire, neglected children, runaways, suicide threats, not to mention hundreds of traffic-related matters. 

To address these problems, we need to increase our law enforcement staff so that 

we can station police officers in specific locations, such as near elderly housing, and 

ensure effective law enforcement coverage 24/7. But we do not have sufficient funds 

to attract and retain the number of officers that we need. We currently employ 12 

patrolmen, 1 investigator, 1 school resource officer (assigned to the Ojibwe School 

to try and stem the tide of juvenile crime), a Chief of Police, and 3 administrative 

staff. Our goal is to schedule three officers per shift, but we do not have sufficient 

funds to do this around the clock. Fewer officers on duty means serious safety issues 

for both officers and the people we need to protect. Our limited staff also means that 
252 

we cannot implement pro-active measures, such as youth education and outreach 

programs, and assistance to the clinics in developing means for identifying and preventing prescription drug abuse. To effectively address law enforcement, we need 

approximately 20 officers, but do not have the funding for this. 

Federal funding is also vital for law enforcement equipment. We appreciate the 

help that we have received on this through the COPS program, but to effectively 

address crime, we still need to periodically upgrade or replace patrol cars, radar 

equipment, and in-squad computers. We need e-ticket (ticket writers), and in-squad 

cameras for patrol cars. We need to replace our existing radio system to 

narrowband. In addition, the nearby counties have enhanced their 9–1–1 system. As 

a result, we need additional funds to effectively integrate the Band’s system with 

that used by those counties as well as a T–1 communications line to establish a 

more secure connection to that system. 

Finally, we need a new facility for our law enforcement department. The department is now housed in a 6-room building which we share with the Band’s housing 

program, and which has no room for investigative interviews, nor office space for 

specialty positions such as investigators. The evidence room and reception area are 

all completely inadequate for law enforcement purposes. A new building with a garage, along with a larger evidence room and storage room for record keeping, and 

a training room for officers, is essential. 

BIA: Natural Resources.—We very much appreciate the increase in funding for 

BIA natural resource programs that Congress provided for fiscal year 2010 and urge 

Congress to at least maintain if not increase those funding levels. Natural resources 

are vitally important to our tribal members as they provide the foundation for our 

culture, meet subsistence needs, and provide employment. The Fond du Lac Band’s 

right to access natural resources within and outside our reservation was reserved 

by Treaties with the United States in 1837 and 1854 and reaffirmed by the courts. 

In connection with these Treaty rights, the Band is responsible for managing natural resources and for enforcing Band conservation laws that protect those natural 

resources by regulating tribal members who hunt, fish, and gather those resources 

both within and outside the reservation. Funding is essential for that work. We request that $2 million be added to our base budget for resource management programs, as funds for this program have not been increased since 1991. 

BIA: Human Services.—We support the President’s proposed increase in funding 

for human services programs including those funded through TPA, such as the Indian Child Welfare Act program but urge Congress to increase funding by more 

than the $2 million proposed. A larger increase is needed to address the impact that 

the methamphetamine epidemic has on not only public health and safety, but also 

on child protection, child welfare and foster care services. Increased funding for social services and ICWA programs are essential if tribes are to have any realistic 

hope of protecting Indian children, preventing domestic violence, and fostering Indian families. 

IHS.—We fully support the President’s proposed increase in funding for IHS and 

appreciate the commitment that the administration and Congress have made to address the funding needs for healthcare in Indian country. The President’s proposed 

increase is essential to address the high rates of medical inflation and the substantial unmet need for healthcare among Indian people. Indians at Fond du Lac, like 

Indians throughout the Nation, continue to face disproportionately higher rates of 

diabetes and the complications associated with diabetes, than the rest of the population. Heart disease, cancer, obesity, chemical dependency, and mental health problems are also prevalent among our people. While other Federal programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, have seen annual increases in funding to address inflation, the 

budget for IHS has never had comparable increases, and, as a result, IHS programs 

have consistently fallen short of meeting the actual needs. All Indian tribes should 

receive 100 percent of the level of need formula, which is absolutely critical for 

tribes to address the serious and persistent health issues that confront our communities. The Band serves approximately 6,707 Indian people at our clinics, but the 

current funding level meets only 38 percent of our healthcare funding needs. 

In conclusion, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian country remain 

massive. Your support on these funding issues is essential to our ability to maintain 

vitally important programs and improve the delivery of services to Band members. 

Miigwech. Thank you. 
253 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE BOSQUE DEL APACHE NATIONAL

WILDLIFE REFUGE

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Friends of the Bosque 

del Apache National Wildlife Refuge wish to express their sincere thanks for your 

efforts to increase funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). We also 

thank you for again holding a public witness hearing, allowing us to describe our 

individual refuges and the challenges we face. As the Executive Director of the 

Friends of the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, I submit this written 

public testimony to offer comments on the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Specifically, we request a funding level of 

$578 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NWRS in fiscal year 2011, and 

continuation and funding of the Department of the Interior’s Challenge Cost Share 

Program. 

Since fiscal year 2008, Congress has provided critical funding support for the 

NWRS’s operations and maintenance, allowing for the temporary suspension of 

workforce downsizing plans and for urgent projects to be completed. However, the 

administration’s proposal to cut NWRS funding by $3.3 million in fiscal year 2011 

could stall or even reverse recent progress, threatening habitat preservation 

projects, invasive species eradication, law enforcement capabilities, environmental 

education, and visitor services for 41 million visitors each year. Such cuts could be 

devastating for the local communities whose economies rely on the jobs and tourism 

provided by local National Wildlife Refuges. The economic impact of the Bosque del 

Apache NWR in New Mexico is significant, as recreational visits to the Refuge generate more than $4.3 million in tax revenue for the region. For every $1 of the Refuge budget, there is a local economic effect of nearly $8. 

The effectiveness and importance of the Challenge Cost Share Program (CCS) to 

Bosque del Apache NWR and many other Refuges is undeniable, as it leverages 

funding through strategic partnerships to achieve much more than through Federal 

funding alone. Shortfalls in the program’s reporting and accountability must be corrected through more stringent and enforced guidelines, not by cutting one of the few 

programs that has truly enabled a broad range of collaborative projects that benefit 

our natural resources. At Bosque del Apache, CCS has facilitated water management and habitat improvements, graduate student research projects, youth outdoor 

education and hunting programs, visitor services improvements, coordination of our 

annual birding festival (the single greatest income-generating event for our county), 

and research into the efficiency of current land use and wildlife management practices. The projects totaled $160,000 in CCS funds, but generated more than 

$185,000 in matching contributions, accomplished projects across the spectrum of 

USFWS objectives, and fostered partnerships with educational institutions, nonprofit agencies, and State agencies. 

Volunteer organizations such as the Friends provide laudable and needed supplements to the NWRS, but should not be looked to as substitutes for the Refuge programmatic and operational support that is a proper Federal responsibility. Our commitment to the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge has allowed us to supplement the economic and educational opportunities for our region. However, we can 

scarcely maintain, much less grow, the Refuge’s capabilities without an adequate 

Federal budget and mechanisms, such as the Challenge Cost Share Program, for 

leveraging Friends’ support. The Bosque del Apache NWR has often been described 

as the ‘‘Jewel of New Mexico.’’ Yet that description applies not only to the amazing 

natural resource that is the Bosque, but also to the Refuge’s role as an economic 

engine. Its role in our community, in our economy, and in the broader mission of 

restoring and preserving our natural heritage is why we must do what we can to 

help it thrive. As our cities grow and water demands increase, future generations 

will need the Bosque del Apache NWR and the lessons it is teaching us to help us 

appreciate the delicate ecological balance that exists in the Southwest and beyond. 

We can never underestimate the importance of National Wildlife Refuges to our 

children’s futures, to the environment, and to our economies. 

We encourage you to help us make a difference by funding the NWRS at $578 

million in fiscal year 2011, and by ensuring that the Department of the Interior’s 

Challenge Cost Share Program is funded. 

Thank you for your time and consideration, and please contact me if you have any 

further questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF BACK BAY

I am Molly Brown from Virginia Beach, Virginia. I am the President of Friends 

of Back Bay, a group of more than 150 dedicated volunteers who are committed to 
254 

the protection of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Located in southeastern 

Virginia Beach, Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was established on February 29, 1938, as a 4,589-acre refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds. We 

thank Congress for their continued support of this project. The Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service approved a Refuge boundary expansion on May 7, 1990. 

The expansion area includes 6,340 acres of important wildlife habitat. To date the 

Fish and Wildlife Service has been able to acquire 4988 acres. 

In order to continue the Back Bay Refuge expansion project, we respectfully request $1 million for fiscal year 2011. This money will help to fill in the mosaic pattern of small land parcels from willing sellers who have been waiting patiently to 

sell their land to the Refuge. This continuing project was first funded by Congress 

in 1990. With only a few remaining parcels to purchase, we hope Congress will want 

to see this Back Bay project completed. 

The enclosed map gives a visual description of the Acquisitions through 2009 and 

the remaining parcels by priority to be purchased from willing sellers within the 

Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge proposed acquisition boundary. Here is a brief 

description of each parcel. 

Fiscal Year 2010 

Rice: Tract 249—$425,000—8 Acres—Closing this fiscal year (2010) with LWCF 

funds appropriated. This project uses most of the appropriated funds with the remainder ($120,000) to be ‘‘banked’’ in combination with future funds to complete acquisitions, as listed below. Project Description—valuable riparian/wetland habitat 

on the southern bank of Nanney’s Creek. This Creek has been identified as one of 

Virginia Beach’s ‘‘impaired waterways’’ by the State DEQ. Cooperative efforts by 

private landowners (mostly farmers), the City of Virginia Beach, the State of Virginia and Back Bay NWR are ongoing to restore the water quality of this tributary 

of Back Bay. This property is adjacent to existing Refuge property on its north and 

east boundaries. 

Fiscal Year 2011 

Brown: Tract 193—$216,000—18 Acres. Project Description—Mostly forested wetlands on the west side of Back Bay with existing valuable habitat for migratory 

birds, especially neotropical migrants. This property is within the original Refuge 

acquisition boundary and is adjacent to existing Refuge property on three sides 

(North, East, and South). Option to purchase in effect. 

Johnson: Tract 173—$402,000—30 Acres. Project Description—Emergent marsh 

habitat adjacent to Ashville Bridge Creek with existing valuable habitat for migratory birds, especially waterbirds. This property is within the original Refuge acquisition boundary and is adjacent to existing Refuge property on three sides (North, 

East, and West). Option to purchase in effect. 

Van Nostrand: Tract 250—$200,000—15 Acres. Project Description—This property 

has been cleared, and is ready for farming and/or development. Although the current habitat has little wildlife value, reforestation of this parcel, as Back Bay NWR 

has done with so many other parcels, will serve as quality habitat for a variety migratory birds, especially neotropical migrants. Option to purchase in effect. 

Griffith: Tract 100c, d and e—$250,000—105 Acres. Project Description—Emergent marsh habitat on the east side of Back Bay. This property already supports 

a wide variety of nesting and wintering migratory birds, especially waterfowl. Because this parcel is located on the bay side of the highly developed Sandbridge area 

of Virginia Beach, failure to acquire this piece could result in increased private recreational boating facilities by individuals who own lots/houses adjacent to this property. The Refuge is currently partnering with The Conservation Fund to appraise 

and acquire this parcel. 

Good things continue to happen at Back Bay! A new educational project to enhance the wildlife viewing opportunities of the public is the ‘‘windows on wildlife.’’ 

This one-way glass will allow the public to watch migratory birds without being 

seen by and thus disturbing the waterfowl. This project opened this winter. On a 

recent January day, the pond featured a visual smorgasbord of tundra swans, Canada geese, black sucks, snow geese, mallards and pied-billed grebes. A red-tail hawk 

flew close to the building and landed on the branch of a near by tree. This ‘‘national 

treasure’’ received 150,000 visitors in 2009. 

This March the Back Bay Restoration Foundation conducted its 9th annual Back 

Bay Forum 2010. There were presentations on research and data collected within 

the Back Bay watershed, followed by an opportunity for participants to identify future research and action needed for the health of the bay system. Scientists stated 

that conditions are improving since last year. The water clarity is better and vital 
255 

underwater grasses are growing again. Large numbers of ducks are coming back. 

The local hunters had a very successful season. 

I wish to extend my appreciation for the funding that you appropriated through fiscal year 2009. The $545,000 that was appropriated in fiscal year 2009 has purchased 8 acres of a key parcel along Nanney’s Creek. To date we have purchased 

4,988-acres of the proposed 6,340-acre expansion. This means that this project is 

more than 78 percent completed in seventeen years. Thank you for the opportunity 

to comment on this important project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF BLACKWATER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the Friends of 

Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge located near Cambridge, Maryland, I am submitting testimony for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies concerning the fiscal year 2011 budget for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). We respectfully request that the subcommittee support the following funding levels: 

—$578 million in fiscal year 2011 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) 

NWRS Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account; 

—Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million including $300 million for the NWRS, and pass S. 2747, legislation to ensure dedicated and full funding to the LWCF; 

—Increase funding to $210 million for key FWS partner-based programs including 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, State 

Wildlife Grants, the Coastal Program and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act; 

—Fund the NWRS construction account at $100 million for large-scale habitat 

restoration projects and visitor service facilities. 

An astonishing 20 percent of all work that occurs on wildlife refuges is contributed by more than 30,000 volunteers each year. Critical to facilitating this remarkable commitment is the reauthorization of the Volunteer and Community Partnership Act which encourages the use of volunteers to assist the FWS in refuge management as appropriate. We also urge Congress to fund the Department of the Interior’s Challenge-Cost Share Program. This program was created to leverage funding 

through strategic partnerships that would not be achieved by the Federal Government on its own. We are concerned that not funding the program would have significant adverse impacts to conservation and environmental education programs at refuges nationwide. 

It is necessary that the NWRS budget by about $20 million each year in order 

to maintain services and programs from the previous year. This increase accounts 

for cost-of-living increases for FWS personnel, growing rent and real estate costs 

and other cost increases, while sustaining current levels of visitor services and wildlife management. Funding the O&M account at $578 million would allow the NWRS 

to avoid further employee layoffs and reductions in services that are important at 

the Blackwater NWR and Chesapeake Marshlands Wildlife Complex, and to the 

more than 150,000 who visit the Blackwater NWR each year, while also preventing 

the approximately $3.5 billion NWRS O&M backlog from growing larger. While refuges received an increase for fiscal year 2010, the NWRS is still not funded at the 

level it was in fiscal year 2003 when adjusted for inflation. Because of this, refuges 

such as ours, the Blackwater NWR, struggle to meet their most basic wildlife conservation objectives. 

Refuges are also vital economic engines in the local economy, fueling hotel stays, 

restaurant patronage and much, much more. According to Banking on Nature, a 

2007 report by the FWS, recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generate 

substantial economic activity. Nearly 35 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2006, generated more than $1.7 billion for local economies—including 27,000 

jobs and $185 million in tax revenues. Eighty-seven percent of all economic activity 

generated by refuges is from nonresident visitation. These visitors contribute to the 

local economy through patronage of local hotels, restaurants, outfitters, and gas stations to name just a few examples. We simply cannot afford to lose these local economic engines. Supporting our refuges with adequate funding is an effective method 

of resisting the economic depression with which the Nation is currently struggling. 

The Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies should provide strong funding for NWRS visitor services programs and visitor facility enhancement projects. Visitor services funding pays for many Friends 

and volunteer programs. We depend on this funding for programs that allow us to 

remain effective stewards of our refuge. 
256 

Recognizing invasive species as a top threat to our refuge lands, we also ask the 

subcommittee to continue their support by again providing adequate funding for cooperative projects with Friends groups and volunteers on invasive species control. 

This funding supports worthy programs like competitive grants for Friends groups 

and the Volunteer Invasives Monitoring Program. Utilizing the energy and enthusiasm of Friends and volunteers is a proven, effective and economical partnership 

for the NWRS and FWS. 

We encourage the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding to assess and purchase high-priority water rights and high-priority lands and conservation easements 

through the LWCF, $900 million. Inadequate water quantity and quality represent 

some of the biggest obstacles for refuges to overcome and unfortunately, many refuges do not own the water rights on the refuge or they are not guaranteed an allocation of water from a river or stream. The FWS is currently compiling a needs-based 

priority database of where water rights need to be secured, and we urge the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding to allow the FWS to acquire these essential 

rights while they are available and affordable. Also, NWRS land acquisition backlog 

is estimated at more than $4 billion, with more than 15 million acres remaining to 

be acquired within approved refuge boundaries. While a full suite of conservation 

strategies should be employed in working with private landowners, in cases where 

fee title acquisition is preferred by the landowner and the refuge has identified it 

as a top priority, the FWS should acquire the land. 

We encourage the subcommittee to allocate $10 million for the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation through the FWS’ resource management general administration 

appropriation. Each year, NFWF receives more project proposals than they are capable of funding. Adequate funding will ensure NFWF has the ability to leverage 

resources to fund projects that directly benefit diverse species in, around and outside of national wildlife refuges across the country. 

Again, on behalf of the Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Association, Inc., we thank you for your consideration of our requests. If you have any questions, we would certainly be happy to help in any way. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF CONGAREE SWAMP

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: We enthusiastically support 

President Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for $1.4 million from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund for the National Park Service (NPS) to purchase land 

at Congaree National Park. This funding will enable the NPS to complete acquisition of the 1,840-acre Riverstone tract for Congaree National Park. 

Congaree Swamp National Monument was authorized as a NPS unit in 1976. In 

2003, Public Law 108–108 elevated Congaree to a National Park—South Carolina’s 

only National Park—and authorized a boundary expansion of 4,576 acres. Two 

tracts—the 1,840-acre Riverstone tract and the 2,395-acre Bates Fork tract—comprise almost 93 percent of the authorized boundary expansion. 

Congaree National Park—on the floodplains of the Congaree and Wateree rivers— 

is recognized as an International Biosphere Reserve, a National Natural Landmark, 

a Wilderness Area, and an Important Bird Area. Currently, it is being nominated 

for recognition as a Wetland of International Importance. All waters within the 

park’s pre-2003 boundary are designated Outstanding Resource Waters, and much 

of Cedar Creek within the park is designated Outstanding National Resource 

Waters. Congaree River Blue Trail, bordering the park for more than 25 miles, is 

a National Recreation Trail. 

With more than 75 species of trees, Congaree harbors the Nation’s largest tract 

of old-growth bottomland hardwood forest. Trees in this floodplain forest are some 

of the tallest in the Eastern United States, and form one of the tallest temperate 

deciduous forest canopies in the world. 

More than 195 species of birds have been observed within the park. If the Ivorybilled Woodpecker has survived in the United States, Congaree National Park is 

considered prime habitat for recovery of this species. 

Congaree National Park also offers excellent opportunities for recreation. A 2.5- 

mile boardwalk loop provides easy access into Congaree’s forest, and more than 20 

miles of trails are available for hiking. Visitors enjoy canoeing and kayaking on 

Cedar Creek. Outdoors enthusiasts can also enjoy fishing, camping, birding, and picnicking. 

As mentioned above, the 1,840-acre Riverstone tract and the 2,395-acre Bates 

Fork tract comprise almost 93 percent of the park boundary expansion which Congress authorized in 2003. The NPS purchased the Bates Fork tract in 2005, using 

a $6 million appropriation in fiscal year 2005. 
257 

Since then, the NPS has focused on acquiring the 1,840-acre Riverstone tract. 

This tract is forested floodplain, with frontage on the Congaree River. Riverstone 

acquisition will connect a conservation corridor of more than 42,000 acres of Federal 

and State lands along the Congaree, Wateree, and Santee rivers. 

In addition to its biological resources, the Riverstone tract has significant geological and hydrological resources, including Running Lake, Running Creek, and an 

oxbow lake known as Bates Old River—the remnant of a 4-mile-long former channel 

of the Congaree River. No other oxbow lake in the Congaree floodplain can compare 

to Bates Old River in size, hydrological dynamics, accessibility, or as a recreational 

resource. This oxbow is flanked by the best-defined ridge and swale topography in 

the Congaree floodplain. 

The Riverstone tract also has significant cultural and historical resources, including a prehistoric mound constructed by Native Americans during the Woodland Period (1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000). The history of McCord’s Ferry (established before 

1750 as Joyner’s Ferry) is intertwined with the Riverstone tract. Patriot and British 

forces used McCord’s Ferry during the American Revolution. 

Accordingly, acquisition of the Riverstone tract for Congaree National Park will 

add opportunities for visitor access, education, recreation, wildlife and habitat protection, and research. 

Richland County Council unanimously adopted a resolution in 2007, endorsing 

Federal funding to purchase the Riverstone property for Congaree National Park. 

The resolution identifies Congaree National Park as an attraction in the Lower 

Richland Heritage Corridor—to promote heritage tourism in the region. 

Recognizing the Riverstone tract as a key priority for acquisition, the NPS identified $500,000 in existing funds in 2008 to purchase 156.25 acres. A $2.69 million 

appropriation by Congress in fiscal year 2009 enabled the NPS to purchase 837.75 

acres. The $1.32 million appropriation in fiscal year 2010 enabled the NPS to purchase 412.5 acres in March 2010. 

Because of its configuration, most of the Riverstone property is inaccessible to 

park visitors until the entire tract is acquired. A fiscal year 2011 appropriation of 

$1.4 million—requested by President Obama—will enable the NPS to promptly purchase the final 434 acres, thereby completing acquisition of the 1,840-acre 

Riverstone tract at Congaree National Park. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your previous support of Congaree National 

Park and for your consideration of President Obama’s fiscal year 2011 request for 

$1.4 million. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF THE COLUMBIA GORGE

Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written public testimony in support of 

the Forest Service land acquisition program in the Columbia River Gorge National 

Scenic Area. Friends of the Columbia Gorge is requesting an appropriation of $1.5 

million from the Land Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to allow the United States 

Forest Service (USFS) to purchase land with a high conservation value in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. The requested funding will go a long way 

to protect a number of identified high-priority properties totaling more than 400 

acres in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. This project is authorized 

by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, Public Law 99–663, section 

16(a). 

Friends of the Columbia Gorge (Friends) is a nonprofit organization with approximately 5,000 members who live in the Columbia River Gorge, the States of Oregon 

and Washington and across the country. We are dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the scenic beauty and natural and cultural heritage of the Columbia 

River Gorge. Friends works to promote responsible stewardship of Gorge lands and 

waters and encourage public ownership of sensitive areas. Throughout the year, 

Friends leads more than 70 hikes and stewardship events that are open to the public. 

Fiscal year 2011 marks the 25th anniversary of the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area Act. In honor of the upcoming anniversary, we hope to secure $1.5 million 

in Federal LWCF funding for the Forest Service to purchase and protect landscapes 

in the Gorge. 

Background 

The Columbia Gorge, shared and cherished by both Oregon and Washington, is 

truly one of America’s most stunning natural landscapes. As the only sea-level passage through the Cascade Mountain range, the Columbia River Gorge includes five 
258 

distinct ecosystems. These ecosystems support more than 800 species of flowering 

plants, including 16 that are found nowhere else in the world, more than 300 species of birds and provides critical habitat for threatened fish and wildlife, such as 

the western pond turtle, Larch Mountain salamander, western gray squirrel, 

steelhead, Chinook, coho, and chum salmon. 

The Gorge has been inhabited by humans for at least 11,000 years. Important cultural resources are found throughout the Gorge, including a high concentration of 

Native American rock carvings and paintings, called petroglyphs and pictographs, 

in the eastern end of the Gorge. Several tribes retain treaty rights in the Gorge, 

including the preservation of hunting, fishing and gathering rights on the lands 

ceded to the United States in their respective treaties. In addition, the Gorge ranks 

as the most recognizable natural site along the Lewis & Clark trail. 

In 1986 Congress and the states of Oregon and Washington recognized the outstanding scenic beauty and natural and cultural heritage of the Gorge by designating it as a National Scenic Area. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic 

Area Act (Act) was passed ‘‘to protect and provide for the enhancement of the scenic, 

cultural, recreational, and natural resources of the Columbia River Gorge’’ and to 

encourage economic growth in nearby urban areas. 

Last year, Congress recognized the unique geologic resources in the Gorge when 

they established the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail as part of the Omnibus 

Public Land Management Act of 2009. 

Forest Service Land Acquisition 

Although The Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area enjoys national protection, preservation of its outstanding natural and scenic resources requires proactive management. Section 9(a) of the act, created a unique regulatory plan, which allowed conservation in partnership with private landowners. The act recognized that some 

landowners would prefer to sell their property rather than fall under Scenic Area 

regulations. The desire to conserve key properties and to provide regulatory relief 

to landowners led Congress to create a special land acquisition program with the 

Forest Service. 

When the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area was enacted in 1986, large 

portions of the designated Scenic Area were held in private ownership. As properties 

become available from willing sellers, the Forest Service is working to piece together 

properties in priority areas to protect and enhance resources. Since 2001, over 4,000 

acres of ‘‘high-priority’’ private land worth an estimated $35 million have been offered for sale to the Forest Service, yet Congress has only appropriated $17.5 million to date. 

Fiscal Year 2011 Request 

In 2011, the Forest Service has the opportunity to purchase over 300 acres in the 

Major Creek Drainage, a vitally important wildlife corridor between the Columbia 

River and the uplands above the Gorge walls in Washington. It is a wild, undeveloped area of steep canyons, old growth trees, creeks and springs, and an abundance 

of wildlife. Acquisition of this parcel will conserve open space, sustain a healthy watershed, and link with other National Forest System land. 

Funding would also allow the Forest Service complete a key segment of the stunning Cape Horn Trail. The USFS has now purchased more than 1,000 acres in the 

Cape Horn area to create a world-class loop trail with stunning views of the Gorge. 

This purchase would complete an essential component of the trail by creating a public trailhead adjacent to the newly built Skamania County Park and Ride. 

The five properties targeted to be acquired in 2011 will: secure a wildlife corridor, 

conserve open space, sustain a healthy watershed, and link National Forest Systems, consolidate an 80 acres in holding, add management access to the Major 

Creek bed which is home to threatened steelhead, and allow termination of a trail 

easement held by Columbia Land Trust which will give the Forest Service control 

over trail management and use of the surrounding area. 

The benefit of the Forest Service land acquisition program extends to all counties 

in the Gorge by providing the following: 

Economic Benefit.—This project will create more public trails and recreation opportunities in the Columbia River Gorge and thereby attract more visitors and tourist dollars to nearby communities. Increasingly, recreation is becoming a more important pillar of the Gorge economy. This project is supported by the Skamania 

County Commission specifically for its potential to generate revenue from outdoor 

recreation. 

Expands Recreation.—Public land acquired by the Forest Service will allow for 

more official trails and increase opportunities for outdoor recreation. 
259 

Protects Scenic Beauty.—In the National Scenic Area Act, Congress recognized the 

Columbia River Gorge as one of the nation’s most spectacular natural treasures. The 

USFS acquisitions have succeeded in protecting the beauty of the Gorge. 

Protects Habitat.—Habitat destruction is a main factor threatening the native 

flora and fauna of the Gorge. This project expands recreation, protects habitat and 

scenic landscapes, and bolsters the emerging recreation-based economies in the Columbia River Gorge. 

This project is supported by Columbia River Gorge Commission, Hood River County Commission, Wasco County Commission, Skamania County Commission, Trust 

for Public Land, Columbia Riverkeeper, Hood River Valley Residents Committee, 

Columbia Gorge Ecology Institute and Friends of Clark County. 

Conclusion 

Columbia Gorge Land Acquisition is funded in the President’s fiscal year 2011 

budget at a level of $850,000; however an additional $650,000 is needed to allow 

the Forest Service to purchase all of the available land. 

Please consider our request of $1.5 million to honor the 25th anniversary of the 

National Scenic Area Act and to ensure that the Gorge remains a place apart for 

future generations to enjoy. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in 

support of the Forest Service land acquisition program in the Columbia River Gorge 

National Scenic Area. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I appreciate the opportunity to 

provide testimony on behalf of an important land acquisition funding need at Virgin 

Islands National Park. An appropriation of $4.5 million from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) is requested in fiscal year 2011 to complete the acquisition of the unique Maho Bay property by the National Park Service. We are very 

pleased that your subcommittee has already provided a total of $4.5 million to this 

project in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010. Additionally we are very pleased 

this project was included in the President’s budget in fiscal year 2011. However, we 

respectfully urge the subcommittee to include the full $4.5 million needed to complete the project, rather than the $3.75 million President’s budget level. 

I represent the Friends of VI National Park, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, 

dedicated to the protection and preservation of the natural and cultural resources 

of Virgin Islands National Park and to promoting the responsible enjoyment of this 

national treasure. We have more than 3,000 members—20 percent of whom live in 

the Virgin Islands and the balance represent every State in the Union. 

We carry on the rich tradition of using private philanthropy for the betterment 

of this park as well as mobilize volunteers and community participation. In our 20 

years of work in support of Virgin Islands National Park we have been involved in 

many initiatives, projects, and activities that help this park be a model of natural 

resource protection and cultural preservation—but none have been as important as 

our work in support of the acquisition of Estate Maho Bay and its incorporation 

within the park. 

We have played the important role of informing and motivating the community 

about the issues related to the preservation of Estate Maho Bay. But motivation 

was hardly needed; the preservation of Estate Maho Bay and ensuring unimpeded 

access to this spectacular area enjoys near unanimous support among native St. 

Johnians, residents who have moved here from mainland United States and visitors 

alike—no easy feat for a community that prides itself in its diversity of opinions. 

Virgin Islands National Park, located on the island of St. John, is a tropical paradise preserved for the enjoyment and edification of the public. Beautiful white sand 

beaches, protected bays of crystal blue-green waters, coral reefs rich in colorful 

aquatic life, and an on-shore environment filled with a breathtaking variety of 

plants and birds make St. John a magical place. More than 800 species of trees, 

shrubs, and flowers are found in the park, and more than 30 species of tropical 

birds breed on the island, which was designated an international Biosphere Reserve 

by the United Nations in 1976. St. John is also home to two species of endangered 

sea turtles, the hawksbill and the green. In addition, the park contains archeological 

sites indicating settlement as early as 770 B.C. The later colonial history of St. John 

is also represented by remnants of the plantations and sugar mills established by 

the Danes in the 18th and 19th centuries. 

One of St. John’s most popular eco-campgrounds sits on a cliff overlooking Maho 

Bay and its pristine white sand beaches. The bay’s campgrounds create memorable 

vacations in the beautiful setting of St. John without sacrificing the delicate eco-
260 

system of the island. Few places on earth match the breathtaking beauty of Maho 

Bay. A lush forested slope rising nearly 1,000 feet rims its crystal waters and soft 

white beaches. Hundreds of tropical plant species and more than 50 species of tropical birds fill these lands on the island of St. John, at the heart of the American 

paradise of Virgin Islands National Park. Just offshore are seagrass beds, green turtles, and magnificent coral reefs. This fragile area contains large nesting colonies 

of brown pelicans, as well as the migratory warblers and terns that winter on St. 

John. In addition to its natural treasures, the largest concentration of historic plantations and ruins on the island is found within this area. 

Available within the Virgin Islands National Park boundaries in fiscal year 2011 

is the third phase of a 207-acre acquisition at Maho Bay. This Maho Bay property 

offers spectacular views of the bay and includes some beachfront. It is extremely important because of their relationship to the whole undeveloped area and its cultural 

resources. Though the park boundaries cover a broad area of St. John, the National Park 

Service actually owns two separated blocks of land. A smaller block covers the 

northeastern shore of the island, and a larger, more contiguous block extends from 

the southern to northwestern side. The acquisition of the Maho Bay property would 

be the first link of these two blocks, ensuring future access, resource connectivity, 

and seaside protection. 

Wetlands in the lower portion of the watershed provide adequate sediment retention for the undeveloped nature of this area. As a result of long-term geological processes, the topography created by these processes and the historical rise of sea level 

during the past 5,000 years, a large, rare and complicated freshwater dominated 

wetland developed throughout the basin. It represents a natural stage wetland typical of large watersheds with relatively flat basin topography. The Maho Bay wetland is the largest of this type on St. John and along with the Magens Bay wetland 

on St. Thomas, one of only a few of this type in the Territory. These wetlands provide habitat to numerous species of shorebirds, water fowl and other wildlife, several listed as endangered under the V.I. Endangered and Indigenous Species Act. 

Others are protected under various Federal laws and treaties. 

The land was historically used during the plantation era for agricultural activities 

such as sugar cane, coconut, and cotton cultivation. The lands include portions of 

several historic plantation era sugar estates. The Maho Bay area contains the highest density of plantation era estates on St. John. Preservation of these sites is important in reconstructing the history and heritage of St. John. With increasing 

growth and investment throughout the Caribbean—including places not far from the 

unspoiled beauty of St. John—this vulnerable land has been the focus of intense development threats. In recent years, more than one investor envisioned private development along these shores, which would have jeopardized the unique character of 

Maho Bay. Once this land is acquired by the park, future visitors will be treated 

to spectacular views of Maho Bay and some of the most accessible and scenic shoreline and waters on St. John. 

The total estimated fair market value of the 207 acres is $18.6 million. This property is being made available to the National Park Service for a total of $9 million 

over 2 years, with the balance to be provided through private donations of cash and 

land value. As $2.25 million was provided in fiscal year 2009 and another $2.25 million in fiscal year 2010, this year, an appropriation of $4.5 million is needed from 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund toward the purchase of the remaining 131 

acres of these valuable lands. 

The LWCF is our Nation’s premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands 

at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and 

recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles 

through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire 

management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate 

change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to 

the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the committee for its recent effort 

to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in 

the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and 

to our great natural and historical heritage. 

Madam Chairwoman and distinguished subcommittee members, I want to thank 

you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this important national protection effort in Virgin Islands National Park. On behalf of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park and the over one million visitors to the Park each year, I appreciate 

your consideration of this funding request. 
261 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF WALLKILL RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land at Wallkill River 

National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey. An appropriation of $1.75 million is needed 

in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in order 

for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to acquire the 156-acre Kenely property. 

The environment and wildlife are enduring catastrophic conditions as a result of 

human failures. The BP oil gusher and the White Nose Bat Syndrome are two manmade catastrophes that are being addressed by the FWS. When FWS staff have to 

concentrate their time on these emergencies, other work falls by the wayside. The 

FWS needs increases, not reductions in maintenance and operation funds to manage 

these disasters. We are looking at the likely extinction of at least 9 species of cave 

dwelling bats within a few years, time cannot be wasted, the bats will be gone forever, if WNS is not addressed now. 

The Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1990 to preserve 

and enhance wildlife habitat in one of the most fertile valleys and natural areas in 

all of New Jersey. Located within a 1-hour drive of New York City, the Wallkill 

River valley is a resource-rich part of the New Jersey-New York Highlands area. 

The extent of its forested wetlands and undisturbed grasslands makes the Wallkill 

River one of the largest high-quality inland waterfowl habitats in the mid-Atlantic 

region. The refuge provides critical habitat for migratory waterfowl on both the Atlantic Flyway and the Hudson-Delaware corridor and is a major black duck focus 

area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Large populations of 

nesting black ducks, wood ducks, blue- and green-winged teal, mergansers, mallards, and pintail frequent the refuge’s wetland areas. In addition, the Wallkill 

River and its tributaries are home to 19 State-listed threatened and endangered 

species. 

Wallkill’s many forested wetlands, also known as swamps and bogs, are highly 

productive and dynamic ecosystems, containing a diverse array of habitat types. 

They support high numbers of species by providing vital breeding, feeding, and resting grounds for waterfowl and other animal and plant species. Forested wetlands 

also filter nutrients, wastes, and sediments from the water flowing within them, improving water quality while also providing flood control by stabilizing sediments 

with their root systems and absorbing excess water. Within the past 200 years, the 

State of New Jersey has lost an estimated 40 percent of its forested wetlands. The 

Wallkill River NWR has focused its land acquisition program on protection of the 

river and its major tributaries through consolidation of significant forested wetland, 

wetland, and associated upland properties. A recently approved land protection plan 

expands the refuge boundary to provide greater habitat protection for the federally 

listed endangered bog turtle. 

Available for acquisition within this new refuge focus area in fiscal year 2011 is 

the 165-acre Kenely tract. This highly developable tract, which abuts refuge-protected lands, encompasses a diversity of habitats including mixed open fields, woodlands, wetlands, and brushlands. It is highly threatened by development because it 

has significant frontage along Route 284, which now forms the western boundary 

of the refuge. Along with its diversity of habitat types, the property’s varied topography of high-gradient hills and deep valleys support a large number and variety 

of wildlife species. The emergent wetlands of the property support a number of reptile and amphibian species such as spotted turtles. The open fields support breeding 

of State-listed species such as Savannah and grasshopper sparrows and bobolink. 

This type of habitat is also vital for numerous raptor species during the winter 

months such as short-eared owls and northern harriers. 

An allocation of $1.75 million from the LWCF to the Wallkill River NWR in fiscal 

year 2011 will ensure the protection of these key 156 acres as part of the refuge’s 

effort to consolidate refuge ownership, conserve important habitat within the refuge’s expansion area, increase recreational opportunities, and maintain the water 

quality in the Highlands region of New Jersey. 

The LWCF is our Nation’s premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands 

at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and 

recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles 

through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire 

management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate 

change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to 

the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s com-
262 

mitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this subcommittee faces, I also want to thank the subcommittee for its recent 

effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in New 

Jersey, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE TAMPA BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGES, INC. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of Friends of the 

Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Inc. (FTBR) and its 130 members, I want to 

thank you for your leadership and strong support for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS) and increased funding over the past few years. I further thank you 

for the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Specifically, we respectfully request that 

the subcommittee support the following: 

—An overall funding level of $578 million in fiscal year 2011 for the operations 

and maintenance (O&M) budget of the NWRS, managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS); 

—An allocation of $900 million in the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) budget fiscal year 2011 to protect vital habitat for wildlife and establish 

key wildlife corridors and connections. We ask that this includes $300 million 

for the NWRS; and 

—Funding for the Department of the Interior’s Challenge-Cost Share Program to 

leverage funding through strategic partnerships to obtain greater conservation 

objectives than would be achieved by the Federal government on its own. 

FTBR is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. We are a group of members and volunteers who support Egmont Key, Passage Key and the Pinellas National Wildlife Refuges in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. Contributing thousands of hours of support 

each year, we help remove invasive plants, provide support to critical bird nesting 

sites through ‘‘bird steward’’ public outreach each weekend during nesting season, 

provide general maintenance of equipment and buildings on the refuges, and organize island cleanups to ensure wildlife is safe from debris like monofilament line 

and plastic bags. We work closely with our FWS refuge manager to help meet objectives as outlined in each refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) has determined that 

the NWRS needs $900 million annually to protect and care for the more than 550 

wildlife refuges and monuments and thousands of prairie wetlands totaling approximately 150 million acres. These lands and waters provide essential habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife, safe havens for endangered species, and $1.7 billion 

annually to local economies in compatible recreational opportunities for more than 

41 million visitors each year. Our request for $578 million in O&M for fiscal year 

2011 represents a $75 million increase more than fiscal year 2010 and builds on the 

increases in the past 3 years that have allowed the NWRS to rebound from the dramatic 20 percent staff reductions in the years prior to this. Although some positions 

have been refilled, 10 percent of the workforce has been eliminated. The NWRS 

needs at least a $15 million increase each year to prevent reductions in programs 

and public use. There is still an operations backlog of $1 billion and a maintenance 

backlog of $2.7 billion. We respectfully urge the Congress to incrementally increase 

funding to restore the NWRS by carefully considering our request for $578 million 

in the fiscal year 2011 budget. 

While providing adequate funding to operate and maintain the NWRS is of vital 

importance, most refuges are too small in size to achieve their conservation mission 

and objectives alone. Their integrity depends on the health of surrounding State, 

Federal, and private lands and waters. Consequently, there is a growing need to 

provide funding to ensure that lands and waters beyond refuge boundaries are conserved. FTBR encourages the subcommittee to allocate the full $900 million funding 

to assess and purchase high-priority lands and conservation easements through the 

LWCF. The NWRS is mandated to be strategically grown, but years of inadequate 

funding for land acquisition has resulted in the loss of many important habitats. 

More than 8 million acres are unprotected within existing refuge boundaries and 

there is an increasing need to establish key wildlife corridors and connections between protected areas. The Obama administration has made full funding for LWCF 

by fiscal year 14 a top priority and we request Congress to make this a priority also. 
263 

We urge the subcommittee to allocate the full $900 million funding in fiscal year 

2011 to allow the NWRS to acquire lands and easements while they are available 

and affordable. 

In conclusion, FTBR believes the NWRS can meet its important conservation objectives only with strong and consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work of 

refuge staff and volunteers. We extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its 

ongoing commitment to our NWRS and encourage you to approve $578 million for 

the fiscal year 2011 NWRS O&M budget managed by FWS and to approve $900 millions for fiscal year 2011 for the LWCF land acquisition budget as well as funding 

the Department of the Interior’s Challenge-Cost Share Program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land at Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area in Georgia. An appropriation of $3.6 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)in order 

for the National Park Service (NPS) to acquire two properties totaling 36.5 acres. 

In a demonstration of the importance of this acquisition, the $3.62 million needed 

was included in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2011. 

Flowing in a southwesterly direction from the Appalachian Mountains in northeastern Georgia, the Chattahoochee River is a significant recreational and ecological 

corridor in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Between Atlanta and Chattanooga a series of mountain ridges separated by river valleys cross the landscape. The Chattahoochee River valley is the southernmost in this chain. The river’s length and 

breadth provides an excellent corridor for river recreation and open space for wildlife habitat. With substantial headwaters in the forested mountains of northern 

Georgia—largely within the Chattahoochee National Forest—the protection of the 

river’s water quality for drinking water and recreation is an important regional and 

national objective. 

The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area provides much needed recreational opportunities for Georgians and visitors in the Atlanta metropolitan area. 

The park was created in 1978 to protect the watershed, provide opportunities for 

river and land recreation, and conserve important tracts in the river’s floodplain. 

The park’s current boundaries extend along the river for nearly 50 miles from 

Buford Dam at Lake Sidney Lanier to the entrance of Peachtree Creek tributary by 

Marietta Boulevard in Atlanta. Annually the park averages about 2.75 million visitors; most are from the burgeoning Atlanta metropolitan area. In recent years, the 

population in the State of Georgia has grown rapidly to 9.5 million residents and 

more than half of these residents live in the Atlanta area. The population growth 

has placed tremendous pressure on lands important to the region’s water quality, 

recreation, and historical and agricultural heritage. 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 are two properties totaling 36.5 acres 

at the northern end of the national recreation area near Lake Lanier. The Manning 

and Friedman inholdings are located directly on the western bank of the Chattahoochee River just north of the Georgia Route 20 bridge in Forsyth County. The tracts 

would be added to the Bowman’s Island Unit of the park. The unit is noted for its 

hiking and horseback riding trails, and also features river access for canoes, kayaks, 

and rafts just below Buford Dam. 

The acquisition of the Manning and Friedman properties will enable the NPS to 

protect this important riverfront land and water resources and expand recreational 

opportunities at the Bowman’s Island Unit. Between Buford Dam and Route 20, 

NPS already owns a significant amount of land on the eastern bank and several 

tracts north of Buford Hatchery including Bowman’s Island. If the Manning and 

Friedman properties are acquired, NPS would own land on both sides of the river. 

For many years the park has sought to construct a 5-mile loop trail at the Bowman’s Island Unit that would proceed along both banks of the river between Buford 

Dam and Route 20. The acquisition of these properties, along with a planned improvement of pedestrian and bicycle use of the Route 20 bridge, would greatly enhance this objective. 

My particular interest lies in the fact that the subject parcels are immediately adjacent to the Buford Hatchery, operated by the Wildlife Resources Division of the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, my agency. The hatchery rears stocks of 

brown and rainbow trout for State fishing programs in lakes and streams across 

Georgia. The hatchery is open to visitors for fishing, education, bird watching, and 

hiking. We believe there is a natural synergy in connecting the State of Georgia’s 

education and recreational facility with the envisioned NPS trails and amenity area 
264 

1The requested BIA funds reflect GLIFWC’s allocation of this line item that also funds the 

1854 Treaty Authority. 2The rights guaranteed by these treaties, and the associated tribal regulatory and management responsibilities, have been affirmed by various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case. 

directly to its south, and creating a larger conservation and recreation system along 

the banks of the Chattahoochee River at this location. We certainly would not want 

to ever see these properties degraded or developed. 

In 1999 Congress passed Public Law 106–154, in which it stated the intention to 

‘‘increase the level of protection of the open spaces along the Chattahoochee River.’’ 

The acquisition of the Manning and Friedman tracts represents one of the ‘‘dwindling opportunities to protect the scenic, recreational, natural, and historic values’’ 

of the Chattahoochee River corridor. In fiscal year 2011, an appropriation of $3.6 

million from the LWCF is needed to protect these critical properties. 

The LWCF is our Nation’s premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands 

at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and 

recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles 

through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire 

management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate 

change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to 

the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this subcommittee faces, I also want to thank the committee for its recent 

effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Georgia, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE

COMMISSION

1. BIA Rights Protection Implementation.—At least $30,451,000 (same as fiscal 

year 2010 appropriation). GLIFWC: At least $5,619,000 (proportionate allocation 

within RPI program). 

Agency/Program Line Item.—Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs, Trust-Natural Resources Management, Rights 

Protection Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resource Management.1

Funding Authorizations.—Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. § 13; Indian Self-Determination 

and Education Assistance Act, (Public Law 93–638), 25 U.S.C. §§ 450f and 450h; and 

the treaties between the United States and GLIFWC’s member Ojibwe Tribes, specifically Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat. 491, Treaty of 1837, 7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 

7 Stat. 591, and Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat. 1109.2

2. EPA Great Lakes Restoration.—$475,000,000 (same as fiscal year 2010 appro- priation). GLIFWC: $1,200,000 (estimated annual need). 

Agency/Program Line Item.—Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental 

Programs and Management, Geographic Programs, Great Lakes Restoration. 

Funding Authorizations.—Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1268(c); and treaties cited 

above. 

GLIFWC’S Goal—A Secure Funding Base to Fulfill Treaty Purposes 

As Congress has recognized for more than 25 years, funding for GLIFWC’s conservation, natural resource protection, and law enforcement programs honors Federal treaty obligations to 11 Ojibwe Tribes and provides a wide range of associated 

public benefits. GLIFWC seeks an inflation-adjusted secure funding base to: (i) implement Federal court orders and intergovernmental agreements governing the exercise of treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and gathering rights; and (ii) participate 

in management partnerships in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. 

Elements of GLIFWC’s Funding Request 

1. BIA Rights Protection Implementation: At least $30,451,000.—In fiscal year 

2010, Congress addressed chronic underfunding of the Rights Protection Implementation (RPI) program by increasing this line item by $12 million, a welcome increase 

but still far less than the tribes’ total RPI needs. From this increase, the administration provided GLIFWC with a much-needed $1.7 million increase in its fiscal 
265 

year 2010 RPI funding to the current level of $5,619,000. Unfortunately, in fiscal 

year 2011 GLIFWC could lose at least $450,000—more than 26 percent—of the fiscal year 2010 $1.7 million increase because of a proposed cut to its RPI funding, 

the absorption of fixed costs, and contract support cost shortfalls. 

With the full fiscal year 2010 funding amount and full contract support costs, 

GLIFWC would be able to create and sustain jobs that will protect and enhance natural resources and associated habitats. Specifically, GLIFWC could: (i) fill at least 

six staff vacancies, (ii) restore its long-standing fish contaminant and consumption 

advisory program; (iii) reinstitute fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys at previous levels; (iv) restore tribal court and registration station funding; (v) restore 

Lake Superior lamprey control and whitefish assessment programs; (vi) restore 

GLIFWC’s share in cooperative wildlife and wild rice enhancement projects; (vii) replace ageing equipment; (viii) meet expanding harvest monitoring needs and increased natural resource assessment responsibilities; and (ix) meet uncontrollable 

increases in employee benefit costs. 

2. EPA Environmental Programs and Management: $475,000,000.—GLIFWC supports continued funding for the EPA’s Great Lakes Geographic Program (GLGP) and 

the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) at $475 million, the same as the fiscal 

year 2010 appropriation. It also recommends that at least $25 million be provided 

to the BIA for tribes, to ensure they are able to undertake projects that contribute 

to the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. Funding provided through the 

BIA should be made available under the Indian Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act. 

In fiscal year 2010, GLIFWC is proposing about $1.2 million in GLGP/GLRI funding. If funding is sustained at this level, GLIFWC will be able to create jobs that 

will allow it to fully participate in the decisionmaking processes that affect the treaty rights of its member tribes, ensure that decisions are based upon sound science, 

and implement specific habitat and human health research projects relevant to the 

subsistence, economic and cultural needs of tribal communities. One particular priority is to undertake projects that evaluate the potential impacts of climate change 

on natural resources important to GLIFWC member tribes. 

Ceded Territory Treaty Rights—GLIFWC’s Role and Programs 

Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management agency for eleven member Ojibwe Tribes regarding their ceded territory (off-reservation) hunting, 

fishing and gathering treaty rights. These ceded territories extend over a 60,000 

square mile area in a three State region. GLIFWC’s mission is to: (i) ensure that 

its member tribes are able to exercise their rights for the purposes of meeting subsistence, economic, cultural, medicinal, and spiritual needs; and (ii) ensure a 

healthy, sustainable natural resource base that supports those rights. GLIFWC is 

a ‘‘tribal organization’’ as defined by the Indian Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act. It is governed by a Constitution ratified by its member Tribes and 

by a Board composed of the Chairs of those Tribes. 
266 

GLIFWC operates a comprehensive ceded territory hunting, fishing, and gathering rights protection/implementation program through its staff of biologists, scientists, technicians, conservation enforcement officers, policy specialists, and public 

information specialists. Its activities include: (i) natural resource population assessments and studies; (ii) harvest monitoring and reporting, (iii) enforcement of tribal 

conservation codes in tribal courts; (iv) funding for tribal courts and tribal registration/permit stations; (v) development of natural resource management plans and 

tribal regulations; (vi) negotiation and implementation of agreements with State, 

Federal, and local agencies; (vii) invasive species eradication and control projects; 

(viii) biological and scientific research, including fish contaminant testing; and (ix) 

development and dissemination of public information materials. 

Justification and Use of the Requested Funds 

For more than 25 years, Congress has recognized GLIFWC as a cost-efficient 

agency that plays a necessary role in: (i) meeting specific Federal treaty and statutory obligations toward GLIFWC’s member Tribes; (ii) fulfilling conservation, habitat protection, and law enforcement functions required by Federal court decisions 

affirming the Tribes’ treaty rights; (iii) effectively regulating harvests of natural resources shared among the treaty signatory tribes; and (iv) serving as an active partner with State, Federal, and local governments, with educational institutions, and 

with conservation organizations and other nonprofit agencies. 

Particularly relevant to the requested EPA funds, tribal members rely upon treaty-protected natural resources for religious, cultural, medicinal, subsistence, and 

economic purposes. Their treaty rights mean little if contamination of these resources threatens their health, safety, and economy, or if the habitats supporting 

these resources are degraded. 

With the requested stable funding base, GLIFWC will: 

1. Maintain the Requisite Capabilities to Meet Legal Obligations, to Conserve Natural Resources and to Regulate Treaty Harvests.—Although it does not meet all 

GLIFWC’s needs, sustained funding at fiscal year 2010 levels would go a long way 

in facilitating continued tribal compliance with various court decrees and intergovernmental agreements governing the tribes’ treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and 

gathering rights. It also enhances GLIFWC’s capability to undertake work and participate in relevant partnerships to tackle ecosystem threats, such as invasive species, habitat degradation and climate change, that harm treaty natural resources. 
267 

3GLIFWC currently participates on a regular basis in the Binational Program to Restore and 

Protect Lake Superior, International Joint Commission and SOLEC forums, the Great Lakes 

Restoration Initiative, and the implementation of agreements to regulate water diversions and 

withdrawals under the Great Lakes Charter, Annex 2001. 4With the requested fiscal year 2011 funds, GLIFWC would: (i) continue a ceded territory wild 

rice enhancement project; (ii) facilitate tribal review and input on the re-negotiation of the Great 

Lakes Water Quality Agreement and any implementing activities; (iii) continue to participate 

in the development and implementation of the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan; (iv) 

build upon its long-standing fish contaminant analysis and consumption advisory program by 

testing additional species, testing in a wider geographic range, and testing for chemicals of 

emerging concern; and (v) enhance its invasive species and animal disease prevention, monitoring and mitigation programs, particularly given the potential impacts of climate change, the 

recent discovery of viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) in Lake Superior and the likely migration of the Asian Carp into the Great Lakes. 

2. Remain a Trusted Environmental Management Partner and Scientific Contributor in the Great Lakes Region.—With the requested EPA funding base, GLIFWC 

would maintain its role as a trusted environmental management partner and scientific contributor in the Great Lakes Region. It would bring a tribal perspective 

to the interjurisdictional mix of Great Lakes managers 3 and would use its scientific 

expertise to study issues and geographic areas that are important to its member 

tribes but that others may not be examining.4

3. Maintain the Overall Public Benefits That Derive From its Programs.—Over the 

years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and valued partner in natural resource 

management, in emergency services networks, and in providing accurate information to the public. Because of its institutional experience and staff expertise, 

GLIFWC provides continuity and stability in interagency relationships and among 

its member Tribes, and contributes to social stability in the context of ceded territory treaty rights issues. 

For more than 25 years, GLIFWC has built and maintained numerous partnerships that: (i) provide accurate information and data to counter social misconceptions about tribal treaty harvests and the status of ceded territory natural resources; (ii) maximize each partner’s financial resources and avoid duplication of effort and costs; (iii) engender cooperation rather than competition; and (iv) undertake 

projects and achieve public benefits that no one partner could accomplish alone. 

Other Related Appropriations Concerns 

Full Funding of BIA Contract Support Costs.—GLIFWC seeks full funding of its 

contract support costs. The administration’s fiscal year 2011 proposed increase of 

$21.5 million for these costs is welcomed, but even that amount only achieves an 

estimated 94 percent of need based on fiscal year 2007 funding levels. GLIFWC anticipates its fiscal year 2010 indirect cost shortfall to be at least $287,000, and this 

does not even take into account the shortfall for all of its direct contract support 

costs. These shortfalls significantly inhibit GLIFWC’s ability to restore program cuts 

and service capacity. 

BIA Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland and Waterfowl Initiative.—GLIFWC supports 

BIA funding of the Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Enhancement Initiative for Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The Circle of Flight program is a 

long-standing tribal contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan that has leveraged matching partnership funding on a 3 to 1 ratio. In 2010, 

this program was awarded a Department of the Interior ‘‘Partners in Conservation’’ 

Award. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREEN MOUNTAIN CLUB

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: As Director of Conservation for the Green Mountain Club, the nonprofit organization that maintains 

Vermont’s Long Trail, the Nation’s oldest long-distance hiking trail, I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of the Northern Green Mountains 

Linkage project in Vermont. An appropriation of $5.875 million to the U.S. Forest 

Service for the Forest Legacy Program is needed in order to protect an assemblage 

of 6,516 acres. I am thankful that this project was included in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2011 at a funding level of $2.3 million. However, the conservation of the assemblage of properties can be completed this year with an appropriation of $5.875 million. 

The Forest Legacy Program in Vermont seeks to achieve significant conservation 

goals for the State by protecting the following types of land: large contiguous and 

productive forest blocks, wildlife habitat dependent on large forested tracts, threat-
268 

ened and endangered species habitat, State fragile areas, undeveloped shoreline, 

significant wetlands, and important recreation corridors. 

The State’s top Forest Legacy Program priority for fiscal year 2011 is the 6,516- 

acre Northern Green Mountains Linkage. Situated on the spine of the Northern 

Green Mountains in Lamoille, Orleans and Franklin Counties, the Northern Green 

Mountains Linkage Forest Legacy Project will conserve 6,516 acres of managed and 

productive timberland while protecting 25 undeveloped ponds, 25 miles of streams, 

several rare species and natural communities, and high-quality wildlife habitat. 

Using fee and easement acquisitions, the project will link 62,200 acres of conserved 

lands, including lands the Green Mountain Club has protected for the Long Trail, 

providing connectivity from the Champlain Valley to the Green Mountains, north 

to Quebec, and east to the Worcester Range. This project will address the problem 

of forest fragmentation and associated impacts on the timber economy, public access 

to recreation, and wildlife habitat connectivity in Vermont’s northern region by permanently protecting critically located properties. 

Vermont’s Northern Green Mountains are one of the largest and wildest forested 

landscapes remaining in all of New England. The region, which follows the spine 

of the Green Mountains north from Mount Mansfield to the Canadian border, encompasses sweeping tracts of forest where moose, bobcat, black bear, and a myriad 

of rare and endangered songbirds make their home. These mountains and their 

slopes are remarkably diverse, containing all the major ecosystem types of the 

ecoregion, from boreal forests, temperate mixed hardwoods, and alpine meadows to 

floodplain forests and marshes. Additionally, there are State rare and threatened 

plant species on the properties, including cliff fern, rose pogonia, lungwort, and 

smooth musk flower. This area is also a magnet for hikers, skiers, backpackers, and 

other outdoor enthusiasts, particularly those drawn by a 65-mile portion of the Long 

Trail, a footpath running the length of Vermont which the Green Mountain Club 

built and has maintained for the past 100 years. Also snaking through the region 

is the increasingly popular Catamount Trail, a cross-country ski trail traversing the 

State. 

The Northern Green Mountains have long been recognized as a top conservation 

priority by many of the region’s small towns, such as Enosburg, Jay, and Hyde 

Park, which are now mobilizing to conserve the places that define and sustain their 

communities. Two Countries One Forest (2C1Forest), a Canadian-American coalition 

of 50 conservation organizations, public agencies, and researchers, sponsored scientific research to identify important wildlife corridors in the Northern Appalachian-Acadian ecoregion. In 2007, 2C1Forest chose the Northern Green Mountains-to-Sutton Mountains linkage as one of their top five conservation priorities. 

The area has also been identified as significant in the Vermont Department of Fish 

and Wildlife’s soon-to-be-completed statewide assessment and ranking of large forested blocks and associated linkage habitats. The Northern Green Mountains are a 

crucial place for regional landscape connectivity because they help tie together the 

Adirondacks of New York, the central Appalachians of Massachusetts, and points 

south to the Northern Appalachians of Maine and Canada. In so doing they serve 

as an important north-south corridor for wildlife and, because of their large range 

in elevation, provide species with flexibility in their movement. This is an important 

factor in adaptation strategies aimed at averting species extinctions due to climate 

change. 

The vast majority of the land in the Northern Greens remains in private hands, 

with thousands of acres available on the open market. Threats from an expanding 

second-home industry (even in today’s uncertain economy), road construction, and 

changing forestry and farming practices put key blocks of forestland at risk and create barriers to wildlife movement. Such changes also threaten the vibrant rural culture and economy of the Northern Greens, with its mix of small farms, forestry, and 

recreation. A recent explosion of development pressure in the Northern Green 

Mountains resulting from expanding ski resorts and the area’s proximity to greater 

Burlington and other population centers, has made this a ‘‘now or never’’ moment 

to conserve key landscapes in this important habitat and recreational area. According to census data, growth rates in Lamoille, Orleans, and Franklin counties are 

more than double the growth rate in Vermont as a whole. In Vermont, only 21 percent of the Northern Green Mountains is protected from development, compared to 

45 percent of the central and southern Green Mountains. 

In fiscal year 2011, an appropriation of $5.875 million from the Forest Legacy Program is needed to ensure the protection of critical forest resources in northern 

Vermont. This Federal funding will be matched by $1.98 million of non-Federal contributions and allocated to 19 separate land transactions for the acquisition of full 

fee and partial interests through conservation easement. One of the tracts which 

will be conserved that the Green Mountain Club is particularly interested in is Can-
269 

ada View, 1,022 acres of forestland in Jay. A 1.6 mile section of the Long Trail, one 

of Vermont’s premier recreational resources, is located adjacent to Canada View, in 

some places within 100 to 500 feet of the parcel’s boundary. The northern terminus 

of the Long Trail at the Canadian border, a starting or finish point for end-to-end 

hikers of the trail, is located beside Canada View. 

Please do all that you can to ensure that this worthwhile program is funded adequately in fiscal year 2011 and that the Northern Green Mountains Linkage project 

receives $5.875 million in fiscal year 2011. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in 

Vermont, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

Summary 

The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to appropriate at least 

$1.3 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in fiscal year 2011. The USGS 

is one of the Nation’s premier science agencies. It addresses many of society’s greatest challenges, including energy resources, climate change, water resources, and 

natural hazards. The devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010 and the 

eruption of Eyjafjallajo ̈kull volcano in Iceland that began on April 14, 2010 emphatically demonstrate the value of robust natural hazards monitoring and warning systems and the need for increased Federal investments in the USGS. Nevertheless, 

funding for USGS has stagnated in real dollars for more than a decade (see Figure 

1). 
270 

FIGURE 1.—USGS funding in constant 2011 dollars, fiscal year 1996–fiscal year 

2011. EI is Enterprise Information and GC is Global Change. Data from USGS 

Budget Office. 

The Geological Society of America supports strong and growing investments in 

earth science research at USGS and other Federal agencies. Substantial increases 

in Federal funding for earth science research are needed to ensure the health, vitality, and security of society and for stewardship of Earth. The USGS has a unique 

combination of biological, geographical, geological, and hydrological programs that 

enables it to address interdisciplinary research challenges that are beyond the capabilities of most other organizations. The USGS benefits every American every day. 

The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific society with 

more than 22,000 members from academia, Government, and industry in all 50 

States and more than 90 countries. Through its meetings, publications, and programs, GSA enhances the professional growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in the service of humankind. GSA encourages cooperative research among 

earth, life, planetary, and social scientists, fosters public dialogue on geoscience 

issues, and supports all levels of earth science education. 

Rationale 

Science and technology are engines of economic prosperity, environmental quality, 

and national security. Federal investments in research pay substantial dividends. 

According to the National Academies’ report Rising Above the Gathering Storm 

(2007), ‘‘Economic studies conducted even before the information-technology revolu-
271 

tion have shown that as much as 85 percent of measured growth in U.S. income 

per capita was due to technological change.’’ 

The earth sciences are critical components of the overall science and technology 

enterprise. Growing investments in earth science research are required to stimulate 

innovations that fuel the economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life. 

Substantial increases in Federal funding for earth science research are needed to 

ensure the health, vitality, and security of society and for Earth stewardship. Earth 

science research provides knowledge and data essential for developing policies, legislation, and regulations regarding land, mineral, energy, and water resources at all 

levels of government. 

Broader Impacts of the Earth Sciences 

It is critically important for Congress to provide significant increases in funding 

for the USGS to meet challenges posed by human interactions with Earth’s natural 

systems and to help sustain these natural systems and the economy. Additional investments in the USGS are necessary to address such issues as natural hazards, 

energy, water resources, and climate change. 

—Natural hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floods, 

droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes, remain a major cause of fatalities and economic losses world-wide. An improved scientific understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future losses through better forecasts of their occurrence and 

magnitude. The devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010 and the 

eruption of Eyjafjallajo ̈kull volcano in Iceland on April 14, 2010 emphatically 

demonstrate the value of robust natural hazards monitoring and warning systems and the need for increased Federal investments in the USGS. 

—Energy and mineral resources are critical to the functioning of society and to 

national security and have positive impacts on local, national, and international 

economies and quality of life. These resources are often costly and difficult to 

find, and new generations of geoscientists need the tools and expertise to discover them. In addition, management of their extraction, use, and residue disposal requires a scientific approach that will maximize the derived benefits and 

minimize the negative effects. Improved scientific understanding of these resources will allow for their better management and utilization, while at the 

same time considering economic and environmental issues. This is particularly 

significant because shifting resource demands often reframe our knowledge as 

new research-enabling technologies become available. 

—The availability and quality of surface water and groundwater are vital to the 

well being of both society and ecosystems. Greater scientific understanding of 

these critical resources-and communication of new insights by geoscientists in 

formats useful to decision makers-—is necessary to ensure adequate and safe 

water resources for the future. 

—Forecasting the outcomes of human interactions with Earth’s natural systems, 

including climate change, is limited by an incomplete understanding of geologic 

and environmental processes. Improved understanding of these processes in 

Earth’s history can increase confidence in the ability to predict future states 

and enhance the prospects for mitigating or reversing adverse impacts to the 

planet and its inhabitants. 

—Research in earth science is also fundamental to training and educating the 

next generation of earth science professionals. 

USGS should be a component of broader initiatives to increase overall public investments in science and technology. For example, earth science research should be 

included in a recommendation by the National Academies to ‘‘increase the Federal 

investment in long-term basic research by 10 percent each year over the next 7 

years.’’ (Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 2007). Likewise, when Congress reauthorizes the America COMPETES Act, it should broaden the act to include a new 

title that puts the USGS budget on the same doubling track as other key science 

agencies. 

Budget Shortfalls 

President Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for USGS is $1.133 billion, an 

increase of $21.6 million of 1.9 percent more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

The USGS budget request includes $52 million in program increases, $18.6 million 

in program decreases, and $11.7 million in additional decreases made on a Department of the Interior-wide basis. The budget request also assumes that the USGS 

will absorb $13.5 million in uncontrollable cost increases. Underfunding of uncontrollable cost increases over many years has compromised the scientific capacity of 

the USGS. We urge Congress to restore proposed cuts in the USGS budget request, 

to provide full funding for uncontrollable cost increases, to provide new funds to en-
272 

able the agency to address a growing backlog of needs for USGS science and information and undertake new initiatives. Congress should support proposed USGS 

budget increases for initiatives including the New Energy Frontier, Climate Change 

Adaptation, WaterSMART Program, Treasured Landscapes (Chesapeake Bay Executive Order), Increasing Resilience to Natural Hazards, Landsat Data Continuity 

Mission, and Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. 

The USGS budget fell in real dollars for 7 consecutive years from fiscal year 2001 

to fiscal year 2008 (see Figure 1). Despite budget increases in fiscal year 2009 and 

fiscal year 2010, the USGS budget request for fiscal year 2011 remains below the 

USGS budget for fiscal year 2001 in real dollars. The decline in funding for the 

USGS during this time period would have been greater if Congress had not repeatedly restored proposed budget cuts. Federal funding for non-defense R&D has increased significantly while funding for the USGS stagnated for more than a decade. 

The Geological Society of America joins with the USGS Coalition and other organizations in recommending an appropriation of $1.3 billion for the USGS in fiscal 

year 2011. This budget would enable the USGS to address the growing backlog of 

science needs that has resulted from stagnant real budgets for more than a decade, 

accelerate the timetable for deployment of critical projects, and launch science initiatives that address new challenges. 

The Geological Society of America is grateful to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Activities for its past leadership 

in increasing the budget for USGS. We remain grateful to the subcommittee for its 

leadership in providing $143 million in stimulus funds for the USGS under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Thank you for your thoughtful 

consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land in the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming. 

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition is a conservation organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and the unique 

quality of life it sustains, now and in the future. Central to the Greater Yellowstone 

Coalition’s mission is the integrity of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, 

which form the core of the GYE. The GYE is the most intact landscape in the lower 

48 States and is internationally renowned. Formed in 1983, The Greater Yellowstone Coalition has 18,000 members and activists who regularly use and enjoy the 

Yellowstone area, including Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. 

An appropriation of $2.5 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in order for the Forest Service (USFS) to acquire 

the 118-acre Russell Creek Winter Range inholding. In a demonstration of the importance of this acquisition, the $2.5 million amount was included in the President’s 

budget request for fiscal year 2011. 

Roughly the same size as West Virginia, the GYE encompasses approximately 18 

million acres in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. The GYE includes Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton national parks, portions of seven different national forests, and three 

national wildlife refuges. The headwaters of the Yellowstone, Missouri, Snake, and 

Green rivers are found in its mountains. Its varied topography consists of arid high 

plains, verdant river valleys, high-elevation plateaus, and spectacular mountain 

ranges, as well as the most diverse and intact collection of geysers and hot springs 

in the world. Additionally, the GYE is one of the largest, relatively intact temperate 

zone ecosystems remaining in the world. 

Remarkably diverse, the GYE provides some of the best wildlife habitat in the 

country, including home for one of the last viable grizzly bear populations in the 

lower 48 States. It hosts the largest elk and free-roaming bison herds in North 

America, and provides the only U.S. wintering ground for the rare trumpeter swan. 

Wolverines, lynx, fishers, and martens still roam the GYE’s mountains, as do bighorn sheep, black bears, and mountain goats. Other flourishing species include 

pronghorn antelope, wolves, moose, mountain lions, mule deer, beavers, coyotes, osprey, bald eagles, and peregrine falcons. The GYE hosts a total of 316 bird, 94 mammal, 24 reptile and amphibian, and more than 1,700 vascular plant species. The 

rich, biological diversity of the GYE is truly exceptional—nowhere else in the lower 

48 States can you find a large and relatively intact ecosystem containing nearly all 

the living organisms present in pre-Columbian times. 

In addition to its impressive wildlife values, the GYE offers some of the best recreational opportunities in North America. Its fisheries are world-renowned and at-
273 

tract fly fishermen from all over the globe. Big game hunting opportunities are 

abundant. In addition to these sporting opportunities, the GYE offers a wide range 

of backcountry recreational opportunities including skiing, snowshoeing, 

snowmobiling, hiking, camping, whitewater rafting, horseback riding, and wildlife 

viewing. 

Available for acquisition within the GYE in fiscal year 2011 is the 118-acre Russell Creek Winter Range property in the Shoshone National Forest in Park County, 

Wyoming. The tract lies about 1.5 miles off of Wyoming Route 296 in between Cody 

and Cooke City and the eastern and northeastern entrances to Yellowstone National 

Park. Bounded by Forest Service land on three sides, the tract is near Windy Mountain and is adjacent to Dead Indian Pass, where Route 296 drops dramatically into 

the valley of the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, a national wild and scenic 

river. 

With outstanding scenery, threatened and endangered species habitat, and riparian resources, the property is the priority acquisition for the forest and included in 

the region’s GYE program for fiscal year 2011. The property contains prime riparian 

habitat and important wetlands along one-half mile of Russell Creek. Gray wolves 

inhabit the area, and the inholding is located within the Yellowstone Recovery Zone 

for grizzly bears—a federally listed threatened species. Furthermore, the tract is 

within a crucial rearing area for elk and crucial winter range for elk, mule deer, 

and bighorn sheep. Additionally, the parcel contains habitat for sensitive plant species: shoshonea, Hall’s fescue, North Fork Easter daisy, and Absaroka goldenweed. 

The tract is accessible via a private road, offering significant opportunities and 

access for the public to hunt, hike, and camp if the property is acquired—and a significant second-home subdivision and development risk if it is not. Subdivision into 

several smaller parcels is fully authorized under existing county land-use regulations. In addition to precluding this threat, acquisition also will allow the USFS to 

improve fire management, control invasive plant species, and resolve obstacles to 

the free movement of grizzlies and other large game and nongame wildlife. 

An appropriation of $2.5 million is needed from the LWCF to secure these abundant resources, to preserve the important wildlife habitat along Russell Creek, and 

prevent development in a scenic section of the Shoshone National Forest. 

The LWCF is our Nation’s premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands 

at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and 

recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles 

through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire 

management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate 

change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to 

the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this subcommittee faces, I also want to thank the subcommittee for its recent 

effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Wyoming, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HEALING OUR WATERS®—GREAT LAKES COALITION

Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander. It is an honor to provide this written 

testimony regarding one of our Nation’s most prized natural and economic resources—the Great Lakes. 

The Healing Our Waters—Great Lakes Coalition asks the subcommittee to support $475 million for the popular and effective Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 

in fiscal year 2011. We appreciate the strong support the subcommittee provided 

last year and ask you to provide the same funding in fiscal year 2011 as you did 

in fiscal year 2010. We feel that our request is well justified because: 

—Fiscal year 2010 funds are being obligated this year; 

—There is an unprecedented need; 

—Through public-private partnerships we have the ability to get the work done 

implementing our region’s restoration plan; and 

—The eight State region’s economic recovery hinges on a healthy, restored Great 

Lakes. 

The Healing Our Waters—Great Lakes Coalition is comprised of more than 110 

environmental, conservation, hunting, and fishing organizations; museums, zoos, 
274 

and aquariums; and businesses representing millions of people whose goal is to restore and protect the Great Lakes. We came together to fight for the Great Lakes, 

and we recognize the need for Federal assistance for all great waters, including San 

Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, the Everglades, and Chesapeake Bay. 

Madam Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, 40 million people rely on the Great 

Lakes for their drinking water, and millions more benefit from the commerce and 

business that depend on the waters of the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, the health 

of the Great Lakes continues to be seriously threatened by problems such as untreated sewage, toxic pollution, and invasive species. The eight States that border 

the Great Lakes and numerous nongovernmental organizations have invested a significant amount of resources in preserving these bodies of water. Additional funding, 

however, is needed. Unless the Federal Government continues to invest in the lakes 

these problems will get worse and the price we pay will be higher. 

While restoration efforts to date have made progress, Federal funding historically 

has not kept pace with the enormity of the problem. More than $26 billion is needed 

according to the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, yet Great Lakes programs over the last decade have received only a small fraction of that amount. We 

are now embarking on more significant restoration activities thanks to President 

Obama’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). Cleaning up the Great Lakes 

is not only critical for the health and quality of life of the region, it will also drive 

economic development—and jobs—in our Nation for years to come. According to the 

Brookings Institution, an investment of $26 billion to restore the Great Lakes will 

lead to at least $50 to $80 billion in economic benefit. That’s why the region’s chambers of commerce, industry, governors, mayors, tribes, and conservation organizations have united around the common goals of restoring the Great Lakes—the largest surface freshwater resource on the planet—and funding the GLRI at last year’s 

level. 

President Obama recognized the importance of a Federal commitment to the 

Great Lakes by including a new $475 million Great Lakes restoration initiative in 

his inaugural fiscal year 2010 budget. As already noted, under the leadership of this 

subcommittee and other key appropriators like Senator Durbin, Congress fulfilled 

the President’s request. This support has energized the region like at no other time 

and people are responding. Now is not the time to slow down the progress being 

made, which is why we were disappointed by the administration’s $300 million request for fiscal year 2011. Although we acknowledge that senior administration officials may believe that fiscal year 2010 funding isn’t being obligated quickly enough 

to justify an additional $475 million for the GLRI, we disagree with their view. The 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office 

(GLNPO) has worked hard over the last year with their sister agencies to ensure 

that fiscal year 2010 GLRI funding can be put to good use this year. 
275 

A quick snapshot of everything GLNPO has accomplished in 2009: 

—GLNPO coordinated 15 different agencies in pulling together a spending plan 

for the new $475 million initiative; they wrote a plan on how to implement the 

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration’s restoration strategy; they held 18 meetings last summer where they solicited public feedback on that plan; they prepared and issued a Request for Proposals to award more than $120 million in 

grants to non-Federal organizations; they coordinated and created 13 interagency agreements (see table above); they began developing a system to establish an accountability and reporting system for the Initiative; they began to renegotiate the bi-national Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; all while continuing to operate the Great Lakes Legacy Act program and fulfill their other 

statutory responsibilities. 

GLRI FUNDS ARE BEING OBLIGATED

All this work has set the stage for GLRI money to flow this year to on-the-ground 

restoration work throughout the region. GLNPO and the other Federal agencies are 

obligating GLRI funds. GLNPO will have obligated more than $247 million through 

interagency agreements by the end of May. Other agencies will also have spent their 

GLRI allocations. NOAA recently awarded GLRI funds to a land acquisition project 

in Michigan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will award habitat restoration funds later this year under their Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration 

Program. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, through a transfer of funds 
276 

1 Current request for proposals; Source: EPA, NOAA, FWS, NFWF 

Agency RFP amount available Total amount available Proposals submitted 

NOAA $10 million $61 million 52 

FWS $8 million $44 million 167

EPA $120 million $947 million 1,057 

NFWF $6 million $72 million 104

from the FWS, obligated $6 million in GLRI funds for restoration projects in April. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service just committed more than $33 million 

in May. EPA will begin awarding $120 million worth of grants this summer for 

work that will get underway later this year. 

NEED FAR OUTWEIGHS AVAILABLE FUNDING

The preparation for spending the GLRI’s allocation has also revealed that the 

amount of funding needed for Great Lakes restoration continues to far outweigh 

what is available, even with significant new Federal support. 

EPA, NOAA, the FWS and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation all recently 

closed grant solicitations on how to spend GLRI funds. Nearly 1,400 proposals were 

submitted totaling more than $1.1 billion.1 Only 13 percent of proposals on average 

will receive funding through these solicitations since only $144 million is currently 

available (see chart below). We expect additional agency requests for proposals to 

be made available throughout the year. It’s important to remember that not all 

GLRI funds will go to grants and even if they did, current GLRI funding would still 

fund less than half the projects that have been proposed through the most recent 

four request for proposals. 

GETTING WORK DONE; ACCORDING TO PLAN

The restoration work being undertaken with GLRI funds is focused on one goal: 

to implement the region’s restoration plan. Our region produced the comprehensive, 

science-based ‘‘Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect 

the Great Lakes’’ in 2005, which laid out the steps needed to restore and protect 

the Great Lakes. After a series of meetings with the public and two public comment 
277 

2 Released February 21, 2010. 

3 EPA ‘‘Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan’’ 2010. Page 4. 

4 Ibid. Page 14. 

periods last year, GLNPO subsequently produced a Federal work plan called the 

‘‘Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan’’ 2 to implement that strategy: ‘‘The 

GLRC Strategy provides a framework for the Action Plan, and the Action Plan is 

just that: an action driver.’’ 3 This plan lays out measurable 5-year restoration goals 

for the five most significant issues facing the Great Lakes: toxic substances and 

areas of concern; invasive species; nearshore health and nonpoint source pollution; 

habitat and wildlife protection and restoration; accountability, education, monitoring, evaluation, communication, and partnerships. 

In addition, with the hope of significant new funds being available this year, most 

Great Lakes States and many nongovernmental organizations worked together 

closely to develop project proposals that address both their State and the region’s 

top restoration priorities. New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation 

facilitated collaboration between NGOs, State agencies, and other stakeholders in 

pulling together a list of projects to be undertaken in the Great Lakes watershed 

in New York State. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota also undertook similar efforts to coordinate project submissions and build solid public-private partnerships 

in order to get work done. For work that could not be undertaken by State agencies 

because of budgets or capacity, States supported the application of funds by nongovernmental organizations that had the expertise and experience to successfully 

complete restoration work. 

In addition to developing a plan, GLNPO also made progress in pulling together 

a project tracking system based on one used by the Chesapeake Bay program to 

track progress made in implementing this plan. These reporting requirements are 

also being built into the interagency agreements, which is partially why it has taken 

them more time to complete. 

Lastly, to ensure that the regional efforts are based on sound science, GLNPO is 

also establishing a science advisory board, which will provide oversight and advice 

on the region’s restoration efforts. 

ASIAN CARP

One of the biggest threats facing the Great Lakes today is Asian carp, which 

swam up the Mississippi River after escaping fish farms in the 1970s. After years 

of battling to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes, Asian carp DNA was recently 

discovered in Lake Michigan. This startling finding has provoked a serious response 

from Federal agencies. Although we are glad that the President had the foresight 

to create a GLRI that could respond quickly to this threat, continued use of GLRI 

funds for Asian carp management would violate one of the GLRI’s own criteria: support new work or ‘‘enhance (but do not replace) existing Great Lakes baseline activities.’’ 4 We believe that over the long term keeping Asian carp out of the Great 

Lakes must be built into agencies baseline budgets in order to leave the GLRI free 

to supplement other restoration activities. 

CONCLUSION

We thank you again for the opportunity to share our views with you. We recognize 

the tough choices you face, but we believe that restoring the Great Lakes is not only 

good for the environment but also is good for the national economy as well. In addition to your support for $475 million in GLRI funds, we also hope you will support 

the following recommendations in report language or oversight: 

—Spend GLRI funds in the Great Lakes Basin. 

—Ensure that all stakeholders helping to restore the Great Lakes—in particular 

nongovernmental organizations—have a voice in setting Great Lakes restoration priorities. 

—Streamline application procedures so non-Federal stakeholders can use one application form for multiple agency requests. 

—Allow EPA to bundle funding for multiple projects (either by the same sponsor 

or multiple sponsors) in targeted areas in order to more efficiently direct funds 

to high-priority areas and on multiple issues (either concurrently or consecutively) and to minimize administrative costs for smaller nongovernmental 

groups that have the expertise to do restoration work but may be too small to 

manage large Federal grants. 

—Reduce the number of Federal programs receiving GLRI funding to better target 

these investments. 
278 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, HUMANE

SOCIETY LEGISLATIVE FUND, AND DORIS DAY ANIMAL LEAGUE

Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies Subcommittee on items of importance to our organizations 

with a combined membership of more than 11 million supporters nationwide. We 

urge the subcommittee to address these priority issues in the fiscal year 2011 Department of Interior appropriation. 

Bureau of Land Management—Wild Horse and Burro Program 

The BLM is charged with the management of approximately 33,000 wild horses 

in 10 Western States, but the current program is grossly underfunded. While we 

support a reduction in the number of annual roundups, depending on rounding up 

horses without implementing any active program for preventative herd growth is an 

unsupportable wild horse management approach because it leads to a continual 

cycle of roundups and removals rather than the use of long-term, cost-efficient and 

humane management strategies.The BLM should focus on five mechanisms for managing wild horses and burros; (1) preserving free-roaming wild horse and burro populations through the use of humane birth control; (2) recolonizing any of the more 

than 19 million acres of zeroed-out habitat with wild horses and burros from the 

short and long-term holding facilities; (3) identifying new, appropriate rangelands 

and establishing sanctuaries for wild horses and burros; (4) continuing long-term, 

humane pasturing for equines that must be removed from the range utilizing birth 

control on these captive animals; and (5) implementing creative and more aggressive 

marketing strategies to increase adoption rates for captured equines. 

The BLM’s current focus on roundup and adoption tools has resulted in an increasing number of wild horses being permanently warehoused in BLM sponsored 

holding centers, at a cost of $27 million annually (representing almost 75 percent 

of the BLM’s $36.2 million wild horse management budget). Peer reviewed studies 

have shown that costs to manage the herd could decrease significantly by treating 

more mares with the immunocontraceptive PZP (porcine zona pellucida) and returning them to the range, rather than detaining them indefinitely in holding centers, 

and through the wide-scale marketing of the BLM’s Adopt-a-Horse program. According to a paper published in the Journal of Wildlife Management in 2007, contraception on-the-range could reduce total wild horse and burro management costs by 14 

percent, saving $6.1 million per year (Bartholow, J. 2007. Economic benefit of fertility control in wild horse populations. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 71(8):2811–2819.). This 

study demonstrates conclusively that the use of immunocontraception could easily 

result in a reduction in the continuing long-term expenses associated with the 

BLM’s current wild horse management program. 

In October 2006, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the BLM 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding to facilitate the use of contraceptive vaccines as a key component for managing wild horses on public lands. In 2007, the 

Annenberg Foundation pledged $1.8 million to a project launched by The HSUS and 

the BLM to promote the use and application of contraceptives to manage wild 

horses throughout the west. The BLM and The HSUS have an opportunity to revolutionize the course of wild horse population control from a standard that is often 

inefficient, costly, and cruel to one which is technologically advanced, cost effective 

and humane. We urge the subcommittee to take advantage of the demonstrated cost 

savings associated with the use of immunocontraceptives by directing BLM and EPA 

to take action to facilitate the implementation of The HSUS/BLM Research Project, 

and by increasing BLM’s budget for PZP research and development programs by 

$1.5 million. 

The subcommittee’s support would encourage greater cooperation between the 

BLM, the EPA and The HSUS in the implementation of a program that we believe 

will be of great benefit not only to our Nation’s beloved wild horse populations, but 

also to the American taxpayer. While we are pleased with the stated intent in 

BLM’s budget justification, we hope this new direction will be implemented in fiscal 

year 2011. 

Law Enforcement Division of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

The illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife parts amounts to billions of dollars, second only to the smuggling of drugs and arms. The United States remains one of the 

largest markets for legal and illegal trade of wildlife and wildlife products. New 

technology and a full complement of special agents and wildlife inspectors are essential to enforce the Nation’s endangered species and other wildlife laws. We are concerned that there are 71 special agent vacancies. We encourage the Subcommittee 

to fully fund the Law Enforcement Division. 
279 

Large Constrictor Snakes 

The HSUS commends the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for proposing to list nine 

species of large constrictor snakes as ‘‘injurious,’’ which will prohibit importation 

and interstate movement of animals as pets. A recent, comprehensive report by the 

U.S. Geological Survey showed these snakes all pose medium or high risk to our 

environment; none are low risk. While Burmese pythons and, to a lesser extent, boa 

constrictors have been established in Florida for some time, it appears that northern 

African pythons are now breeding there as well. The Service must have the resources to respond quickly to prevent the spread of these species and establishment 

of new ones. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Toxicity Pathways 

Research focused on molecular screening the potential to revolutionize toxicity 

testing improving both its efficiency as well as the quality of information available 

for human safety assessment. However, there is a need for more focus on toxicity 

pathways, as recommended by the National Research Council’s report ‘‘Toxicity 

Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy.’’ Such toxicity pathway research is best accomplished by EPA through contracts, grants and collaborations of 

EPA’s National Center for Computational Toxicology with researchers in academia 

and other institutions. We urge the Committee to incorporate the following report 

language: 

The subcommittee strongly supports and has increased funding for the efforts of 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development and its National Center for Computational Toxicology to apply computational chemistry, high-throughput screening and 

toxicogenomic technologies to predict potential for toxicity. The Center shall focus 

additional activity to address the issues of metabolism and exposure science in order 

to overcome these limitations within the current ToxCast program. In addition to 

the correlative computational profiling research currently being conducted by the 

Center and its Federal partners, the subcommittee directs EPA, through its Science 

and Technology budget, to increase its allocation of resources to the National Center 

for Computational Toxicology to expand its collaborations with other research organizations outside the Federal government engaged with proof of concept investigations of specific toxicological pathways. 

Review and Upgrading of the Test Methods Used in EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program (EDSP).—EPA’s budget request for 2011 acknowledges that the 

additional resources appropriated for 2011 will fund ‘‘next generation tools’’ which 

will speed up EDSP and reduce animal use. ‘‘In fiscal year 2011, the Computational 

Toxicology Research program will play a critical role in coordinating and implementing research across the EPA. In addition, greater emphasis will be placed on 

using systems biology based approaches to advance health-based assessments. In 

fiscal year 2011, EPA is requesting $21.9 million, an increase of $1.9 million, to support application of mathematical and computer models to help assess chemical risk 

to human health and the environment. Funds for next-generation tools will speed 

and facilitate implementation of EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 

(EDSP).’’http://www.epa.gov/budget/2011/fyl2011lcongressionalljustification.pdf. 

Multinational Species Conservation Fund 

The HSUS joins a broad coalition of organizations in requesting an increase over 

the administration’s request for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund 

(MNSCF) and Wildlife Without Borders. The MNSCF was established by Congress 

to benefit African and Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes, neotropical migratory birds and marine turtles. Congress has been very supportive of these programs 

in the past. Unfortunately in past years, the funding has been considerably less 

than the amounts necessary to carry out these valuable missions. We ask that you 

continue to support these highly threatened mammals and birds in fiscal year 2011 

by appropriating $3 million each for the Asian Elephant, African Elephant, Marine 

Turtle, and Great Ape Conservation Funds, $6 million for the combined Rhinoceros 

and Tiger Conservation Fund, and $6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund. We also request $10.4 million for the Wildlife Without Borders 

regional program. 

While we wholeheartedly support increased funding for the MNSCF, we are concerned about past incidents and future opportunities for funds from these conservation programs to be allocated to promote trophy hunting, trade in animal parts, and 

other consumptive uses-including live capture for trade, captive breeding, and entertainment for public display industry-under the guise of conservation for these ani-
280 

mals. Grants made to projects under the MNSCF must be consistent with the spirit 

of the law. 

Protection for Walruses 

We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year 2011 to fund 

the continuation of much-needed research on the Pacific walrus. Recently developed 

methodologies for surveying walrus populations have been used successfully and require sustained funding support to produce reliable population estimates. A comprehensive walrus survey was begun in 2005 and produced preliminary results in 

2009—the effort must receive continued support to maximize the utility of its results. Walruses are targeted by Native hunters for subsistence, despite a paucity of 

data regarding their current population status or population structure. Hundreds of 

walruses are killed annually; in some years this number has climbed to as many 

as 7,000. Moreover, in some hunting villages, females and their calves are preferentially killed, against the recommendation of the USFWS and standard management 

practice. A portion of the research funds could also be used to improve the Walrus 

Harvest Monitor Project, which collects basic management data. 

White Nose Syndrome 

The devastating impact of White Nose Syndrome (WNS) continues to spread 

across the country affecting bat populations in at least 11 States. A consensus statement issued by scientists and wildlife managers in May of last year calls WNS ‘‘the 

most precipitous decline of North American wildlife in recorded history’’. We are 

grateful that Congress provided the USFWS with additional funding to combat the 

problem of WNS, but the spread of disease is simply outpacing efforts to control it. We respectfully ask Congress to: (1) Support the $4 million increase the Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) requested for Declining Species; (2) Approve the 2 additional 

FTEs FWS requested, which we understand are to be the WNS coordinators for Regions 3 and 4; (3) Support the $3 million increase the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) requested for science support for FWS and National Park Service priority 

research, monitoring, and technical assistance needs; (4) Support the $600,000 increase USGS requested for wildlife: terrestrial and endangered resources; and (5) 

Include an additional $5 million in FWS’ Endangered Species: Recovery of Listed 

Species programming funds. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HOOPA TRIBAL POLICE DEPARTMENT

On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department, we are submitting testimony in support of an appropriations request for the 

Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department. The amount of the request is $1,225,234 

for base funding for the tribal police department. The agency involved is the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs and the program involved is Public Safety and Justice—Law Enforcement. 

The Request and Justification 

We are requesting $1,225,234 to provide base funding for our police department 

so it may continue to provide law enforcement services to the tribe and its surrounding community. Although the reservation is in a Public Law 280 State, services provided by county law enforcement are minimal. Given future budget concerns 

with the county, any county service provided to the Hoopa Reservation and surrounding communities may be cut significantly. The tribal police department is located on the Hoopa Reservation and it is routinely, the first and sometimes the only 

responders to calls for service on the reservation. The request for base funding 

would assist the tribal police department with further development and enhancement of services provided to the Hoopa community. The Hoopa Tribe has borne the 

financial burden for the police department, but can no longer afford to do so without 

harming other necessary services to its membership and community. However, the 

tribe feels a responsibility to protect the community, and its members. 

The Hoopa Valley Tribal Council feels that the tribal police department is deserving of the opportunity to receive base funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

and/or the Department of Justice, since services, and the quality of services are 

those of any other law enforcement agency. We do not believe that because we are 

a Public Law 280 State we should be hindered in carrying out our duties due to 

lack of funds, when the level of services and funding provided to non-Public Law 

280 tribes is greater. Additionally, the Hoopa Valley Tribe is one of the first and 

only tribal police departments in the State of California to have a Joint Powers 

Agreement (JPA)/MOU and a deputization agreement with their neighboring county. 
281 

The subcommittee’s support in providing base funding would be an enhancement 

to our department, tribe, community, and surrounding areas. These funds would be 

used to provide a 24-hour police force, something desperately needed on and around 

our reservation. The funds would also be used to increase officers’ salaries in order 

to be competitive with State and county agencies. Historically, the department has 

been able to recruit officers in entry level positions; however, retainment of these 

officers has been problematic as we have not been able to compete by offering salaries comparable to the State and county agencies. Thus, once an officer has been 

trained, and attained more experience they leave for those agencies offering better 

salary and benefit packages. An increase in funding will alleviate this problem. 

The base funding would also be used for: recruiting local tribal members and paying for sending them to the POST Certified Academy; an increase in dispatch personal and salaries once again trying to keep competitive with State and local agency’s; advance officer training, uniforms and basic issue equipment; meeting the rising cost of gasoline/vehicle maintenance and repair; the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police 

Department building i.e., repairs and maintenance, rising utilities, and other related 

costs to maintain the building to keep it functional; and office equipment/supplies 

for efficient administrative operations of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department. 

Background on the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department and Intergovernmental 

Cooperation between the tribe and the County. 

The Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department was officially formed in 1984. Prior 

to 1984, the department operated as hoopa tribal security. As tribal security, the 

primary function was to patrol and check all tribal resources, buildings and property 

to prevent vandalism and theft. As the department became more familiar in the 

community they were routinely called upon to provide other services. As a result, 

the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council determined that is was necessary for the department to evolve. This was the beginning of the Hoopa Department of Public Safety/ 

Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department. The tribe then began training their personnel as police officers. 

The determination was made that personnel would be trained in compliance with 

California Peace Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) guidelines in order to 

better serve the Hoopa Valley Tribe and its community. The primary function of the 

police department was to enforce tribal law, i.e., fishing, wood cutting, and other 

natural resource protection functions. The Hoopa Valley Tribal Council funded the 

department from tribal funds. The tribal council funded officers training at the College of the Redwoods Police Academy, and conducted thorough background investigations, again using P.O.S.T. guidelines. Since the officers were trained at the 

same level as local law enforcement personnel, and since tribal police officers live 

on the reservation, where local county officers do not, tribal police were routinely 

called upon to provide other law enforcement services to the tribe and adjacent communities. In order to address jurisdictional problems with Public Law 280, the tribal 

council and county entered into an agreement whereby officers were individually 

cross-deputized by the county sheriff, provided the appropriate standards and training were met by the individual officer. 

On May 30, 1995, the County of Humboldt and the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council 

entered into a JPA for the purpose of sharing responsibility for law enforcement 

services on the Hoopa Indian Reservation. That agreement, a first in California (a 

Public Law 280 State), specified that the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) 

and the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police (HVTP) would: (1) work together to provide law 

enforcement services to the community; (2) cross-deputize the other agency’s law enforcement officers; (3) share information and resources; and (4) share facilities (the 

sharing of facilities never came to pass). On October 7, 1996, the respective areas 

of responsibility of the HCSO and HVTP under the JPA were more specifically defined in a memorandum prepared by Lt. Greg Busey, the Hoopa Sheriff’s Substation 

Commander. This memorandum became essentially, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), under which both agencies have operated to the present day. 

Under this MOU, tribal police handle most noncriminal and misdemeanor criminal 

investigations, felony property crimes, and domestic violence cases, and the HCSO 

deputies handle part 1 felony crimes against persons. In actuality and in a spirit 

of cooperation each agency has taken responsibility for cases that were the primary 

responsibility of the other when it was expedient to do so. 

As the department progresses so does the need for additional officers, support personnel, equipment. and technology. In essence, the tribal police department has become the primary law enforcement agency on the reservation enforcing tribal, Federal, and State law, as well as providing other service related functions. Since, California is a Public Law 280 State, the tribe has been unable to utilize State funds 
282 

even though the tribal police department is providing the primary law enforcement 

services on the Hoopa reservation. The tribe has funded the department since its 

inception using tribal, compact, and grant funds in an effort to ensure that the tribe, 

its members, and the Hoopa community are adequately protected. 

Conclusion 

The Hoopa Valley Tribe needs $1.225 million in its base budget for its police department for adequate and effective law enforcement and police protection on the 

Hoopa Valley Reservation to keep the residents and visitors of the reservation and 

surrounding communities safe. 

The tribe’s police officers are trained and maintain compliance with the California 

Commission on P.O.S.T. at the same level as local law enforcement personnel and 

are deputized by the Humboldt County Sheriff pursuant to a deputization agreement. This agreement along with the Joint Powers Agreement and MOU between 

the Tribe and the County as well as the tribe’s concurrent jurisdiction and remote 

location has resulted in the tribe providing the primary law enforcement services 

on the reservation. 

The tribe receives very limited Federal funding which can be used for law enforcement services and does not receive any State funds. The tribe has been covering the 

costs of its tribal police department, but it can no longer afford to do so, risking inadequate law enforcement and police protection in the face of significant community 

policing challenges, including rampant illegal drug use and trafficking in the area. 

The appropriation of $1.225 million for our police department will benefit the residents and visitors of the Hoopa Reservation and surrounding communities. The 

Hoopa Tribal Police Department is routinely the first and only responder to calls 

for police on the reservation, responding to all calls on the full range of law enforcement matters. The funding will allow for 24-hour police coverage for the reservation, 

the ability of the tribe to retain trained officers, and use up-to-date equipment and 

technology for the provision of police services. 

The appropriation will promote the safety of the residents and visitors on the reservation and in surrounding communities. This is extremely important given the 

reservation’s remote area and significant police challenges arising from the rampant 

illegal drug use and trade in the area. The funding will also further the extraordinary intergovernmental cooperation between the Tribe and Humboldt County. Not 

only will the reservation and surrounding communities benefit from this funding, 

but Humboldt County, itself, will as well. Humboldt County would certainly benefit 

from the Tribe having a 24-hour police department to respond to calls on the reservation. 

We ask the subcommittee to appropriate $1.225 million for the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need additional information. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE

This written testimony in support of appropriations for the Hoopa Valley Tribe, 

K’ima:w Medical Center in the amount of $1,166,715. The agency involved is the 

Indian Health Services and the programs involved include Health Services and 

Equipment. 

K’ima:w Medical Center, (KMC) is an entity of the Hoopa Valley Tribe located in 

far northern California. The Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation is in a rural and remote area, 55 miles from the larger populated areas of Eureka and Arcata. Hoopa 

is the largest land based tribe in California and is often referred to as a ‘‘12 mile 

square’’. The reservation encompasses approximately 144 square miles (98,355 

acres) including the valley floor. 

KMC is a Joint Commission accredited ambulatory clinic with operational hours 

between 8 a.m.–6 p.m. on weekdays. As an ambulatory clinic, KMC offers a comprehensive set of services that include medical, dental, community health, nutrition, 

social services, senior nutrition, full laboratory, and radiology services as well as 

specialty clinics for vision, podiatry, and telemedicine. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (Census 2000), there are approximately 

2,633 people living on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. Eighty-four point seven 

percent of Hoopa residents are American Indian. KMC’s service area encompasses 

the surrounding area of Willow Creek, Salyer, and Johnson’s. Thirty-two percent of 

Hoopa residents are living in poverty (2.3 times the statewide figure of 14.2 percent 

and 2.6 times the nationwide figure of 12.4 percent). During the past year KMC has 

served 4,966 users. 
283 

Poverty, struggling and inadequate education, discrimination, high rates of unemployment, and limited access to health services are creating significant and alarming health disparities among our people. Our people are in desperate need of help 

to improve the quality of care, access for services, technological advancement, and 

job opportunities. 

Three focus areas have been identified as priorities in addressing the disparities 

and increasing the quality of care and access for services: Emergency Medical Services, Electronic Health Record, and Radiology Digital Equipment. 

Emergency Medical Services 

Imagine driving in a mountainous area, on a very windy, two-lane road with very 

steep embankments and no shoulders to speak of, when suddenly your car hits black 

ice, you spin out of control and roll down the bank 300 feet. The closet Level Four 

hospital is an hour and a half away and the nearest trauma center is 3 hours away. 

Critically injured, the only thing standing between you and death is the swift and 

competent actions of the ambulance crew responding to the emergency. Ambulance 

personnel must begin medical treatment immediately, knowing that delaying treatment until you are transferred to the nearest hospital will significantly decrease the 

likelihood of surviving these injuries. 

Residents in this area, all too often face these types of scenarios and it is vital 

to the Hoopa community and surrounding area to have Advanced Life Support 

emergency services available. The Tribe’s KMC ambulance service provides the only 

basic and advanced life support emergency service in the area and responds to 1,100 

emergency calls per year. Staffed 24 hours per day/7 days per week, paramedic level 

of support is necessary because of the length of time it takes to reach the nearest 

hospital, ranging from 50 minutes to 2.5 hours. KMC’s ambulance crew not only 

provides emergency medical services, but also conducts white water rescue and over 

the bank rescue. 

KMC’s ambulance service, not only provides emergency medical services to the 

Hoopa community but also provides services to a three-county service area covering 

northeastern Humboldt County and portions of Trinity and Siskiyou Counties. As 

the only ambulance service for this whole area, services are not only provided for 

American Indians but for non-Indians as well. The ambulance service area covers 

the towns of Willow Creek, Salyer, Hoopa, Weitchpec, Orleans, Somes Bar, and 

Johnsons. The area is vast between towns and communities with two lane roads in 

a mountainous area. At times because of slides and unfavorable weather conditions 

(i.e., snow, ice, fog) our ambulances must drive over and through treacherous conditions to transport patients to coastal hospitals. 

While this service is so vital to those who live in this area, unfortunately inadequate reimbursements from Medicare and Medi-Cal are severely impacting KMC’s 

ability to provide this service. The Tribe can no longer subsidize the operation of 

the ambulance and funding is needed to continue the current level of emergency 

medical services provided not only in Hoopa, but in surrounding areas as well. 

Funding in the amount of $362,315 is requested for our Ambulance Program to 

ensure that our area has continued Advanced Life Support emergency services. 

Electronic Health Record 

KMC is in the process of converting to an Electronic Health Record (EHR) system. 

To date the Tribe has provided 32 percent of the necessary funding in the amount 

of $250,000, but needs assistance with the remaining 68 percent, $539,000 to purchase EHR software and hardware technology along with related infrastructure. 

The benefits of converting to an EHR system include reducing healthcare costs, 

improving efficiency, increasing patient safety and improving the overall delivery of 

health services to our tribe and community. Additionally, incentives offered for providers using EHR will help the Medical Center overall with increased third-party 

revenue. 

For providers, EHR allows patient care activities and access to the records simultaneously and at multiple locations without depending on the availability of a paper 

chart. Data entries can be entered at point-of-service which ensures that the record 

is always up to date for all users. 

Because KMC is a rural health clinic, specialty clinics come to our area and offer 

services needed by our patients. Specialty clinics offered here include obstetrics, pediatrics, ophthalmology, and podiatry. Additionally KMC offers telemedicine services 

for psychiatry, endocrinology, nutrition, pain management and hepatology. EHR allows easier access to patient records, referrals, medication lists, etc. for visiting providers and telemedicine providers and allows more efficient treatment for our patients while increasing safety for patients with multiple medical problems. 
284 

Funding in the amount of $539,000 is requested for implementing an EHR system. 

Radiology Digital Equipment 

Along with converting to an EHR system is the need to purchase radiology digital 

equipment and related infrastructure which will reduce healthcare costs, improve 

efficiency, increase patient safety, and improve the overall delivery of health services to our families. 

Currently, KMC Radiology Department must send its films to Mad River Hospital 

(an hour drive away) using two different couriers. This creates significant delays in 

diagnoses and treatment. At times, x-rays may have to be repeated, causing even 

longer delays in diagnoses and treatment. In combination with EHR, radiology digital equipment will improve the timeliness of diagnosis for our patients, allow us 

to cut costs, decrease the storage space necessary to store films and improve the 

service that we provide to our patients. 

Radiology Digital Equipment will allow information sharing between doctors who 

can simultaneously open the exam and compare impressions without having to send 

hard copy films back and forth between providers, hospitals, etc. 

Funding in the amount of $265,400 requested for radiology digital equipment. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ICE AGE FLOODS INSTITUTE

Because it has been determined that the President’s proposed fiscal year 2011 

budget does not provide enough funding for NPS to move ahead on the development 

of the Trail, the Senators from the region have received formal appropriation requests for this item from constituents. 

At this time, of course, it is not known if this requested item will be accepted for 

inclusion in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill at 

any of the steps as the bill moves from the subcommittee, to the full Committee, 

and then is considered on the floor in the Senate. It is that uncertainty that 

prompts the submission of this testimony. 

However, it is an established fact that all 25 members of the region’s current congressional delegations (House and Senate, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, 

Republican and Democrat) are on record as supporting the authorization of the 

Trail, either in the form of the identical bills introduced by Representative Doc Hastings and Senator Maria Cantwell, beginning in the 108th Congress, or as a part 

of Public Law 111–11, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, signed 

into law by the President over a year ago. 

It is not my purpose here to recount the reasons for recognizing the Floods as a 

truly significant part of the Nation’s natural heritage. The justification has been 

well-documented in earlier studies and hearings, and in the language of the authorizing act itself. What now must be faced are questions and objections that will be 

raised, with respect to actually appropriating the funds that are needed to go forward with the Trail project. 

These are undeniably difficult times, and careful consideration must be given to 

all public expenditures and sources of revenue, and to the effect of public measures 

on the economic circumstances of the population. With that very much in mind, I 

am here recommending that this requested item would be a sound investment of 

public funds, and would have a positive effect on the economy. 

The funding now being requested is for the start-up and operation of a small Trail 

office. The first tasks will be related to the collaborative development of the management and interpretive plan required by Public Law 111–11. It certainly could be remarked that the small size of the request bears no relationship to the awesome 

scale and power of the Floods themselves, or the dramatic effects they wrought on 

a huge part of the Pacific Northwest. 

Distribution of $250,000 being requested: $200,000 for salary and benefits (two 

employees in fiscal year 2011—the Trail Superintendent and an Interpretive/Education Specialist); $20,000 for two leased vehicles; $15,000 for travel (extensive travel in the four-State area); $10,000 for office equipment (computing, copying, phones, 

etc.); and $5,000 for office supplies. 

Objections may be raised that this item would add to the deficit and do nothing 

to add jobs and help with economic recovery. It is more likely that the dollars are 

already being recovered, without special promotion of the Trail. 

This is not to suggest that the request and the Trail project can now be ignored, 

but to point out that this appropriation request responds to the opportunity that 

there is now to make significant, but not instantaneously obvious, increases in employment, small business profits, and tax revenues, largely to the benefit of rural 
285 

communities that regrettably have had to contend with economic distress and decline for many years. 

There clearly has been increased media attention to the Ice Age Floods and their 

effects, and to the theme of eco-tourism. It definitely is reasonable to believe that 

hotels, motels, RV parks, restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores, etc., are directly 

benefiting from growing interest in the Trail project, even before it is begun. We 

can expect that more people are right now coming to the region, or are extending 

their visits, in order to explore the landscape left by the Floods. And local residents 

are probably spending more of their tourism and recreation dollars in the region, 

as they deal with restricted incomes and high fuel costs. Particularly in the case 

of local residents, many will discover reasons to make repeated visits to the Floods 

area. But anyone who does visit the region, or is considering doing so, is likely to ask, 

Why is there no coherent interpretive program to explain these amazing floods and 

their remarkable legacy? That question has been under discussion for at least 20 

years. The basic concepts of how to proceed are now stated in the authorizing act, 

but the remaining impediment is that the funding has not yet been provided for 

NPS to coordinate the activities and resources of many partners, in telling the story. 

With some justification, earmarks have come under close scrutiny in discussions 

of the Federal budget and the budgeting process. However, it now appears that the 

term may be being applied too broadly, and some sound expenditures may be disallowed ‘‘on principle’’. With respect to any meaningful criteria, the Trail project 

fails to qualify as an ‘‘earmark’’. In all stages of study and discussion, the Trail proposal has involved four States. The NPS Special Resource Study, in response to 

widespread interest and with public participation, was launched in 1999 and presented to Congress in 2001. Authorizing legislation has been considered in every 

Congress, from the 108th on. And there has been consistent bi-partisan support 

from the start, from across the four-State region. Funding for the Trail project deserves attention on its merits, in a straightforward consideration of proposals that 

have an honorable history and justification, have been authorized by statute, and 

have good prospects for a real return on investment. 

There is one particular aspect of the Trail proposal that offers surprising economy 

in achieving the project’s objectives. The Trail will be based on existing public land 

holdings, which are adequate to offer a very good presentation of Flood features and 

phenomena. There is no authorization for Federal land acquisition or new land-use 

regulation or change of jurisdiction, to develop the Trail. However, the existing management agencies already have their respective responsibilities and funding related 

to research, interpretation and recreation based on their holdings. In fact, much of 

the interest in the Trail grew out of a shared concern for those responsibilities and 

the opportunity there might be to collaborate in performing their work as it related 

to effectively presenting the Floods story. This accounts for the involvement of the 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and Army Corps of Engineers in the ongoing discussions that 

led to the Trail proposal. It will largely be through these agencies’ participation that 

economic benefit will be derived from the conservationally sound use of public lands 

as the basis for the Trail. 

In any interpretive effort involving several partners, it is important to make a determined effort to provide a consistent, authoritative and honest presentation of the 

current state of knowledge. 

From the perspective of the general public, noticeable differences will lead to calling all of the presentations in question, to no one’s benefit or credit. This is particularly challenging in the case of the Ice Age Floods, where the basic story is well understood, but some details are difficult to determine. However, to claim that all the 

answers have been found is to misrepresent all scientific inquiry. Here again, there 

may be a fortunate circumstance in the Trail situation, in that some form of expert 

peer review is already acknowledged to be a necessary component of the Trail 

project, and is being applied to review text and illustrations for a Washington State 

Parks project that is currently under way. The concern of all parties is that the 

WSP project should be consonant with what comes later, when the Trail is actually 

under development. Because of the longstanding involvement of staff of the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as state geological agencies and academic earth science departments, a high but achievable standard has been set for the Trail. 

It might seem unlikely, but an honest presentation of scientific uncertainty should 

in itself have a tangible benefit. There are a number of issues under discussion in 

our society that have some connection with the Floods phenomenon, and which call 

for skills and interests that are under-represented in our scientific and technical 

workforce. Inquisitive youngsters who become interested in unresolved questions regarding the Floods are likely candidates for careers in the specialties that will help 
286 

us in understanding major cycles in climate change, in preparing for visits to Mars, 

and, perhaps most urgently, in dealing with issues of water supply and water quality, and the sustainability of agriculture and fisheries. 

The Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail would be a new kind of National Trail, 

fitted to the scale and special nature of the Floods phenomenon, and to the availability of suitable public land resources, which are under the management of a wide 

variety of agencies. The National Park Service would primarily be responsible to coordinate the large collaborative interpretive Trail project that would be organized 

to make a unified, ‘‘branded’’, consistent and authoritative presentation of these 

Floods that affected a huge area in the Pacific Northwest. 

The basic elements of the Trail would be designated auto touring routes on public 

roads, with strategically located interpretive facilities, some of which already exist, 

plus other related recreational and educational activities, utilizing public lands. 

Other public agencies, not just Federal, would be voluntarily involved, in line with 

their established responsibilities and funding for land management and conservation, education and recreation, roads, scientific assessment of geology and hydrology, 

etc. Private institutions and organizations, including the Ice Age Floods Institute, 

will voluntarily be working on the project, too. In addition, there would be opportunities for associated services to be provided by businesses such as outdoor guides 

and outfitters, cruise and tour operators, and charter flightseeing services. 

The authorizing bill does allow for the development of major capital projects, but 

only in partnership with other public or private organizations and in conformity 

with the overall Trail plan. To quote from section 5203 of the authorizing act: ‘‘Interpretive facilities—The Secretary may plan, design, and construct interpretive facilities for sites associated with the Trail if the facilities are constructed in partnership with State, local, tribal, or non-profit entities and are consistent with the plan.’’ 

In the presentations and facilities related to the Trail, the participation of all the 

kinds of public and nonprofit entities that I have mentioned would be prominently 

recognized with appropriate signs and credits. The Trail will be a significant model 

of what can be accomplished in a structure of partnership and coordinated collaboration. 

An organizational scheme for the Trail is eagerly awaited by the many potential 

partners. For years, what had been lacking was (1) the appropriate ‘‘national’’ designation of this major interpretive project, (2) the critical element of assigning coordinating authority and responsibility, and (3) the provision of funding to accomplish the coordination. With the designation and assignment now accomplished, 

what immediately needs to be done is to provide the relatively modest start-up funding to the National Park Service, for it to begin to function as the agency that will 

enable a unified project to go forward. 

No benefit will be gained by delaying the start-up work on the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail. The requested funds will be a good investment of scarce Federal dollars, because the Trail will present a significant and fascinating chapter in 

Earth’s history, contribute to general public understanding of natural processes and 

their effect on our ways of life, attract more workers to currently important fields 

related to the natural sciences, and bring substantial on-going benefits to the large 

region that was the setting for the story. 

Consequently, I urge that the item requested here be approved by the subcommittee and included in the bill that is forwarded by the full Appropriations Committee to the floor of the Senate. 

And I want to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony 

for this small but critical budget item. Please contact me if further information 

would be helpful. 

LETTER FROM THE IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: I am writing in support of an appropriation of $2.2 

million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Idaho Wild and Scenic 

Rivers program to protect the 160-acre Morgan Ranch property. The fiscal year 2011 

President’s budget request included $1 million for this project, but the full $2.2 million appropriation is needed to complete the protection of the property this year. 

Over the past few years, the Forest Service has been working to protect natural 

and recreational resources along the Salmon River and its tributaries by securing 

interests in critical inholdings from willing sellers via fee ownership or conservation 

easements. In many cases, the Salmon River program has reduced the cost of Forest 
287 

Service management by eliminating inholding boundaries or assisting fire-fighting 

efforts. 

The Morgan Ranch property is a 160-acre wilderness inholding within the Salmon-Challis National Forest that lies along the Middle Fork of the Salmon Wild & 

Scenic River corridor in Valley County. Half of the property consists of valuable wetlands and riparian habitat, including Prospect Creek and Sulphur Creek drainages. 

The tract is also located just downstream from the Boundary Creek campground 

and river access point, of two sites along the Middle Fork of the Salmon. The landowner is interested in working with the Forest Service to conserve the property, 

while retaining private structures and uses on a portion of the property. 

The protection of this inholding will secure for the public recreational access to 

the Middle Fork of the Salmon, prevent incompatible development, and protect important riparian habitat. Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN ROBISON, 

Public Lands Director. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION

My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I am Executive Director of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC). I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement to the subcommittee regarding the views of the Compact’s member States on 

the fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement (OSM) within the U.S. Department of the Interior. In its proposed 

budget, OSM is requesting $60.3 million to fund title V grants to States and Indian 

tribes for the implementation of their regulatory programs, a reduction of $11 million or 15 percent below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. OSM also proposes to 

cut discretionary spending for the title IV abandoned mine land (AML) program by 

approximately $174 million, including the elimination of funding for the emergency 

program and a proposal to eliminate all AML funding for certified States and tribes. 

Our statement will address each of these proposals. 

The Compact is comprised of 24 States that together produce some 95 percent of 

the Nation’s coal as well as important noncoal minerals. The Compact’s purposes 

are to advance the protection and restoration of land, water, and other resources 

affected by mining through the encouragement of programs in each of the party 

States that will achieve comparable results in protecting, conserving, and improving 

the usefulness of natural resources and to assist in achieving and maintaining an 

efficient, productive, and economically viable mining industry. 

OSM has projected an amount of $60.3 million for title V grants to States and 

tribes in fiscal year 2011, an amount which is matched by the States each year. 

These grants support the implementation of State and tribal regulatory programs 

under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as such are 

essential to the full and effective operation of those programs. 

In fiscal year 2010, Congress approved an additional $5.8 million increase for 

State title V grants over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, for a total of $71.3 million. For the first time in many years, the amount appropriated for these regulatory 

grants aligned with the demonstrated needs of the States and tribes. The States are 

greatly encouraged by the significant increases in title V funding approved by Congress over the past 3 fiscal years. Even with mandated rescissions and the allocations for tribal primacy programs, the States saw a $12 million increase for our regulatory programs over fiscal year 2007 levels. As we noted in our statement on last 

year’s budget, State title V grants had been stagnant for more than 12 years and 

the gap between the States’ requests and what they received was widening. This 

debilitating trend was compounding the problems caused by inflation and uncontrollable costs, thus undermining our efforts to realize needed program improvements 

and enhancements and jeopardizing our efforts to minimize the potential adverse 

impacts of coal extraction operations on people and the environment. 

In its fiscal year 2011 budget, OSM has unilaterally and drastically reversed 

course and essentially unraveled and undermined the progress made by Congress 

in supporting State programs with adequate funding. This comes at precisely the 

wrong time. The States are still in the process of putting the recent improvements 

in funding to work in their programs through the filling of vacant positions and the 

purchase of much needed equipment. As States prepare their future budgets, we 

trust that the recent increases approved by Congress will remain the new base on 

which we build our programs. Otherwise we find ourselves backpedaling and creating a situation where those who were just hired face layoffs and purchases are 

canceled or delayed. 
288 

1Funding for State title V grants will become increasingly important as OSM moves forward 

with a recent initiative to adjust Federal oversight of State programs pursuant to the June 11 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Interior Department, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Several action items under 

this initiative have significant resource implications for the States in the way of followup to increased Federal inspections, data collection and analysis, and State responses to the reflexive 

use of Ten-Day Notices. 

The States continue to face significant cost increases in their programs due to inflation, especially increased fuel and equipment costs. Health insurance premiums 

and cost of living adjustments are also significant factors in the annual operation 

of State programs, especially with personnel expenses representing some 80 percent 

of total program costs. A new challenge has come in the form of retirements, where 

States are faced with buy-outs, paying for unused annual leave, and replacing an 

aging work force. These are substantial, often unanticipated, costs that are wreaking havoc on State budgets. 

It is essential that we maintain consistent, inflation-adjusted funding from year 

to year in order to deploy resources for our programs. This is especially true with 

regard to hiring new staff to fill vacancies or to supplement understaffed areas of 

the programs. We cannot afford to invest money in these positions and then face 

potential layoffs the next year because funding is not maintained. As it is, State 

agencies are continually faced with making the case to State legislatures and budget 

officers to support their regulatory programs through matching State funds, particularly given the difficult fiscal climate facing the States. A clear message from Congress that reliable, consistent funding will continue into the future will do much to 

stimulate support for these programs. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that 

a 15 percent cut in Federal funding translates to a 30 percent cut for overall program funding for many States, especially those without Federal lands, since these 

States can only match what they receive in Federal money. 

OSM’s solution to the drastic cuts for State regulatory programs comes in the way 

of an unrealistic assumption that the States can simply increase user fees in an effort to ‘‘reduce the level of Federal funding required to regulate, and to an extent 

subsidize, the coal industry.’’ No specifics on how the States are to accomplish this 

far-reaching proposal are set forth, other than an ‘‘encouragement’’ to do so in the 

course of a single fiscal year. Aside from the debate about whether the coal industry 

is truly being ‘‘subsidized’’ and how the adoption of user fees impacts the working 

relationship between the regulator and the regulated, OSM’s proposal is completely 

out of touch (some would say ‘‘out of line’’) with the realities associated with establishing or enhancing user fees. IMCC’s recent polling of its member States confirmed that, given the current fiscal and political implications of such an initiative, 

it will be difficult, if not impossible, for most States to accomplish this feat at all, 

let alone in less than 1 year. OSM is well aware of this, and yet, without input from 

or consultation with the States and tribes, has pushed forward with a proposal that 

was poorly conceived from its inception. We strongly urge the subcommittee to reject 

this approach and mandate that OSM work through the complexities associated 

with any future user fees proposal in close cooperation with the States and tribes. 

With regard to funding for State regulatory grants in fiscal year 2011, there continues to be no disagreement about the need demonstrated by the States. In fact, 

in OSM’s budget justification document, the agency states that: ‘‘the states have the 

unique capabilities and knowledge to regulate the lands within their borders. Providing up to a 50 percent match of Federal funds to primacy States in the form of 

A & E grants results in the highest benefit and the lowest cost to the Federal Government. If a State were to relinquish primacy, OSM would have to hire sufficient 

numbers and types of Federal employees to implement the program. The cost to the 

Federal Government would be significantly higher.’’ (Page 60 of OSM’s Budget Justification) For all the above reasons, we urge the subcommittee to approve not less 

than $71 million for State and tribal title V regulatory grants, as fully documented 

in the States’ and tribes’ estimates for actual program operating costs.1

With regard to funding for State title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program 

grants, congressional action in 2006 to reauthorize title IV of SMCRA has significantly changed the method by which State reclamation grants are funded. Beginning with fiscal year 2008, State title IV grants are funded primarily by permanent 

appropriations. As a result, the States should have received a total of $413.2 million 

in fiscal year 2011. Instead, OSM has budgeted an amount of $259.5 million based 

on an ill-conceived proposal to eliminate mandatory AML funding to States and 

tribes that have been certified as completing their abandoned coal reclamation programs. This $153.7 million reduction flies in the face of the comprehensive restructuring of the AML program that was passed by Congress in 2006, following more 
289 

than 10 years of congressional debate and hard fought compromise among the affected parties. While we have not seen the details of the proposal, which will require 

adjustments to SMCRA, it will clearly undermine the delicate balance of interests 

and objectives achieved by the 2006 amendments. It is also inconsistent with many 

of the goals and objectives set forth in the recent jobs bill and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We urge the subcommittee to reject this unjustified proposal, delete it from the budget and restore the full mandatory funding amount of 

$413.2 million. 

We also urge the subcommittee to approve continued funding for the AML emergency program. In a continuing effort to ignore congressional direction, OSM’s budget would completely eliminate funding for State-run emergency programs and also 

for Federal emergency projects (in those States that do not administer their own 

emergency programs). When combined with the great uncertainty about the availability of remaining carryover funds, it appears that the program has been decimated. 

Funding the OSM emergency program should be a top priority for OSM’s discretionary spending. This funding has allowed the States and OSM to address the unanticipated AML emergencies that inevitably occur each year. In States that have 

federally operated emergency programs, the State AML programs are not structured 

or staffed to move quickly to address these dangers and safeguard the coalfield citizens whose lives and property are threatened by these unforeseen and often debilitating events. And for minimum program States, emergency funding is critical to 

preserve the limited resources available to them under the current funding formula. 

Section 410 of SMCRA establishes an emergency reclamation procedure for AML 

sites that pose a ‘‘sudden danger with a high probability of substantial physical 

harm to the health, safety or general welfare of people before it can be abated under 

normal program operation procedures’’. The funding for the emergency program is 

separate from the State and tribal nonemergency AML grant funding since it comes 

from the Secretary’s ‘‘discretionary share’’. Section 402(g)(1)(C) specifically requires 

that the nonemergency State share be used only for annual reclamation project construction and administration costs. The nonemergency Federal share allocated to 

the States in section 402(g)(5) is used to supplement the State share received under 

402(g)(1) until the priorities set forth in section 403(a)(1) and (2) are met. Emergencies do not fall under section 403, but are provided for only in section 410. 

While there were several significant changes to the AML program under SMCRA 

as a result of the 2006 amendments, there were absolutely no changes to the emergency program under section 410 of the act. In fact, significant funding increases 

were approved by Congress that would allow the States to address long-overdue reclamation problems including landslides, contaminated drinking water, refuse piles, 

dangerous highwalls, mine fires, and exposed mine portals. Diverting these monies 

to the emergency program, as mandated under OSM’s proposed budget, would impede the progress the States are now making to address AML problems that have 

been awaiting funding for years. In this regard, new section 402(g)(1)(D)(2) requires 

that the Secretary ensure ‘‘strict compliance’’ by the States in their use of nonemergency grant funds for the priorities listed in section 403(a). For the States to 

do otherwise would require at the least a rulemaking by OSM, if not legislative adjustment. It would also reverse 30 years of official guidance and practice by OSM. 

We therefore request that the subcommittee restore $20 million for the AML emergency program in OSM’s fiscal year 2011 budget. 

One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML restoration work is 

through leveraging or matching other grant programs, such as EPA’s 319 program. 

Until fiscal year 2009, language was always included in OSM’s appropriation that 

encouraged the use of these types of matching funds, particularly for the purpose 

of environmental restoration related to treatment or abatement of acid mind drainage (AMD) from abandoned mines. This is a perennial, and often expensive, problem, especially in Appalachia. IMCC therefore requests the subcommittee to once 

again include language in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill that would allow 

the use of AML funds for any required non-Federal share of the cost of projects by 

the Federal Government for AMD treatment or abatement. 

We also ask the subcommittee to support funding for OSM’s training program, including monies for State travel. These programs are central to the effective implementation of State regulatory programs as they provide necessary training and continuing education for State agency personnel. IMCC also urges the subcommittee to 

support funding for TIPS, a program that directly benefits States by providing critical technical assistance. In this regard, we also request that the subcommittee restore the $303,000 for these two programs that has been proposed for reduction. We 

also request that the subcommittee direct OSM not to make any further adjustments to these programs in order to focus resources on other regulatory program 
290 

activities related to the June 11 MOU, as suggested in OSM’s budget justification 

document. Finally, we support funding for the Watershed Cooperative Agreements 

in the amount of $1.55 million. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on serious funding 

needs that have limited and continue to hinder the operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian country. I am the leader of the Independent Tribal Court Review 

Team. I am here today to request that this subcommittee increases funding for tribal courts by at least $50 million in fiscal year 2011 and maintain the tribal courts 

set-aside. 

BUDGET PRIORITIES, REQUEST, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

∂$58.4 million authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993, Public 

Law 103–176, 25 U.S.C. 3601 and re-authorized in year 2000 Public Law 106–559 

(no funds appropriated to date) 

—Increase funding for tribal courts by 50 percent; and 

—Maintain the set-aside for tribal courts. 

We support an increase in funding for: 

—Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.—Tribal Courts make do with underpaid staff, underexperienced staff, and minimal training. (We have determined 

that hiring tribal members limits the inclination of staff to move away; a poor 

excuse to underpay staff.) —Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.—Salaries should be 

comparable to local and State court personnel to keep pace with the nontribal 

judicial systems and be competitive to maintain existing personnel. —Tribal Courts Need State-of-the-Art Technology (Software, Computers, Phone 

Systems, Tape Recording Machines).—Many tribes cannot afford to purchase or 

upgrade existing court equipment unless they are awarded a grant. This is accompanied by training expenses and licensing fees which do not last after the 

grant ends. —Security and Security Systems To Protect Court Records and Privacy of Case Information.—Most tribal courts do not even have a full-time bailiff, much less a 

state-of-the-art security system that uses locked doors and camera surveillance. 

This is a tragedy waiting to happen. —Tribal Court Code Development.—Tribes cannot afford legal consultation. A 

small number of tribes hire on-site staff attorneys. These staff attorneys generally become enmeshed in economic development and code development does 

not take priority. Tribes make do with underdeveloped codes. The Adam Walsh 

Act created a hardship for tribes who were forced to develop codes, without 

funding, or have the State assume jurisdiction. (States have never properly 

overseen law enforcement in a tribal jurisdiction.) 

—Financial Code Development.—We have rarely seen tribes with developed financial policies. The process of paying a bond, for example, varies greatly from tribe 

to tribe. The usual process of who collects it, where it is collected and how much 

it is, is never consistent among tribes. 

For the past 4 years, the Independent Court Review Team has been traveling 

throughout Indian country assessing how tribal courts are operating. During this 

time, we have completed some 60 court reviews. There is no one with more handson experience and knowledge regarding the current status of tribal courts than our 

Review Team. 

We have come into contact with every imaginable type of tribe; large and small, 

urban and rural, wealthy, and poor. What we have not come into contact with is 

any tribe whose court system is operating with financial resources comparable to 

local and State jurisdictions. 

There are many positive aspects about tribal courts. It is clear that tribal courts 

and justice systems are vital and important to the communities where they are located. Tribes value and want to be proud of their court systems. Tribes with even 

modest resources tend to send additional funding to courts before other costs. After 

decades of existence, many tribal courts, despite minimal funding, have achieved a 

level of experience and sophistication approaching, and in some cases surpassing, 

local non-Indian courts. 

Tribal courts, through the Indian Child Welfare Act, have mostly stopped the 

wholesale removal of Indian children from their families. Indian and non-Indian 

courts have developed formal and informal agreements regarding jurisdiction. Tribal 

governments have recognized the benefit of having law-trained Judges, without 
291 

doing away with Judges who have cultural/traditional experience. Tribal court systems have appellate courts, jury trials, well-cared-for courthouses (even the poorer 

tribes), and tribal bar listings and fees. Perhaps most importantly, tribes recognize 

the benefit of an independent judiciary and have taken steps to insulate courts and 

judges from political pressure. No longer in Indian country are judges automatically 

fired for decisions against the legislature. 

Our research indicates tribal courts are at a critical stage in terms of need. Nationwide, there are 156 tribes with courts that receive Federal funding. These tribes 

divided a mere $11.9 million in Federal funds throughout fiscal year 09. It is the 

strong recommendation of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team that the 

Federal tribal courts budget be substantially increased above what is in the President’s budget. 

Assessments have indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs only funds tribal 

courts at 26 percent of the funding needed to operate. The remainder is funded by 

the tribes. Tribes who have economic development generally subsidize their tribal 

courts. On the flip side, tribes who cannot afford to assist in the financial operations 

of the court are tasked with doing the best they can with what they have even at 

the expense of decreasing or eliminating services elsewhere. This while operating 

at a disadvantage with already overstrained resources and underserved needs of the 

tribal members. The assessment suggests that the smaller courts are both the busiest and most underfunded. 

We thank this subcommittee for the additional $5 million funding, and the Senate’s additional $5 million ($10 million) in fiscal year 2010. This will be a big asset 

once the funding trickles down to the tribal courts. These funds will be added to 

the base funding of the tribal justice systems. 

The grant funding in the Department of Justice is intended to be temporary, but 

instead it is used for permanent needs; such as funding a drug court clerk who then 

is used as a court clerk with drug court duties. When the funding runs out, so does 

the permanent position. We have witnessed many failed drug courts, failed court 

management software projects (due to training costs) and incomplete code development projects. When the justice funding runs out, so does the project. 

As a directive from the Office of Management and Budget, our reviews specifically 

examined how tribes were using Federal funding. In the last 4 fiscal years there 

was only one isolated incident of a 3 percent questionable expenditure of Federal 

funds (fiscal year 2009). It is speculated that because of our limited resources, we 

compromise a defendant’s due process and invoke ‘‘speedy trials’’ violations to save 

tribal courts money. Everyone who is processed through the tribal judicial system 

is afforded their constitutional civil liberties and civil rights. 

We do not wish to leave an entirely negative impression about tribal courts. True, 

tribal courts need an immediate, sustained, and increased level of funding and there 

are strong indications that the courts will put such funding to good use. 

There are tribes like the Fort Belknap Tribe of Montana whose chief judge manages both offices and holds court in an old dormitory that can’t be used when it 

rains because water leaks into the building and the mold has consumed one wall. 

Their need exceeds 100 percent. 

And, there are tribes like the isolated Havasupai, located in the bottom of the 

Grand Canyon. They can only afford a judge 1 day a month. Their computers only 

work sporadically because of the fine layer of dust that appears to cover everything. 

They have a single, underpaid clerk, who remains dedicated to her job, even though 

her employment experience means she could make twice as much working out of 

the Canyon away from home. When she goes to pick up her children at school, the 

court must close, because she is the only one there. The flooding of the Canyon has 

not helped. Their need exceeds 100 percent. 

Tribal courts have other serious needs. Tribal appellate court judges are mostly 

attorneys who dedicate their services for modest fees that barely cover costs for 

copying and transcription fees. Tribal courts offer jury trials. In many courts, one 

sustained jury trial will deplete the available budget. The only place to minimize 

expenses is to fire staff. Many tribal courts have defense advocates. These advocates 

are generally law trained and do a good job protecting an individual’s rights (including assuring speedy trial limitations are not violated.) However, this is a large item 

in court budgets and if the defense advocate, or Prosecutor, should leave, the replacement process is slow. 

I come here today to tell Congress these things. We feel it is our duty to come 

here on behalf of tribes to advocate for better funding for tribal justice systems. 

Tribes ask us to tell their stories. They open their files and records to us and say, 

‘‘We have nothing to hide.’’ Tell Congress we need better facilities, more detention 

facilities, more legal advice, better codes. the list goes on and on. But, as we have 
292 

indicated, it all involves more funding. This Congress and this new administration 

can do something great. Put your money where your promises have been. 

We support the requests and recommendations of the National Congress of American Indians. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERTRIBAL BISON COOPERATIVE

Introduction and Background 

As a member of the Blackfeet Nation and President of the InterTribal Buffalo 

Council (ITBC), I appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony to the honorable members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations; Subcommittee on the 

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. ITBC, recently reorganized from a 

nonprofit corporation to a federally chartered Indian organization under section 17 

of the Indian Reorganization Act is headquartered in Rapid City, South Dakota. 

ITBC is comprised of 56 federally recognized Indian tribes in 18 States that are 

committed to the restoration, preservation and protection of buffalo in Indian Country and beyond. In this testimony, I will address: (1) ITBC’s request for a $3,000,000 

appropriation for fiscal year 2011, from the Department of Interior to continue buffalo restoration efforts, provide expert technical assistance, implement a marketing 

initiative, develop faculties to accommodate buffalo released from the Yellowstone 

quarantine facility and continue the viable health initiative to prevent and treat 

diet related diseases among Native Americans; and (2) convey to the subcommittee 

the unmet needs of the ITBC membership. 

Historically, Native Americans, particularly in the Plains regions of North America, relied heavily on buffalo for survival. This dependence on buffalo cultivated the 

strong spiritual and cultural relationship between Native Americans and buffalo 

that has not diminished with the passage of time. In the 1800’s, buffalo were needlessly slaughtered to a point of near extinction during the period Native Americans 

were moved onto reservations. While Tribe’s long desired sufficient lands, financing 

and capacity to protect buffalo, this desire did not come to fruition until the early 

1990’s with the formation of the ITBC. ITBC was established to promote the mission 

of preserving the sacred relationship between Indian people and buffalo through the 

restoration of buffalo to tribal lands. ITBC envisioned the restoration of buffalo to 

tribal lands could foster sustainable economic development that would be compatible 

with Tribal culture. ITBC first received Federal funding through the Department of 

the Interior in 1992 to commence restoration efforts. 

Federal appropriations have allowed ITBC to successfully restore buffalo to more 

than 50 Reservations, thereby re-establishing the sacred relationship between Indian people and buffalo. With healthy, viable buffalo herds, opportunities now exist 

for tribes to utilize buffalo for economic development and for the prevention and 

treatment of the diet related diseases that gravely impact Native American populations such as diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Economically sustainable herds will allow tribes to utilize a culturally relevant resource in a manner that 

is compatible with their spiritual and cultural beliefs. 

Funding Request 

The InterTribal Bison Cooperative respectfully requests an appropriation for fiscal 

year 2011 in the amount of $3,000,000. This amount would restore ITBC Federal 

funding to the fiscal year 2006 appropriation level and would allow ITBC to successfully accomplish its goals and objectives. This request will help balance ITBC’s continuing growth in membership with its funding level. A $3,000,000 appropriation 

would restore vital funding that was cut from the administration’s fiscal year 2007, 

fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 budgets. $3,000,000 in appropriated funding 

will allow ITBC Tribes to continue successful buffalo restoration efforts, to implement ITBC’s marketing and infrastructure development initiative, to restore the 

health initiative for the prevention and treatment of diet related diseases among 

Native American populations, and develop faculties to accommodate buffalo released 

from the Yellowstone National Park quarantine program. 

Funding Shortfall and Unmet Need 

In fiscal year 2006, ITBC and it member tribes were funded through appropriations at $4,150,000. The Presidents budget in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 

eliminated funding for ITBC. ITBC was funded $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 and 

fiscal year 2008 through a Congressional appropriation. In fiscal year 2009 ITBC 

was funded $1,000,000 through a congressional appropriation and $421,000 from 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) carryover funds from fiscal year 2008. In 2009 and 

2010, ITBC has been funded $1,000,000 from the BIA’s Wildlife Management line 
293 

item. ITBC had started a successful Marketing Program and Health Initiative that 

addressed diet related health problems that are epidemic on most of our Reservations when ITBC’s funding had been drastically reduced. 

Without the restoration of funding close to the fiscal year 2006 level, new member 

Tribes will not receive adequate funding to begin buffalo restoration efforts. Tribes 

that have successfully restored buffalo to tribal lands will not receive adequate technical assistance and resource development funds to ensure the sustainability of existing herds. Furthermore, the investment made by Congress in fiscal year 2006 towards ITBC’s healthcare initiative has been cut to the point of almost being nonexistent. 

ITBC funding benefits member tribes via direct awards of Herd Development 

Grants for restoration or herd maintenance and also provides critical technical assistance for herd health needs, range management and herd management training. 

ITBC surveys member Tribes annually to determine unmet project needs and currently the total unmet needs for ITBC member tribe’s projects is approximately 

$7,000,000. These needs include infrastructure (fencing and corrals) needs, equipment, water development, range development, marketing, and a processing facility. 

ITBC Goals and Initiatives 

The goal of ITBC is restoration of buffalo to Indian lands for Tribes to utilize as 

sustainable economic development efforts. ITBC’s ultimate goal is for tribal buffalo 

herds to achieve economic sustainability and become integrated, on a daily basis, 

into the diets of reservation populations. 

Tribal Buffalo Marketing to Achieve Viable Economic Development 

In 1991, seven Indian tribes had small buffalo herds that collectively comprised 

less than 1,600 animals. The buffalo provided little or no economic benefit to the 

tribal owners. ITBC has proven extremely successful at buffalo restoration in its 15 

years of existence. Today, with the support and technical assistance of ITBC and 

its fellow member tribes, 56 Indian tribes are engaged in raising buffalo or developing plans to raise buffalo with a goal of achieving economically sustainable herds. 

ITBC and the member tribes have restored approximately 15,000 buffalo back to 

tribal lands for use by the tribes and their members. Collectively, tribes raise the 

largest buffalo herd in the United States. 

Many of these tribal buffalo programs have developed herds large enough to justify plans for marketing products as a step towards self sufficiency. However, tribes 

must have the resources to build solid foundations for this new industry and viable 

marketing options to achieve economic development efforts. ITBC’s marketing initiative is in an infancy stage and renewed funding is critical to achieve meaningful 

economic opportunities for tribes. ITBC had launched efforts to develop viable markets for tribal buffalo both in the private sector and through coordination with Federal agencies. However, ITBC has been unable to compete for large-scale buffalo 

meat contracts due to its inability to maintain a constant, cost-effective supply 

chain. To re-initiate these efforts, provide critical marketing training for individual 

tribes, and to acquire sufficient pasture lands to maintain a significant supply of 

buffalo to accommodate large-scale product orders, ITBC requests $1,000,000 in 

funding. 

ITBC member tribes face a multitude of obstacles when trying to get their buffalo 

to market. The remoteness of the reservations requires the transportation of buffalo 

over long distances to processing plants resulting in higher operating costs. Some 

processing plants are reluctant to process range fed buffalo while others require that 

animals be corn finished in a feedlot which compromises ITBC’s objective to deliver 

natural, range-fed, low-fat buffalo products. To remedy this obstacle, ITBC seeks 

funding in the amount of $500,000 to purchase an USDA approved mobile slaughter 

unit and equipment for transportation and/or storage of live and processed buffalo. 

Additionally, funds will be utilized to train ITBC member tribes on use of the mobile 

slaughter facility. Presently, at least three USDA approved mobile slaughter units 

process buffalo in the United States. ITBC would like to acquire a unit for use by 

the member tribes to maintain the integrity of ITBC’s natural range-fed buffalo. 

ITBC has discussed this request with the BIA Economic Development Office although no funding has been allocated. 

Yellowstone National Park Bison Quarantine Facility 

ITBC has long been considered the ‘‘informal protectors’’ of buffalo in the United 

States and in this capacity, ITBC has long been at the table with other Federal and 

State agencies surrounding the Yellowstone National Park to address the brucellosis 

concerns of Yellowstone Park buffalo. The slaughter of buffalo that forage outside 

the Park in Montana as well as the recent transfer of treated buffalo to private ownership has resulting in public outcry. ITBC proposes to develop faculties to accom-
294 

modate the buffalo coming out of the Yellowstone National Park quarantine facilities to ensure animals are going to tribal lands as the Greater Yellowstone Area initial management plans intended. ITBC tribes desire acquiring the buffalo but have 

been limited by the required infrastructure to accommodate the animals. ITBC requests funding in an amount of $500,000 to coordinate with the National Park Service and other Federal agencies to develop a program to accommodate buffalo released from the Yellowstone quarantine facility that ensures continued protection of 

buffalo while minimizing disease concerns for livestock industries. The funding request will accommodate transportation, testing, adequate pasture with required 

fencing, and maintenance costs with a goal of eventually transferring the animals 

to tribes and other public entities. 

Preventive Health Care Initiative 

ITBC is committed to providing buffalo meat to Indian Reservation families both 

as an economic development effort for Native American producers and, more critically, as a healthy food to reintroduce into the diets of Native American populations. 

Current research indicates that the diet of most Indian Reservation families includes large amounts of high cholesterol, processed meats that contribute to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and other diet related illnesses. 

ITBC member tribes were just beginning to implement a preventive healthcare 

initiative with fiscal year 2006 funding that provided easy access to buffalo meat 

on Indian Reservations and educated Indian families on the health benefits of range 

fed buffalo meat. A restoration of the funds in the amount of $1,000,000 will allow 

the program to operate at the fiscal year 2006 level. This funding will allow ITBC 

to provide buffalo meat in family sized quantities to Reservation markets and interact with the Federal Food programs to make buffalo meat available in reservation 

schools and local community health networks to address diabetes and other health 

issues. 

Conclusion 

The projects detailed above total $3 million which when added to the allocation 

in the President’s budget request will restore ITBC to its fiscal year 2006 funding 

level of $4.1 million. ITBC anticipates that funding of all the projects above will create 150 temporary jobs and 50 permanent positions. 

I would like to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony 

and the members of ITBC invite the honorable members of the subcommittee to 

visit our tribal buffalo projects and experience first hand their successes. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony concerning appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization founded in 1922. We have nearly 38,000 members and more than 

260 local chapters nationwide. Our members are committed to advancing common 

sense policies that safeguard wildlife and habitat, support community-based conservation, and address pressing environmental issues. The following pertains to programs administered by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency. 

Departments of Agriculture and Interior, Land and Water Conservation Fund 

The League is very encouraged by the President’s proposal to increase funding for 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to approximately $620 million in 

fiscal year 2011 with the goal of fully funding LWCF at $900 million by 2014. The 

League strongly supports full funding and its members reaffirmed this commitment 

in 2008 by adopting a resolution during our National Convention endorsing this 

goal. It is important to begin to reinvest in strategic land acquisition to protect critical habitat, provide recreational access, and to buffer against the likely impacts of 

climate change. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) 

The League joins other members of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 wildlife, sporting, conservation, and scientific 

organizations representing more than 14 million members and supporters, in requesting $578 million in fiscal year 2011 for operations and maintenance of the 

NWRS. We urge the subcommittee to reject the administration’s proposal to cut the 

operations and maintenance budget by more than $3 million compared to the fiscal 

year 2010 appropriation. 
295 

We greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s leadership in boosting NWRS funding 

to approximately $503 million in the fiscal year 2010. We are concerned that the 

president’s proposal would stall momentum the Congress has created over the past 

3 years. Moreover, if a funding freeze or cuts are continued over multiple fiscal 

years, this could force the Fish and Wildlife Service to curtail visitor services, eliminate staff, and further delay essential maintenance projects. 

It is important to note that the cut proposed by the administration is greater than 

$3.3 million because the Department is proposing that agencies absorb fixed costs. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that NWRS requires at least $15 million 

annually to keep pace with inflation, including rising fuel, rental, and utility costs 

and cost-of-living adjustments for staff. Therefore, the effective budget cut would exceed $18 million. NWRS has a $2.7 billion maintenance backlog today, in part, because the Service has been forced to continuously defer essential maintenance when 

base funding fell short of basic operational needs. The administration’s proposal 

would only exacerbate this problem. 

Furthermore, the administration proposes specific cuts within the operations and 

maintenance budget that we oppose and consider counterproductive. For example, 

it recommends cutting the visitor services account by nearly $4 million. Last year, 

42 million Americans visited wildlife refuges across the country to hunt and fish, 

observe wildlife, learn from Service professionals, or simply take a walk in the 

woods. And these visitors have a direct, positive impact on local economies. The 

Service estimates that refuge visitors generate $1.7 billion in sales and support 

27,000 private-sector jobs. If visitor services decline due to budget cuts and visitation is negatively impacted, our shared goal of reviving the economy and creating 

jobs could be undermined. 

In addition, the administration proposes to cut the law enforcement budget. We 

believe this fails to reflect an urgent need across wildlife refuges. The analysis of 

NWRS performance issued in 2008 by Management Systems International (MSI) 

concluded that ‘‘[A]t many refuges, law enforcement coverage is insufficient to ensure protection of resources and the safety of visitors and refuge staff.’’ This analysis 

recommended that the Service double the number of refuge law enforcement staff 

from 200 to ‘‘at least 400 full-time officers.’’ In fiscal year 2010, NWRS has approximately 210 full-time law enforcement personnel. Moreover, the analysis tied the law 

enforcement problem directly to funding stating ‘‘[I]t is highly unlikely that any 

meaningful progress towards improving the Refuge System’s law enforcement capability (will occur) under current and expected budget allocation levels.’’ Increasing 

funding for operations—rather than cutting it—will allow the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to begin to boost law enforcement capability, which is important to protecting visitors, fish, wildlife, and habitat. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, State Wildlife Grants 

As a member of the Teaming with Wildlife National Steering Committee, the 

League urges the subcommittee to provide $100 million for the State Wildlife 

Grants Program in fiscal year 2011. 

The State Wildlife Grants Program supports proactive conservation projects aimed 

at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. Experience shows that efforts to 

restore imperiled wildlife can be particularly contentious and costly when action is 

taken only after species are formally listed as threatened or endangered pursuant 

to the Endangered Species Act. State Wildlife Grants support State and communitybased efforts to safeguard habitat and wildlife before either reaches the tipping 

point. This program also provides States with an important source of Federal funds 

to address nongame species. Finally, the Federal investment leverages significant 

funding from private, State, and local sources. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

The League supports the request for $2 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF). Nationwide, broken sewer pipes and overflows spill more than 1 

trillion gallons of untreated sewage into our waterways every year costing more 

than $50 billion for cleanup. These overflows pose serious risks to fish, wildlife, and 

human health. The SRF is a highly successful program that provides the funds 

needed to reduce sewage contamination and improve water quality. However, the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure 

Gap Analysis found a $535 billion gap between current spending and projected 

needs for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years. Investing $2 billion in the Clean Water SRF is essential to improving water quality, 

protecting public health, and supporting jobs across the country. 
296 

Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Restoration 

The League is also very encouraged by the President’s on-going commitment to 

Great Lakes restoration. We support providing at least $300 million as requested 

to build on the funding Congress provided in fiscal year 2010 and to support implementation of the recently released Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan. 

The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 35 million people and support jobs and 

recreational opportunities for millions more. However, the health of the Great Lakes 

is seriously threatened by untreated sewage, toxic pollution, invasive species, and 

other problems. The eight States that border the Lakes and many nongovernmental 

organizations have invested significant resources to safeguard these national treasures. Significant Federal investment is also needed or the problems will only get 

worse and cost even more to fix. Cleaning up the Great Lakes will provide many 

benefits, including economic development in the region. 

The League urges the subcommittee to provide at least $300 million to advance 

this critical initiative, especially when numerous studies estimate that $5 billion is 

required to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. In addition, we believe it will be important to appropriate $475 million for Great Lakes restoration in fiscal year 2012 

and beyond. In the Action Plan, the administration states its intention to request 

this amount in the future and the Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act (H.R. 

4755/S. 3073) authorizes this amount between fiscal year 2011 and 2016. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Non-point Source Management Program (Clean 

Water Act Section 319) 

The League urges the subcommittee to appropriate at least $200 million for section 319, the Non-point Source Management Program, as requested by the president. This program provides grants to States, territories and tribes for nonpoint 

source pollution reduction activities. EPA and many States report that nonpoint 

source pollution is the leading cause of water quality problems, including harmful 

effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries and wildlife. The Non-point 

Source Management Program provides critical funding for restoration. For example, 

172 water bodies in 44 States have been restored with section 319 funding. Continued investment in this program will help restore our waterways for people and wildlife. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program 

The League strongly supports the administration’s request for $63 million in fiscal 

year 2011 for the Chesapeake Bay Program. 

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary on the Atlantic coast and one of the 

largest in the world. EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) is the primary 

facilitator of restoration activities by partners throughout the watershed. Although 

the Chesapeake Bay Program has made significant progress toward pollution reduction, habitat restoration, fisheries management, and watershed protection goals, 

much more work is needed to restore the Bay. For example, habitat restoration efforts are collectively less than half way to Program goals and there is concern about 

the overall quality of habitat that remains. 

Although the request is positive, the League believes it is important for the administration and the subcommittee to prepare to make substantial additional investments in Bay restoration. According to the Chesapeake Bay Commission’s report 

The Cost of a Clean Bay (2003), $19 billion is needed to meet the restoration goals 

outlined in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. Additional investment will be necessary to fulfill new goals being developed following the President’s 2009 Chesapeake Bay Executive order. The executive order establishes the framework for a 

comprehensive Federal effort, in partnership with States, local governments, and 

many others, to tackle persistent problems that negatively impact water quality, 

habitat, recreation, and important sectors of the regional economy. The EPA is completing a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Bay that will be a key tool in 

improving water quality. At the same time, it must be coupled with proactive technical assistance and funding to assist local governments, farmers, and others with 

compliance. Achieving the President’s goals, successfully implementing new pollution reduction measures, and restoring habitat, streams, and wetlands will depend, 

in part, on significant new investment in future fiscal years. 

The League appreciates the opportunity to testify about these important issues. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE

My name is W. Ron Allen. On behalf of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, I want 

to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this written testimony on 
297 

our funding priorities and requests on the fiscal year 2011 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets. We have long appreciated this subcommittee’s support of our funding requests. 

TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION PRIORITIES

$600,000 land purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project; and an $200,000 

increase to BIA tribal base budget for fish and wildlife management. 

LOCAL/REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We support all requests and recommendations of Affiliated Tribes of Northwest 

Indians; Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board; and the Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission. 

NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BIA Requests 

Provide $82.9 million general increase to BIA Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) for 

inflationary and fixed costs; provide $64 million increase for BIA Contract Support 

Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC; and provide a $5 million increase in the Indian 

Self-Determination (ISD) Fund; and provide 100 percent of fixed costs (uncontrollable), including tribal pay costs. 

IHS Requests 

Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory inflation and population growth increase 

to maintain existing healthcare services; $330 million increase for Contract Health 

Services (CHS); $122 million increase for the IHS to fully fund CSC, including Direct CSC; and increase $5 million to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-Governance 

(OTSG). 

We support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the National Indian Health Board (NIHB). The leadership 

of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe remains actively involved in both NCAI and 

NIHB and has participated in numerous national forums to discuss and prioritize 

program funding and budgets. We are extremely supportive of the requests from 

these organizations. 

TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION JUSTIFICATION

$600,000 Land Purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project 

The purpose of the project is to preserve tribal cultural and ceremonial access to 

an important archaeological site of the S’Klallam American Indian people. 

Tamanowas Rock, located in eastern Jefferson County on the Olympic Peninsula of 

Washington State, is of great cultural and spiritual significance to the tribes in the 

region, and also holds special significance for the local non-Indian community. As 

a geological formation, the estimated age of the Rock is 43 million years. More importantly, the oral history associated with the Rock among the local tribes includes 

the era of the mastodons (extinct for 8,000 years), when it was used as a perch by 

tribal hunters and a story of a great flood (assumed to be a tsunami from around 

3,000 years ago) when people tied themselves to the Rock to avoid being swept 

away. 

In 1976, the Rock was listed in the Washington Heritage Register as having significant archaeological interest. The tribes and local community have been working 

for more than 10 years to try to protect the property where the Rock is located from 

development. In February 2005, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, acting on behalf 

of all the S’Klallam Tribes, obtained loans to purchase a 20-acre parcel and a group 

of platted properties totaling 66.32 acres (if dedicated roads are vacated, the acreage 

is closer to 100 acres for the platted properties). This property was in imminent 

threat of development in the vicinity of the Rock. The local community and the 

tribes now seek funds to purchase the land temporarily secured by the loan and purchase the remaining 80 acres directly surrounding Tamanowas Rock, all of which 

would be protected in perpetuity. 

$200,000 Increase to BIA Tribal Base Budget for Fish and Wildlife Management 

The U.S. Government formally recognized the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in 

1981. Jamestown is 1 of 4 tribes that signed the Point No Point Treaty with the 

U.S. Government in 1855. The BIA began contracting with the tribe to provide fisheries management services. The Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) was serving as the fisheries management agency for the other Klallam and Skokomish 

Tribes. In its efforts to contract with Jamestown for basic fisheries management 
298 

services, the BIA decided to provide only enough funding to slightly expand PNPTC 

rather than providing funding of sufficient quantity for Jamestown to operate a fisheries program of the same size as the other three tribes. Following the implementation of the Self-Governance (SG) statute, the distribution of contracted funds to each 

PNPTC member tribe was based on funding history, thus Jamestown received a significantly smaller portion of the PNPTC base funding than received by the other 

three tribes. The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe is nonetheless required to meet the 

basic fisheries and wildlife management responsibilities of U.S. v. Washington including planning, negotiation, regulation, technical expertise and enforcement. The 

$200,000 increase to our fiscal year 2011 SG base is needed to implement these essential treaty fish and wildlife management services. 

LOCAL/REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the collective tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and recommendations of the Affiliated 

Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and 

the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

NATIONAL REQUESTS AND PRIORITIES

BIA Requests 

Overall, funding for BIA in fiscal year 2011 would be ‘‘level funded’’ at $2.6 billion under the President’s proposed budget. Total funding represents a $53.6 million reduction below the enacted fiscal year 2010 level. The President has committed to 

support and advance ISD and SG for the Nation’s 567 federally recognized tribes. 

Consistent with that commitment, the fiscal year 2011 budget should include the 

following critical increases: 

TPA General Increase.—Provide $82.9 million (10 percent increase over fiscal year 

2010) for general increase to BIA TPA for inflationary and fixed costs 

TPA is one of the most important funding areas for tribal governments. It covers 

such needs as scholarships and higher education funding, human services, economic 

development, and natural resources management. This funding has steadily eroded 

due to inflation and population growth. The effects of rising costs of travel, equipment, supplies, and purchased services have been compounding for years while the 

Native American population has increased at 1.6 percent per year. Since tribes have 

the flexibility to use TPA funds to meet the unique needs of their individual communities, they are the main resources for tribes to exercise their powers of ISD and 

SG. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to provide at least a 10 percent ($82.9 

million) increase over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for TPA in order to maintain these programs and services. 

CSC.—Provide $64 million increase for BIA to fully fund CSC, including Direct 

CSC; and provide $5 million for the ISD Fund. 

Excluding the President’s requested increase in CSC for fiscal year 2011, it is anticipated that there will be a shortfall in CSC of $64 million for fiscal year 2011. 

Additionally, $5 million is needed annually for administrative costs for new and expanded programs (ISD Fund). CSC are the key to ISD for tribes. Full funding of 

CSC covers the fixed overhead costs that a tribe must incur to operate a BIA program or facility as required under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. When CSC is not fully funded, tribes are forced to utilize limited direct 

program services dollars or tribal resources to cover these shortfalls. Further, CSC 

directly funds jobs—and those jobs directly enhance services for education, law enforcement and other essential governmental services across Indian country. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to fund these essential services and not permit Indian agreements to remain the only government contracts that are not fully funded. 

Fixed Costs.—Provide 100 percent of tribal fixed costs (uncontrollable), including 

pay costs. 

The 2011 President’s budget does not include an increase for anticipated fixed 

costs, including pay and benefit costs. Without this funding, tribal programs will be 

forced to absorb these uncontrollable fixed costs. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to provide annual increases for tribal pay and fixed costs to avoid progressive program declines. 

IHS Requests 

The President’s proposed increase for the IHS is projected to be $354.1 million 

(8.7 percent increase) more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This marks the 

second year of the Obama administration’s support to Indian health programs and 

it represents the first step toward meeting the overwhelming $21.8 billion needed 

to bring parity in healthcare for American Indians and Alaska Natives. 
299 

Mandatories.—Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population 

growth increase to maintain existing health care services. 

Mandatory costs increases are necessary to maintain the current level of services. 

These ‘‘mandatories’’ are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay 

costs, and population growth. Maintaining current services is a fundamental budget 

principle. Failure to do so would result in cuts in healthcare and delivery. We estimate the current services need in fiscal year 2011 is $474 million. 

Contract Health Services (CHS).—Provide $330 million Increase for CHS. 

Tribes have recommended that an increase of $330 million is needed for CHS 

funding. At present, less than one-half of the CHS need is being met, leaving too 

many Indian people without access to necessary medical services. This level will 

allow those tribes who are not served by an IHS hospital to provide healthcare services at the same level as those tribes who are served by an IHS hospital. 

CSC.—Provide $122 million for IHS to fully fund CSC, including Direct CSC. 

This year’s fiscal year 2011 request of a $45.8 million increase for CSC continues 

a sad chapter of neglect for ISD. Last year the President requested a $107 million 

increase for CSC with Congress providing an additional $9 million. For fiscal year 

2011, the estimated shortfall is $122 million. The present shortfall creates a disincentive for tribes to pursue SG compacts, and diminishes available healthcare 

funding as tribal budgets must absorb the shortfall amounts. Adequate CSC funding 

assures that tribes have the ability to deliver the highest-quality healthcare services 

to their members. 

OTSG.—Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG. 

In 2003, Congress reduced funding for this office by $4.5 million, a loss of 43 percent from the previous year. In each subsequent year, this budget was further reduced due to the applied congressional rescissions. As of 2010, there are 330 SG 

tribes managing approximately $1.2 billion in funding. This represents 57 percent 

of all federally recognized tribes and 33 percent of the overall IHS funding. The 

OTSG supports tribes operating programs under the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 2000. The SG process serves as a model program for Federal Government 

outsourcing, which builds tribal infrastructures and provides quality services to Indian people. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony to present the budget 

priorities of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEEP VALLEY FORGE SAFE

Gentlemen/Ladies: We request that you cut funds from fiscal year 2011 and beyond from the Operations of the National Park System (ONPS) so the implementation of the white-tailed deer management plan at Valley Forge National Historic 

Park (VFNHP) cannot be implemented. 

VFNHP officials do not have an accurate count of the number of deer which inhabit VFNHP. Their population counts vary as much as 825 individuals. 

By one method, fall spotlighting, there are about 375 deer. This number shows 

a reduction of 150 deer in the 3 preceding years indicating the population is regulating itself. Wildlife communities self-regulate their numbers based on the availability of shelter and food. According to VFNHP’s other method of counting, spring 

compartment, there are about 1,200 individuals, a decline of 400 deer from the previous year. The spring compartment count is based on dubious methodology which 

multiplies sighted deer by an index of 0.58 percent which assumes an inflation of 

about 60 percent in the sighted deer. (see Final/EIS, pg. 3–17 and 3–18) 

VFNHP needs to determine an exact count by conducting infrared, flyover photography of VFNHP before taxpayers are charged about $3 million to implement this 

deer management plan (see Final/EIS, 2.8.3, pg. 2–46) 

Sharpshooting is dangerous especially in a suburban area like Valley Forge which 

is located 2 miles from Phoenixville, 21⁄2 miles from the Mainline, and about 2 miles 

from King of Prussia, a major commercial center. Rt. 23 and Rt. 422 (a four-lane 

highway connecting Reading and Philadelphia) run through VFNHP and are used 

by motorists 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

Park officials admit sharpshooting will probably increase deer vehicle collisions 

(Final/EIS, pg. 4–89) During the public hearing about the plan on January 15, 2008, 

Michele Batcheller, national park Service (NPS) wildlife biologist, stated sharpshooters would push deer across roads out of VFNHP into surrounding neighborhoods. It is a well known fact deer run away in panic from anything shot at them. 

Both Erie Insurance, which studies the subject for the industry, and Penndot draw 

a direct correlation between shooting at deer and wildlife vehicle crashes. 
300 

Deer can run at 35 mph (Bauer, ‘‘Whitetails’’ Voyageur Press, 1993, pg. 25). At 

that speed they can run from one end of the 5 square mile VFNHP to the other 

in 8.6 minutes crossing Rt. 23 and Rt. 422 in 6–8 minutes or less. They can also 

run to Conestoga Road, Tredyffrin Township, about 2 miles way in 3–4 minutes. The 

plan calls for using sharpshooters for at least 4 years, and perhaps as many as 15 

years, i.e., the life of the plan thus subjecting residents, the public and motorists 

to being shot or killed in a deer vehicle crash for 4–15 years. This risk is totally 

unacceptable. 

Nothing can protect residents, the public or motorists from misfired or stray bullets as victims like 2-year-old Giana De Campos knows (see Courier News, December. 5, 2008); or the Swan Lake, NY toddler who was killed when a bullet 400 feet 

away pierced the walls of her home (see Times-Herald, Nov. 17, 2008); or Casey 

Kantner, 18 years old, and scores of other victims. The plan at VFNHP will permit 

sharpshooters with high powered rifles to be as close as 300 feet from roads; at that 

distance bullets could overshoot highways. 

Chances are neither the sharpshooters nor NPS will be held accountable; the accident victim will likely bear the consequences including the cost of medical care for 

their injury, loss of wages, etc. Any court awards as a result of lawsuits will be paid 

by the American taxpayer. 

In addition to the serious risks to public safety posed by this Plan it also misuses 

the Impairment Standard of the Organic Act which pertains to the public’s use of 

VFNHP, not wildlife. According to 16 U.S.C. 3 the only reason under which the Secretary of the Interior can kill wildlife is if the animals are detrimental to the 

public’s use of VFNHP, i.e., the situation where grizzly bears mauled park visitors, 

and the black bears who became a risk to public safety by foraging for food near 

motor vehicles. 

The plan also violates NEPA because NPS failed to include a forest management 

plan which is integral to the deer management plan because VFNHPis basing the 

success of the deer management plan on forest regeneration. 

We send our elected representatives to Washington to provide oversight over Federal bureaucracies. Our Senators are failing us if they can’t stop the NPS from implementing a deer management plan a VFNHP which NPS admits risks killing and 

seriously injuring people. We are asking you to cut appropriation funding from the 

fiscal year 2011 and beyond to the NPS so it cannot implement its white-tailed deer 

management plan at VFNHP. I understand funds to implement the Plan represent 

VFNHP base funds. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LEAGUE OF AMERICAN ORCHESTRAS

The League of American Orchestras urges the subcommittee to approve fiscal year 

2011 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $180 million. After suffering a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-90s, funding has been gradually climbing for the agency, but still falls short of its 1992 appropriations level. We 

urge Congress to continue supporting the important work of this agency and to increase its capacity to improve public access to the arts, nurture cultural diversity, 

foster new artistic works, and support jobs in communities nationwide. 

Founded in 1942, the League of American Orchestras is the national service organization for symphony, chamber, youth, and collegiate orchestras. The League 

strives to stimulate the exchange of ideas and practices, promote innovation, and 

foster unity across the orchestra field. We estimate that there are approximately 

1,800 orchestras in the United States, with annual budgets ranging from less than 

$12,000 to more than $88 million. Orchestras exist in all 50 States, in virtually 

every community, and are supported by a network of citizens including instrumentalists, conductors, managers, board members, volunteers, staff members, and business partners. 

The experience of live orchestral music is an important part of a community’s fabric, and the presence of orchestras is often an indicator of a community’s economic 

and cultural strength. In addition to fueling local economies, attracting new business development, and educating young people, the power of music also unites individuals and cultures in good times and bad. Furthermore, amidst today’s economic 

turmoil, the need for understanding the changing context around us and effectively 

adapting is greater than ever. The League is committed to help orchestras in this 

work by bringing new knowledge and perspectives concerning the shifting priorities 

in our communities to our members. Likewise, the NEA plays an incredibly valuable 

leadership role through its direct grants to organizations, national research, and 

strategic initiatives. 
301 

More than 40 years of support from the NEA has increased the capacity of orchestras to serve and strengthen communities across our country. Federal arts support 

has an exponential impact: because the competition for Federal dollars is extremely 

intense, the awarding of an NEA grant greatly enhances and strengthens an orchestra’s application for funding from other sources. Furthermore, an NEA grant serves 

as an emblem of public value and national artistic significance, and communities 

large and small partake in the distinction of presenting nationally recognized NEAsupported programs. 

NEA grants support music education for children and adults, preserve great classical works, foster the creative endeavors of contemporary classical musicians, composers, and conductors, and expand public access to performances. In fiscal year 

2009, the NEA’s Grants to Organizations included 119 grants to orchestras, and an 

increase in funding will expand the NEA’s ability to serve the American public 

through grants supporting and promoting the creation, preservation, and presentation of the arts in America through the NEA’s core programs—Access to Artistic 

Excellence, Challenge America: Reaching Every Community, Learning in the Arts 

for Children and Youth, and Federal/State partnerships. 

The NEA also provides leadership supporting the value of the arts through national research and initiatives such as Our Town, which was proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget. This initiative will seek to improve the cultural 

health of communities in order to improve their livability, which in turn restores 

and enhances the civic pride of their citizens. Investing in the arts by supporting 

innovative approaches to maximize the economic growth potential of the creative 

sector has a demonstrated impact in helping to reverse economic decline. Orchestras 

look forward to participating in this new effort, as well as continuing to learn from 

the NEA’s ongoing national research projects that illuminate trends in public participation, workforce development, and other key areas of the American arts infrastructure. 

NEA FUNDING LEADS TO INCREASED PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE ARTS

The NEA, together with the arts organizations that receive Federal support, is 

committed to improving public access to the arts. NEA grants reach every congressional district in the country. Grants awarded to orchestras through the Access to 

Artistic Excellence program support educational activities, concerts, festivals, professional development, and residencies in communities across the country. The 

Vermont Symphony Orchestra’s ‘‘Made in Vermont Music Festival’’ tour will bring 

orchestral concerts to remote areas of the State, offering audiences that are traditionally underserved by the professional performing arts exposure to classical and 

contemporary music in their own communities. Many of these towns are in economically challenged areas that host few concerts of any kind, so community outreach 

is key to the tour’s success. 

The Challenge America: Reaching Every Community Fast-Track Review Grants 

offer support to small and mid-sized organizations for projects that extend the reach 

of the arts to underserved populations. The Great Falls Symphony will use its fiscal 

year 2010 Challenge America grant to present a performance of opera arias, choral 

workshops for high school students, and an open dress rehearsal for area choral and 

orchestra students, as well as for residents of homes for the developmentally disabled. The South Dakota Symphony’s Lakota Music Project received an fiscal year 

2010 Challenge America grant to enable guest artists from Sioux tribes to perform 

with the orchestra in Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and on several American Indian reservations. Because of this Federal funding, the orchestra was able to accept an invitation to present this moving musical event to more than 750 people at the South 

Dakota Governor’s Tourism Banquet, which then led to an invitation for the orchestra to present the program in 2011 on Native American Day at the Crazy Horse 

Monument. With Federal support, orchestra grantees are extending the reach of 

their activities beyond their home cities and towns, bringing unique musical experiences to communities in surrounding regions. 

NEA-FUNDED ARTS PROGRAMS NURTURE CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Americans enjoy a rich and diverse cultural heritage in the arts, and NEA grants 

to orchestras allow for creative expression to overcome cultural divides in order to 

help improve our ability to understand and honor our history. Orchestra programming increasingly reflects the cultural diversity that distinguishes our country, such 

as a project of the Fargo-Moorhead Symphony Orchestra, which received an fiscal 

year 2010 Challenge America grant to support performances of Peter Boyer’s Ellis 

Island—Dreams of America. Through a collaborative effort with Theatre B, local immigrants provided oral histories, received drama lessons and presented their stories 
302 

in the orchestra’s season finale concert. The program resonated so powerfully that 

as a result, a collaborative, community-wide project has spun off titled ‘‘My Journey, 

My Story: Oral Histories of New Americans in Fargo-Moorhead.’’ The Fargo-Moorhead Symphony once again is the lead partner in this effort, engaging its citizens 

that speak more than 50 native languages to capture and share their oral histories 

with one another. Likewise, the San Francisco Chamber Orchestra will explore its 

unique cultural influences in performances of a new violin concerto titled Hailli 

Lı ́rico. Orchestra musicians will partner with Andean folk specialists for the series, 

introducing classical music and its cultural parallels to South American traditional 

music to Latino audiences in San Francisco’s Mission District, Berkeley, and Vallejo. 

NEA grants are a vital part of the support system that enables orchestras to showcase our society’s rich array of cultures and provide a vehicle to engage and connect 

with diverse audiences across our country. 

NEA FUNDING SUPPORTS EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Arts education is proven to boost the capacity of young people to succeed in school, 

work, and life. Children gain the ‘‘arts advantage’’ through NEA-funded projects 

that engage them in the creative process, spark their skills of imagination, and develop their capacity for self-discipline, perseverance, and teamwork. Orchestras are 

essential and active partners in increasing access to lifelong music education, improving the quality of life in their communities by collaborating with school systems 

and other local partners to deliver a wide array of education and community programs. The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra will utilize NEA assistance to support 

a young artists concert series celebrating youth and illuminating the life of the prolific composer, Gustav Mahler. Throughout the season, local students will perform 

alongside young ‘‘up-and-coming’’ artists in programs that celebrate Mahler and feature works specifically written for or about young people. Also engaging its young 

citizens, the Anchorage Symphony Orchestra will use NEA Access to Artistic Excellence funding to support its annual Young People’s Concert series. This program 

serves approximately 7,000 elementary students in the school district, as well as 

students from south central Alaska. The concert series provides teachers with numerous activities and lessons plan developed by music educators, and each activity 

demonstrates how it meets education standards. With a grant in the Learning in 

the Arts for Children and Youth program, the Nashville Symphony will expand its 

One Note, One Neighborhood program, which provides comprehensive music education resources to underserved children and youth. This initiative represents a 

close partnership between the symphony, Metro Nashville Public Schools and W.O. 

Smith/Nashville Community Music School. It offers, without cost to students, classroom curriculum materials, music lessons, instruments, concerts and other learning 

opportunities at Schermerhorn Symphony Center. The NEA is a vital partner in 

helping to sustain and grow valuable programs such as these, allowing music to continue to be a positive force for teaching young people to work creatively together. 

NEA GRANTS SUPPORT JOBS IN COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 allocated Federal 

funding to support economic recovery in communities nationwide, including $50 million to the NEA to provide direct grants and block grants to State and regional arts 

councils to fund arts projects and activities vital to communities nationwide. The 

NEA was one of the first Federal agencies to disseminate stimulus funding in support of local economies and on July 7, 2009, it announced 631 awards of nearly $30 

million in ARRA funding to arts organizations, including 64 direct grants to orchestras. Orchestra grantees across the United States helped stabilize local economies 

by putting Federal funds to use to preserve full and part-time administrative and 

artistic positions that were in jeopardy of being eliminated due to the struggling 

economy. 

A $50,000 NEA stimulus grant enabled the Memphis Symphony Orchestra to pay 

two weeks of paid work for 35 full-time musicians over the next year, and ensure 

that the community continues to be enriched by the orchestra’s services and programs. This valuable support enabled the Memphis Symphony to continue providing 

music education, for in addition to the concert season, musicians present a nationally recognized corporate leadership training program; present an educational series 

at a residential program for troubled children; work with local librarians to present 

a Saturday morning performance series based on children’s literature; and mentor 

students at the Soulsville Charter School. The Wheeling Symphony also used its 

$50,000 NEA stimulus grant to help restore the loss of income suffered by its principal musicians due to forced reductions in season programming. The grant funded 

the ‘‘Music In the Neighborhoods’’ chamber series, which presented 40 free ensemble 
303 

performances in schools, libraries and other public locations. Not only did the NEA 

grant help the orchestra through the economic downturn, but it also provided a 

means for the orchestra to seek additional funding sources, and as a result, it will 

be able to maintain the series into fiscal year 2011. 

Thank you for this opportunity to illustrate the value of NEA support for orchestras and communities across the Nation. The Endowment’s unique ability to provide 

a national forum to promote excellence, both through high standards for artistic 

products and the highest expectation of accessibility, remains one of the strongest 

arguments for a Federal role in support of the arts. We urge you to support creativity and access to the arts by approving $180 million in funding for the National 

Endowment for the Arts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR

CHIPPEWA INDIANS

This testimony is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Lac du Flambeau Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin, and reflects the needs, 

concerns and issues of the tribe’s membership regarding the proposed fiscal year 

2011 budget. We believe that the fiscal year 2011 budget reflects the administration’s dedication to addressing funding shortfalls that have plagued Indian country 

and its continuing dedication to building a nation-to-nation relationship with tribes. 

However, while we support much of the budget’s proposals, we do have concerns. 

Because the tribe embraces the Seventh Generation concept and believes that 

without a healthy Mother Earth we cannot have healthy people now or in future 

generations, we are very supportive of the inclusion of the Circle of Flight program 

in the base budget. The proposed fiscal year 2011 budget provides $600,000 in the 

Tribal Management/Development Program account for this important program after 

years of its exclusion from the base budget. Circle of Flight provides critical resources necessary to restore and preserve wetlands and waterfowl populations, 

which are vital to the culture and economy of the Great Lakes region. Improved 

tribal wetland habitats supports waterfowl and other bird species especially in the 

spring and fall migrations, provide expanded hunting opportunities for tribal members and the general public, and offer enhanced wild rice gathering opportunities. 

In addition to protecting these natural resources, returning this funding to the base 

budget will support economic development in this region and assist the tribe in the 

hiring of 1.5 FTE employees—specifically a wildlife biologist and wildlife technician—to implement and support these programs. 

We also support the overall budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Spe- cifically, we support the $8.5 million in GAP grant funding and the $30 million for 

the new multimedia grant program to assist tribes with implementing environmental compliance programs on tribal lands, such as those under the Clean Air Act 

or RCRA. It is important for tribes to protect their members by ensuring that their 

lands are healthy and sustainable—just as important as it is for Federal and State 

governments to protect their citizens. While we are concerned that funding for the 

Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds were decreased by $93 million, we fully support the increased Tribal set-aside. We support the continued funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, but ask that funding for the Initiative be returned to fiscal year 2010 levels of $475 million to provide the opportunity 

for the restored funds to allow the tribe to maintain our Great Lakes Restoration 

Specialist and continue to restore habitats on the reservation. 

The Lac du Flambeau Tribe supports the proposed increase to the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) budget for indirect costs to 94 percent of the fiscal year 2007 

level. However, the tribe is concerned with the proposed $19.4 million absorption 

of fixed costs. It is anticipated this absorption would amount to a reduction of funding for fixed costs, such as for salary and fringe, by $12.4 million in Indian country. 

This is money we just cannot absorb at this time. Healthcare costs are still rising 

at an alarming rate, which continues to compound the problem. Therefore, the Lac 

du Flambeau Tribe requests Congress restore the $19.4 million to the BIA budget. 

Our support for and concerns regarding the proposed fiscal year 2011 budget for 

natural resources, law enforcement and higher education are below. 

NATURAL RESOURCES

Tribes are leaders in natural resource protection and BIA natural resource funding is essential for maintaining our programs. Lac du Flambeau has a comprehensive Natural Resources Department and dedicated staff with considerable expertise 

in natural resource and emergency and land management. Among other activities, 

our Department raises fish for stocking, collects data on water and air quality, de-
304 

velops well head protection plans, conducts wildlife surveys and administers timber 

stand improvement projects on our 86,000-acre Reservation. All of these activities 

speak directly to our tribe’s economic, environmental, and physical health. Unfortunately, natural resource programs have been cut or flat-funded for many years now, 

and tribes have been forced to lay off staff and shut down programs, leaving critical 

resources in jeopardy. 

Conservation Law Enforcement Officers.—One of the critical elements of our Natural Resource Program is our Conservation Law Enforcement Officers. These officers are primarily responsible for enforcing hunting and fishing regulations related 

to the exercise of treaty rights, but they also have a much larger role in law enforcement. They are often the first to respond to emergency situations, handle the management of environmental emergencies, such as forest fires or tornado damage, and 

are the first line of defense for illegal activity on the reservation. The lack of adequate law enforcement resources on reservations is a well-known problem that 

plagues the public safety of tribal communities. Conservation Law Enforcement Officers are an incredibly important part of protecting our treaty rights and enabling 

us to protect our communities by supplementing our law enforcement presence. 

Unfortunately, our Conservation Officers are now 100 percent dependent on tribal funds. This costs the tribe $248,000 annually, in addition to the $682,700 the tribe 

pays for its nonconservation law enforcement programs. The BIA does not provide 

any resources for this activity, which plays a significant role in protecting our community and is critical to maintaining and protecting our treaty rights. Protection of 

our natural resources is the protection of our treaty rights. The tribe’s funding can 

only support two conservation officers on duty at a time to patrol a 144 square mile 

reservation that includes 260 lakes, 24,000 acres of wetland and 46,000 acres of forested land. If the BIA is unable to provide money to allow our Conservation Officers 

to continue their important mission, Federal officers will have to step up to take 

over and uphold the United States’ binding obligations toward these treaty rights. 

We request that money be provided in the budget for conservation law enforcement 

programs. 

Forestry.—The tribe continues to request that the subcommittee increase funding 

for BIA Forestry Programs. Our reservation contains 46,000 acres of forested land 

that supports hunting, gathering, and employment opportunities for tribal members. 

Proper management of the forest is essential not only to sustain our subsistence lifestyle, but also to provide economic growth for the tribe. We recognize that in this 

tough economic time, the administration and Congress must make tough choices. 

However, it would be more costly if sensible resource management is sacrificed. Forest management not only provides a mechanism for economic development for 

tribes, it is a fundamental activity that protects forested communities from wildfire, 

enhances resource conservation and combats climate change. 

Commercial forestry provides tribes with an important source of economic revenue 

and job creation. In our tribe, two foresters and one technician undertake a broad 

range of management activities, including tree planting, prescribed burning, forest 

road design and maintenance and timber sale establishment and administration. If 

properly funded, timber sales could provide a source of tribal revenue. Forest management activities provide important wildfire suppression functions and manage 

invasive species. If forest management programs go unfunded, the future costs of 

destruction due to wildfires or invasives could be devastating. 

The total cost of operating the forestry program is approximately $217,000. In the 

last several years the level of funding from the BIA has been less than half of this, 

and the program has not received substantial funding increases since fiscal year 

1991. The proposed budget reflects a decrease of $156,000 in funding for BIA Forestry Projects. We request that Congress reject the decrease to this already underfunded program and begin to fully invest in protecting our forested lands. 

Fish Hatchery.—The Lac du Flambeau support the $3.6 million provided for fish 

hatchery operations and the $2.8 million provided for fish hatchery maintenance. 

This is equal to the funding provided in the fiscal year 2010 budget and is an 

amount triple that provided in fiscal year 2009. 

Historic Preservation.—In 1995, Congress began encouraging tribes to assume historic preservation responsibilities as part of self-determination activities. It is estimated that in fiscal year 2011 there will be 100 tribes approved by the Secretary 

of the Interior to administer historic preservation programs. These programs conserve fragile places, objects and traditions crucial to tribal culture, history and sovereignty. As was envisioned by Congress, more tribes qualify for funding every year. 

In fiscal year 2001, there were 27 Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) 

with an average award of $154,000 per tribe. Currently, while the number of tribes 

operating THPO programs has increased, Lac du Flambeau now only receives 

$74,145. Paradoxically, the more successful the program becomes overall, the less 
305 

each tribe receives to maintain professional services, ultimately crippling the programs. To provide a minimum level of services, these offices require at least 

$120,000. Therefore, we request that the budget provide the minimum $120,000 for 

each tribe operating a THPO program. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT

We commend the focus the administration and Congress has placed on improving 

public safety in Indian country. As we all know, tribal communities experience a 

highly disproportionate level of crime and adequate law enforcement resources have 

been woefully underfunded for decades. The rate of violent crime for Native Americans is more than twice the national average. The administration has shown its 

commitment to addressing public safety issues by holding a series of listening sessions throughout Indian country. We believe that these listening sessions have led 

to the repackaging of tribal criminal justice programs in the fiscal year 2011 budget 

for the Department of Justice in an attempt to create a more flexible tribal criminal 

justice program. Unfortunately, we believe that some funds provided to the BIA for 

public safety are misdirected. 

Specifically, we do not support the $19 million to be used for the BIA to reimburse 

the Department of Justice for 45 additional FBI agents dedicated to Indian country. 

While we greatly appreciate the intent to increase law enforcement presence in Indian country, we do not believe $19 million for only 45 FBI agents is the most efficient or effective way to increase public safety in tribal communities. While 45 additional FBI agents would significantly increase law enforcement presence if they 

were dedicated to only a handful of communities, the reality is that it is too small 

of a number for all of Indian country to feel the affect. Essentially, approximately 

365 federally recognized tribes would not see the effects of this increase in FBI presence. 

Instead of overspending on a few FBI agents and their support staff, we believe 

that the $19 million would be of better use if it were put towards Conservation Law 

Enforcement Officers. As was mentioned earlier in our testimony, these officers provide the first line of defense for many tribal law enforcement departments. They 

perform the same public safety functions as do law enforcement officers, and protect 

our natural resources. We feel that staffing Conservation Law Enforcement Officers 

is a more efficient use of the money and will put more boots on the ground in Indian 

country. 

HIGHER EDUCATION

To continue the progress Indian country has made in participation and control of 

education programs and schools, it is imperative that funding for tribal higher education programs be increased. The tribe’s high school graduation rates are improving, but are still far below national standards. President Obama has repeatedly expressed his commitment to national education programs, and in his address to Indian country he made a commitment to honor ‘‘obligations to Native Americans by 

providing tribes with the educational resources promised by treaty and Federal 

law.’’ We embrace that commitment, but we want to remind you that the need for 

support does not lie only with high schools. Our students who want to pursue higher 

education need our continued support. 

The budget proposes $2.164 million for Special Higher Education Scholarships 

(SHEP) to support Indian students working for graduate degrees. We strongly support the SHEP program, but are concerned that funding for it has remained flat 

over the last couple of years. Tribal communities have made great strides in educating their youth. Those strides are evident in the fact that more Indian students 

are attending and graduating from colleges and other post-secondary institutions. 

However, tribal communities must continue to evolve with other communities. The 

national and global economy has changed—students must earn graduate degrees to 

remain competitive. After making progress in Indian education, Indian students 

cannot be allowed to fall behind again because of lack of access to higher education 

programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE

My name is Frances Charles, chairwoman of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. 

Thank you Chairwoman Feinstein for the opportunity to submit written testimony 

on priority funding for the delivery of basic services to the Elwha people, and in support of increased appropriations for native programs in the fiscal year 2011 budgets 

for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets. 
306 

TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS

Fifteen million dollars for Lower Elwha Klallam land acquisition and economic development and $458,000 for Lower Elwha Klallam tribal historic preservation 

REGIONAL SUPPORT REQUESTS

Support the request of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Washington; support the 

request of the Northwest Portland Indian Health Board; and support the request 

of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

NATIONAL AND SELF-GOVERNANCE (SG) SUPPORT REQUESTS

BIA.—Provide $82.9 million general increase to BIA Tribal Priority Allocation 

(TPA) for inflationary and fixed costs. 

BIA.—Provide $64 million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost (CSC), including direct CSC. 

BIA.—Provide $5 million increase in the ISD fund. 

BIA.—Provide 100 percent of fixed costs (uncontrollable), including tribal pay 

costs. 

BIA.—$12 million for National Historic Preservation Officer Program. 

Increase OTSG budget to fully staff to meet the needs of the increase in tribes 

entering SG; 

IHS.—Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory, inflation, and population growth 

increase to maintain existing healthcare services. 

IHS.—$330 million increase for Contract Health Services (CHS) 

IHS.—$122 million increase for IHS to fully fund CSC, including Direct CSC. 

IHS.—Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG. 

The Elwha Klallam Tribe supports the fiscal year 2011 budget requests National 

Congress of Indians and National Indian Health Board. 

TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUEST NARRATIVE

Fifteen Million Dollars for Lower Elwha Klallam Land Acquisition and Economic 

Development.—In 1992, Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries 

Restoration Act (Public Law 102–495). The law mandated the removal of the Elwha 

and Glines Canyon dams from the Elwha River. Since then, the U.S. Government 

has committed itself to Elwha River restoration and to addressing the public health 

and safety, environmental, and economic development issues associated with the 

dam removal. Dam removal is scheduled to begin in 2011. The law states: 

‘‘SEC. 7. Tribal Land Acquisition and Development. 

(a) After the Secretary makes the determination to remove the dams and actually 

acquires the Projects and funds are appropriated for such conveyance and removal, 

the Secretary is authorized to acquire by purchase, and hold in trust in reservation 

status for the benefit of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, lands in Clallam County, 

Washington, for housing, economic development, and moorage for the Tribal commercial fishing fleet. 

(b) There is authorized to be appropriated an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 to 

carry out the land acquisition purposes of this section.’’ 

Congress authorized $4 million for land purchases for the tribe to make amends 

for damages to tribal fisheries. The National Park Service (NPS), acting as the lead 

agency for the Federal dam-removal project, decided that its mandate did not include addressing any appropriation to the tribe. In the 18 years since the act was 

passed the project has moved forward, but without any appropriations for tribal 

land acquisition. There has been a significant increase in property prices since 1992. 

For this reason, and to affect the intended purposes of the 1992 act, the tribe has 

repeatedly requested that Congress increase the initial $4 million authorization to 

$15 million so that the tribe could begin the necessary activities identified in the 

act before dam removal commences next year. 

Acquisition of land was part of the broader Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries 

Restoration Act which will restore Elwha River fisheries and permit the Lower 

Elwha Klallam Tribe to resume its historic livelihood of salmon fishing in the Elwha 

River, which the two 100-year-old dams had rendered impossible. The provision of 

the law for land acquisition was and is necessary to mitigate the disruptive effects 

of the dam removal process and to provide the tribe with land for much needed 

housing and to pursue economic development that will generate funding to build 

upon the tribal infrastructure and strengthen the economy of the reservation. 
307 

Of the $15 million request, the tribe would immediately use $2 million to purchase and improve 12 acres centrally located on Highway 101 on the east shore of 

Lake Aldwell, thereby gaining a timely opportunity to develop land that is contiguous to the Project Lands that the tribe also seeks to acquire. 

Improvements would facilitate conversion of the parcel from private to public use, 

including: road access development, potable water, wastewater treatment, parking, 

utilities, trail development and facility upgrades. Acquisition and development of 

this site provide the unique setting for a world-class interpretative center to foster 

research, educational outreach, and a showcase for ecosystem restoration that will 

follow removal of the Elwha Dams. 

—$458,000 for Tribal Historic Preservation.—The Lower Elwha Tribe is located in 

an area that is extremely rich in cultural resources and significant sites. We 

have been involved in the protection and restoration of the Tse-whit-zen village 

and cemetery site in downtown Port Angeles, where we have re-interred the remains of more than 300 of our Klallam ancestors, the largest single site that 

has been unearthed west of the Mississippi River. Other sites of equal or greater significance exist in Port Angeles and surrounding areas. One such site is 

the Y’innis village site on Ennis Creek, which flows through the site of an abandoned lumber mill that is currently undergoing cleanup. The tribe is involved 

in overseeing the cleanup of that site, the restoration of Ennis Creek, and the 

protection of the village site. 

The tribe must also spend ever-increasing time responding to Federal agency requests for consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) of 1966. As you know, the NHPA declared that the preservation of our irreplaceable heritage was in the Nation’s interest and agencies must consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties in consultation with affected tribes. 

This consultation is at the heart of the Federal-tribal relationship, but without adequate funding support for a Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), the consultation requirement functions as an unfunded mandate. In addition, the tribe’s activities associated with its rights under the 1990 Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) have intensified in a number of areas, including 

the completion of summaries and inventories of remains and objects. In order to protect its cultural heritage and its rights and opportunities under NHPA and 

NAGPRA, and to ensure that the major sites in the Port Angeles area are protected 

from development and natural resources restoration activities, the tribe needs a 

basic THPO program. Such a program requires at a minimum a qualified staff that 

meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards as an Archeologist or Cultural Resource Director that can review the projects scheduled for implementation and provide tribal comment. This funding request will provide the tribe with that basic program and assist in averting another disaster like the one that occurred at the Tsewhit-zen site. 

NATIONAL AND SELF-GOVERNANCE SUPPORT REQUESTS NARRATIVE

BIA.—Provide $82.9 million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for general increase to BIA TPA for inflationary and fixed costs: This funding has steadily 

eroded due to inflation and population growth. The effects of rising costs of travel, 

equipment, supplies, and purchased services have been compounding for years while 

the Native American population has increased at 1.6 percent per year. Since tribes 

have the flexibility to use TPA funds to meet the unique needs of their individual 

communities, they are the main resources for tribes to exercise their powers of Indian Self-Determination (ISD)and SG. 

BIA.—Provide $64 million increase for BIA CSC, including Direct CSC: Full funding of CSC covers the fixed overhead costs that a tribe must incur to operate a BIA 

program or facility as required under the Indian Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act. When CSC is not fully funded, tribes are forced to utilize limited 

direct program services dollars or tribal resources to cover these shortfalls. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to fund these essential services and not permit Indian agreements to remain the only Government contracts that are not fully funded. 

BIA.—Provide $5 million increase in the ISD fund. 

BIA.—Provide 100 Percent of Fixed Costs (Uncontrollable), Including Tribal Pay 

Costs.—The 2011 President’s budget does not include an increase for anticipated 

fixed costs, including pay and benefit costs. Without this funding, tribal programs 

will be forced to absorb these uncontrollable fixed costs. We respectfully urge the 

Subcommittee to provide annual increases for tribal pay and fixed costs to avoid 

progressive program declines. 

BIA: $12 Million for THPO Program.—The President’s proposed level of $8 million in fiscal year 2011 will continue to increase the shortfall that THPOs are expe-
308 

riencing, yet the program continues to expand. We further recommend that future 

program expansion be funded with increased appropriations for the program in 

order not to impact the funding of existing THPO programs. 

IHS.—Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory, inflation, and population growth 

increase to maintain existing healthcare services.—Mandatory costs increases are 

necessary to maintain the current level of services. These ‘‘mandatories’’ are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay costs, and population 

growth. Maintaining current services is a fundamental budget principle. Failure to 

do so would result in cuts in healthcare and delivery. We estimate the current services need in fiscal year 2011 is $474 million. 

Increase OTSG Budget To Fully Staff To Meet the Needs of the Increase In Tribes 

Entering SG 

IHS: $330 Million Increase for Contract Health Services (CHS).—Tribes have recommended that an increase of $330 million is needed for CHS funding. At present, 

less than one-half of the CHS need is being met, leaving too many Indian people 

without access to necessary medical services. This level will allow those tribes who 

are not served by an IHS hospital to provide healthcare services at the same level 

as those tribes who are served by an IHS hospital. 

IHS: $122 Million Increase for IHS to Fully Fund CSC, Including Direct CSC.— 

This year’s fiscal year 2011 request of a $45.8 million increase for CSC continues 

a sad chapter of neglect for ISD. For fiscal year 2011, the estimated shortfall is $122 

million. The present shortfall creates a disincentive for tribes to pursue SG compacts, and diminishes available healthcare funding as tribal budgets must absorb 

the shortfall amounts. 

IHS: Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG.—As of 2010, there are 330 SG tribes 

managing approximately $1.2 billion in funding. This represents 57 percent of all 

federally recognized tribes and 33 percent of the overall IHS funding. The OTSG 

supports tribes operating programs under the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments 

of 2000. The SG process serves as a model program for Federal Government outsourcing, which builds tribal infrastructures and provides quality services to Indian 

people. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

I want to thank Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and the subcommittee members 

for the opportunity to submit written testimony on financial and legislative priorities of the Lummi Nation for 2011 for the Department of the Interior; Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Services (IHS). 

The Lummi Nation is located on the northern coast of Washington State, and is 

the third-largest tribe in Washington State serving a population of more than 5,200. 

The Lummi Nation is a fishing nation. We have drawn our physical and spiritual 

sustenance from the marine tidelands and waters that surround us for hundreds of 

thousands of years. Now the abundance of wild salmon is gone. The remaining salmon stocks do not support commercial fisheries. Our fishers have trying to survive 

with shellfish products. In 1999, we had 700 licensed fishers who supported nearly 

3,000 tribal members. Today, we have about 523 remaining. This means that more 

than 200 small businesses in our community have gone bankrupt in the past 11 

years. This is the basic inescapable reality of the Lummi Nation. We are the last 

hunter/fisher/gatherer society surviving within the contiguous United States. We 

can no longer survive as fishers, without assistance. 

LUMMI NATION APPROPRIATION REQUESTS—BIA

∂$12 Million.—Increase in funding for hatchery construction, operation and 

maintenance funding directed to meet the needs of fisheries needs consistent with 

declared disasters. 

∂$5 Million (Nationally).—Increase the funding for the BIA general assistance 

for emergency services for tribes operating under emergency declarations. 

IHS

Increased Contract Health Services (CHS) funding be available to Northwest Regional Tribes, which are not served by IHS hospitals. 

∂$200,000.—To support direct intervention with the Lummi Nation to support 

rapid HIV testing and diagnosis and treatment. 
309 

SUBCOMMITTEE DIRECTION REQUESTS

Direct the BIA to recognize fisheries economic disaster declarations and work with 

the Lummi Nation to insure that direct relief needs of its fishers covered under the 

Department of Commerce Disaster Declaration are met through general assistance 

emergency assistance funding. 

Direct the BIA to work with Lummi Nation to ensure that its needs related to 

the Salomon disaster are met through increased hatchery construction, operations 

and maintenance funding. 

Direct the BIA Branch of Roads to support the subcommittee request that the 

Federal Lands High Way Project reserve $6 million for the Lummi Nation Slater 

Road Elevation Project. 

Direct the Department of the Interior to fully fund the Office of Indian Energy 

and Economic Development, Workforce Development Division to continue its job 

training/development work that has results in jobs. 

Our people have problems and needs but we also have solutions. Today, I am presenting a coordinated set of proposals to address the prolonged economic and cultural disaster imparting our people through the loss of our sockeye salmon. Starting 

more than 10 years ago in 1999. In 2008, the Department of Commerce reissued 

the disaster declaration (See also—Congressional Research Services—CRS Report to 

Congress, Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance, (RL–34209) May 2, 2008), and 

we now seek ways to turn this scenario around to have a more positive outcome. 

Our strategy is to consolidate our native and scientific knowledge of fish biology, 

behavior, and management into the Northwest Indian Marine Education and Research Center for Excellence. Collecting our professionals and traditional practitioners and field worker into a team to plan, design, finance, and construct and operates create aquaculture and hatcheries facilities and programs. The same group 

would instruct and train aquaculture and hatcheries workers needed by theses facilities, through Northwest Indian College. Aquaculture/hatcheries facilities and operations are the only way to ensure the salmon fisheries that was solemnly secured 

in 1855 by our fathers and yours, large enough to support our families and our way 

of life. 

Our goal is to increase fish returns by improving aquaculture and hatchery production and creates a reliable, sustainable resource to salmon fishers by increasing 

enhancement. Additionally, we seek to raise the value of these harvests through advanced marketing, the introduction of a fisher’s co-operative, and grow-out operations for shellfish products. 

LUMMI NATION SPECIFIC REQUESTS—BIA

∂$5 Million (Nationally) Fisher’s Disaster Assistance Funding.—Lummi Nation is 

requesting funding to support emergency relief services for our fishers. This assistance is needed to help fishers make the transition from sockeye salmon to other 

salmon species and other commercial fishery resources. Lummi Nation is requesting 

the subcommittee provide the BIA Welfare Assistance Program an additional funding to address the Lummi Nation Fishers and West Coast Fisherman impacted by 

economic fisheries disaster. 

∂$12 Million—Salmon/Shellfish Hatchery.—The Lummi Nation currently operates three salmon hatcheries and one shellfish hatchery that support tribal and 

other fisheries in the region. The tribal hatchery facilities were originally constructed in the early 1970’s. Predictably some of the original infrastructure needs 

to be repaired or replaced as it approaches the end of its useful life and other infrastructure needs to be developed or modified to ensure compliance with the Clean 

Water Act and/or the Endangered Species Act. Lummi Nation fish biologists estimate that these facilities are now operating at 40 percent of their productive capacity. While the Lummi Nation recognizes and appreciates the $2 million provided in 

2010 for expanded hatchery funding these funds were distributed nationally without 

regard to the extreme need of the Lummi Nation and other tribes impacted by the 

West Coast Salmon disaster. The 2010 funding must be maintained and expand further consistent with the needs of tribes covered by existing disaster declarations. 

LUMMI SALMON HATCHERY—$2,200,000

$720,000: Hatchery Intake.—South Fork Nooksack Chinook Recovery program replace intake system that has high O&M and often fails. 

$625,000: Large Pond Improvement.—Increase annual production capacity. 

$855,000: New Raceways.—Replace originally constructed infrastructure that is 

deteriorating and falling apart. 
310 

LUMMI SALMON HATCHERY—$5,360,000

Nooksack River Pump Station.—This will increase the production capacity of 

Lummi Bay hatchery by improving water pumping capacity and resource. 

LUMMI SHELLFISH HATCHERY—$570,000

Multiple operation and maintenance issues for increasing production capacity in 

areas of feed, building insulation, heating and cooling systems, increase grows out 

tank space, results in increased seed production. 

LUMMI POND TIDE GATES IMPROVEMENTS—$3,510,000

This project rehabilitates current shellfish hatchery to optimize production capabilities. Increased shellfish seed production increases enhancement activities on 

Lummi tidelands to create jobs for tribal shellfish harvesters and increase sales to 

the West Coast shellfish industry to create jobs for growers and businesses. 

PLANNING/TRANSPORTATION—BRIDGE—PROJECT

∂$6 Million.—Slater Elevated Road Project reserved for the Lummi Nation 

through the Federal Land Highway Programs funneled through the BIA’s Indian 

Reservation Roads Program 

Project Description.—The Lummi Nation is partnering with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Whatcom County to elevate the eastern approach 

to the Slater Road Bridge over the Nooksack River. This section of Slater Road is 

frequently flooded by Silver Creek, which runs parallel to the Nooksack River. The 

project is an extension of the Slater Road Bridge over Sliver Creek, which is a salmon spawning stream. 

Need for the Project.—When this section of Slater Road is flooded, access to the 

Lummi Reservation, Lummi Island, the Cherry Point heavy impact industrial zone, 

and the City of Ferndale are severely limited. Most years these limitations last for 

days at a time. The impact threatens public health and safety and has substantial 

negative economic impacts for the retail, commercial and manufacturing businesses 

in the area. 

Matching Funding.—Lummi Nation has secured a $3 million in project matching 

funds for the project through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (the maximum 

grant allowable). 

LUMMI NATION SPECIFIC REQUESTS—IHS

Request for Contract Health Funds Allocation Formula Methodology 

Lummi Nation and all tribes located in the Portland area are not served by IHS 

hospitals. We are totally dependent on the IHS Contract Health Care Program to 

support hospitalization and any healthcare measure performed outside of our limited ambulatory healthcare clinic. The Lummi Nation has endured a shortage of 

contract healthcare funds for many years due to constantly increasing healthcare 

and healthcare administrative costs and a budget that does not keep pace. The 

Lummi Nation is requesting that the subcommittee direct the IHS to develop an allocation plan for contract healthcare funds that recognizes that tribes, not served 

by an IHS hospital incur greater contract health costs than those tribes who have 

an IHS hospital. 

∂$200,000.—Direct funding to support Community-based AIDS/HIV Rapid Testing Lummi Nation is experiencing an epidemic of black tar heroin among its addicted members. This has increased the risk in our community for contracting HIV. 

We are seeking this funding on an emergency basis. 

NATIONAL AND SELF-GOVERNANCE REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BIA Requests 

∂ $21.4 million for Johnson O’Malley Program; ∂ $13.6 million for Housing Improvement Program added to tribal base programs; ∂$9 million general increase to 

BIA Tribal Priority Allocation for inflationary and fixed costs; provide $64 million 

increase for BIA CSC, including Direct CSC; provide $5 million increase in the Indian Self-Determination Fund; provide 100 percent of fixed costs (uncontrollable), 

including tribal pay costs; and increase Office of Self-Governance budget to fully 

staff to meet the needs of the increase in tribes entering Self-Governance. 

IHS Requests 

Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory inflation and population growth increase 

to maintain existing healthcare services; $330 million increase for CHS; $122 mil-
311 

lion increase for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC), including Direct 

CSC; and increase $5 million to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-Governance 

Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations 

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; Northwest Portland Area Indian Health 

Board; and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

NATURAL RESOURCES

In closing the Lummi Nation fully supports the Hatchery Reform Committee that 

is being set up in cooperation with University of Washington through the efforts of 

the Native American Fish and Wild life Society. We ask the subcommittee to become 

aware and supportive of this effort to increase our technical knowledge of hatchery 

development, operations, which is critical to the survival of our fishing communities. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share the fiscal year 2011 budgetary priorities of 

the Lummi Nation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LUDLOW’S ISLAND RESORT

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land along in the Superior and Chippewa National Forests as part of the Minnesota Wilderness program. An appropriation of $3.1 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in order for the Forest Service (USFS) to acquire an assemblage of forestlands totaling 220 acres. I am thankful that Minnesota’s national forests were recognized in the President’s budget, which reserved 

$1.4 million for the Minnesota Wilderness program. However, in order to protect all 

four tracts in fiscal year 2011, an appropriation of $3.1 million is needed. 

The Minnesota Wilderness land acquisition program includes the Superior and 

Chippewa National Forests in Minnesota and is focused on protecting public access 

to lakes and streams as well as ensuring critical habitat protection for fish and wildlife. These forests offer Minnesotans and other visitors abundant opportunities for 

outdoor recreation and are an integral part of the Northwoods economy. 

Located in the northeasternmost tip of Minnesota, the Superior National Forest 

spans 150 miles along the United States-Canadian border and is one of the wettest, 

wildest forests in the entire national forest system. The deep pine woods of the Superior play host to a landscape of lakes, bogs, and rocky outcrops that are remnants 

of the glacial period and create the only thriving boreal or northern forest in the 

continental United States. More than 10 percent of the forest consists of surface 

water, and another 1,300 miles of cold-water streams and 950 miles of warm-water 

streams flow within the forest’s boundaries. Visitors to the Superior National Forest 

are attracted by its abundance of outdoor recreational opportunities. For wilderness 

devotees, there are few areas in the United States that can rival the solitude and 

timelessness of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), a maze of 

lakes, rivers, and rocks at the northern edge of the Superior, offering 12,000 miles 

of canoe trails. Here and elsewhere in the forest, outdoor enthusiasts can enjoy 

camping, biking, canoeing, fishing, hiking, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, and 

dog sledding. The deep foliage and plentiful water also attract a wide variety of 

wildlife, including bald eagle, common loon, moose, timber wolf, black bear, lynx, 

and migratory birds. The BWCAW draws more than 200,000 campers and canoeists 

annually, following in the wake of Native Americans and the voyageurs—those 

French-Canadian fur traders who canoed these waters 200 years ago. 

The Chippewa National Forest is located in the heart of northern Minnesota, combining elements of western prairies and northern boreal forests. Within the forest, 

elements of these two ecosystems are found side by side: red oak next to white pine, 

wild ginger alongside wild rice, and Canada lynx habitat abutting sandhill crane 

territory. The Chippewa National Forest shares borders with the Leech Lake Band 

of Ojibwe. More than 400,000 acres of the Chippewa National Forest are actually 

lakes and wetlands. The Chippewa contains two of Minnesota’s five largest lakes, 

and eight different types of wetlands each with distinct plant and animal life. Sixtyseven of the 314 wildlife species that make their home on the Chippewa National 

Forest are dependent on lakes and wetlands. More than 230 species use wetlands 

and only 20 percent of Minnesota’s original wetland remain today. The first national 

forest west of the Mississippi River, the Chippewa National Forest is one of the few 

areas with wetlands essentially unchanged since settlement. This area is unique in 

that it contains some 40 wild rice producing lakes. 
312 

Through USFS’s Minnesota Wilderness acquisition program, four properties are 

available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 in the Superior and Chippewa National 

Forests. 

Wolf Island Phase II 

The 60-acre Wolf Island property in the Superior National Forest is located in 

Lake Vermilion and is a high priority for protection this year by USFS. Twenty-four 

miles long, Lake Vermilion is one of Minnesota’s largest vacation destination lakes. 

It is home to healthy populations of walleye, northern pike, muskie, bass, and 

bluegill, and was once named by National Geographic as one of the Nation’s 10 most 

scenic lakes. Wolf Island’s location affords scenic views of the beloved lake as well 

as the national forest. Its 60 acres are mostly high rolling land that is densely forested with mature aspen, pine, and maple. Its rich history is well documented by 

John Jaeger, a prominent Minneapolis architect who homesteaded the island after 

first visiting in 1906. Jaeger’s drawings identified cultural resources, including burial mounds and a canoe-building workshop plaza. 

Wolf Island is at risk of being lost to development. In order to ensure the protection of the island and access to quality resources in areas of second-home development pressure, The Trust for Public Land stepped in at the request of USFS to secure the island in March 2007, and $900,000 from the LWCF was appropriated in 

fiscal year 2010 to protect half the island. The acquisition of the entire island by 

the Superior National Forest will bring into public ownership an outstanding scenic 

resource and access for paddlers, boaters, and other recreational users who follow 

in the footprints of both Native Americans and voyageurs of years gone by. 

Stony Point 

The 40-acre Stony Point property is located on a prominent point on the shores 

of Leech Lake in the Chippewa National Forest. Home to thousands of acres of waterfowl and other wildlife habitat, Leech Lake has one of the largest nesting populations of bald eagles in the lower 48 States—almost 200 pairs. The Stony Point 

bald eagle nesting site contains a half-mile of Leech Lake frontage. The pristine parcel is completely surrounded by national forest ownership and likely contains Native 

American artifacts. Acquisition by the Chippewa National Forest would eliminate 

the need for road access that would otherwise impact over a one-half mile of undisturbed wetlands. The property was purchased by a developer who intended to develop it into several homesites, thus depriving forest visitors of significant scenic 

and recreational values. 

Kremer Lake/Spider Lake 

Located on the eastern boundary of the Chippewa National Forest, the 120-acre 

Kremer Lake and Spider Lake properties offer substantial lakeshore protection 

along the Edge of the Wilderness National Scenic Byway (Rte. 38) near Grand Rapids in Itasca County. The Kremer Lake parcel is located along the north shore of 

this more than 80-foot deep small lake, which lies along the west side of the byway. 

The property has more than 3,000 feet of riparian shoreline and is adjacent to the 

Suomi Hills Semi-Primitive Recreation Area. The Spider Lake property is located 

along the west side of larger Spider Lake, which is mostly in USFS ownership. The 

tract contains more than 5,000 feet of shoreline and many acres of associated riparian and wetland habitat. Both properties, which are under a single ownership, are 

located within the Upper Mississippi River watershed. They contain wildlife habitat 

for the endangered gray wolf and the Canadian lynx, as well as for the sensitive 

bald eagle. Both tracts also offer substantial recreational opportunities, such as fishing, hiking and cross country skiing, and their acquisition would improve public access to the lakes for these purposes. 

Demand for summer recreational residences and hunting cabins is present in the 

area near Grand Rapids, and portions of the Kremer Lake and Spider Lake properties could be developed for this purpose. The acquisition of both tracts would 

eliminate any development threat and ensure permanent protection of critical water 

resources. Public acquisition of the remainder of Wolf Island and the entirety of the Stony 

Point, Kremer Lake, and Spider Lake properties will ensure that the attributes of 

the Northwoods region so treasured by its many visitors—the solitary sound of the 

common loon, the serenity of an evening paddle, the call of the wild—will be protected in perpetuity. An appropriation of $3.1 million from the LWCF in fiscal year 

2011 will secure these properties and provide greater access for current and future 

generations of visitors to both secluded lakes and popular lakes within the forests 

that are such critical natural resources for the public. 

LWCF is our Nation’s premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands at 

national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and rec-
313 

reational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through 

recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For 

all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program 

in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to 

fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this 

committee faces, I also want to thank the subcommittee for its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in the 

LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to 

our great natural and historical heritage. 

My resort, located on Lake Vermilion relies on visitors to the great Northwoods 

of Minnesota. Protection of key places, such as Wolf Island, Stony Point, and 

Kremer Lake/Spider Lake are critical to insure that future generations can continue 

to enjoy these valued resources as well as contribute to the tourism economy in the 

area. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Minnesota, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND COALITION

Chairwoman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander and other members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. We begin this 

statement by applauding the subcommittee for the increases in the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) and Forest Legacy Program (FLP) funding contained in 

the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations 

bill, reversing almost a decade in dramatic program declines. We are equally delighted by increases for these programs proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2011 

Obama budget request—a great step towards the administration’s stated goal of 

fully funding the LWCF by the year 2014. We urge the subcommittee to set the 

course towards this goal by including substantial funding increases in the fiscal year 

2011 Interior, Environment, and Related AGencies appropriations bill for these two 

important programs. We recommend increasing the funding of Federal LWCF to 

$384 million, stateside LWCF to $50 million, and the allocation of $100 million for 

the FLP. 

Over the LWCF program’s 44-year history only once has it been fully funded at 

the congressionally authorized level of $900 million annually. Today, we face an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition needs in our national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, National Landscape Conservation System, 

and other Bureau of Land Management (BLM) units, wild and scenic rivers, and 

national trails. Critical natural, historical and recreational properties are being lost 

to inappropriate development that compromises management objectives and undermines resource protection across our Federal lands. Willing-seller landowners with 

conservation intent, wishing to see their property protected, wait years with no 

measurable prospect for Federal acquisition of their property. America’s irreplaceable wildlands, woodlands, farmlands, fish and wildlife habitats, scenic areas, historic sites, trails and neighborhood parks are being developed, fragmented, and otherwise sacrificed because there is simply not enough LWCF money to go around. 

The State grants component of the LWCF is in equal distress from insufficient 

funding. This program supports the protection of recreation lands and the development of parks at the State and local level to provide accessible, close-to-home recreation. These matching grants enable communities, counties, and States to acquire 

land and to build or improve recreational facilities. Despite low funding levels, the 

program has distributed funds to almost every county in the country for more than 

41,000 projects including creating parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, trails, 

and preserving forests and wildlife habitat. Across the Nation more than 6,600 State 

parks and countless local parks depend on this Federal partnership to help meet 

land acquisition and park infrastructure needs. Forty-four States recently reported 

that less than 5 percent of park funding needs are currently being met. The Federal 

partnership is largely missing from the funding equation and the social and economic benefits of these parks cannot be overstated. With soaring child obesity rates, 

spending time with children out-of-doors can inspire a lifetime of healthy exercise 

and outdoor activity, preventing disease and saving millions in healthcare costs. 

Today, we better understand that outdoor play also contributes to a child’s development on many levels including their capacity to be creative and problem solve, as 

well as their emotional and intellectual development. 
314 

The LWCF is a vital funding mechanism creating significant environmental, economic, and cultural benefits. Lands protected through the program include wilderness access points, river corridors popular with paddlers and anglers, endangered 

species habitat, beaches and coastal areas, campgrounds, historic battlefields, and 

pristine mountain forests. Eighty percent of the lands acquired with LWCF funds 

lie within the existing boundaries of Federal parks, refuges, forests, or recreation 

areas. Within our national parks alone, 1.9 million acres of inholdings identified for 

protection remain to be acquired and may be developed if they are not conserved. 

In 1990, Congress created another important tool to help protect forests. The FLP, 

administered by the USDA Forest Service (USFS), helps to preserve working 

forestlands threatened by conversion and development. This program leverages Federal funds with State and private monies to permanently protect forested properties 

by direct fee title purchase or through conservation easements. FLP enables landowners and communities to retain ownership of forestland and to continue to earn 

income from these resources through sustainable timber harvesting. This program 

also conserves open space, wildlife habitat, and clean water, and ensures continued 

opportunities for public recreation. 

To date, the FLP has protected almost 2 million acres in 42 States and Puerto Rico. Over the history of this highly successful program, a total of $456 million of 

Federal funds have been matched by more than $1 billion in non-Federal funds and 

donations, making the Federal share less than 50 percent of overall project costs. 

FLP program funding of $76 million in fiscal year 2010 reversed a funding decline 

of the previous 7 years. For fiscal year 2011, 63 conservation projects were submitted to the USFS by 41 States; the requests total more than $200 million in the 

FLP need to protect 361,604 acres of forestlands valued at more than $437 million. 

We applaud the President’s budget recommendation to provide a significant increase 

for the FLP program. However, additional funding is needed to meet pressing 

project needs and provide adequate project funding levels. To respond to this significant demand, we urge the subcommittee to support a funding level of $100 million 

in fiscal year 2011. 

In the face of the current economic downturn, we cannot underestimate the power 

public lands can have in turning the tide. Tourism dollars and visitation to our 

parks and public lands can serve as an economic engine for local and regional economies. For example, the National Association of State Park Directors reports that 

America’s State park system contributes $20 billion to local and State economies. 

Each year millions of Americans visit our public lands to enjoy hiking, wildlife 

watching, hunting, fishing, climbing, camping, mountain bicycling, horseback riding, 

photography, paddling and boating, cross-country and backcountry skiing, 

snowmobiling, and outdoor education and interpretation. The Outdoor Industry Association reports that active outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion annually to 

the U.S. economy, supporting 6.5 million jobs across the country. Investment by the 

Congress in the LWCF will yield greater public dividends now, than perhaps in any 

time in recent history. With property values significantly down from just a year ago, 

timely acquisition funding will make a real difference in addressing the backlog of 

Federal agencies’ land acquisition needs. In this market, public agencies can better 

compete with private buyers and developers, and can stretch LWCF dollars even 

further. In addition, LWCF and FLP funding can help landowners achieve their economic objectives through the sale of their land. 

A 2006 economic assessment of the National Park System produced by the National Parks Conservation Association determined that national park visitors spend 

more than $13 billion annually in communities surrounding parks supporting 

267,000 jobs. Similarly, a recent Fish and Wildlife Service report, Banking on Nature, revealed that the 40 million annual visitors to national wildlife refuges generate more than $1.7 billion in annual sales to local economies, resulting in the creation of 27,000 jobs. 

The LWCF and FLP are needed now more than ever to protect watershed, wildlife, and support local economies. Fighting wildfires along the wildland-urban interface is costing the American taxpayer billions of dollars annually. Using the LWCF 

for strategic land purchases in and adjacent to public lands to prevent private development in the most fire prone areas will allow agencies to implement better fire prevention management in these critical zones. Furthermore, the FLP provides States 

and private landowners with a tool to maintain key areas as working forests and 

to prevent inappropriate development. 

Drinking water quality and quantity greatly depend on the protection of 

forestlands, grasslands, and wetlands ranging from high elevation watersheds to 

coastlines. These acres filter pollutants, prevent erosion along rivers, and decrease 

the costs and damage from floods and storms. Headwaters, river corridors, lakeshores, and estuaries also provide critical natural habitat and migratory corridors 
315 

for fish and wildlife. The American public deeply values the protection of water resources. A 2008 summary of local and statewide polls conducted nationwide ranked 

clean water as the top conservation concern for 88 percent of the people polled. Protection of land and water through LWCF purchases in and around our national forests, parks, refuges and other conservation areas helps maintain the long-term integrity of our Nation’s water quality and water supplies. Maintaining working forests with FLP dollars provides a critical tool to protect valuable community watersheds. 

Today, our Federal, State, and private conservation lands and waterways provide 

a critical opportunity to address the unprecedented challenges that climate change 

poses to our forests, fish and wildlife, and riparian resources. The strategic protection of key inholdings, buffer areas, and wildlife migration corridors within and adjacent to existing public lands enhances adaptation efforts and fosters intact landscapes. These natural areas also store carbon, buffer flooding, conserve water, and 

support healthy fisheries and wildlife populations. Hand-in-hand with mitigating 

the deleterious impacts of our environment from burning fossil fuels is the need to 

respond to climate change with a foresighted investment in land protection and natural resource adaptation across the Federal public lands. 

In closing, we thank the subcommittee for your continuing leadership on Federal 

land conservation and meeting the environmental and recreation needs of citizens 

at the State and community levels through programs such as LWCF. The LWCF 

Coalition stands ready to work with you to secure full and consistent funding for 

the LWCF and FLP. Thank you. 

THE UNDERSIGNED ORGANIZATIONS

The Access Fund; American Canoe Association; American Hiking Society; American Land Conservancy; American Rivers; American Whitewater; Appalachian 

Mountain Club; Appalachian Trail Conservancy; California State Parks Foundation; 

Choose Outdoors; City Parks Alliance. 

Civil War Preservation Trust; The Conservation Fund; Conservation Trust for 

North Carolina; Defenders of Wildlife; Eastern Forest Partnership; Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge; Highlands Coalition; International Mountain 

Bicycling Association; Land Trust Alliance; Land Trust for the Little Tennessee. 

National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers; National Association of State Park Directors; National Audubon Society; National Park Trust National Parks Conservation Association; National Recreation and Park Association; 

National Wildlife Federation; National Wildlife Refuge Association; The Nature Conservancy; New Mexico Wildlife Federation; New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. 

North Country Trail Association; Northern Forest Alliance; Northern Sierra Partnership; Outdoor Alliance; Outdoor Industry Association; Outdoors America; Pacific 

Crest Trail Association; The Pacific Forest Trust; Pacolet Area Conservancy; Partnership for the National Trails System. 

Sierra Business Council; Sierra Club; Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests; Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition; Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy; Tennessee Parks and Greenways Foundation Trout Unlimited; 

The Trust for Public Land; Western Rivers Conservancy; The Wilderness Society; 

Wildlife Forever; Winter Wildlands Alliance World Wildlife Fund. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MOTHER LODE CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the Mother Lode Chapter of the 

Sierra Club in support of acquiring land at Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests 

in California. An appropriation of $5.5 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund in order for the Forest Service to acquire 

an assemblage of properties totaling 3,187 acres. 

The Mother Lode Chapter members are very concerned about the wildlife and 

other amenities of these neighboring forests. The irrational checkerboard ownership 

pattern in the central Sierra Nevada is one of the most significant challenges facing 

Forest Service land management. Incompatible uses on private parcels interspersed 

with public lands degrade wildlife habitat, water quality, recreational access, and 

scenic views on the public lands and complicate forest management and fire control. 

Disruption of north-south habitat connectivity, essential to wildlife migration in the 

Sierra Nevada, will have much more serious effects as climate change significantly 

shifts wildlife habitats. For these reasons, the Forest Service has made consolidation 

of public ownership in checkerboard areas an acquisition priority in California. Ac-
316 

quiring all the private lands in the checkerboard region with significant wildlife, watershed, scenic, and recreational values will be a very long-term effort; consistent 

progress is essential. 

We are asking you to support funding for parcels in six areas, all but one of which 

are in the region of checkerboard ownership. These parcels are the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests’ highest acquisition priorities in fiscal year 2011. The merits 

of the parcels in each area are briefly described below. 

Castle Peak Area (Tahoe National Forest, checkerboard region) 

Our highest priorities for acquisition are parcels in the Castle Peak area on the 

Sierra Crest in Tahoe National Forest. Most of the Castle Peak area is included in 

the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness. The Castle Peak area is highly scenic and is 

a very popular year-round recreation area for the large populations of northern California and western Nevada. Thousands of acres in the Castle Peak area have been 

purchased in recent years, thanks in part to your support, but the acquisitions are 

not yet complete. 

The White Rock Lake parcel, most of which is roadless, is on the northern edge 

of the Proposed Wilderness. Including the roadless portion of the parcel in the Proposed Wilderness would make its boundary more logical and defensible. Acquisition 

of the parcel would consolidate public ownership of the White Rock Lake watershed, 

better protecting the Lake and its population of Federal endangered mountain yellow-legged frogs. 

Two parcels southwest of Castle Peak and close to the Proposed Wilderness have 

significant recreational values. Acquisition of these parcels would make possible an 

improved routing of the popular Hole in Ground bicycle trail onto public lands. 

These parcels, which are near already subdivided lands, are potential locations for 

second-home development, which makes their acquisition more urgent. 

Sagehen Creek Watershed (Tahoe National Forest, checkerboard region) 

The University of California’s Sagehen Creek Field Station has used the Sagehen 

Creek watershed as an outdoor classroom and site for wildlife, forestry, and hydrology research since 1951. Recognizing this use, the Forest Service has designated the 

public lands in the watershed as the Sagehen Creek Experimental Forest. 

Consolidated public ownership of the Experimental Forest would ensure that incompatible activities on private land in the watershed do not confound research data 

and restrict educational activities. Acquisition of sections 13 and 15 on the southern 

and western boundaries of the Experimental Forest would significantly decrease the 

private lands in the Sagehen Creek watershed. Acquisition would also add to the 

public lands in the north-south wildlife corridor on and near the Sierra Crest, in 

which ownership is significantly fragmented. 

Lacey Valley Meadows and Webber Lake (Tahoe National Forest, checkerboard region) 

The 1,500 acres of beautiful subalpine meadow in Lacey Valley south of Webber 

Lake are an outstanding feature of a 3,000-acre property in the vicinity of the Lake 

that will be available for acquisition. Two sections in the upper end of the Valley 

are available in fiscal year 2011. 

The meadow and riparian areas of Lacey Valley are habitat for waterfowl and for 

the willow flycatcher, which is on the State endangered list. The meadow and the 

surrounding uplands provide habitat for deer and numerous species of raptors and 

predators. 

Though meadows are only a small percentage of the lands within Tahoe National 

Forest, they contribute disproportionately to the forest’s scenic, wildlife, and recreation values. A large proportion of meadows within the Forest are privately owned; 

early settlers valued the resources of meadows and their suitability for settlement. 

Now meadows are attractive locations for second-home and resort development 

which seriously degrades their ecosystems and denies the general public access. 

Promptly responding to opportunities to acquire meadows is essential because 

meadows are so attractive to residential and resort developers. Acquisition of the 

forested ridges surrounding the Lacey Valley meadows ensures protection of the 

meadows and creeks. 

English Mountain (Tahoe National Forest, checkerboard region) 

Purchase of this parcel would help consolidate very fragmented public ownership 

immediately northeast of English Mountain by acquiring the remainder of a checkerboard section. The parcel contains most of the northeastern slopes of English 

Mountain and also Secret Lake, a small alpine tarn, and its outlet stream. Purchase 

of the section is the beginning of the highly desirable eventual consolidation of public ownership of beautiful English Meadow and other meadows along the Middle 
317 

Yuba River. The Grouse Lakes Potential Wilderness, which includes the summit of 

English Mountain, is immediately to the south of the parcel. Though part of the section has been logged, some mature mixed conifer forest remains. 

Big Avalanche Cave (Tahoe National Forest, checkerboard region) 

Public ownership of the parcel would protect and guarantee public access to this 

regionally significant limestone cave system with 1,500 to 2,000 feet of passages. In 

the opinion of northern California speleologists, Big Avalanche Cave, where extensive exploration of easy passages with minimal resource impacts is possible, is the 

most important recreational cave in the northern Sierra Nevada. A colony of Townsend’s Big-eared Bats, a species of concern in California, occupies a summer roost 

a few miles away. The cave is a suitable and likely winter hibernation site for this 

colony. Both the Western Cave Conservancy and the National Speleological Society 

support this acquisition. 

Martin Meadow (Eldorado National Forest) 

The volcanic ridge east of Silver Lake, between Silver Lake and the Kirkwood Ski 

Area, is a striking scenic backdrop for Silver Lake. This parcel is on the west slope 

of the ridge, within a potential addition to the Mokelumne Wilderness, surrounded 

on three sides by Forest Service land. Public ownership of the parcel will preserve 

its wilderness character and the wilderness character of surrounding national forest 

lands. 

Conclusion 

Your past support of appropriations to purchase private lands with significant 

wildlife and recreational values in Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests has been 

invaluable. The Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club urges you to continue your 

past support by supporting this $5.5 million appropriation for fiscal year 2011. 

LETTER FROM THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

March 26, 2010. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SEANTOR FEINSTEIN: Support for fiscal year 2011 Federal funding of $5.9 

million for the Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 

assist in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, with $1.5 million to 

be designated specifically to identified salinity control efforts. 

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) has adopted a position supporting funding for the BLM’s Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Title II Program. 

For 70 years Metropolitan has provided imported water to the southern California 

region from the Colorado River and the State Water Project originating in northern 

California. Our mission is to provide high quality, reliable drinking water supplies 

primarily for municipal and industrial use. Metropolitan is the Nation’s largest provider of imported water to an urban area. The population today in our service area 

is 19 million and it is projected to rise to 25 million within the next 25 years. Metropolitan is comprised of 26 member public agencies that serve an area spanning 

5,200 square miles and 6 southern California counties. 

Water imported via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) has the highest salinity 

of Metropolitan’s imported sources of supply, averaging around 630 milligrams per 

liter since 1976 and causing economic damages. For example, damages occur from: 

—A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use for 

leaching in the agricultural sector; 

—A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector; 

—An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water softening, and 

a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector; 

—An increase in the cost of water treatment and sewer fees in the industrial sector; 

—A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector; 

—Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, 

and an increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation 
318 

of salts in groundwater basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to 

groundwater quality deterioration; 

—Increased use of imported water for leaching; and 

—Increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycled water. 

Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for many years. To 

deal with the concern, the International Boundary and Water Commission approved 

Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of 

the Salinity of the Colorado River in 1973, and the President approved the Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974. High total dissolved solids in the Colorado 

River as it entered Mexico and the concerns of the seven Colorado River Basin 

States regarding the quality of Colorado River water in the United States drove 

these initial actions. To foster interstate cooperation on this issue and coordinate 

the Colorado River Basin States’ efforts on salinity control, the seven Basin States 

formed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum). 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program reduces salinity by preventing 

salts from dissolving and mixing with the River’s flow. Irrigation improvements 

(sprinklers, gated pipe, lined ditches, etc.) and vegetation management reduce the 

amount of salt transported to the Colorado River. Point sources such as saline 

springs are also controlled. The Federal Government, Basin States, and contract 

participants spend close to $50 million annually on salinity control programs. 

The Program, as set forth in the act, benefits both the Upper Colorado River 

Basin water users through more efficient water management and the Lower Basin 

water users, hundreds of miles downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin, 

through reduced salinity concentration of Colorado River water. California’s Colorado River water users are presently suffering economic damages in the hundreds 

of millions of dollars per year due to the River’s salinity. 

By some estimates, concentrations of salts in the Colorado River cause approximately $350 million in quantified damages in the lower Colorado River Basin States 

each year and significantly more in unquantified damages. Salinity control projects 

have reduced salinity concentrations of Colorado River water on average by more 

than 100 milligrams per liter with an economic benefit of $264 million per year 

(2005 dollars) in avoided damages. 

The BLM’s budget justification document has stated that the BLM continues to 

implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in cooperation with the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

and report salt-retaining measures in order to further the Plan of Implementation 

of Federal Salinity Control Program in the Colorado River Basin. The BLM budget, 

as proposed in the BLM Budget Justification Document, calls for five principal program priorities within the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of the 

priorities is reducing saline runoff in the Colorado River Basin to meet the interstate, Federal and international agreements to control salinity of the Colorado 

River. 

As you are aware, BLM is the largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin. Due 

to geological conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and managed by the 

BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past management practices have led to humaninduced and accelerated erosion processes from which soil and rocks, heavily laden 

with salt have been deposited in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result, 

salts are dissolved into the Colorado River system causing water quality problems 

downstream. 

Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River. BLM’s rangeland improvement 

programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures available. These measures significantly complement programs and activities being considered for implementation by the USBR through its Basin-wide Program and by 

the USDA through its on-farm Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 

Metropolitan requests that Congress appropriate $5.9 million to BLM for fiscal 

year 2011 and urges the subcommittee to specifically designate $1.5 million of that 

amount for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program as has been the direction to BLM from the subcommittee in past years. 

Over the past years, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control program has proven to be a very cost effective approach to help mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado River. Continued Federal funding of this important Basinwide program is essential. 

I would appreciate it if you make this statement a part of the formal hearing 

record concerning fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the BLM. I thank you for your 
319 

subcommittee’s support of this program in years past and hope that you will again 

support funding to continue this valuable program. 

With best regards, 

JEFFREY KIGHTLINGER, 

General Manager. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MAUMELLE WATER EXCELLENCE PROJECT

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of the Maumelle Water Excellence 

(MWE) project in Arkansas. An appropriation of $4 million from the Forest Legacy 

Program (FLP) is needed in order to protect a 594-acre property. I am thankful that 

this project was included in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2011 at 

a funding level of $2.5 million. However, the project can be completed in fiscal year 

2011 with an appropriation of $4 million. 

In 2004, the State of Arkansas enrolled in the USDA’s FLP to help address forest 

fragmentation resulting from increased development pressure and an increased demand for outdoor public recreation. For the second year in a row, the Arkansas Forestry Commission, the lead implementing agency for the FLP in Arkansas, has 

made the MWE project the State’s top-ranked FLP project. 

The Maumelle Water Excellence (MWE) project proposes to conserve more than 

900 acres of pristine forested land along 3.6 miles of the Big Maumelle River 

through fee title acquisition. The MWE project would create an invaluable link between existing public lands and would form a protected riparian corridor leading to 

Lake Maumelle, the primary drinking water supply for approximately 400,000 Central Arkansas residents. Successfully completing the project will help preserve forests and sensitive habitat that serve a vital role in providing a high-quality drinking 

water supply for the region. 

The project is part of a 915-acre sod farm previously owned by a private investment group, of which 594 acres are forested and eligible for FLP funding. The nonforested portion of the sod farm will be purchased with non-Federal money, where 

water quality conservation measures will be implemented, and forests and native 

grasses will be planted. Non-Federal funding would also be used to establish the 

Watershed Center of Excellence, a partnership of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and local, State, and Federal agencies tasked to educate the public on watershed management, water quality conservation techniques, and beneficial stream 

reconstruction. 

The property consists of bottomland hardwoods and cypress breaks, which are 

rare for the Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion. These forests provide habitat for the 

federally listed endangered harperella plant, multiple species of migratory waterfowl, many small- and large-game species, and the Prothonotary Warbler, which is 

listed in the Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan as a species of great conservation need. 

The MWE project offers tremendous recreational opportunities for the region. The 

project will, for example, create new opportunities for hiking, fishing, and hunting. 

Protection of this project area will open more hunting grounds for Little Rock area 

residents and offer targeted hunter education to area youth. 

The MWE project also provides a significant national benefit by protecting several 

miles of the Ouachita National Recreation Trail (ONRT) viewshed. ONRT is a scenic 

trail formally designated by the Secretary of Agriculture under the National Trail 

System Act of 1968. ONRT is 224 miles long stretching from eastern Oklahoma 

across 192 miles of the Ouachita National Forest and 32 miles of private/other public lands to central Arkansas ending at Pinnacle Mountain State Park. The ONRT 

runs immediately adjacent to 2.2 miles of the MWE’s southern boundary and continues onto property Central Arkansas Water already owns. 

The State of Arkansas, Central Arkansas Water (CAW), and Arkansas Game & 

Fish Commission have pledged considerable funds to protect the lands along the Big 

Maumelle River. This impressive collaboration, which has allocated more than $8 

million in non-Federal funding to protect this property, offers tremendous value and 

a remarkable opportunity to help preserve an important landscape in Arkansas. 

The most significant threats to the water quality of Lake Maumelle are development and deforestation. Located just 15 miles west of Little Rock, the State’s capitol, this property is at the edge of development in the metro area. Given the popularity of Lake Maumelle, housing density within its watershed is expected to increase between 5 to 20 percent in the next 20 years. The MWE project offers to protect important endangered species habitat, preserve and restore working forests, 

boost outdoor recreational opportunities, and safeguard a critical water supply—all 

within 15 miles of the State capital. 
320 

The property is available now for permanent protection. An appropriation of $4 million from the FLP in fiscal year 2011 would be matched by more than $8 million 

in State and other public funds to allow the conservation of this critical natural resource property and ensure safe drinking water for area residents. 

I urge you to do all you can to ensure that this worthwhile program is funded adequately in fiscal year 2011 and that the MWE project receives $4 million in fiscal 

year 2011. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Arkansas, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED MINE LAND

PROGRAMS

My name is Michael Garner and I am Director of Maryland’s Abandoned Mine 

Land Program. I also serve as President of the National Association of Abandoned 

Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP). The NAAMLP represents 30 States and tribes 

with federal approved abandoned mine land reclamation (AML) programs authorized under title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). 

title IV of SMCRA was amended in 2006 and significantly changed how State AML 

grants are funded. Beginning in fiscal year 2008, State AML grants are funded primarily by mandatory appropriations. As a result, the States should receive $413.2 

million in fiscal year 2011. Instead OSM has budgeted an amount of $259.5 million 

for State AML grants, a reduction of $153.7 million. The proposed spending cuts 

would eliminate funding to States and tribes that have ‘‘certified’’ completion of 

their highest-priority coal reclamation sites. OSM has also proposed to $20 million 

reduction in discretionary spending that would eliminate the Federal emergency 

program under 410 of SMCRA. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and present 

this statement to the Subcommittee on issues related to the proposed fiscal year 

2011 budget for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM). 

SMCRA was passed in 1977 and set national regulatory and reclamation standards for coal mining. The act also established a Reclamation Fund to work towards 

eliminating the innumerable health, safety and environmental problems that existed 

across the Nation from the mines that were abandoned prior to the act. The Fund 

generates revenue through a fee on coal production. This fee is collected by OSM 

and distributed to States and tribes that have federal approved regulatory and AML 

programs. The promise Congress made in 1977, and with every subsequent amendment to the act, was that, at a minimum, half the money generated from fees collected within the boundaries of a State or tribe, referred to as ‘‘State share’’, would 

be returned for uses described in the act if the State or tribe assumed responsibility 

for regulating coal mining according to SMCRA. If a State or tribe was successful 

in completing reclamation of abandoned coal mines and was able to ‘‘certify’’ according to section 411, then the State share funds could be used to address a myriad 

of other problems related to noncoal mining, public facilities, infrastructure, water 

supply and environmental cleanup. The 2006 amendments clarified the scope of 

what the State share funds could be used for and reaffirmed the promise made by 

Congress in 1977. Currently, certified States and tribes are using the funds ‘‘with 

priority given for addressing the impacts of mineral development’’ as provided for 

in the act. These include environmental stewardship, cleaning up abandoned coal 

and hardrock mines nationwide, creating green jobs, sustainable development, infrastructure improvements, and alternative energy projects. These funds stimulate economic activity in local communities by putting money to work on the ground in an 

expeditious manner, and protecting public health and safety—all the while improving the environment. 

The reduction in certified State AML grants proposed by OSM not only breaks 

the promise of State share funding, but will upset the balance and compromise that 

was achieved in the comprehensive restructuring of SMCRA accomplished in the 

2006 amendments following more than 10 years of discussion and negotiation. The 

reduction in funding is also inconsistent with the goals set forth in the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The certified State AML programs have 

been up and operating effectively and have been achieving many of the goals and 

objectives set forth in the ARRA for more than 30 years. We therefore respectively 

ask the subcommittee to continue the funding for certified States at the statutory 

authorized levels and turn back any efforts to amend SMCRA. 

In addition to the $153.7 million reduction, the proposed fiscal year 2011 budget 

would also eliminate or redirect $20 million annually from the Federal AML emergency program. This would eliminate all funding for the emergency program and 
321 

leave the States and tribes to rely on funds received through their non-emergency 

AML grant funds. This is contradictory to the 2006 amendments that require the 

States and tribes to maintain ‘‘strict compliance’’ with the non-emergency funding 

priorities described in section 403(a), while leaving Section 410, Emergency Powers, 

unchanged. 

Section 410 of SMCRA requires OSM to fund the emergency AML program using 

OSM’s ‘‘discretionary share’’ under section (402)(g)(3)(B), which is entirely separate 

from State and tribal nonemergency AML grant funding under sections (402)(g)(1), 

(g)(2), and (g)(5). SMCRA does not allow States and tribes to administer or fund an 

AML emergency program from their nonemergency AML grants, although, since 

1989, 15 States have agreed to implement the emergency program on behalf of OSM 

contingent upon OSM providing full funding for the work. By using the State’s existing AML programs to abate the emergencies, OSM has been able to fulfill their 

mandated obligation more effectively and efficiently. There are 10 States and 3 

tribes that continue to rely solely on OSM to operate the emergency program within 

their jurisdiction. 

Emergencies are defined as ‘‘a sudden danger with a high probability of substantial physical harm to the health, safety and general welfare of people before they 

can be abated under normal program operation procedures’’ (OSM Directive AML– 

4). Regardless of whether a State AML Program or OSM operates the emergency 

program, OSM has always retained the authority to ‘‘declare’’ the emergency which 

clears the way for the expedited procedures to be implemented. The emergency declaration is done by making the findings described in section 410 that ‘‘(1) an emergency exists constituting a danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare; 

and (2) no other person or agency will act expeditiously to restore, reclaim, abate, 

control, or prevent the adverse effects of coal mining practices.’’ In fiscal year 2009 

OSM made 183 emergency declarations in Kentucky and Pennsylvania alone, States 

where OSM operates the emergency program. As part of these declarations, OSM 

has made the finding (183 times in 2009) that they are the only agency that can 

‘‘act expeditiously to restore, reclaim, abate.’’ the emergency. And yet in fiscal year 

2011, OSM now asserts this is no longer the case. OSM has not developed legislation, regulations, procedures, directives or policies to transfer emergency powers to 

the States and tribes, nor has OSM received a solicitor’s opinion regarding the legality of this transfer. OSM’s only guidance to the States has been that beginning in 

2011 the agency ‘‘will no longer declare emergencies’’ which simply ignores the 

emergency situation and OSM’s statutorily mandated obligation to address it. Simply denying that emergencies exist does nothing to protect the public or allow States 

and tribes to make progress towards certification. 

If Congress allows the elimination of the emergency program, States and tribes 

will have to adjust to their new role by setting aside a large portion of their nonemergency AML grant funds so that they can be prepared for any emergency that 

may arise. Emergency projects come in all shapes and sizes, vary in number from 

year to year and range in cost from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. This 

will result in funds being diverted from other high-priority projects. It will also 

delay certification under section 411 and increase the backlog of projects on the 

Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS). For minimum program States 

and States with small AML programs, large emergency projects will require the 

States to redirect all or most of their AML resources to address the emergency delaying other high-priority reclamation. In a worst-case scenario, a minimum program State would have to ‘‘save up’’ multiple years of appropriations to eliminate 

a costly emergency. Furthermore, by failing to fund the emergency program each 

year, OSM will be adding to the Federal expense share, section 402(g)(3), that resides in the AML Trust Fund. This share already stands at approximately $420 million and will continue to grow by at least $20 million per year if discretionary funds 

are not appropriated for the emergency program. One of the congressional objectives 

in restructuring the funding formula in the 2006 Amendments was to assure that 

AML fees collected annually are put to use on the ground where they can make a 

difference. What better way to accomplish this than to provide Federal funding to 

address emergency reclamation work each year. 

Finally, it should be kept in mind that eliminating $20 million for emergency 

funding will ultimately reduce reclamation funding by over $200 million for the life 

of the AML program. As previously stated, AML reclamation achieves many of the 

goals envisioned in the ARRA. For the reasons above, we urge the subcommittee to 

restore $20 million for the AML emergency program in fiscal year 2011. 

Included in the mandatory funding mentioned above is supplemental funding for 

‘‘minimum program’’ States. Under the funding formula contained in the 2006 

amendments to SMCRA, all of the States are to receive sizeable funding increases 

except for minimum program States. We urge Congress to fund these States at the 
322 

1Our Nation’s Air: Status and Trends Through 2008 (February 2010), EPA, www.epa.gov/ 

airtrends/2010/. 

statutorily authorized level of ‘‘not less than $3 million annually’’ in fiscal year 2011 

to allow these States to proceed with the critical AML projects awaiting funding. 

The current phase-in approach limits funding to $2.25 million which greatly inhibits 

the ability of these States to accomplish much in the way of substantive AML 

work—especially given their inventory of remaining high priority problems and the 

looming possibility of emergency projects. 

One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML restoration work is 

through leveraging or matching other grant programs, such as EPA’s 319 program. 

Until fiscal year 2009, language was always included in OSM’s appropriation that 

encouraged the use of these types of matching funds, particularly for the purpose 

of environmental restoration related to treatment or abatement of acid mind drainage (AMD) from abandoned mines. This is an ongoing, and often expensive, problem, 

especially in Appalachia. NAAMLP therefore requests the Committee to once again 

include language in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill that would allow the use 

of AML funds for any required non-Federal share of the cost of projects by the Federal government for AMD treatment or abatement. 

We also urge the subcommittee to support funding for OSM’s training program, 

including monies for student travel. These programs are central to the effective implementation of State regulatory programs as they provide necessary training and 

continuing education for State agency personnel. NAAMLP also urges the subcommittee to support funding for TIPS, a program that directly benefits both the 

AML and Regulatory Programs in the States by providing critical technical assistance. In this regard, we also request that the subcommittee restore the $303,000 

for these two programs that has been proposed for reduction. We also request that 

the subcommittee direct OSM not to make any further adjustments to these programs in order to focus resources on other regulatory program activities related to 

the June 11 MOU, as suggested in OSM’s budget justification document. Finally, 

we support funding for the Watershed Cooperative Agreements in the amount of 

$1.55 million. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget is of great concern to the NAAMLP membership for 

the reasons described above and because it is counter to the objectives of title IV 

of the act and disregards the intentions of Congress that have been made clear from 

1977 to the most recent amendments in 2006. This OSM budget proposal was developed unilaterally and did not include any participation by the States and tribes who 

have historically worked jointly with OSM in the drive to protect the public safety 

and welfare since the inception of SMCRA over three decades ago. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN AIR AGENCIES

The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), representing the State 

and local air quality agencies in 53 States and territories and more than 165 metropolitan areas across the country, appreciates this opportunity to provide testimony 

on the fiscal year 2011 budget for the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). NACAA supports the President’s request for an $82.5 million increase in Federal grants for State and local air pollution control agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act—part of the State and Tribal Assistance 

Grant (STAG) program. This would raise the total amount for Section 103/105 air 

grants to State and local air agencies to $309.1 million. 

Air Pollution Presents a Serious Public Health Threat 

Air pollution is one of the most pressing public health problems facing our Nation. 

In this country alone, exposure to polluted air results in the deaths of tens of thousands of people prematurely every year and causes many other serious health problems, such as the aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease; decreased 

lung function; difficulty breathing; coughing; increased susceptibility to respiratory 

infections; effects on the brain, such as IQ loss and impacts on learning, memory, 

and behavior; and cancer. For sensitive populations, such as the elderly, children 

or individuals with underlying health problems, the risks are even greater. Air pollution is also damaging in other ways, including harming vegetation and land and 

water systems, impairing visibility and causing adverse impacts on climate. 

Exposure to air pollution is widespread. According to EPA data, approximately 

127 million people lived in counties that exceeded at least one of the health-based 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in 2008.1 When a new healthbased standard for ozone is issued, this number will likely be higher. With respect 
323 

2 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 2002—Fact Sheet, www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/ 

factsheet.html. 3 Investing in Clean Air and Public Health: A Needs Survey of State and Local Air Pollution 

Control Agencies, NACAA (April 2009). 

to hazardous air pollutants, also called ‘‘air toxics,’’ EPA estimates that nearly everyone in the United States has an increased cancer risk of greater than 10 in 1 

million (1 in 1 million is generally considered ‘‘acceptable’’).2 Air pollution probably 

causes more deaths than any other problem under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The President’s Request Recognizes the Importance of Healthful Air Quality 

As stated at the outset, NACAA supports the President’s request of $309.1 million 

for State and local air grants, which represents an increase of $82.5 million above 

the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2010, and strongly urges Congress to appropriate funds at this level. Even though this increase will not fully address the funding deficit that State and local air agencies have been facing for many years, which 

will be discussed further in a moment, it will be enormously helpful as we continue 

our existing programs and take on additional responsibilities in fiscal year 2011. 

Such an increase, especially during these difficult economic times, is recognition by 

the administration that clean air is critically important to public health and the 

welfare of this country and that the benefits of reducing air pollution far outweigh 

the costs of the program. We are very grateful for the President’s support of our 

efforts and hope that Congress will appropriate the requested amount in recognition 

of the importance of protecting public health. 

State and Local Air Quality Efforts are in Need of Significant Increases 

State and local air quality agencies have struggled with insufficient resources for 

many years. Section 105 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the Federal Government 

to provide grants for up to 60 percent of the cost of State and local air programs, 

while States and localities must provide a 40-percent match. In reality, however, 

State and local air agencies report that they provide 77 percent of their budgets (not 

including permit fees under the Federal title V program), while Federal grants constitute only 23 percent. Clearly State and local agencies are providing far more than 

their fair share of the funding. The chart below illustrates these funding trends. 

Moreover, the continuing adverse impacts of the recession at the State and local 

levels strain already stressed budgets and cause States and localities to make painful decisions to reduce funding or cut air programs that are important for public 

health. As a result, States and localities must increasingly rely on Federal contributions. Unfortunately, Federal grants to these agencies (as the chart shows) have remained relatively stagnant and the purchasing power of State and local agency resources has actually decreased due to inflation. In fact, in terms of purchasing 

power, Federal grants have decreased by nearly 10 percent between fiscal year 2000 

and fiscal year 2010. At the same time, the responsibilities these public health agencies face have increased dramatically. 

Last year, NACAA conducted a survey of State and local air pollution control 

agencies, requesting information about the additional resources they need to fulfill 

responsibilities that are fundamental to their programs.3 The results of this study 

show there is an annual shortfall of $550 million in Federal grant appropriations 

for State and local air programs. These agencies cannot carry out their programs 
324 

effectively with such enormous deficits. Insufficient funds and increasing workloads 

have combined to undermine the ability of State and local agencies to adequately 

address air pollution and protect public health. 

While the President’s request does not fully address all our funding needs, it will 

be very helpful as we continue our efforts to obtain and maintain healthful air quality for our Nation. Because State and local agencies already provide 77 percent of 

their budgets, meeting the 40-percent match associated with this increase nationally 

should not be a problem. 

The President’s Budget Request Will Provide Funds for Critical Programs 

The proposed budget calls for increases in three primary areas: Core Activities 

($45 million), Increasing Capacity for Greenhouse Gas Permitting ($25 million); and 

Monitoring ($12.5 million). All of these efforts are extremely important and are in 

need of increased financial support. The following are a few words about each one. 

Core Activities.—We commend the President for recognizing the importance of 

State and local agencies’ core programs, as illustrated by the request for an additional $45 million in grant funds to support those activities. While new and innovative efforts are important and necessary, we cannot forget how critical the ongoing 

core programs are, including the day-to-day activities that serve as the foundation 

of our programs. For example, the additional funds will supplement the existing resources used for continuing program responsibilities and support the increasing 

workload that State and local air agencies face as EPA updates its health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Agencies will be required to update or prepare new State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead and fine particulates. For example, SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 standard are 

due in November 2012, for the new lead standard in 2011 and 2012, and for the 

new ozone standard in 2013. State and local agencies must begin developing these 

plans, which will require increasingly complex tasks, such as addressing multi-pollutant and multi State transport issues, compiling emission inventories, carrying 

out sophisticated modeling exercises, significantly expanding and operating monitoring networks and adopting and enforcing regulations, among other responsibilities. 

Increasing Capacity for Greenhouse Gas Permitting.—State and local agencies 

need to expand their capacity with respect to greenhouse gases (GHGs) so that they 

are able to transition to whatever GHG program EPA develops. For example, once 

GHGs are a ‘‘regulated pollutant’’ under the Clean Air Act, States and localities will 

be required to issue New Source Review permits for new and modified sources under 

the ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration’’ (PSD) program and Title V operating 

permits for existing sources. The $25 million increase would be used to prepare for 

these additional tasks by supporting staff development and training, program planning and analysis, source identification, outreach to industry and responding to the 

public. 

Monitoring.—State and local agencies must increase monitoring activities to address the new and revised standards related to ozone, lead, nitrogen dioxide and 

sulfur dioxide. Additionally, the public is demanding more monitoring of hazardous 

air pollution in locations where the public lives, works, attends school and plays. 

These efforts will require the purchase of additional ambient air monitoring equipment that will provide much-needed information about the levels of pollutants in 

the air and, later, the success of control measures. The President’s request calls for 

an additional $15 million for the acquisition of new monitoring equipment in fiscal 

year 2011 ($12.5 million in new funding and $2.5 million reprogrammed from air 

toxics monitoring at schools). While this amount is not sufficient to address all the 

additional monitoring needs, it will be very helpful for State and local agencies as 

they expand their monitoring capabilities to address the new and revised standards, 

as well as hazardous air pollutants. 

We note that EPA is once again recommending that fine particulate monitoring 

funds be shifted from section 103 authority, where no match is needed, to section 

105, which would require additional matching funds. We request that these funds 

remain under section 103 authority, as they have in the past. For individual agencies that have concerns about the matching requirements, this will ensure that they 

can continue receiving these monitoring funds. 

Diesel Retrofit Funding Should Be Increased 

NACAA is a member of a broad coalition representing public-interest, environmental, business and governmental organizations, among others. The coalition recommends that Congress provide $100 million in fiscal year 2011 for programs authorized by the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), which is an increase of $40 

million above the President’s request. The DERA programs are intended to decrease 
325 

the amount of harmful microscopic particles in the ambient air resulting from diesel 

exhaust. NACAA urges Congress to provide this funding to these important efforts. 

Conclusion 

The President’s budget request calls for a much-needed increase in grants to State 

and local air quality agencies at a time when these entities are required to continue 

their efforts and take on significant new responsibilities. While these increases 

would not fully address the enormous funding deficit that these programs face, they 

are a step in the right direction and would be vastly helpful to State and local air 

quality programs. 

NACAA recommends, therefore, that Congress appropriate the amount contained 

in the President’s fiscal year 2011 request for Federal grants to State and local air 

quality agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, which is $309.1 

million. This represents an increase of $82.5 million above the fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount. Additionally, NACAA recommends that DERA programs be 

funded in the amount of $100 million, which is $40 million above the President’s 

recommended amount. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue and for your consideration of the resource needs of State and local air quality programs as they work 

to improve and protect public health. 

LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOREST SERVICE RETIREES

MARCH 1, 2010. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, 

Washington, DC. 

Re: Fiscal year 2011 appropriation for the U.S. Forest Service 

DEAR CHAIRMAN FEINSTEIN AND SENATOR ALEXANDER: This letter sets forth the 

recommendations of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees regarding 

the fiscal year 2011 budget for the U.S. Forest Service. Members of the Association 

are men and women who spent their professional careers involved with the protection and management of our Nation’s forests and in research. Most members spent 

their careers working on the National Forests and Grasslands. We remain committed to the statutory management objectives for these lands that are vital to the 

well-being of the American people. We believe it is important, even in periods of 

tight budgets, to provide adequate protection and stewardship for these lands so 

they can serve the people and provide needed natural resources, such as water, over 

the long run. 

We want to acknowledge the efforts of this subcommittee to maintain the capability of the Forest Service to carry out its vital missions in the face of clearly inadequate budget requests in recent years. The President’s proposed budget for fiscal 

year 2011 shows much better recognition of the importance of Forest Service programs. Nevertheless, we feel it falls short in several areas that are discussed below. 

Research 

With the changed structure of the forest products industry, forest management research by major forest products firms has largely disappeared. Cutbacks in State 

budgets have reduced forest management research at universities. That leaves the 

Forest Service as the source of the science we need to properly manage our Nation’s 

forests. We badly need more answers to questions about how to manage forests for 

various purposes in a period of climate change. We need to find economic uses for 

the smaller material that we need to remove from the forest to reduce the vulnerability to fire, insects, and disease. 

We recommend an increase in Forest and Rangeland Research of 5 percent over 

fiscal year 2010 for research aimed at improving forest adaptability to changing climate, efficient resource use, and forest inventory and analysis. We limit our request 

to 5 percent given the current economic situation. Frankly an increase in research 

of about $90 million per year over the next 5 years is needed to provide a sound 

scientific foundation for the protection and management of our forests in the 21st 

century. 

We want the subcommittee to know of our concerns about the serious decline in 

the number of career, peer-reviewed scientists in the Forest Service. In spite of relatively stable appropriations for research, the number of career scientists in the 
326 

agency has declined from about 900 to just over 500. The agency has become increasingly dependant on short-term appointments and Post-Doc appointments. This 

decline affects the quality of the scientific work that is being done. It significantly 

reduces the ability of the agency to provide sound scientific advice to the agency, 

to the forest management community, and to the Congress. We urge the subcommittee to work with the agency to reverse this unfortunate trend. 

State and Private Forestry 

We were disappointed to see the administration propose reductions in funding for 

Forest Heath Management. Given the catastrophic losses to bark beetles in the 

West and the threat of lethal invasive insect species throughout the country, we believe an increase in funding for this activity is warranted. We recommend an increase of 3 percent over the 2010 appropriation for Forest Health Management on 

both Federal and Cooperative lands. 

We are also concerned about the proposed reduction in State Fire Assistance. The 

threat of fire on all ownerships is increasing. The cooperative relationships among 

Federal land management agencies, State fire agencies, and local fire agencies are 

a model for emergency response. Reducing support for State and local agencies will 

adversely affect the Nation’s overall capacity for wildfire and other emergency responses. The States are simply in no position to pick up these costs. We recommend 

no reduction in State Fire Assistance. 

The United Nations had designated 2011 as the Year of the Forests. Observances 

are planned throughout the world to call attention to the importance of forests to 

the quality of life. We recommend increasing the appropriation for International 

Forestry by $1 million to allow the Forest Service to participate with other Nation’s 

in this recognition. 

National Forest System 

The proposal to merge the Forest Products, Wildlife and Fisheries, and Vegetation 

and Watershed Management line items into a single line item will facilitate implementation of integrated management activities on the ground. When a Ranger receives funds in a number of discrete accounts, it is hard to match the money to the 

needs of a particular project. On the other hand, merging the line items will make 

it more difficult for people interested in particular activities to identify and track 

how their interests are being addressed. For example, the Budget Justification for 

2011 shows only acres to be treated to restore watershed function or resilience. No 

data is shown that identify the nature of the work that will be done. There is no 

data for targets previously displayed such as the area of forest vegetation to be improved, the area of forest vegetation to be established, the area of rangeland vegetation to be improved, the area of stream improvements, or the area of noxious weeds 

and invasive plants to be treated. People and cooperators with interest in the various activities should be able to find out what the agency is proposing to do and 

then find out if they did it. If this proposal is accepted, it will be important for the 

agency and the Congress to fully display planned work and to carefully track and 

report on activities within the line item. A single broad description such as restoring 

watershed function provides no basis for judging the need, priority, cost, or otherwise assessing the validity of the proposal. For example, if the appropriation for the 

line item is based on preparing and selling a given volume of timber, the agency 

will need to track and report on accomplishments for this activity. If the line items 

are merged, we suggest the combination be named Integrated Resource Management rather than Integrated Resource Restoration. Restoration of forests and watersheds to healthy conditions is important, but a significant amount of the work that 

is needed on our National Forests and Grasslands involves activities to maintain 

vegetation, watersheds and wildlife habitat in a healthy, sustainable condition. 

We appreciate the emphasis the subcommittee has given to funding needed Hazardous Fuel Treatments. This work is critical to reducing the vulnerability of our 

forests to catastrophic fire losses, as well as the threat to lives and property in the 

wildland urban interface. We believe, however, that it will not be possible to get on 

top of the growing fuels problem by relying only on appropriated funds. If we are 

going to succeed, we must find ways to capture the economic value of the material 

that needs to be removed from the forest. Much of this material can be used for conventional wood products, for composite materials, and for energy production. Not all 

of the material will fully pay its way out of the woods today, but even if its removal 

must be subsidized, it will be cheaper to utilize it than to treat it in place. Importantly, utilization of this material will create jobs in local forest-dependent communities where unemployment rates are high. We recommend an increase in the volume of timber to be prepared and offered for sale of 700 million board feet over that 

provided for fiscal year 2010. 
327 

The Forest Service reports a backlog of lands needing reforestation of about 1 million acres. This is based on the results of on the ground examinations and prescriptions. Based on the rate that the backlog has been reduced in recent years, it will 

take nearly 20 years to eliminate it. We are concerned that the actual area needing 

reforestation may be significantly larger than reported. For example, a rapid assessment of the 2007 fires showed that some 500,000 acres might need reforestation. 

The rapid assessment of the 2008 fires showed that potentially 227,000 acres might 

need reforestation. On-the-ground stand examinations are needed to identify how 

much of this burned land should be added to the backlog. We recommend a $6 million increase in funding over that provided in 2010 for reforestation so that stand 

examinations can be completed and the agency and this subcommittee will have the 

data needed to develop a plan for increasing the reforestation program to a level 

that will eliminate the backlog within 5 years. 

The administration proposes a small decrease in funding for Inventory and Monitoring. Inventory and monitoring are essential to professional management of forest 

resources and to insuring that activities meet established standards. Good information on the results of forest management activities is important to gaining and 

maintaining public support. We urge that funding for Inventory and Monitoring be 

continued at not less than the 2010 level. 

The National Forests and Grasslands are neighbors to thousand of landowners 

and communities. Maintaining property lines, inspecting authorized uses, and responding to requests for land uses and rights-of-way are essential to protecting the 

public property and to being a good neighbor. We recommend an increase of $5 million for Landownership Management. 

Capital Improvements and Maintenance 

We deplore the proposed reductions in funding for Capital Improvements and Facilities. We recognize that substantial funding for these activities was provided in 

the economic stimulus package, but large backlogs remain. If regular funding is reduced because of the economic stimulus funding, the benefits of the economic stimulus are lost. We particularly object to the reduction in funding for maintaining passenger car roads. The American people have a right to visit their National Forests 

and Grasslands. These roads are essential to recreation use that is important to the 

economies of local forest-dependant communities. They are important for the prompt 

initial attack on fires that is essential to controlling suppression costs. It has long 

been recognized that adequate access is essential to sustainable management and 

protection of forest lands. One of the premises of the reduction in the timber program in the 1990’s was that some of the employment losses would be made up by 

increases in recreation use. Recreation use on the National Forests is dependent on 

access by roads and trails. We urge that funding for Capitol Improvements and 

Maintenance be continued at fiscal year 2010 levels. 

Wildland Fire Management 

In response to Congressional direction, the budget proposes rebalancing funding 

for Preparedness and Suppression. This rebalancing is desirable. We were disappointed that the Administration failed to fully implement Congressional direction 

in the FLAME Act. Funding for fire suppression (Fire Operation-Suppression and 

the FLAME Fund) is based on the 10-year average cost of suppression. We recommend funding for fire suppression be based on the most recent 5-year average 

cost of suppression projected to 2011 as prescribed by the FLAME Act. Establishing 

a third fund for suppression has no merit. 

It is essential that the Forest Service has the capability to respond quickly with 

emergency watershed stabilization treatments following a wildfire. The flooding in 

Los Angeles following the Station Fire illustrates the importance of these funds. We 

urge that funding of NFP-Rehabilitation and Restoration be continued at 2010 levels. 

Earlier we expressed our concerns about the proposed reductions in Forest Health 

and State Fire Assistance under State and Private Forestry. We have the same concerns about the reductions in these programs under the National Fire Plan. We recommend an increase in funding for NFP-Forest Health of 3 percent. We recommend 

maintaining NFP-State Fire Assistance at the 2010 level; 

This subcommittee has been diligent in recognizing the special responsibility that 

the Congress has for the proper stewardship of our Nation’s forest lands and, particularly, the National Forests and Grasslands. We believe the recommendations set 
328 

forth above will help to insure that this natural heritage will serve the people now 

and in the future. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE M. LEONARD, 

Board of Directors. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE ENERGY OFFICIALS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Giudice of Massachusetts, and Chair of the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO). 

NASEO represents the energy offices in the States, territories and the District of 

Columbia. NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of funding for the Energy 

Star program (within the Climate Protection Division of the Office of Air and Radiation) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO supports funding of at least $75 million, including specific report language directing that the 

funds be utilized only for the Energy Star programs. The Energy Star programs are 

successful and cost-effective. They should be expanded, not reduced. With energy 

prices increasingly volatile, Energy Star can help consumers quickly. 

The Energy Star program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce the use of 

energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and works with States, 

local governments, and business to achieve these goals in a cooperative manner. 

NASEO has worked very closely with EPA and more than 40 States are Energy Star 

Partners. In 2005, EPA and NASEO announced a Clean Energy and Environment 

State Partnership program, which has many State members. We are also working 

closely with EPA on Home Performance with Energy Star. With very limited funding, EPA’s Energy Star program works closely with the State energy offices to give 

consumers and businesses the opportunity to make better energy decisions, without 

regulation or mandates. 

Energy Star focuses on energy efficient products as well as buildings. In 2008, 

550,000,000 Energy Star products were purchased. The Energy Star label is recognized across the United States. It makes the work of the State energy offices much 

easier, by working with the public on easily recognized products, services, and targets. In order to obtain the Energy Star label a product has to meet established 

guidelines. Energy Star’s voluntary partnership programs include Energy Star 

Buildings, Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Small Business and Energy Star Labeled Products. The program operates by encouraging consumers, working closely 

with State and local governments, to purchase these products and services. Marketplace barriers are also eradicated through education. State energy offices are working with EPA to promote Energy Star products, Energy Star for new construction, 

Home Performance with Energy Star (especially for existing homes), Energy Star for 

public housing, etc. 

In addition to the State partners, the program has more than 14,000 voluntary 

partners including more than 2,000 manufacturers using the label, more than 1,000 

retail partners, more than 5,000 builder partners, 4,500 businesses, 550 utilities and 

thousands of energy service providers. The Home Performance with Energy Star activity allows us to focus on whole-house improvements, not simply a single product 

or service. This is extremely beneficial to homeowners. Programs have already been 

undertaken in California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, 

Texas, and Wisconsin. We are also working closely with EPA in the implementation 

of the Energy Star Challenge, which is encouraging businesses and institutions to 

reduce energy use by 10 percent or more, usually through very simple actions. We 

are working with the building owners to identify the level of energy use and compare that to a national metric, establish goals and work with them to make the 

specified improvements. Again, this is being done without mandates. 

The State energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at EPA and in 

our States to promote programs to make schools more energy efficient, in addition 

to an expanding Energy Star business partners program. This expansion will continue. EPA has been expanding the technical assistance work with the State energy 

offices in such areas as benchmark training (how to rate the performance of buildings), setting an energy target and training in such areas as financing options for 

building improvements and building upgrade strategies. 

The State energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers in the State environmental agencies and State public utilities commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies are developed recognizing both energy and 

environmental concerns. We have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues. The level of cooperation from the agency has been extraordinary 

and we encourage these continued efforts. 
329 

Expansion of Energy Star 

The Energy Star program saves consumers billions of dollars every year. The payback is enormous. NASEO supports an increase of this program to $75 million in 

fiscal year 2011. The elements of the proposed expanded program are as follows: 

—$5 million in additional funding should be appropriated to expand the program 

to upgrade energy-inefficient homes (Home Performance with Energy Star and 

Qualified Installation with Energy Star). Consumers could save $500 per year 

on their energy expenditures, which is $10,000 more than 20 years (nominal 

dollars). This is real money in the pockets of consumers. It can help them stay 

in their homes and help the economy. There are significant, off-the-shelf energy 

efficiency measures that can be utilized. A large expansion of the Home Performance with Energy Star is the critical element of this initiative. Additional 

work to encourage quality installation of heating and cooling equipment would 

also produce real savings. 

—$5 million in additional funding should be appropriated for an expansion of energy performance ratings systems for the Nation’s buildings. Information on energy use per square foot is a key motivating tool. This can help commercial 

building owners make the right decisions. 

—$5 million in additional funding should be appropriated for expansion of Energy 

Star to medium and small manufacturers and small businesses. The State energy offices are working hard to preserve and expand jobs in this difficult economy. Energy Star is a powerful tool to help reduce operating costs and maintain 

profits and jobs. 

—$5 million in additional funding should be appropriated for an expanded outreach program for energy efficiency to States, utilities, local governments, 

schools, and other potential program sponsors. Energy Star provides crucial 

technical assistance to help work with these entities to expand energy efficiency 

programs throughout the economy. 

—$5 million in additional funding should also be provided for the Energy Star Industrial program, Energy Star New Commercial Buildings, Energy Star New 

Home Construction and Energy Star Product labeling. 

The funds delineated above should be added to the existing appropriation. It is 

especially critical for the Energy Star program to work with the States and local 

governments as they distribute stimulus funds for the State Energy Program ($3.1 

billion), the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (for local and State 

governments) ($3.2 billion), the Weatherization Assistance Program ($5 billion) and 

the Appliance Rebates Program ($300 million). The funding provided in this bill will 

help spend this money more effectively. 

Conclusion 

Increases in funding for the Energy Star programs are justified. NASEO endorses 

these activities and the State energy offices are working very closely with EPA to 

cooperatively implement a variety of critical national programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOREST SERVICE RETIREES

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to present the recommendations of the National Association of Forest Service 

Retirees regarding the fiscal year 2011 budget for the U.S. Forest Service. Members 

of the Association are men and women who spent their professional careers involved 

with the protection and management of our Nation’s forests and in research. Most 

members spent their careers working on the National Forests and Grasslands. We 

remain committed to the statutory management objectives for these lands that are 

vital to the well-being of the American people. We believe it is important, even in 

periods of tight budgets, to provide adequate protection and stewardship for these 

lands so they can serve the people and provide needed natural resources, such as 

water, over the long run. 

We want to acknowledge the efforts of this subcommittee to maintain the capability of the Forest Service to carry out its vital missions in the face of clearly inadequate budget requests in recent years. The President’s proposed budget for fiscal 

year 2011 shows much better recognition of the importance of Forest Service programs. Nevertheless, we feel it falls short in several areas that are discussed below. 

Research 

With the changed structure of the forest products industry, forest management research by major forest products firms has largely disappeared. Cutbacks in State 

budgets have reduced forest management research at universities. That leaves the 
330 

Forest Service as the source of the science we need to properly manage our Nation’s 

forests. We badly need more answers to questions about how to manage forests for 

various purposes in a period of climate change. We need to find economic uses for 

the smaller material that we need to remove from the forest to reduce the vulnerability to fire, insects, and disease. 

We recommend an increase in Forest and Rangeland Research of 5 percent over 

fiscal year 2010 for research aimed at improving forest adaptability to changing climate, efficient resource use, and forest inventory and analysis. We limit our request 

to 5 percent given the current economic situation. Frankly an increase in research 

of about $90 million per year over the next 5 years is needed to provide a sound 

scientific foundation for the protection and management of our forests in the 21st 

century. 

We want the subcommittee to know of our concerns about the serious decline in 

the number of career, peer-reviewed scientists in the Forest Service. In spite of relatively stable appropriations for research, the number of career scientists in the 

agency has declined from about 900 to just more than 500. The agency has become 

increasingly dependant on short-term appointments and Post-Doc appointments. 

This decline affects the quality of the scientific work that is being done. It significantly reduces the ability of Forest Service Research to provide sound scientific advice to the agency, to the forest management community, and to the Congress. We 

urge the subcommittee to work with the agency to reverse this unfortunate trend. 

State and Private Forestry 

We were disappointed to see the administration propose reductions in funding for 

Forest Heath Management. Given the catastrophic losses to bark beetles in the 

West and the threat of lethal invasive insect species throughout the country, we believe an increase in funding for this activity is warranted. We recommend an increase of 3 percent more than the 2010 appropriation for Forest Health Management on both Federal and Cooperative lands. 

We are also concerned about the proposed reduction in State Fire Assistance. The 

threat of fire on all ownerships is increasing. The cooperative relationships among 

Federal land management agencies, State fire agencies, and local fire agencies are 

a model for emergency response. Reducing support for State and local agencies will 

adversely affect the Nation’s overall capacity for wildfire and other emergency responses. The States are simply in no position to pick up these costs. We recommend 

no reduction in State Fire Assistance. 

The United Nations had designated 2011 as the Year of the Forests. Observances 

are planned throughout the world to call attention to the importance of forests to 

the quality of life. We recommend increasing the appropriation for International 

Forestry by $1 million to allow the Forest Service to participate with other Nation’s 

in this recognition. 

National Forest System 

The proposal to merge the Forest Products, Wildlife and Fisheries, and Vegetation 

and Watershed Management line items into a single line item will facilitate implementation of integrated management activities on the ground. When a Ranger receives funds in a number of discrete accounts, it is hard to match the money to the 

needs of a particular project. On the other hand, merging the line items will make 

it more difficult for people interested in particular activities to identify and track 

how their interests are being addressed. For example, the Budget Justification for 

2011 shows only acres to be treated to restore watershed function or resilience. No 

data is shown that identify the nature of the work that will be done. There is no 

data for targets previously displayed such as the area of forest vegetation to be improved, the area of forest vegetation to be established, the area of rangeland vegetation to be improved, the area of stream improvements, or the area of noxious weeds 

and invasive plants to be treated. People and cooperators with interest in the various activities should be able to find out what the agency is proposing to do and 

then find out if they did it. If this proposal is accepted, it will be important for the 

agency and the Congress to fully display planned work and to carefully track and 

report on activities within the line item. A single broad description such as restoring 

watershed function provides no basis for judging the need, priority, cost, or otherwise assessing the validity of the proposal. For example, if the appropriation for the 

line item is based on preparing and selling a given volume of timber, the agency 

will need to track and report on accomplishments for this activity. If the line items 

are merged, we suggest the combination be named Integrated Resource Management rather than Integrated Resource Restoration. Restoration of forests and watersheds to healthy conditions is important, but a significant amount of the work that 
331 

is needed on our National Forests and Grasslands involves activities to maintain 

vegetation, watersheds and wildlife habitat in a healthy, sustainable condition. 

We appreciate the emphasis the subcommittee has given to funding needed Hazardous Fuel Treatments. This work is critical to reducing the vulnerability of our 

forests to catastrophic fire losses, as well as the threat to lives and property in the 

wildland urban interface. We believe, however, that it will not be possible to get on 

top of the growing fuels problem by relying only on appropriated funds. If we are 

going to succeed, we must find ways to capture the economic value of the material 

that needs to be removed from the forest. Much of this material can be used for conventional wood products, for composite materials, and for energy production. Not all 

of the material will fully pay its way out of the woods today, but even if its removal 

must be subsidized, it will be cheaper to utilize it than to treat it in place. Importantly, utilization of this material will create jobs in local forest-dependent communities where unemployment rates are high. We recommend an increase in the volume of timber to be prepared and offered for sale of 700 million board feet over that 

provided for fiscal year 2010. 

The Forest Service reports a backlog of lands needing reforestation of about 1 million acres. This is based on the results of on the ground examinations and prescriptions. Based on the rate that the backlog has been reduced in recent years, it will 

take nearly 20 years to eliminate it. We are concerned that the actual area needing 

reforestation may be significantly larger than reported. For example, a rapid assessment of the 2007 fires showed that some 500,000 acres might need reforestation. 

The rapid assessment of the 2008 fires showed that potentially 227,000 acres might 

need reforestation. On-the-ground stand examinations are needed to identify how 

much of this burned land should be added to the backlog. We recommend a $6 million increase in funding over that provided in 2010 for reforestation so that stand 

examinations can be completed and the agency and this subcommittee will have the 

data needed to develop a plan for increasing the reforestation program to a level 

that will eliminate the backlog within 5 years. 

The administration proposes a small decrease in funding for Inventory and Monitoring. Inventory and monitoring are essential to professional management of forest 

resources and to insuring that activities meet established standards. Good information on the results of forest management activities is important to gaining and 

maintaining public support. We urge that funding for Inventory and Monitoring be 

continued at not less than the 2010 level. 

The National Forests and Grasslands are neighbors to thousand of landowners 

and communities. Maintaining property lines, inspecting authorized uses, and responding promptly to requests for land uses and rights-of-way are essential to protecting the public property and to being a good neighbor. We recommend an increase 

of $5 million for Landownership Management. 

Capital Improvements and Maintenance 

We deplore the proposed reductions in funding for Capital Improvements and Facilities. We recognize that substantial funding for these activities was provided in 

the economic stimulus package, but large backlogs remain. If regular funding is reduced because of the economic stimulus funding, the benefits of the economic stimulus are lost. We particularly object to the reduction in funding for maintaining passenger car roads. The American people have a right to visit their National Forests 

and Grasslands. These roads are essential to recreation use that is important to the 

economies of local forest-dependant communities. They are important for the prompt 

initial attack on fires that is essential to controlling suppression costs. It has long 

been recognized that adequate access is essential to sustainable management and 

protection of forest lands. One of the premises of the reduction in the timber program in the 1990’s was that some of the employment losses would be made up by 

increases in recreation use. Recreation use on the National Forests is dependent on 

access by roads and trails. We urge that funding for Capitol Improvements and 

Maintenance be continued at fiscal year 2010 levels. 

Wildland Fire Management 

In response to Congressional direction, the budget proposes rebalancing funding 

for Preparedness and Suppression. This rebalancing is desirable. We were disappointed that the Administration failed to fully implement Congressional direction 

in the FLAME Act. Funding for fire suppression (Fire Operation-Suppression and 

the FLAME Fund) is based on the 10-year average cost of suppression. We recommend funding for fire suppression be based on the most recent 5-year average 

cost of suppression projected to 2011 as prescribed by the FLAME Act. Establishing 

a third fund for suppression has no merit. 
332 

It is essential that the Forest Service has the capability to respond quickly with 

emergency watershed stabilization treatments following a wildfire. The flooding in 

Los Angeles following the Station Fire illustrates the importance of these funds. We 

urge that funding of NFP-Rehabilitation and Restoration be continued at 2010 levels. 

Earlier we expressed our concerns about the proposed reductions in Forest Health 

and State Fire Assistance under State and Private Forestry. We have the same concerns about the reductions in these programs under the National Fire Plan. We recommend an increase in funding for NFP-Forest Health of 3 percent. We recommend 

maintaining NFP-State Fire Assistance at the 2010 level; 

This subcommittee has been diligent in recognizing the special responsibility that 

the Congress has for the proper stewardship of our Nation’s forest lands and, particularly, the National Forests and Grasslands. We believe the recommendations set 

forth above will help to insure that this natural heritage will serve the people now 

and in the future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL NURSES

On behalf of our members and supporters across the country, and tens of millions 

of children whose health, learning and behavior are daily impacted by dank, dark, 

dirty, and polluted conditions of our Pre-K–12 public schools, we urge you to fund 

the EPA’s ‘‘Clean Green Healthy Schools Initiative’’ at $8.2 million, $2 million above 

the President’s $6.2 million request in the fiscal year 2011 EPA request. 

The national ‘‘Sick Schools 2009’’ collaborative report assembled by more than 30 

contributing public interest nonprofits, analyzed Federal data from EPA, Education, 

and CDC, as well as peer reviewed published sciences in healthy school environments. Result: at least 60 percent of all 55 million school children endure lower test 

scores and poor attendance due solely to the environmental conditions of their 

schools. See http://www.healthyschools.org/SICKlSCHOOLSl2009.pdf 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 EPA budget supports EPA’s critical Office of Children’s Health Protection and the agency’s voluntary schools-focused programs that 

help local schools and districts to create healthier school environments for all children. EPA will co-lead a Federal interagency effort to integrate existing voluntary 

schools programs across the agencies, including asthma, indoor air quality, chemical 

clean outs, green practices (highly cost-effective as New York State has learned) and 

enhanced use of integrated pest management; promote safe handling and management of PCB-containing caulk in schools and build regional technical support and 

outreach; assesses the impacts of non-compliance with existing environmental laws 

on health risks in schools; and increase technical assistance on voluntary EPA 

guidelines under the Energy Independence Security Act (EISA of 2007) regarding 

school siting and other school environmental concerns. 

We also urge you to support increases for EPA’s Healthier Indoor Air and for 

school and community air toxics monitoring, and for expanding EPA’s asthma programs and pesticide-use reductions with schools. Children are 100 percent of our future and promoting healthy learning environments is a task that EPA is uniquely 

poised to tackle, in collaboration with Education and CDC. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COOPERATORS’ COALITION

Summary 

The National Cooperators’ Coalition (NCC) urges the Subcommittee on Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies to increase the funding of the U.S. Geological 

Survey’s Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) by $2.7 million 

above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2010 to fill vacant scientist positions 

and complete restoration of the program’s integrity. Contingent on full funding of 

the base program, the NCC seeks additional funding of $2 million to establish new 

capacity by adding units in Nevada and New Jersey, completing the wildlife mission 

at existing units in Hawaii and California, and ensuring that the entire CFWRU 

network is sufficiently robust to meet the Nation’s pressing natural resource challenges. These increases above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level are essential to successfully address the natural resource management challenges posed by climate 

change, energy development needs, invasive species, wildfire, increased demand for 

limited water resources, and retirement and replacement of an unprecedented number of natural resource professionals over the next 10 years. 
333 

The National Cooperators’ Coalition is an alliance of non-Federal CFWRU program cooperators and other supporters. Its members include State fish and wildlife 

agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations. The mission of the NCC 

is to build a stronger and more coordinated base of support to serve research, education, and technical assistance needs of the non-Federal CFWRU program cooperators. 

Continue to Build on This Subcommittee’s Efforts 

This subcommittee was instrumental in providing the funding needed to fill all 

CFWRU scientist positions in fiscal year 2001, after years of work. Unfortunately, 

much of this effort was undone over the next 7 years. Beginning in fiscal year 2008, 

however, the subcommittee once again began leading the effort to restore the integrity of the CFWRU program. We greatly appreciate your leadership in adding funding for the past three years for this important research and training partnership, 

which already brings together State fish and wildlife agencies, State universities, 

and Federal agencies around a local, applied research agenda. To provide the capacity in the CFWRU program that existed a decade ago, the fiscal year 2011 USGS 

appropriation now needs just $2.7 million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level. 

State and Federal natural resources agencies are facing unprecedented challenges 

posed by climate change, energy development needs, invasive species, infectious diseases, wildfire, and increased demand for limited water resources. These agencies 

also face the challenge of replacing an extraordinary number of natural resource 

professionals who will be retiring within this decade. Finding workable solutions to 

these challenges requires the kind of approaches to research emphasized by the 

CFWRUs, which rely on interdisciplinary efforts, collaborations and accountability 

to help resolve emerging issues at scales that transcend State boundaries. 

As you know, each of the CFWRUs in 38 States is a true Federal-State-universityprivate partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey, a State natural resource 

agency, a host university, and the Wildlife Management Institute. The CFWRUs 

build on these partner contributions to leverage more than $3 for every $1 appropriated to the program by Congress. The CFWRUs have established a record of educating new natural resource professionals who are management-oriented, wellversed in science, grounded in State and Federal agency experience, and able to assist private landowners and other members of the public. Restoration of funding 

support would ensure that the Interior Department provides the Federal scientist 

staffing agreed to with partners so that the return on their continuing investment 

in the CFWRUs is realized and fully leveraged. The role of the CFWRU program 

in facilitating solutions to natural resources management challenges and training 

the fish and wildlife managers of tomorrow should be expanded rather than compromised by funding shortfalls that result in the absence of scientist leaders. 

With appropriation of $22 million for the CFWRUs for fiscal year 2011, a sound 

foundation will exist on which new capacity should be built with appropriation of 

an additional $2 million to add CFWRUs in Nevada and New Jersey and complete 

the wildlife mission at existing CFWRUs in Hawaii and California. Rutgers University, University of Nevada—Reno, University of Hawaii—Hilo and Humboldt State 

University bring a wealth of research, education and innovative technology to address contemporary conservation issues at regional and national scales. The respective State agency partners bring an extensive history of successful fish and wildlife 

management skills and resources that complement those existing at the universities. The State agency and university partners are well-equipped to collaborate 

with CFWRUs to help resolve natural resources management challenges that transcend State boundaries. For example, New Jersey capacity can be brought to bear 

on the effects of climate change on anadromous fish, and new strategies for wildlife 

management in urban settings. California has been at the forefront of watershed 

restoration, forest management and disease ecology. Hawaii’s problems and handling of invasive rodents, feral pigs, and feral cats that affect endangered species 

can serve as a model for other States. In Nevada, wildfire and invasive plants 

threaten mule deer habitat and invasive species threaten Lake Tahoe. 

Finally, the NCC would like to work with the subcommittee to develop a competitive, matching fund program within existing CFWRU legislative authority for fiscal 

year 2012 and beyond to address high priority research needs for natural resources 

managers. 

We urge you to make greater use of this important research and training partnership, which already brings together State fish and wildlife agencies, State universities, and Federal agencies around a local, applied research agenda. With your assistance, the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units can make the best use 

of Federal funds, becoming even more effective in using science and collaboration 
334 

1The NCSHPO supports the request of the House Preservation Caucus of $50 million for 

SHPOs, $5 million for survey/digitization grants, $20 million for tribes, $25 million for Save 

America’s Treasures and $4.6 for Preserve America. 

to address the natural resources challenges facing the Interior Department, other 

Federal, State, local agencies and this country’s citizens. 

Thank you for consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC

PRESERVATION OFFICERS

Request: 

—$50,000,000 for State Historic Preservation Offices 1

—$5,000,000 for competitive grants to States for digitization of documents and 

historic site survey fieldwork 

The programs are funded through withdrawals from the Historic Preservation 

Fund (16 U.S.C. 470h) U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund (HPF). 

Thank you Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of 

the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies for the opportunity to provide testimony. First, on behalf of all 57 State 

Historic Preservation Officers, I extend heartfelt thanks to you and the subcommittee for providing an additional $4 million for SHPOs in fiscal year 2010, 

without which SHPOs could not have addressed the rising workload of American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) projects and helped to keep the stimulus 

program on track. The additional HPF withdrawals are particularly essential in 

these times of State fiscal crises and reduced SHPO budgets that have resulted in 

up to 40 percent reductions in staffing. 

Our request has two components: a $50,000,000 withdrawal from the HPPF and 

a $5 million withdrawal to assist States in ‘‘finishing’’ the identification of America’s 

historic places by the 50th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) in 2016. 

SHPOs and ARRA 

SHPOs continue to need $50 million to weather ‘‘the perfect storm’’ created by the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) projects hitting the ground at the 

exact time that State governments are facing massive budget deficits, reduced funding and, in some cases, elimination of historic preservation programs. While the administration and Federal agencies can claim success in obligating ARRA funds, the 

real review work for SHPOs is just beginning. 

As seen from the following, increasing amounts of ARRA reviews with no additional funding for staffing means States are unable to fully implement all the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

—Wisconsin.—Has reallocated staffing from Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit 

project reviews ($4.7 billion program that created 70,000 jobs in 2008) and public education efforts, requested by the citizens of Wisconsin, to Federal ARRA 

project reviews because of the need to shift resources to compliance. 

—California.—Clearing out the ARRA projects backlog has resulted in other 

projects (approximately 400), especially renewable energy projects, being delayed. Not only is the workload increasing by 200 percent to 300 percent, but 

also staff must spend considerable amounts of time teaching/training the section 

106 process to Federal agencies. Federal agencies are also delegating their section 106 consultation responsibilities to local governments that have no idea of 

the Federal regulatory requirements CA has developed Programmatic Agreements to expedite the process wherever possible. The California budget crisis 

mandated three furlough days per month which reduces the person hours available to conduct the Federal reviews. Productivity has decreased by 15 percent. 

California has been successful in obtaining 10 additional positions, paid for by 

Federal and renewable energy agencies to supplement OHP’s staff as limited 

term employees for the next 2 years. However, additional resources and staff 

are still needed. 

—Maryland.—Staff has worked hard to ensure prioritized review of ARRA assisted projects, but the increased volume of projects, as well as the increased 

amount of staff time needed to provide information and technical assistance to 

the grant recipients, is depleting their existing staff resources. Thus, their ability to complete non-ARRA funded project reviews within a 30-day time and pro-
335 

vide essential customer service to compliance clients is being substantially impaired. 

—South Dakota.—The combination of ARRA projects and being short staffed as 

meant less time spent on National Register nominations that South Dakotans 

want as recognition of their heritage and the first step for rehab tax credit 

projects. 

—Texas.—To meet Federal section 106 review deadlines Texas reallocated staff 

from processing National Register nominations to handling ARRA funded compliance projects. The slowdown in the National Register process has led to complaints from Texans. 

—Oklahoma.—Has experienced a 40 percent increase in total section 106 project 

reviews. In order to meet the regulatory 30-day deadline they have cut back significantly on providing needed assistance to Oklahoma communities and conducting site visits. They are also experiencing furloughs. 

It’s Not Just ARRA 

As SHPOs continue to review $787 billion in ARRA projects, Congress is considering a second Jobs Bill and future ‘‘green and clean’’ energy bills. These and all 

new Federal initiatives create additional SHPO review responsibilities. The Departments of Interior and Energy are also aggressively pursuing renewable energy 

projects. These massive, multi-state initiatives require extensive work hours for 

SHPO staff to fulfill the Federal regulatory requirements. Many SHPOs anticipate 

renewable energy projects will require much of their section 106 staff time during 

the next several years, likely causing delayed responses to non-energy related reviews primarily due to a lack of digitized records and complete historic surveys. 

SHPOs Long-term Goal 

A major reason for the extensive SHPO involvement in Federal project reviews 

is the lack of a complete inventory of historic places. (In Washington where their 

historic site information is digitized, Federal agencies do project planning from their 

desk top.) To begin to address this, the NCSHPO is requesting $5 million in competitive grants to States to create a digital record of America’s historic places. Historic site survey is the foundation of all historic preservation. As the 50th anniversary of the Preservation Act approaches in 2016, SHPOs need HPF support to find 

America’s historic places and put the information in accessible, digital formats. 

Specifically, the grant funds would be used for two purposes: (1) to convert existing paper records to electronic formats (data bases, GIS) and (2) to conduct inventory fieldwork, filling in the current patchwork of identified sites, which is essential 

for Federal project review (section 106) and lays a foundation for every future preservation activity, e.g., National Register). 

Funding Rationale 

SHPOs are the Nation’s Preservation Program 

In 1966 Congress recognized the importance of preserving our past by passing the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 16 U.S.C. 470), which established historic preservation as a Federal Government priority. Instead of using Federal employees to carry out the Act, DOI and ACHP rely State Historic Preservation Offices 

to do the work: (1) locate and record historic resources (see section above); (2) nominate significant historic resources to the National Register of Historic Places; (3) foster historic preservation programs at the local government level and promote the 

creation of preservation ordinances; (4) provide funds for preservation activities; (5) 

comment on Federal preservation tax projects; (6) review all Federal projects for 

their impact on historic properties; and (7) provide technical assistance to Federal 

agencies, State, and local governments and the private sector. 

SHPOs generate Jobs and Economic Development 

The SHPOs conduct 90 percent of the work involved in the Federal Rehabilitation 

Tax Credit program. Starting with National Register nominations, SHPOs educate 

investors about the tax credit and work with owners on the rehabilitation plans before final NPS approval. In 2009, during the height of the recession, 1,000 plus rehabilitation projects created an average of 68 new and principally local jobs per 

project and leveraged $4.7 billion of private investment into the U.S. economy. 

SHPO pass through 10 percent of their HPF allocation to Certified Local Governments. Although the amounts are paltry (grants average less than $10,000/project), 

they pack a powerful punch. The Michigan SHPO grant to a Certified Local Government (CLG) created a historic wood windows restoration workshop. The workshop 

provided specialized training to the unemployed and in the process educated individuals about the energy efficiency benefits of rehabilitating rather than replacing his-
336 

toric wood windows. This workshop, free of charge to participants, resulted in 4 of 

the 14 students starting their own window repair small businesses, and the program 

was such a success that more workshops will be offered in 2010. 

Heritage tourism creates jobs, new businesses, builds community pride and can 

improve quality of life. SHPOs are essential, ground level partners in identifying 

historic places and providing research for tourist interpretation. According to a 2009 

national research study on U.S. Cultural and Heritage travel by Mandela Research, 

78 percent of all U.S. leisure travelers participate in cultural and/or heritage activities while traveling. Cultural and heritage travelers also spend on average $994 per 

trip compared to $611 for all U.S. travelers. 

SHPOS are good at their job 

2009 State Historic Preservation Offices’ Accomplishments.—SHPOs used their 

HPF allocations well in 2009. While virtually every State experienced cut backs and 

reductions, SHPOs are still charged with implementing the requirements of the 

NHPA to their fullest extent. Highlights of 2009 historic preservation accomplishments include: 

—More than $4.7 billion of private investment in the rehabilitation of commercial 

historic properties under the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit (FRTC) program. 

—An estimated 70,000 jobs created by the FRTC program in 2008. 

—6,710 low and moderate-income housing units created through the FRTC. 

—Approximately 9 million acres surveyed for cultural resources and more than 

146,600 properties evaluated for their historical significance. 

—1,115 new listings in the National Register of Historic Places. 

—SHPOs reviewed 106,900 Federal undertakings, providing 104,100 National 

Register eligibility opinions. 

—55 new communities became Certified Local Governments (CLGs). 

—CLG’s newly designated 53,700 properties, and 89,300 properties took part in 

local preservation review, programs, and incentives. 

Conclusion 

Historic preservation recognizes that what was common and ordinary in the past 

is often rare and precious today, and what is common and ordinary today may be 

extraordinary, 50, 100, or 500 years from now. I would like to thank the subcommittee for their commitment to historic preservation. The Federal Government 

plays an invaluable role in preserving our Nation’s history and through our partnership, SHPOs stand committed to identify, protect, and maintain our Nation’s historic heritage. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CENTER

Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the subcommittee: We request an appropriation of $3 million in fiscal year 2011 to assist 

small communities in meeting their wastewater treatment needs through the National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) and the National Environmental Training 

Center for Small Communities (NETCSC). Both programs are administered by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Environmental Programs 

and Management account. 

Introduction 

My name is Gerald Iwan and I serve as executive director of the National Environmental Services Center. Our center is home to both EPA and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) funded programs that provide comprehensive environmental 

services to small communities and rural areas. Our work is focused mainly on 

drinking water, wastewater, and community resiliency. Two of our major programs—the NSFC and the NETCSC—are the subjects of this testimony. The first 

two pages outline the need and justification for our request; the last two pages of 

our testimony provide background information about the NSFC and NETCSC programs. 

Need 

In the 1977 Clean Water Act and its subsequent reauthorizations, Congress mandated the NSFC to collect, distribute information, and provide training about wastewater treatment to small and rural communities. With our expertise in decentralized wastewater treatment and management, the NSFC and its associate program, 

NETCSC, uniquely support the goals of EPA’s Office of Water, protect public health, 
337 

preserve valuable water resources, and contribute to community economic vitality 

and resiliency. Nearly 1 in 4 U.S. households depends on individual septic or other 

types of onsite system to treat wastewater. NSFC and NETCSC partner with a wide 

range of organizations and groups to collaborate in helping States and communities 

address the service needs for small and rural communities. These communities are 

most often characterized as being rural, having few financial resources, and as being 

overseen by elected officials who have limited time and support personnel to make 

decisions in these matters. The impact of the NSFC and NETCSC information, assistance, and training services includes pollution prevention, environmental protection and public health protection, cost saving to communities and homeowners, regulatory compliance and reform, economic development and resiliency. The congressionally directed funding requested in our testimony will enable us to help these 

communities with services they will not otherwise obtain. 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act mandates that EPA provide funding 

through grants and loans for wastewater treatment infrastructure and for technical 

assistance and training resources to support local officials, wastewater treatment 

professionals and others in implementing infrastructure projects and in their management and maintenance. As such, the NSFC and NETCSC serve as the underpinning of EPA’s cooperative effort with 15 national organizations to support appropriate decentralized wastewater treatment and management. EPA does not explicitly budget funding for small community programs since funds were allocated under 

the Clean Water Act. Formula funding for the NSFC under the Clean Water Act 

has expired. The NSFC program requires congressional appropriations to continue 

our programs while the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009 is being debated in 

Congress. 

Request 

Congressional support to continue the work of the NSFC and NETCSC is imperative because the State agencies and communities these programs assist cannot pay 

on a fee-for-service basis. Neither can State allocations for water and wastewater 

infrastructures pay for these programs’ services. By virtue of the congressional appropriation, we are able to offer most of our services free of charge. 

Without congressional support, the NSFC and NETCSC programs will be unable 

to attain sufficient funding to continue in the near term. In the longer term, the 

NSFC can be supported under the funding formula provided for this program 

through renewal of the State Revolving Loan Fund financing section of the Clean 

Water Act passed by the House in March 2009. While EPA has a mandate to protect 

drinking water and manage wastewater discharges, the administration budget request typically does not include funding for water programs that serve small and 

rural communities. Congress regularly adds funds each year to the EPA budget to 

continue service provider programs to meet the goals established by EPA. In the 

past, funding for the Clearinghouse and Training Center has been included among 

the congressional priorities for water-related programs such as the National Rural 

Water Association, Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Groundwater Protection Council, and similar organizations. 

We request reinstated funding support for fiscal year 2011 of $3 million for the 

NSFC and NETCSC programs to support our work until the Clean Water SRF legislation is reauthorized and enacted. Thank you for considering our request. 

Background Information About NSFC and NETCSC 

The National Small Flows Clearinghouse 

The NSFC provides information and technical assistance about small wastewater 

facilities serving the needs of residents located in rural areas and small communities. We assist agencies, organizations, and industries that advance decentralized 

wastewater treatment as part of the Nation’s wastewater infrastructure. These technologies are referred to as ‘‘decentralized’’ because they do not require the large infrastructure investment common to centralized municipal collection and treatment 

systems. Decentralized systems, such as onsite septic systems and small cluster systems, serve 40 percent of the total U.S. population, especially in small communities 

and in newer residential developments. 

Through its congressionally mandated information collection and dissemination 

mission [1977 Clean Water Act section 104(q)(1)], the NSFC serves as the national 

archive for onsite and decentralized wastewater treatment technology information 

and research. The NSFC was created under the Clean Water Act legislation to provide information and assistance to small and rural communities on proper technology selection and management of onsite and small wastewater systems. As such, 

the Clearinghouse offers a comprehensive body of information and technical assistance services unique to the wastewater industry. Users of these services include in-
338 

dividual homeowners, small town officials who do not have staff support to address 

regulatory requirements, developers, State regulators, and professionals who install 

and service alternative treatment systems. 

Since its inception and through subsequent Clean Water Act reauthorizations, the 

NSFC has provided small and rural communities contemporary, objective and comprehensive technical consulting, site-specific technical assistance, information about 

wastewater systems, and a suite of regularly published and special topic publications targeted to small and rural community needs for wastewater. Now in its 33d 

year, the NSFC is a long-standing national information resource on wastewater collection and treatment technologies that are appropriate for use in small communities, rural areas and in subdivisions where the cost to provide central sewage 

services is a significant portion of most municipal budgets. 

The NSFC is a highly regarded national source of information about onsite wastewater treatment and management. For example, as part of its holdings, it has the 

only comprehensive literature database in the nation on decentralized technologies, 

offering accurate, relevant operation, maintenance and management information to 

stakeholders. Additionally, the NSFC administers the annual State Onsite Regulators Alliance (SORA) and captains of industry (COI) conference. For the past 11 

years, SORA–COI has brought together State onsite wastewater regulators with associated equipment manufacturers and EPA regional managers. This conference has 

proven to be an extremely valuable resource to the parties and especially to EPA 

for providing them direct contact with their wastewater regulatory and private sector constituents. Most recently, SORA has become a recognized organization of regulators with bylaws, board of directors, and defined membership criteria under 

NSFC. 

About the National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities 

NETCSC was established by Congress in 1991 as an adjunct to the NSFC to meet 

the training needs of multiple constituent groups on a variety of environmental topics. NETCSC develops and delivers training for community officials, circuit riders, 

water and wastewater professionals, and other groups on wastewater, drinking 

water, and municipal solid waste disposal and security. In a unique approach, 

NETCSC develops, disseminates and delivers training customized for small community environmental management. Environmental trainers and technical assistance 

providers who attend our classes then in turn train environmental professionals who 

serve small communities. NETCSC has developed more than 40 training packages 

for drinking water and wastewater system design, operation, finance, management, 

emergency response, and system security. These training packages are delivered 

and available coast-to-coast to thousands of participants, often in co-sponsorship 

with other training and/or service providing organizations. 

Since 1991, NETCSC has held more than 250 training events. Hundreds of environmental trainers across the Nation subsequently use our materials to train thousands of local officials, operators, installers, regulators, engineers, and homeowners. 

Training on environmental management and security and emergency response has 

been customized for and delivered to tribal audiences. More than 95 percent of the 

attendees recommend our courses to their colleagues; more than 75 percent rate the 

instruction and course materials as being excellent or very good, and more than 95 

percent plan to use what they have learned through the training courses to help 

small communities 

Support for EPA National Priorities 

As part of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) initiated by EPA, the National Environmental Services Center, which houses both NSFC and NETCSC, 

joined with 15 other national organizations to assist the agency in meeting its strategic goals under its Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Program. Services provided by both programs are the underpinning for the activities of many of the MOU 

partners in achieving their respective goals in the MOU partnership. Continued 

support for the NSFC and NETCSC is important to EPA in meeting its national 

goals under its water programs. 

Accomplishments 

Highlights of NSFC and NETCSC accomplishments, many of which are provided 

to the user community free of charge thanks to congressional support, include: 

—Toll-free phone service providing technical assistance; 

—Publications, including Small Flows and Pipeline, with a mailing list of 70,000 

of which 5,492 subscribers are located in high poverty counties; 

—3,300 information products such as pamphlets, guides, handbooks, design manuals, videos, checklists, catalogs, outreach resource guide, directories, posters, 

and case studies; 
339 

—Comprehensive Web site and searchable online databases, our Web site averages 3.5 million page views and 1.6 million downloads annually; 

—Demonstration projects at more than 100 sites in 27 States; 

—The intensive annual SORA conference; 

—An annual environmental training institute for small communities and service 

providers; 

—The Nation’s only Wastewater Vulnerability Assessment Guide for small communities; 

—A ‘‘Top Ten’’ list of security and emergency preparedness actions; and 

—Six listservs that have a total of 3,264 subscribers. 

With the support of Congress and in conjunction with EPA, both programs have 

expanded their capabilities and level of service over time to meet national needs and 

to address the ever-increasing complexity of infrastructure issues as they pertain to 

smaller systems. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL HUMANITIES ALLIANCE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the National Humanities Alliance (NHA) and its 104 member organizations and institutions, we 

write to express strong support for the National Endowment for the Humanities 

(NEH). Our members, and the thousands of teachers, scholars, humanities organizations and institutions they represent, use NEH grants to maintain a strong system 

of academic research, education, and public programs in the humanities. We urge 

you to provide the NEH with funding of at least $232.5 million in fiscal year 2011, 

including: —$204 million for NEH program funds (a $64 million increase); —$144 million for national programs (a $44.4 million increase); 

—$60 million for the Federal/State partnership (a $19.6 million increase); and —$28.5 million for administrative funds requested by the agency (a $1 million increase). 

Funding Overview 

Our request constitutes a significant, $65 million increase over the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level, which we believe is a necessary and appropriate Federal expenditure given: the value of the humanities in supporting national interests, from a 

competitive workforce to homeland security; the severity of the current economic crisis, and the need for Federal intervention to mitigate long-term damage to the Nation’s education infrastructure; the documented, unmet demand for NEH programs 

at both the Federal and State levels; NEH’s present capacity to distribute requested 

funds efficiently through existing program structures noted for excellence; NEH’s 

demonstrated historical capacity to operate effectively at higher funding levels. NEH is funded at $167.5 million for fiscal year 2010, including $140 million in total program funds and $27.5 million for administration. The agency did not receive funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. 

Historically, NEH has demonstrated the capacity to operate at much higher funding 

levels. Even with recent adjustments, NEH overall funding is still just more than 

one-third of its funding peak in 1979 ($429 million when adjusted for inflation). The 

agency has not yet recovered from a nearly 40 percent cut imposed in the mid-90s, 

before which (in fiscal year 1994), NEH was funded at the equivalent of $256.9 million ($2009). 

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has requested decreased funding for 

NEH at a level of $161.3 million, which constitutes a reduction of $6.2 million in 

overall funding from the fiscal year 2010 level approved by Congress. It is important 

to note that the President’s budget represents a $7.2 million cut in NEH program 

funds, which would absorb a proposed $1 million increase in administrative funds 

to cover the agency’s estimated operating costs for fiscal year 2011. We strongly oppose the cuts proposed in the administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for 

NEH. 

NEH National Programs 

The NHA supports fiscal year 2011 funding of $144 million for national programs 

(an increase of $44.4). New funds requested include: 

—$36.9 million to increase the award rate for critically underfunded grant competitions; and 

—$7.5 million for a new, competitively awarded graduate student-faculty program. 

NEH national programs represent the pool of funds that support peer-reviewed, 

competitive grant opportunities for a wide range of educational institutions, non-
340 

profit organizations, and individual scholars around the country. These grants are 

at the center of the agency’s mission to create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge 

in the humanities. Current national core programs and special initiatives include 

the Division of Research, Division of Preservation and Access, Office of Digital Humanities, Office of Challenge Grants, Division of Education Programs, Division of 

Public Programs, and the We the People initiative. A new initiative, Bridging Cultures, has been proposed by the administration for fiscal year 2011. 

Unmet Demand.—Demand for humanities project support, as demonstrated by 

NEH application rates (and confirmed by feedback from the field), far exceeds funding available. In fiscal year 2009, NEH received 4,366 competitive grant applications 

representing more than $402 million in requested funds, but was only able to fund 

16.9 percent of these peer-reviewed project proposals. This is a low figure, when 

compared to the most recent rate of 32 percent reported by the National Science 

Foundation (NSF), a Federal agency closely parallel to NEH in its operations and 

mission to advance research and teaching for the academic fields under its umbrella. We estimate that at least $37 million would be needed to increase the NEH 

award rate to 25 percent, if only the most critically underfunded of NEH’s grant 

competitions were boosted. To achieve parity with the fiscal year 2009 NSF funding 

rate of 32 percent, an increase of at least $60 million would be required. Examples 

of underfunded NEH grant programs include: 

—fellowships and collaborative research; 

—digital humanities projects; 

—professional development for teachers and faculty; 

—preservation of historically significant collections; 

—public film, radio, television, and digital media projects; and 

—challenge grants to build institutional capacity and leverage non-Federal support. 

Graduate Student/Faculty Fellowships.—NHA supports the recommendation of 

the Association of American Universities and the Council of Graduate Students, 

among others, to create a new, competitive program promoting collaboration among 

graduate students and faculty in the humanities, similar to models in the sciences. 

For more than a decade, NEH has stood alone as the only Federal research agency 

that does not support graduate education. The proposed program would provide 

much-needed support to sustain the pipeline for the next generation of scholars and 

educators in the humanities. These young people are particularly vulnerable today 

because of the especially severe impact of the economic downturn on new faculty 

hires in humanities disciplines. Increased Federal attention to, and investment in, 

humanities graduate education is critical to attract and retain talented individuals 

to serve as the Nation’s future experts and educators. We request $7.5 million in 

new funds for this program. 

Critical Priorities Addressed in the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request.—The NHA 

continues to urge expansion of NEH activity in a number of critical areas, including: 

international/global studies, humanities data, and graduate education. While we do 

not support the Obama administration’s overall funding recommendations for NEH, 

we are very pleased to note interest signaled in the agency’s fiscal year 2011 budget 

request for the following: 

—Global Understanding.—For fiscal year 2011, NEH has proposed a new special 

initiative—Bridging Cultures—to advance Americans’ understanding of their 

own rich cultural heritage, as well as the cultural complexity of the world in 

which they live. As the only Federal agency responsible for advancement of a 

broad range of critical fields in this area (e.g., history, foreign language, comparative literature, religious studies, cultural anthropology), NEH is well-positioned to provide leadership in support of increased U.S. global competency and 

competitiveness abroad, as well as civil engagement and understanding at 

home. 

—Humanities Data.—NHA applauds the following statement in the administration’s budget request for NEH: ‘‘In fiscal year 2011, the NEH plans to enter into 

a partnership with the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS) . . . to 

sustain and extend AAAS’s developmental work on the Humanities Indicators 

project. This project, which is responsive to NEH’s legislative mandate to develop a ‘‘system of national information and data collection . . . on the humanities,’’ is making a wide range of humanities data available to researchers, educators, and the general public. These data will equip policymakers and institutional administrators with statistical tools to help inform decisionmaking about 

primary and secondary education, higher education, the humanities workforce, 

levels and sources of humanities funding, public understanding of the humanities, and other areas of concern to the humanities community.’’ 
341 

—Graduate Education.—NEH has recently revised the eligibility criteria for summer seminars and institutes to create opportunities for humanities graduate 

students, beginning in the summer of 2010. NHA strongly supports this policy 

change, which is responsive to suggestions from the humanities community. 

NEH Federal/State Partnership 

The NHA supports fiscal year 2011 funding of $60 million for the NEH Federal/ State Partnership (a $19.6 million increase). Our request would strengthen the capacity of State humanities councils to support local cultural and educational institutions, teaching and learning resources, family literacy programs, community discussion groups, and programs for new citizens. A recent survey of State council capacities and resources has identified $150 million in funds needed for programs and 

infrastructure support in their States. State councils seek to secure half this figure 

in Federal funding over the next 3 years. 

Value of the Humanities 

The 1965 legislation that established the NEH states: ‘‘An advanced civilization 

must not limit its efforts to science and technology alone, but must give full value 

and support to the other great branches of scholarly and cultural activity in order 

to achieve a better understanding of the past, a better analysis of the present, and 

a better view of the future.’’ At a time of rapid globalization and technological development, the wisdom of this statement is as evident today—if not more so—than it 

was 45 years ago. The humanities represent critical modes of thought and fields of 

knowledge that support a globally competitive (and vocationally mobile) workforce, 

undergird our civic institutions, inform complex policy challenges, and enrich individual lives. They encompass a broad range of fields—including the study of languages, linguistics, literature, history, law, government, philosophy, archaeology, 

comparative religion, ethics, and more—which support capacities especially relevant 

to the 21st century: knowledge of world cultures, religions, and languages; understanding of U.S. history and democratic traditions; and humanistic perspectives to 

evaluate the implications of scientific and technological advances. 

Economic Crisis 

Additional funds are needed to help offset severe economic pressures on the academic workforce and humanities institutions and invest in the Nation’s long-term 

economic recovery. As one of the largest sources of support (private or public) for 

the humanities in the United States, NEH funding is critical to the health of our 

Nation’s education and research infrastructure. As the impact of the economic downturn deepens, many institutions and nonprofit associations around the country are 

struggling to maintain continued access to high-quality programming and educational opportunities in the humanities—from colleges and universities, to schools, 

museums, libraries, historical societies, and other nonprofit organizations. 

Our Nation’s long tradition of fostering broad access to liberal arts education is 

increasingly looked to by nations around the world as a unique driver of U.S. economic leadership and innovation in the last century. Nevertheless, recent Federal 

policy places almost exclusive emphasis on fostering scientific and technological advancement, and widens still further the historic gap between Federal and institutional support for the humanities and investment in other academic disciplines. As 

a result, opportunities for humanities researchers, educators, and students, are failing to keep pace with those provided to their counterparts in the sciences. NSF, for 

example, received $3 billion in Recovery Act funding that by October, 2009, had already enabled 4,599 competitive awards supporting more than 6,700 investigators 

in all 50 States and Puerto Rico—many of them located at the same educational institutions served by NEH. While these are critical expenditures, we cannot allow 

this gap to continue to grow without damaging our Nation’s capacity to foster the 

broad range of our citizens’ talents, and train the next generation of scholars and 

educators in all fields of learning. Our long-term economic success depends on cultivating a broadly educated workforce ready to compete in the knowledge-based, global economy of the 21st century. It is a strategic mistake to turn away from a historic 

strength of the U.S. educational system at the very moment others are moving to 

embrace it. 

Conclusion 

We recognize that Congress faces difficult choices this year, and ask the subcommittee to fund a significant increase for the NEH in fiscal year 2011 as an investment in the Nation’s long-term economic recovery and competitiveness, the 

strength and vitality of our civic institutions, the preservation and understanding 

of our diverse cultural heritage, and the lives of our citizens. The NHA and its members are grateful for the subcommittee’s vigorous and sustained support for the hu-
342 

manities, and would especially like to recognize its leadership for the increase received by NEH for fiscal year 2010. Thank you for your consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT

Madam Chairman and Honorable Members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of conserving land at the Umbagog 

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in northern New Hampshire. This year presents 

an opportunity to begin the conservation of the 31,300 acre Androscoggin Headwaters property from a willing landowner with appropriations from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy Program (FLP). 

An appropriation of $4.5 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from LWCF for the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire 2,920 acres for inclusion at the Umbagog 

Refuge. An appropriation of $4.1 million from FLP is also needed in fiscal year 2011 

to place a conservation easement held by the State of New Hampshire on an additional 11,146 acres. These initial acquisitions will conserve 45 percent of the land 

targeted in the Androscoggin Headwaters. I am thankful that these projects were 

recognized in the fiscal year 2011 President’s Budget request. The request includes 

the full amount in FLP and $2 million in LWCF. However, an appropriation of $4.5 

million is needed from LWCF this year to complete this phase. 

Supporting the Androscoggin Headwaters Conservation Project is a good fit for 

the NH Fish and Game Department. Our mission states that as guardian of New 

Hampshire’s fish, wildlife and marine resources, we work in partnership with the 

public, nongovernmental organizations and other agencies to conserve, manage and 

protect these resources and their habitats, to inform the public about these resources, and to provide opportunities for the public to use and appreciate these resources. The project implements strategies identified in our NH Wildlife Action Plan 

that will conserve habitats and species of greatest conservation need. It also advances the objectives of NH’s Forest Resource Plan, and its strategies promoting forest stewardship and sustainable forest economies. The project directly contributes 

to the priorities of the New England Governors, who at their September 2009 conference passed a resolution establishing a New England Forest Initiative to ‘‘Keep 

Forests as Forests’’. The project is a signature effort of the Mahoosuc Initiative, a 

coalition of local, regional, and national nonprofits that have formed an alliance to 

promote land conservation; tourism and forestry-related economic development; and 

enhanced quality of life for residents in the region. The Eastern Brook Trout Joint 

Venture has also offered their support for the Androscoggin Headwaters Project. 

Covering 31,300 acres of remote forests, streams, and ponds, the Androscoggin 

Headwaters property is one of the largest unprotected ownerships remaining in the 

state of New Hampshire. The property is located at the headwaters of the 

Androscoggin River adjacent to Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, and features a 

variety of wildlife and fisheries resources that are of regional and national significance. The property is an important source of forest products and jobs for the region’s timber economy, and is a popular destination for hunting, fishing, 

snowmobiling, and other outdoor pursuits. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is working with the landowner, New Hampshire Fish and Game, the New Hampshire Forest Legacy Program, and the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge to bring the most 

critical wildlife habitat into public ownership while retaining the balance of the 

property in private ownership subject to a state-held Forest Legacy conservation 

easement. 

Situated at the southern range of the boreal forest zone and near the northern 

range of the deciduous zone, the region provides habitat for species of both forest 

types, many of which are identified as priority species in the New Hampshire State 

Wildlife Action Plan. The Umbagog Refuge encircles much of Lake Umbagog, with 

8,700 acres of open water, many miles of shoreline, protected coves and backwaters, 

and extensive and diverse wetland complexes. The Refuge protects unique habitat 

for many wetland-dependent and migratory species, including bald eagle, Canada 

warbler, wood thrush, and American black duck; as well as many species of state 

concern, including common loon, northern harrier, American woodcock, and others. 

For the common loon and osprey, Lake Umbagog is considered the best breeding 

habitat in New Hampshire. Lake Umbagog and its associated wetlands have been 

listed by both Maine and New Hampshire as a priority site under the Atlantic Coast 

Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The Refuge includes a very large and exemplary native bog community that is designated as a 

National Natural Landmark. 

Located along the border of northern New Hampshire and western Maine in the 

Mahoosuc Mountains, Lake Umbagog is the westernmost link in the chain of Range-
343 

ley Lakes, famed for their excellent recreational opportunities. Kayakers, canoeists, 

and anglers explore numerous coves and bays on Lake Umbagog and dozens of rivers, streams, and smaller ponds around the Lake. Hunters, hikers, nature photographers, and wildlife watchers all find extensive opportunities in the Refuge and the 

Androscoggin Headwaters property’s remote expanses. The region is a well-known 

and sought-after fishing area that offers anglers the opportunity to fish for warm 

water species such as small mouth bass, perch, and pickerel in Lake Umbagog and 

for cold water species, notably eastern brook trout, in the feeder streams and surrounding ponds. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Request 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 is the first phase (2,920 acres) of the 

larger, 31,300 acre five-phase Androscoggin Headwaters Conservation Project. At its 

successful conclusion, this project will conserve 15 undeveloped ponds and 38 miles 

of streams with some of the finest cold-water fisheries in the Northeast. This first 

phase and subsequent phases will add a total of 7,450 acres in fee ownership to the 

Umbagog Refuge, currently 21,650 acres. The target property lies entirely within 

the authorized 47,807 acre Refuge acquisition boundary. It is also part of a much 

larger 63,000 acre conserved working forest landscape that includes the existing 

Refuge, a community forest owned by the Town of Errol, and Forest Legacy conservation easements held by the State. 

The 2,920-acre property contains the first tributary to the Androscoggin River 

after it flows out of its source at Lake Umbagog. The property contains Round Pond, 

Long Pond, Bear Brook Pond and Little Bear Brook Pond—all undeveloped ponds 

that are popular for fishing, paddling, and wildlife watching. These water bodies are 

vulnerable to second home development that would severely compromise the wildlife 

habitat quality and the opportunity to continue remote wildlife-compatible recreation. 

An appropriation of $4.5 million from LWCF will complete the first phase of the 

Androscoggin Headwaters project, allowing the Refuge to protect important habitat 

for Federal trust species and link it to other conserved lands. The appropriation will 

ensure shoreline protection, public access for recreation, and wetland habitat preservation. 

Forest Legacy Program Request 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 through the Forest Legacy Program 

is an 11,146-acre phase of the Androscoggin Headwaters Conservation Project. At 

its successful conclusion, the project will conserve 23,000 acres as privately owned 

working forest through FLP conservation easements held by the State of New 

Hampshire. 

The Androscoggin Headwaters North parcel, the subject of the requested fiscal 

year 2011 FLP funding, is comprised of upland and lowland forest noted for its excellent soils and mix of hardwood and softwood stands. This parcel also includes 

over half a mile of frontage on Akers Pond and several popular snowmobile trails 

that connect Errol, New Hampshire to Rangeley, Maine. The required match for the 

appropriated funds will be met through the conservation of an additional 938-acre 

parcel that contains Greenough and Little Greenough Ponds, which are two of only 

three ponds in New Hampshire that sustain native, nonstocked eastern brook trout 

populations. It will be acquired in fee utilizing State and private funds, and conveyed to the NH Fish and Game Department. 

Northern New Hampshire has relied on forest products as the fuel for the region’s 

economic engine for more than 200 years. Traditionally that has meant pulp and 

papermaking. As the northern New England paper industry has declined, jobs have 

been leaving the region. Our northern forest, however, is poised for a new source 

of economic activity. There are several proposals for utility-scale biomass energy 

plants that will take wood chips from the region’s forests to produce renewable energy. In addition to jobs in logging, trucking, and value-added forest products, the 

conservation of this property will support good jobs in the tourism industry. Businesses catering to hunters, anglers, snowmobilers, kayakers, wildlife viewers, and 

other outdoor enthusiasts will benefit from the guarantee of public access for recreation that will be created through the conservation of this large block of forestland. 

The property is threatened with significant second home development along the 

waterfront parcels. The remote ponds are scenic, have tremendous recreational opportunities, and are highly valued for waterfront development of vacation homes. 

This kind of development would seriously undermine habitat for loons and other waterfowl, degrade water quality for the wild trout populations, and limit public recreational access. The Androscoggin Headwaters conservation strategy will protect 

the entire waterfront. 
344 

The Androscoggin Headwaters Project also will help wildlife adapt to the impacts 

of climate change. At 31,300 acres, the project will conserve ecological systems from 

valley bottom to ridge top. The property is located in the northeast corner of New 

Hampshire close to the Mahoosuc Mountains and Rangeley Lakes, a region that is 

forecast to retain consistently cold winters and a deep snow pack under high carbon 

emission scenarios. Numerous species adapted to northern New England’s long cold 

winters will find refuge here as suitable habitat to the south warms and fragments. 

Among these are snowshoe hare, American marten, three-toed woodpecker, and the 

Federal threatened/State endangered Canada Lynx. 

Protection of the Androscoggin Headwaters property will connect large blocks of 

conservation land, adding to more than 100,000 acres. The property’s proximity to 

other conserved lands—including Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, 13-Mile Woods 

Community Forest, and State owned and easement lands around Maine’s Richardson Lake, Grafton Notch, and Rapid River—will significantly advance the creation 

of landscape-scale habitat connectivity in this region. 

An appropriation of $4.1 million from the Forest Legacy Program will complete 

the first easement phase of the Androscoggin Headwaters Conservation Project and 

will ensure continued sustainable forestry, public access for recreation, and protect 

upland and wetland habitats recognized as some of the most important in the Eastern United States. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important conservation effort in New 

Hampshire, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION

I am Billy Frank, Jr., chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

(NWIFC). It is indeed a privilege for me to be among the distinguished cadre of 

Northwest tribal leaders who are also here to present the funding requests of their 

people. Their strong support and encouragement gives our organization focus and 

direction and helps make us successful in protecting and enhancing their treaty 

rights. 

Using the fiscal year 2010 enacted budget as a minimum level of need in fiscal 

year 2011 to maintain current services, I submit the following requests: 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA)

Restore the western Washington fish management and Washington State timberfish-wildlife project to fiscal year–2010 enacted levels of $8.532 and $2.736, respectively; increase western Washington fish management by $8.614 million beyond the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level; increase salmon marking by $1.4 million beyond the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level; increase United States-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty 

implementation by $680,000 beyond fiscal year 2010 enacted level; and increase fish 

hatchery maintenance by $2.142 million beyond the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Support the Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP) at the $71.4 million request in the President’s budget; support the Multimedia Tribal Implementation 

Grants at the $30 million request in the President’s budget; support the increase 

of $2.9 million in tribal capacity building which is requested in the President’s budget; and restore the Puget Sound Geographic Program to the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level of $50 million. 

REGIONAL REQUESTS

We support the budget requests of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. 

NATIONAL REQUESTS

We support the budget requests for the National Congress of American Indians. 

On behalf of our 20 member tribes, I am here today to speak to our fiscal year 

2011 natural resource management funding requests for the BIA and the EPA. But 

before I do that, I must first acknowledge the outstanding support this subcommittee has given to us this past year. You listened to our story and have helped 

us greatly with your actions that supported our needs. We are also pleased that the 

fiscal year 2011 President’s budget continues to be supportive of the northwest natural resources funding requests and includes many of the subcommittee’s actions 

from last year. 
345 

TRIBES, TREATY RIGHTS, AND TRUST OBLIGATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Indian tribes have always inhabited the watersheds of western Washington, with 

cultures almost entirely based on harvesting fish, wildlife, and other natural resources in the region. In the mid-1850s, a series of treaties were negotiated between 

the Federal Government and the tribes in the region. Through the treaties, the 

tribes gave up most of their land, but in so doing reserved certain rights to fish, 

hunt, and gather to protect their way of life. 

The promises of the treaties were quickly broken in the decades that followed as 

the tribes were systematically denied their treaty-protected rights by the State of 

Washington. In 1974, the tribes won a major victory in United States vs. Washington (Boldt Decision), which reaffirmed their treaty-protected fishing rights. The 

ruling—which has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court—established the tribes 

as co-managers of the resource and determined they were entitled to 50 percent of 

the harvestable number of salmon returning to Washington State waters. More recent Federal court rulings and solicitor opinions upholding treaty-reserved rights 

have further expanded the role and responsibilities of the tribes as natural resource 

managers. Those rulings, combined with the interconnectedness of all natural resources, mean that tribal participation is essential in nearly all aspects of natural 

resource management in the region. 

The tribes from the Pacific Northwest have stepped forward and have embraced 

co-management. Today, the tribes have developed sophisticated programs designed 

to protect and enhance their treaty rights. Tribal programs, based on deep cultural 

and philosophical underpinnings, have served as the backbone of salmon recovery, 

providing the technical, policy, and legal framework for this incredibly difficult task. 

Tribes perform complicated harvest, hatchery, and habitat management tasks that 

neither the State nor the Federal Government can effectively carry out. Tribal programs, largely funded by the BIA, serve as a de facto arm of the Federal Government as it labors to uphold its trust obligations to the tribal people. It is because 

of the role that tribes play in protecting their rights that they require adequate, 

long-term, and stable funding. This subcommittee has heard this plea and has been 

a valuable partner in this effort. 

REQUESTS JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE

BIA 

Restore the western Washington fish management and Washington State timberfish-wildlife project to fiscal year 2010 enacted levels 

Congress increased the rights protection implementation subactivity in fiscal year 

2010 by $12 million. This increase was allocated to all line items within this program element, restoring the pacific salmon treaty implementation, Washington 

State timber-fish-wildlife project, and salmon marking to previously funded levels. 

Additional monies were added to the western Washington fish management program bringing this account to $8.532 million. 

However, the President’s budget did not carry forward the entire fiscal year 2010 

increase. The western Washington fish management and the timber-fish-wildlife 

project were reduced by $434,000 and $139,000, respectively. Thus, we request that 

these accounts be increased to maintain the fiscal year 2010 funding level. 

Increase Western Washington Fish Management to $8.614 Million Beyond the 

Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Level 

Over the past several years, the tribes and the NWIFC have requested an increase of $12 million in the base western Washington fisheries management program. Last year, Congress heard our plea and increased the National Rights Protection Implementation Fund by $12 million with $3.386 million of this going to the 

western Washington program. This increase was very much appreciated and will go 

towards meeting many of our needs. However, we once again ask Congress to address the remaining identified needs at the NWIFC and our member tribes. We request an increase of $8.614 million which is consistent with our needs assessment 

presented last year to this subcommittee. 

Increase Salmon Marking by $1.4 Million Beyond the Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Level 

The salmon marking line item was funded at $1 million by the fiscal year 2010 

increase in rights protection implementation. These funds are used to mark salmon 

at tribal hatcheries and to use these marked fish to scientifically monitor salmon 

populations and watersheds in western Washington, pursuant to the Federal requirement to mass mark pacific salmon reared in facilities funded by Federal dol-
346 

lars. Plans to implement more extensive selective fisheries targeted at these marked 

fish require an additional $1.4 million to implement. 

Increase U.S.-Pacific Salmon Treaty Implementation By $680,000 Beyond the 

Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Level 

The Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985, Public Law 99–5, charges the United 

States section of the Pacific Salmon Commission with the responsibility for implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, a bilateral treaty with Canada. Responsibility for funding Treaty related programs rests with the United States Government. 

We support the U.S. section’s recommendation to fund the Department of the Interior, BIA at $4.8 million, an increase of $680,000 from the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level. 

Increase Fish Hatchery Maintenance by $2.142 Million Beyond the Fiscal Year 

2010 Enacted Level 

Tribal fish hatcheries in western Washington are part of the largest fish hatchery 

system in the world. Tribal hatcheries produce 50 percent of the coho salmon and 

33 percent of the Chinook salmon in Puget Sound and the coast of Washington. 

These hatcheries provide fish that significantly contribute to both non-Indian recreational and commercial harvest, as well as for tribal fisheries. Today, hatcheries 

also play a large role in recovering pacific salmon, many of whom are listed under 

the Endangered Species Act. 

A comprehensive needs assessment study was conducted in fiscal year 2006 by the 

BIA at the request of Congress which identified a level of need more than $48 million in necessary hatchery maintenance and rehabilitation costs. Last year the BIA 

fish hatchery maintenance budget was increased to $2.852 million. We support this 

increase and ask that this account be increased a further $2.142 million to total $5 

million. 

EPA

GAP 

We support full funding of the EPA GAP at the $71.4 million amount requested 

in the President’s budget. This funding has built essential tribal capacities and remains critical to the tribes’ ability to sustain their important water quality programs. We support the increase of $8.5 million which is included in the President’s 

budget. 

Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants 

We support $30 million for the Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grant program 

funding, which is included in the President’s budget. This program will allow the 

EPA to provide targeted multimedia (cross discipline) grants to tribes for implementation of Federal environmental programs. This program logically follows the capacity building function under the tribal GAP, as noted above. 

This program is a substantial investment from within the EPA and will continue 

to build a firm foundation for environmental protection. Tribes in western Washington are ready to partner with EPA to begin this implementation program. 

Tribal Capacity Building 

Additional funds are needed within the agency to effectively manage the new 

Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program. An additional $2.9 million will 

support new positions to oversee, provide guidance and ensure accountability to the 

grant program and ongoing tribal GAP work. This capacity will also provide direct 

technical assistance to tribes. We support this additional funding included in the 

President’s budget. 

Puget Sound Geographic Program 

Marine resources are very important to our member tribes. The Puget Sound Geographic Program provides essential funding that will help protect, restore and enhance Puget Sound. We support restoring this program to the $50 million amount 

enacted in fiscal year 2010. With this level of funding, collaborative work can continue on key marine issues, salmon recovery, land-use management, and regulatory 

changes. 

Tribes will seek funding from this EPA account, in coordination with the Puget 

Sound Partnership. Such funding will allow the tribes to participate in the necessary scientific work, implementation measures, and policy discussions on issues 

that affect our treaty rights. 
347 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, we know that it is difficult to 

allocate scarce Federal funds. However, we believe that the management work that 

we perform to protect our valuable resources and to help fulfill the trust obligation 

of the Federal Government continues to be worthy of your support. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW JERSEY AUDUBON SOCIETY

Funding requests: 

—Cape May National Wildlife Refuge—Hanson Aggregates Property.—$2,000,000 

—Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge—Great Creek Road Parcel.— 

$1,375,000, and West Creek Parcel: $350,000 

—Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge—Kenely Property.—$1,750,000; and 

—Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge—Great Brook.—$1,100,000. 

We, the 48 undersigned organizations, respectfully urge you to support funding 

for land acquisition projects at New Jersey’s National Wildlife Refuges and to ask 

the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to 

provide that funding under the Land and Water Conservation Fund program in fiscal year 2011. Please help us preserve our national heritage by strengthening the 

refuge system in our State. 

Fulfilling the following requests is critical to protecting our State’s rich biodiversity, safeguarding our natural resources and increasing recreational opportunities 

for our citizens. These requests are listed as top priorities; as more funding becomes 

available, we support increased appropriations for the five National Wildlife Refuges. 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge.—$2,000,000 for assistance in the acquisition 

of 620-acre Hanson Aggregates property, which contains rare plant communities 

and numerous endangered and threatened bird and amphibian species. Purchase of 

the property will also help protect area water supply. 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.—$1,375,000 for the acquisition of the 

139-acre Great Creek Road Parcel, and $350,000 for the acquisition of the 79-acre 

West Creek Parcel. These parcels provide critical habitat for bird species along the 

Atlantic Flyway, and help maintain the integrity of the watershed. 

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge.—$1,750,000 for acquisition of a 165-acre 

Kenely Property, a diverse mix of habitats for diverse wildlife including threatened 

and endangered species. Conservation of this property would also contribute to the 

water quality of the Wallkill River. 

Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.—$1,100,000 to complete the acquisition of 

an 18-acre parcel known as Great Brook, which provides critical habitat for endangered Indiana bats and numerous other rare species as well as office space for U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service employees. 

Investing in New Jersey’s refuges provides significant economic and quality of life 

benefits to our citizens. These investments protect and enhance New Jersey’s $4 billion wildlife-related recreation industry. Each year, fishing, hunting, and wildlifewatching activities create more than 37,000 jobs and generate more than $150 million in sales tax revenue. Our refuges also provide natural ecosystem services that 

help purify our State’s air and water supply and protect human health. 

We must take action now to protect the remaining natural areas surrounding our 

refuges. New Jersey’s open space and undeveloped land is disappearing at an alarming rate. For this reason, we respectfully ask you to encourage the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to appropriate funding 

for these vital refuge land acquisition projects before it is too late. Thank you for 

your consideration. 

UNDERSIGNED ORGANIZATIONS

New Jersey Audubon Society; Appalachian Mountain Club; Association of New 

Jersey Environmental Commissions (ANJEC); Bergen County Audubon Society; Bergen SWAN (Save the Watershed Action Network); The Conservation Fund; Citizens 

United to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributaries, Inc.; Conserve Wildlife 

Foundation of New Jersey; D & R Canal Watch; Delaware River Greenway Partnership. 

Delaware Riverkeeper; Edison Wetlands; Doug O’Malley, Field Director, Environment New Jersey; Food & Water Watch; Friends of Sparta Mountain; Friends of the 

Cape May National Wildlife Refuge; Friends of Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife 

Refuge; Friends of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge; Friends of the 
348 

Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge; Friends of the Wallkill River National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Fyke Nature Association; Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association; Great Swamp 

Watershed Association; Hackensack Riverkeeper; Hunterdon Land Trust Alliance; 

Kingston Greenways; The Land Conservancy of New Jersey; Michael Catania, President of Conservation Resources, Inc.; Monmouth Conservation Foundation; 

Musconetcong Mountain Conservancy. 

Musconetcong Watershed Association; New Jersey Conservation Foundation; New 

Jersey Environmental Lobby; New Jersey Highlands Coalition; New Jersey State 

Council—Trout Unlimited; New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmens Clubs; New 

York-New Jersey Trail Conference; Deborah Mans, Executive Director, NY/NY 

Baykeeper; Passaic River Coalition; Pinelands Preservation Alliance. 

Project HEAL at Camp Creek Run; Rancocas Conservancy; Save Barnegat Bay; 

Schiff Natural Lands Trust; South Branch Watershed Association; Anthony Cucchi, 

New Jersey State Director, The Trust for Public Land; Jennifer Coffey, Policy Director, Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association; Verona Park Conservancy. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION

Department of the Interior (DOI) 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Mineral Resources Program (MRP).—Fund the 

MRP at least $24 million and reject any proposed cuts to the Minerals Information 

Team. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—Mining Law Administration.—Increase 

funding for the mining law administration program to $38 million. 

Office of Surface Mining.—Reverse the administration’s 15 percent cut to state 

Surface Mining Control and SMCRA regulatory title V programs. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

NMA opposes EPA’s use of the fiscal year 2011 budget to finalize greenhouse gas 

regulations for motor vehicles and proposing and finalizing specific sources standards for all sources of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Superfund Taxes.—NMA opposes reinstating the long-expired corporate environmental income tax and the revival of the excise tax on domestic crude oil, imported 

petroleum products and certain chemicals. 

DOI 

Mineral Resources Program—Minerals Information Team 

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is the source for the majority of the 

United States’ statistical data on mining and mineral commodities. The collection, 

analysis and dissemination of this information is a Federal responsibility that cannot be duplicated in either the private sector or by other levels of government and 

is in fact mandated by the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended in 1980 and 

1992. The Mineral Resource Program’s Mineral Information Team (MIT) within the 

USGS is the leading source of unbiased research on the Nation’s mineral resources. 

The guidance and research the program provides is vital in maintaining the growing 

value of processed materials from mineral resources that accounted for $454 billion 

in the U.S. economy in 2009, as well as assessing the environmental impacts of mining. The statistical and analytical information provided by the Mineral Resource 

Program MIT provides the basis for informed policy decisions and is extensively 

used by Government agencies, members of Congress, State and local governments, 

as well as industry, academia and nongovernmental organizations. Collection of this 

information provides a fundamental service to the Nation. Specifically, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board uses the data for calculating the Nation’s leading economic indicators; the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security uses 

the data and analysis to resolve trade disputes; the Federal Reserve Board uses 

global minerals information to prepare economic forecasts; and U.S. intelligence 

agencies use the data to understand the effect changes in natural resource markets 

have on economic and political stability of developing countries. Mineral resource 

supply and demand issues are global in nature, and our nation is becoming more 

dependent upon foreign sources to meet our metals and minerals requirements. For 

example, the United States has become more than 50 percent reliant on 38 of the 

81 mineral commodities essential to the economy and 100 percent reliant on 19 of 

those commodities. 

In real terms, the MIT has been severely constrained by an ever decreasing budget (a more than 30 percent decline) since 1996 when the mineral assessment group 

was incorporated in to the USGS. In order to restore its budget to levels intended 
349 

when the group was moved to the USGS more than a decade ago, the Mineral Resource Program’s MIT would need to be funded at $24 million. NMA encourages full 

funding for this important program. 

Mining Law Administration Program 

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Mining Law Administration Program 

(MLAP) is facing ever-growing responsibilities and obligations to process notices and 

plans of operations necessary for domestic exploration and mining projects. While 

NMA supports the administration’s request for $36 million in funding, we feel that 

additional funding is imperative to lessen the backlog of notices and plans of operations. NMA recognizes and appreciates that the subcommittee increased MLAP 

funding in fiscal year 2010 and encourages them to further increase the MLAP by 

an additional $2 million in fiscal year 2011. 

The number of mining claims filed over the past several years has increased by 

more than 600 percent. In 2002, only 15,407 new mining claims were filed as compared to 92,284 in 2007. During the same timeframe, the number of full time equivalent (FTE) employees assigned to the program fell from 359 to 298. Additional 

staffing and other resources are necessary in order to process the notices and plans 

of operations required for expanding our domestic mineral supplies. Delays in obtaining permits and other authorizations remains a substantial impediment to the 

financing and development of mining projects in the United States. According to 

Behre Dolbear, the United States ranks among the lowest of the top 25 mining nations in terms of time and expense for obtaining required permits for mineral exploration and development. Permitting delays discourage companies from exploring in 

the United States and impair the ability to attract the capital investment required 

for mine development. In short, investment capital flows to where investors will experience a quicker return on their investment. 

In a 2005 report to Congress, BLM identified insufficient staffing as one cause of 

permitting delays, noting that many BLM offices were not backfilling positions as 

they were vacated. BLM recommended that a portion of the increased location and 

maintenance fees could be used to maintain adequate staffing levels needed to review, analyze and approve plans of operations. NMA agrees that the increased location and maintenance fees should be used to address MLAP budget needs. 

To address this regulatory bottleneck that impairs our Nation’s economic growth 

and security, NMA provides the following recommendation: a portion of the location 

and maintenance fees collected that exceed the MLAP budget should be dedicated 

to the MLAP instead of being deposited to the General Fund. In 2007, the amount 

collected from such fees exceeded the budgeted amount by more than $24 million. 

Such funds would allow the hiring by BLM state offices of approximately 100 FTEs 

to allow either backfilling of currently vacated positions or new hires. Additionally, 

allocation of funds to the state offices should be prioritized based on the number 

of notices and plans filed in each office and current unfilled openings in MLAP. 

Office of Surface Mining State regulation and abandoned mine land program 

NMA objects to the administration’s proposed cuts in funding for state programs 

under title V of SMCRA to regulate, inspect and issue permits for surface coal mining operations in primacy states. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

NMA opposes the fiscal year 2011 budget request as it pertains to EPA’s usurping 

the power of Congress to address Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) under the existing Clean Air Act (CAA). While we are committed to playing a constructive role 

in the development and adoption of policy measures and technologies to address 

global climate change concerns, we believe those policy decisions fall within the purview of our elected representatives in Congress and not EPA. 

EPA should not be able to utilize fiscal year 2011 funds to conduct rulemakings 

that stem from EPA’s December 15, 2009 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act The finding automatically triggers requirements for all sectors of the economy under the 

CAA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. As such, 

the legal and regulatory implications of the endangerment finding and a final motor 

vehicle rule extend far beyond the motor vehicle sector. At the time the motor vehicle regulations become effective, PSD and title V permitting requirements will automatically be triggered for major stationary sources of GHG emissions. Also, entities 

contemplating construction of new sources or modifications to existing sources that 

will be required to analyze and install undefined Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) to limit those emissions. 
350 

EPA should not be able to use fiscal year 2011 for such rulemakings as: finalizing 

GHG regulations for motor vehicles; or proposing and finalizing specific sources 

standards for all sources of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Superfund Taxes 

NMA opposes reinstating the long-expired corporate environmental income tax 

and revival of the excise tax on domestic crude oil, imported petroleum products and 

certain chemicals. 

Superfund taxes were originally enacted under the ‘‘polluter pays’’ principle. However, companies that formerly paid the taxes continue to fund the cleanup of most 

of the sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). The only NPL cleanups that EPA 

actually pays for are those with no viable potentially responsible parties (i.e., orphan sites). Instead, the Superfund should run on appropriations from general revenues. Superfund taxes have never controlled or determined the amount of EPA 

spending for the Superfund program. The total amount of EPA spending for the 

Superfund program is determined by Congress each year through the appropriations 

process. The majority of funds appropriated for the Superfund cleanup program are 

not being spent on cleaning up NPL sites. 

The National Mining Association (NMA) is the voice of the American mining industry in Washington, D.C. membership includes more than 325 corporations involved in all aspects of coal and solid minerals production including coal, metal and 

industrial mineral producers, mineral processors, equipment manufacturers, State 

mining associations, bulk transporters, engineering firms, consultants, financial institutions, and other companies that supply goods and services to the mining industry. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION

This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2011 appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control activities of the Bureau of Land Management. I 

urge that at least $5,200,000 be appropriated for the Bureau of Land Management 

within the Soil, Water, and Air Management Subactivity for activities that help control salinity in the Colorado River Basin, and of that amount, $1,500,000 be marked 

specifically for identified salinity control related projects and studies. 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is comprised of representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States appointed by the respective 

governors of the States. The Forum has examined the features needed to control the 

salinity of the Colorado River. These include activities by the States, the Bureau 

of Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Salinity Control Program has been adopted by the seven Colorado 

River Basin States and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency as a part 

of each State’s water quality standards. Also, Minute 242 of the International 

Boundary and Water Commission sets limits on the salinity of the water delivered 

to Mexico in the Colorado River. 

About 75 percent of the land in the Colorado River Basin is owned, administered 

or held in trust by the Federal Government. The BLM is the largest land manager 

in the Colorado River Basin, and manages public lands that are heavily laden with 

salt. When salt-laden soils erode, the salts dissolve and enter the river system, affecting the quality of water used from the Colorado River by the Lower Basin States 

and Mexico. The BLM needs to target the expenditure of at least $5.2 million for 

activities in fiscal year 2011 that benefit salinity control in the Colorado River 

Basin. In addition, the BLM needs to target the expenditure of $1,500,000 of the 

$5.2 million specifically for identified salinity control projects and technical investigations. Experience in past years has shown that BLM projects are among the 

most cost-effective of the salinity control projects. 

As one of the five principal Soil, Water and Air Management program activities, 

BLM needs to specifically target $5.2 million to activities that benefit the control 

of salinity on lands of the Colorado River Basin. In the past, BLM has allocated 

$800,000 of the Soil Water and Air Management appropriation for funding specific 

project proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM salinity control coordinator. 

The recently released annual report of the Federal chartered Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Advisory Council reports that BLM has identified projects that 

could utilize funding in the amount of $1.5 million for fiscal year 2011. Consequently, I request that $1.5 million of the Soil, Water and Air Management Subactivity be marked specifically for these identified Colorado River Basin salinity control activities. 
351 

I believe and support past Federal legislation that declared that the Federal Government has a major and important responsibility with respect to controlling salt 

discharge from public lands. Congress has charged the Federal agencies to proceed 

with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River Basin with a strong 

mandate to seek out the most cost-effective solutions. The BLM’s rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control 

measures available. In addition, these programs are environmentally acceptable and 

control erosion, increase grazing opportunities, produce dependable stream run-off 

and enhance wildlife habitat. 

The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin States contain 

a plan of implementation that includes BLM participation to implement cost effective measures of salinity control. BLM participation in the salinity control program 

is critical and essential to actively pursue the identification, implementation and 

quantification of cost effective salinity control measures on public lands. 

Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from Colorado River 

salinity to United States water users are about $350 million per year. Unquantified 

damages increase the total damages significantly. For every increase of 30 milligrams per liter in salinity concentration in the waters of the Colorado River, an increase in damages of $75 million is experienced by the water users of the Colorado 

River Basin in the United States. Control of salinity is necessary for the Basin 

States, including New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned 

waters of the Colorado River. The Basin States are proceeding with an independent 

program to control salt discharges to the Colorado River, in addition to up-front cost 

sharing with Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Agriculture salinity control 

programs. It is vitally important that the BLM pursue salinity control projects within its jurisdiction to maintain the cost effectiveness of the program and the timely 

implementation of salinity control projects that will help avoid unnecessary damages in the United States and Mexico. 

At the urging of the Basin States, the BLM has created a full time position to 

coordinate its activities among the BLM State offices and other Federal agencies involved in implementation of the salinity control program. The BLM’s Budget Justification documents have stated that BLM continues to implement on-the-ground 

projects, evaluate progress in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and report salt retention measures to implement and maintain salinity control measures of the Federal salinity control program 

in the Colorado River Basin. The BLM is to be commended for its commitment to 

cooperate and coordinate with the Basin States and other Federal agencies. The 

Basin States and I are pleased with the BLM administration’s responsiveness in addressing the need for renewed emphasis on its efforts to control salinity sources and 

to comply with BLM responsibilities pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Act, as amended. 

I request the appropriation of at least $5.2 million in fiscal year 2011 for Colorado 

River salinity control activities of the BLM within the Soil, Water, and Air Management Subactivity, and that $1,500,000 of that amount be marked specifically for 

identified salinity control related projects and studies. I appreciate consideration of 

these requests. I fully support the statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Forum submitted by Jack Barnett, the Forum’s Executive Director, in request of appropriations for BLM for Colorado River salinity control activities. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW MEXICO WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: My name is Alan 

Hamilton and I am the Conservation Director for the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of our organization in support of two important land conservation projects in New Mexico. 

Founded in 1914 by Aldo Leopold and other conservation-minded sportsman, the 

New Mexico Wildlife Federation is New Mexico’s oldest conservation organization 

dedicated to protecting New Mexico’s wildlife, habitat and outdoor way of life. Presently the New Mexico Wildlife Federation is honored to represent about 8,000 

sportsmen and women throughout the State. 

The first project is the Forest Service acquisition of the 1,500-acre first phase of 

the nearly 5,000-acre Miranda Canyon property. An appropriation of $4 million is 

needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in order 

to protect this land in the Carson National Forest. The second project is the 6,250- 

acre second phase of the 11,699-acre Vallecitos High Country project. An Appropriation of $3.375 million is needed from the Forest Legacy Program to protect this extraordinary land. 
352 

Carson National Forest 

Some of the finest mountain scenery in the Southwest is found in the 1.5 millionacre Carson National Forest. Elevations rise from 6,000 to 13,161 feet at Wheeler 

Peak in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, the highest peak in New Mexico. The scenery varies from high desert scrub and red soil to spruce and fir filled mountainsides and wildflower meadows. In addition to the various landscapes, there are also 

many recreational opportunities in the forest. The magnificent mountain scenery 

and cool summer temperatures lure visitors to enjoy fishing, hunting, camping and 

hiking. Winter activities include skiing, snowshoeing and snowmobiling. There are 

330 miles of trails for hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and 4-wheel drive 

exploring. For the backcountry enthusiast, there are 86,193 acres of wilderness in 

the forest that have been virtually undisturbed, where travel is restricted to foot or 

horseback. 

There are many species of animals in the Carson National Forest including mule 

deer, elk, antelope, black bear, and bighorn sheep along with many species of songbirds and a wonderful display of wildflowers. The forest has 400 miles of clean 

mountain streams and many lakes that offer outstanding trout fishing including 

rainbow, eastern brook, German brown and cutthroat trout. Available for acquisition 

as part of the Carson National Forest is the 4,990-acre Miranda Canyon Property 

located just 10 miles south of Taos. The property is adjacent to the Carson National 

Forest and ranges in elevation from 7,200 feet to 10,801 feet. The property has various vegetative types from low elevation sagebrush and pinon juniper to high elevation mixed conifer forest containing large aspen stands. There are also numerous 

meadows and riparian vegetation that provide excellent habitat for wildlife. 

The landscape has numerous ridges and peaks that provide breathtaking views 

of the Rio Grande Gorge to the west and of Wheeler Peak, the highest peak in New 

Mexico, to the north. Picuris Peak is located on the property along a popular hiking 

route. The property also contains historical features such as the Old Spanish National Historic Trail, a route that dates back to the 1600s when the Spanish made 

their way to northern New Mexico and established the first capital city near San 

Juan Pueblo. Other geological features on the property include a unique small volcano and 1.7 billion-year-old rock outcrops that rival the age of rock found at the 

bottom of the Grand Canyon. 

The landowner of the Miranda Canyon property is currently reviewing various development options for this scenic property after a recent attempt to subdivide the 

property into 150 lots. If subdivided and developed, tremendous recreational, scenic, 

and ecological resources would be diminished or lost forever. However, there is an 

immediate opportunity to protect this land for conservation, which would provide 

additional recreational opportunities for hunting, sightseeing, camping, hiking, interpretation, and horseback riding for the public. 

In fiscal year 2011, the Miranda Canyon property is available for acquisition by 

the Carson National Forest through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. An appropriation of $4 million is needed this year to begin the acquisition of this property, 

which will conserve and enhance the area’s scenic, recreation, historic, and natural 

resources. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation’s premier Federal program 

to acquire and protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and 

at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting 

healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, 

improving wildfire management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing 

the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the committee for its 

recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one that will permanently 

pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

Vallecitos High County 

The New Mexico Forest Legacy Program is devoted to the protection and management of environmentally important forest areas that are threatened by conversion 

to non-forest uses. In addition, the program gives priority to private forested lands 

which protect and enhance watershed and water quality, maintain and restore riparian areas, protect important wildlife habitats, and contribute to the cultural and 

economic vitality of rural communities. 
353 

In fiscal year 2011, the State of New Mexico’s top priority for Forest Legacy Program funding is a phase II conservation easement on 6,250 acres of the Vallecitos 

High Country property, continuing a protection effort that began in 2008. The property, located within the Rio Vallecitos watershed in Rio Arriba County, is an 11,699- 

acre parcel of mixed conifer, aspen, and spruce-fir forests interspersed with mountain meadows and creeks. It adjoins the Carson National Forest on three sides and 

is visible from the Continental Divide Trail. The Rio Vallecitos, an important coldwater fishery, is managed by the U.S. Forest Service as a Wild and Scenic River. 

It provides irrigation and municipal water to the downstream villages of Vallecitos 

and La Madera. The property boasts critical wildlife habitat that includes old 

growth forest, wet meadows, and clear creeks. The wide diversity of wildlife on the 

property includes several threatened and endangered species. In addition, several 

miles of riparian woodlands, considered relatively rare in New Mexico, are found 

along the Rio Vallecitos, Jarosa Creek, and North Creek. The Rio Vallecitos runs 

five miles across the property near the national forest boundary, and another 12 

miles of tributary creeks on the property feed into this important riparian corridor. 

The old-growth mixed conifer and spruce-fir forests on the Vallecitos High Country property provide suitable habitat for the federal-threatened Mexican spotted owl 

and the State-threatened boreal owl and pine marten. The property also provides 

important habitat forperegrine falcon, bald eagle, northern goshawk, and king fisher. Since it is a large forested property, it is capable of supporting populations of 

territorial wildlife species with large home ranges such as black bear, mountain 

lion, bobcat, turkey, and birds of prey. The property is within an area classified as 

a major wildlife dispersal corridor by the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, 

which strives to maintain a network of undeveloped habitats and migratory pathways in the region. The wet meadows and beaver ponds on the property are suitable 

reintroduction sites for the extirpated boreal toad. This state endangered amphibian 

may still exist as an undiscovered remnant population on the property. Recognizing 

these critical habitat lands, the landowner has been working with the New Mexico 

Department Game and Fish to protect the boreal toad habitat. 

Due to its spectacular views and abundant fishing and hunting opportunities, the 

Vallecitos High Country property is highly threatened by the development of seasonal homes. Protection of this property will expand New Mexico’s protection of 

high-quality watersheds and forests by complementing a completed Forest Legacy 

Program easement on the Vallecitos Mountain Refuge property along the Rio 

Vallecitos only 2 miles downstream. It will also protect the scenic integrity of the 

area, as the property is visible from a new segment of the Continental Divide Trail 

and is part of the viewshed from the Rio Vallecitos Canyon. 

In fiscal year 2008, a total of $1.195 million was secured from the Forest Legacy 

Program to help protect 2,213 acres of the forested 11,699-acre Vallecitos High 

Country property. In fiscal year 2011, $3.375 million is needed for the second phase 

to place a conservation easement on another 6,250 acres. These Federal funds will 

be matched by a 25 percent land value donation from the landowner. Partners in 

this project are the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, New Mexico Forestry Division, the Carson National Forest, Forest Trust, Rio Chama Watershed 

Group, Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, and Vallecitos Mountain Refuge. 

Please do all that you can to ensure that this worthwhile program is funded adequately in fiscal year 2011 and that the Vallecitos High Country project receives 

$3.375 million in fiscal year 2011. I am thankful that the fiscal year 2011 President’s budget request included $1.925 million for this project. However, the phase 

can be completed this year with an appropriation of $3.375 million. 

I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of these nationally important protection efforts in New 

Mexico, and I appreciate your consideration of the funding requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION

Thank you Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and honorable 

members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to submit written testimony on 

the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations 

bill. 

The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) is a national, nonprofit organization with a mission of advancing parks, recreation, and environmental conservation efforts that enhance the quality of life for all people. There are more than 

6,500 parks and recreation agencies throughout the country, a majority of which are 

members of NRPA. Through our network of more than 21,000 citizen and professional members we represent park and recreation departments in cities, counties, 
354 

townships, special park districts, regional park authorities, and citizens concerned 

with ensuring close-to-home access to parks and recreation opportunities in their 

communities. 

As your subcommittee works to craft the fiscal year 2011 Appropriations bill, we 

request that you include $175 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund’s 

(LWCF) State Assistance program. 

NRPA respectfully urges the subcommittee to invest in our local communities 

through park and community infrastructure as our Nation perseveres through the 

present economic challenges. The subcommittee has the opportunity to make a 

worthwhile contribution to the economy through not only capital investment infrastructure projects on Federal lands, but also investments in close-to-home parks and 

recreation infrastructure near population centers through LWCF State Assistance. 

With more than $12 billion in unmet needs for LWCF State Assistance reported 

by States to the National Park Service (NPS), there is undoubtedly need for robust 

investment. Funding provided through LWCF State Assistance not only provides 

necessary community resources for outdoor recreation opportunities, community 

health resources, and environmental stewardship, it also stimulates State and local 

economies, and job creation. In fact, Governor Joe Machin of West Virginia notes, 

‘‘The Land and Water Conservation Fund grant program is one of the best ways we 

can be involved in the enrichment of West Virginia’s communities for the future.’’ 

It is obvious that LWCF funds are vital to many States and literally determine 

whether a local, regional, or State park is acquired or recreation facilities are developed for public use. The need for recreational resources has exponentially increased, 

but agencies are unable to meet the rising need. 

LWCF STATE ASSISTANCE STIMULATES JOBS CREATION AND LOCAL ECONOMIES

Close-to-home recreation has become increasingly important as a result of the current economic downturn. The National Association of State Park Directors reports 

that America’s State park system contributes $20 billion to local and State economies. Additionally, The Outdoor Industry Association reports that recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy, supporting 6.5 million jobs 

across the country. The uncertainty that is inherent to our current economic environment has resulted in increased use of State and local parks and recreational resources further enhancing the economic impact of park and recreation agencies. 

LWCF State Assistance projects stimulate local economies by creating local jobs, 

generating visitor tax dollars for local economies, and employing full-time and parttime workers. Studies have shown that for every $1 million invested in parks and 

recreation infrastructure, at least 20 jobs are created. To demonstrate the job creation ability of LWCF State Assistance State and local projects, the chart below was 

created from information received from the Virginia State Park Director, and the 

Arkansas State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officer. 

LWCF State assistance funding recipient Award date Jobs created/saved 

LWCF State assistance amount awarded 

VA—Douthat State Park Cabin Project ..................... December 3, 2008 ............. 80 $163,026 

VA—Douthat State Park Campgrounds .................... September 1, 2009 ............ 100 $497,520 

AR—Rose City ball field construction and ADA access.March 4, 2003 ................... 30 $75,000 

AR—Maumelle ball park development ..................... March 17, 2005 ................. 75 $200,000 

AR—Mena Five Clover-Leaf ball field development July 21, 2005 ..................... 75 $125,000 

LWCF STATE ASSISTANCE IMPACT ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES

LWCF State Assistance is a matching grant program that requires State and local 

governments to provide 50 percent in non-Federal funds for the acquisition, development, and redevelopment of parks and recreation resources. As a result of LWCF 

State Assistance funding, more than 41,000 projects have been created in local communities. Since its inception in 1965, the program has provided almost $4 billion 

in matching funds to States and local communities in 98 percent of American counties. The States, cities, counties, and towns that apply for and accept Federal funding from the LWCF State assistance grant program agree to match the Federal investment on a dollar-for-dollar basis, and often match significantly more than the 

Federal share. 
355 

PUBLIC HEALTH

Congress created the LWCF State Assistance program ‘‘to strengthen the health 

and vitality of the citizens of the United States,’’ and undoubtedly these projects are 

playing a critical role in battling our Nation’s obesity and Type 2 diabetes 

epidemics. Several medical studies have shown that there is a strong correlation between proximity to recreational facilities and parks and physical activity. According 

to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which estimates 65 percent 

of adults and 16 percent of children are overweight or obese, even small improvements in the lifestyles of Americans would yield marked health improvements. In 

fact, CDC notes that the creation of or enhanced access to places for physical activity led to a 25.6 percent increase in the percentage of people exercising on three or 

more days per week. Investing in programs such as the LWCF State Assistance program would provide a significant return on investment through the reduction in 

healthcare costs. 

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

The LWCF State Assistance program not only meets important national goals and 

delivers tangible benefits to the American public by improving health, providing 

recreation opportunities to all Americans, and improving communities through economic development, it also significantly contributes to protecting our environment 

and promoting environmental stewardship. LWCF State Assistance projects have a 

historical record of contributing to reduced and delayed stormwater runoff volumes, 

enhanced groundwater recharge, stormwater pollutant reductions, reduced sewer 

overflow events, increased carbon sequestration, urban heat island mitigation and 

reduced energy demands, resulting in improved air quality, increased wildlife habitat, and increased land values on the local level. 

LWCF STATE ASSISTANCE: ADDRESSING NATIONAL ISSUES ON THE LOCAL LEVEL

The following examples, provided by the NPS, paint a picture of a Federal program, diverse in application and addressing national issues on the local level: 

Focal Points of Close-to-Home Access to Health and the Outdoors in Urban Areas 

In Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, Tubbs Hill Park received critical LWCF funding to help 

acquire and preserve a breathtaking urban forest. Today, this 135-acre forest in the 

middle of the city has a 2.2-mile loop trail, spectacular scenic vistas of Lake Coeur 

d’Alene and unparalleled access to close to home recreation in the heart of Coeur 

d’Alene. This park is a hub for community exercise and offered as an ideal healthy 

resource within the city. In this urban park, you commonly see osprey, common, and 

hooded mergansers, bald eagles, as well as pied-billed, eared, and western grebes. 

Economic Development and Community Benefits of Parks and Access to Recreation 

In Rapid City, South Dakota, a community park was built in a part of the community that did not have a public park. With the help of a LWCF grant and a matching grant from Rapid City, several developers donated money to build this community playground. Since the announcement of the park and playground project, three 

major housing developments have emerged in the surrounding neighborhood thereby 

generating additional tax revenue. 

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation Projects Leverage Regional Impacts 

In Ashburnham, Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts used 

$450,000 in LWCF funds to leverage an additional $675,000 to conserve 460 acres 

of forest lands along the New Hampshire border. The land provides public access 

for long-distance hiking, links conservation lands, protects the water quality of the 

Millers River, and preserves archaeologically sensitive sites once used by the ‘‘Harvard Shakers.’’ 

Unfortunately, in recent years funding for LWCF State Assistance has been severely diminished leaving communities with lists of unfunded projects. However, in 

the past year we are seeing encouraging signs by the Obama administration and 

Congress that LWCF State Assistance is becoming a priority within the Interior 

budget. With Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar’s vision to fully fund LWCF at 

$900 million by 2014, it is going to require significant and bold increases between 

now and 2014. With the more than $12 billion in unmet need ready to be funded 

in our State and local communities, we believe our request for $175 million for 

LWCF State Assistance is entirely appropriate. Adjusting for inflation, the $144 million that was appropriated to LWCF State Assistance in fiscal year 2002 would 

today be $175 million. 
356 

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, parks and recreation agencies are not merely community amenities; they are essential services which are necessary for the economic and environmental vitality as well as physical wellness of 

communities throughout this country. By providing funding for LWCF which has 

proven itself invaluable to addressing national issues, Congress would be investing 

in the health and well-being of communities across this Nation from the standpoint 

of economic recovery, environmental protection, as well as providing safe and affordable places for recreation. Because this investment has a positive impact on the 

economy in the areas of job creation local economic stimulation, now is the ideal 

time to invest into this program that has been dismantled over the past 8 years. 

The lack of required Federal operations, maintenance, and staff funding of these 

state and local projects is yet another reason why investment is advantageous to 

American taxpayer. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTH SHORE SANITARY DISTRICT

Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss a vital project the North Shore Sanitary District (NSSD) is attempting to complete—the repair of the Waukegan Sewage Treatment Plant’s Final 

Effluent Forcemain. Senator Burris has lent his support to our effort by requesting 

an appropriation for fiscal year 2011 of $4,974,000 from the EPA’s State and Tribal 

Assistance Grant program. 

Before discussing this project in detail, I would like to tell you about the mission 

of the NSSD. The NSSD works diligently to safeguard Lake Michigan and other 

local waterways, such as the Skokie and Des Plaines rivers, from pollutants while 

providing wastewater treatment service to approximately 315,000 residents in eastern Lake County, Illinois. The NSSD is the second largest wastewater agency in the 

State of Illinois, serving the communities of: Winthrop Harbor; Zion; Beach Park; 

Waukegan; Gurnee; Grayslake; Park City; North Chicago; Green Oaks; Lake Bluff, 

Lake Forest; Highwood; Highland Park; Bannockburn; and Deerfield. We also provide wastewater treatment services for one of the largest military installations in 

the United States—the Great Lakes Naval Training Station. 

The NSSD collects wastewater from local sewer systems in these communities and 

conveys it via 125 miles of interceptor sewers and 11 pumping stations to its treatment plants in Waukegan, Highland Park, and Gurnee. These three facilities have 

been recognized by the National Association of Cleanwater Agencies for their excellence. 

Like many agencies charged with the responsibility of keeping our waterways 

clean, the NSSD has major infrastructure needs that must be met if we are to continue to be effective in our important mission. 

Among these challenges for the NSSD is repairing its 54 inch diameter Waukegan 

Sewage Treatment Plant Final Effluent Forcemain, a 5.6 mile long forcemain constructed of pre-stressed concrete pipes that connect our Waukegan Treatment Plant 

with the Des Plaines River. The forcemain, which is nearly 35 years old, carries 

treated effluent through densely populated neighborhoods in Waukegan and 

Gurnee, Illinois. It has already experienced two significant failures, resulting in 

damage to both private property and public infrastructure. Based on an inspection 

in 2002, 60 pipes were repaired by lining the pipe with a carbon-fiber-reinforced 

polymer (CFRP) wrap. In April 2008, a second inspection determined there were an 

additional 31 pipes exhibiting various degrees of distress since the 2002 inspection 

and subsequent repair. The estimated overall cost to upgrade the forcemain is approximately $14.2 million. 

Due to the significant environmental benefits of this project, the NSSD is seeking 

this funding assistance. The Federal funding requested will be used directly in repairing the pipe. The NSSD has decided to adopt a proactive approach and repair 

all pipes that are in 16 general areas where the 31 pipes found to be in distress 

in 2008 are located. These 16 areas cover approximately 3,041 feet in length. 

These repairs would not only create approximately 160 jobs for the region but 

would also reduce the potential of another forcemain rupture, which in addition to 

the causing disruption for local property owners, would require the NSSD to discharge effluent directly into Lake Michigan. 

Thank you again for your consideration, and we would be glad to answer any 

question you might have. 
357 

1 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Report on Tribal Priority Allocations, July 1999, 52. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL

On behalf of the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC) and our 187 

member tribes, we thank you for the opportunity to provide fiscal year 2011 funding 

recommendations for the Department of the Interior and other agencies under the 

purview of this subcommittee. 

Founded in 1991, NTEC works with federally recognized tribes to protect tribal 

environments. NTEC’s mission is to support Indian tribes and Alaska Natives in 

protecting, regulating, and managing their environmental resources according to 

their own priorities and values. 

Despite having some of the most pristine habitat in the United States, tribes have 

been historically underfunded for wildlife and natural resource management and 

conservation. There are 564 federally recognized American Indian tribes and more 

than 300 reservations in the United States. Tribes manage 95 million acres of land, 

11 million acres more than the National Park Service. Tribal lands contain more 

than 997,000 acres of lakes, 13,000 miles of rivers, and 18 million acres of forested 

lands. Tribes operate approximately 114 fish hatcheries, with many producing 

threatened or endangered fish species. Tribal lands provide vital habitat for more 

than 525 federal listed plants and animals, many of which are both ecologically and 

culturally significant to tribes. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA)

Department of the Interior Climate Change Adaptation Initiative 

Increase the BIA’s allocation of the Interior Department’s Climate Change Adap- tation Initiative to $8.55 million. 

The Interior Department began a Climate Change Adaptation Initiative in September 2009, an undertaking that Indian tribes support in principle. The administration’s fiscal 2011 budget request for the initiative is $171.3 million, an increase 

of $35.4 million more than 2010. The $136 million for the initiative in 2010 did not 

include any funding for tribes. Despite a substantial increase in the overall funding 

request, the situation for tribes is nearly as bad in the 2011 budget. Of the $171.3 

million, only $200,000 goes to the BIA to involve and assist Indian tribes. This is 

highly inequitable, especially considering the disproportionate effect of climate 

change on tribes and their homelands. Sovereign Indian tribes deserve a broader 

seat at the table in the Climate Change Adaptation Initiative and a more equitable 

share of the funding. 

Tribal lands comprise 4 percent of the U.S. land base (tribal lands represent a 

higher percentage if compared to the Federal lands involved in this initiative; tribal 

lands equal 95 million acres divided by 593 million acres of Federal land and tribal 

land equal 16 percent). Given that funding for tribal natural resources has been historically underfunded and there is no Federal program or funding that specifically 

supports tribal climate adaptation efforts, we request that the allocation to tribes 

via the BIA should be increased to $8.55 million, or 5 percent of DOI’s Climate 

Change Adaptation initiative, for tribes to address and adapt to the impacts of climate change. 

To achieve this equitable increase for tribes, the money provided to the various 

Interior agencies for the Initiative must be reallocated. In addition, the fiscal year 

2011 BIA budget included $19 million for FBI agents, but this does not belong in 

the BIA budget. While we support additional funding for tribal law enforcement 

needs, we know that many tribes feel it is inappropriate to allocate the funding in 

this manner. We suggest that the $19 million be re-directed specifically for tribal 

law enforcement programs and to increase funding for tribal climate change adaptation efforts. 

Trust Natural Resources Program (TNR) 

Maintain fiscal year 2010 enacted amount of $175.62 million for BIA TNR Program. 

The BIA TNR Program represents the largest amount of base, Federal funding for tribal natural resource management. Tribes have more than $356 million of 

unmet annual needs for natural resource management and conservation.1 Because 

BIA spending on natural resources in the last 2011 years has been relatively flat 

compared to inflation and BIA’s budget has been historically inadequate to meet the 

natural resource needs of Indian tribes, their needs have multiplied. In addition, the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights notes, ‘‘Native American population needs have increased at a rate faster than inflation, as problems are compounded by years of ne-
358 

2 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, July 2003), 11. 3State funding includes the FWS Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs and State 

Wildlife Grants. Tribal funding includes the FWS Tribal Wildlife Grants and Tribal Landowner 

Incentive Program. 

glect.’’ 2 Even with the fiscal year 2010 increase to the TNR Program, the annual 

unmet needs of tribes for natural resource management continue to exist and grow. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2011 request is $17.2 million less than the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level primarily due to an $18.6 million transfer of minerals and 

mining funding, what has been termed ‘‘efficiency savings,’’ and modest decreases 

and increases to a variety of tribal programs. Due to the significant unmet annual 

needs for tribal natural resource management and the historic underfunding of tribal natural resource programs, we request that the aforementioned $17.2 million be 

reinstated and provided to BIA TNR Programs including the Tribal Management 

and Development Program, Wildlife and Parks Tribal Priority Allocations, Natural 

Resource Tribal Priority Allocations, Water Management, Planning and Pre-Development Program, Endangered Species Program, and Rights Protection Implementation. As discussed in the previous section, it would also be possible to allocate some 

of the $19 million currently proposed for FBI agents to make up for the shortfall 

in TNR funding for tribes. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)

Tribal Wildlife Grants Program 

Increase FWS Tribal Wildlife Grants Program funding to $8.4 million. 

Unfortunately, tribes are not eligible for funding under Federal wildlife and fishery restoration programs such as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson) or the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson) 

that fund activities through an excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment. Although tribal members pay taxes that support this funding, they remain excluded 

from receiving the benefits and only States are allowed to access them. 

In 2002, Congress authorized FWS to provide funding to tribes under the Tribal 

Wildlife Grant (TWG) and Tribal Landowner Incentive Programs (TLIP). Tribal proposals for support often total more than $30 million annually. Yet these programs 

combined have only provided tribes an average of $7 million annually. With 564 federally recognized tribes, competition is severe and tribes rarely receive sufficient 

funds to fully support important conservation efforts. 

In fiscal year 2007, only 38 proposals out of 110 submitted received funding under 

the TWG Program. In fiscal year 2003, in the FWS Northeast Region, 9 tribes submitted TWG proposals requesting $1.4 million, but only 4 were funded for $481,554 

(34 percent of the requested amount). In fiscal year 2009, FWS only funded 41 TWG 

proposals out of 101 submitted, awarding $7 million to tribes with a meager average 

award of $170,000. In fiscal year 2010, States received more than $1 billion from 

the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, and State Wildlife Grants programs. Thus, the $7 million tribes received 

from the TWG program was less than .007 percent of the amount States received. 

From 2002–2010, States received 86 times more FWS funding than tribes for fish 

and wildlife conservation, or $6.25 billion for States compared to $72.2 million for 

tribes (see chart).3
359 

Since the inception of the TWG Program in 2002, no more than $7 million per 

year has been made available on a competitive basis to the Nation’s 564 federally 

recognized tribes. At this low level of funding, very few tribes receive any TWG Program funding; those receiving TWG Program funding typically get very little; and 

no tribe receives sufficient funding to sustain long-term tribal wildlife and natural 

resource management efforts. In fiscal year 2010, the State and Tribal Wildlife 

Grant Program received $90 million, a $15 million or 20 percent increase from fiscal 

year 2009. Nonetheless, funding for tribes via the TWG Program remained at $7 

million, and continues at that level in the administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget 

request. Tribes deserve at least the same 20 percent increase; thus we request that 

TWG Program funding be increased to $8.4 million. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program 

Preserve the administration’s fiscal year 2011 request of $32.9 million for the 

Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes a new Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants 

program to support on-the-ground implementation of environmental protection on 

tribal lands. This program would provide $30 million for tribes to address their most 

pressing environmental needs. This program would advance negotiated environmental plans and activities on a cooperative basis between tribes and EPA, ensuring 

that tribal environmental priorities are adequately addressed. In addition, the administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $2.9 million for tribal capacity building and implementation of this new grant program. NTEC requests that 

these EPA programs be funded at the proposed $32.9 million level. 

General Assistance Program 

Preserve the administration’s fiscal year 2011 request of $71.4 million for the EPA 

General Assistance Program. 

Since 1992, the EPA’s Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) 

has served a critical need in providing funding to tribes to build capacity for environmental management. The administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget request includes a much-needed $8.5 million increase for GAP. This requested increase will 

help tribal environmental programs to continue to build capacity as well as advance 

efforts to manage tribal environments. NTEC requests that the EPA GAP Program 

be funded at the proposed $71.4 million level. 
360 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Chairman Feinstein and members of the subcommittee, the National Trust for 

Historic Preservation asks that you support job creation, sustainability and smart 

growth by appropriating funding for the Nation’s core historic preservation programs in the amounts of $55 million for State Historic Preservation Officers 

(SHPOs); $10 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), $25 million 

for Save America’s Treasures (SAT), and $4.6 million for Preserve America (PA) in 

fiscal year 2011. 

SAT, the Nation’s only bricks-and-mortar preservation grant program, is proposed 

for elimination and the National Trust urges you to fund it at last year’s level of 

$25 million. The proposed elimination of SAT would represent a nearly 30 percent 

reduction in the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) overall, while some other programs in the Department of the Interior have seen as much as a 38 percent increase. The Trust urges you to help deliver greater equity between our cultural historic preservation programs and our natural resource programs, as they are both integral parts of preserving our Nation’s rich heritage. 

Over the past 10 years, SAT has been a driver of economic development and the 

Federal Government’s most successful tool to preserve the important places that tell 

our Nation’s story. Due to broad, bipartisan congressional support, the program has 

provided nearly $300 million to save 1,132 of America’s most significant places in 

all 50 States, creating over 16,000 jobs and fostering economic development in every 

single project it covers. The National Trust supports a rigorous evaluation of Federal programs to ensure taxpayer money is spent wisely. SAT’s decade-long track 

record exhibits the efficient use of these funds. 

SAT stands out as a model of effective spending because every SAT grant recipient is required to raise a dollar-for-dollar, non-Federal match. It has leveraged more 

that $350 million in non-Federal and private funds. As a result, SAT has been enormously successful in attracting private-sector financing and creating productive and 

sustained partnerships with corporations, foundations, and individuals that provide 

matching contributions. Continued Federal funding of SAT is even more important 

due to currently distressed credit markets and high unemployment. 

Preserve America, a sister program to SAT for preservation education and outreach, funded out of the National Recreation account, would also be eliminated in 

the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget. The Preserve America program complements SAT’s bricks-and-mortar grant projects by helping local communities develop sustainable resource management strategies and sound business practices for 

the continued preservation and use of heritage assets. The National Trust urges you 

to fund it at last year’s level of $4.6 million. A 2009 report to Congress by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation found that Preserve America is addressing 

many State, local, and regional heritage tourism needs with a relatively small Federal investment and like SAT, the competitive grants require a dollar-for-dollar, 

non-Federal match. 

Tying our Nation’s historic preservation activities together are the SHPOs. In addition to lying the groundwork for SAT and PA, SHPOs carry out the Federal historic preservation program that provides citizens the tools needed to revitalize, rehabilitate, and protect the places that give meaning to America. Funding for SHPOs 

leverages investments through local jobs, non-Federal contributions and long-term 

economic development. In 2009, the Rehabilitation Tax Credit, administered by 

SHPOs, leveraged nearly $5 billion in private investment and created more than 

70,000 jobs. SHPOs also review Federal projects for their potential impact on historic sites. A recent February 2010 GAO report highlighted that SHPO staff shortages have delayed various American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

projects. Providing $55 million for SHPOs would help fund additional staff vital to 

conducting ARRA reviews while still providing communities with the means necessary to revitalize and preserve their heritage. 

THPOs carry out many of the same functions as SHPOs in tribal areas. There 

are currently 96 THPOs and as the number continues to increases, the amount of 

HPF funds appropriated is not keeping pace. In fiscal year 1996, there were 12 

tribes that received an average of $80,000. Fifteen years later, the number of 

THPOs will have grown to 100, and at the President’s proposed level of $8 million, 

each would receive an average amount of $72,500—about $7,500 less than when the 

program was first funded. Therefore the National Trust asks that THPOs be funded 

at $10 million for fiscal year 2011. 

Funding these essential historic preservation programs would represent a true investment in America’s treasured legacy multiplied many times over through publicprivate economic partnerships and ventures. Most importantly, it would create 
361 

much needed jobs and ensure the protection of historic resources nationwide that 

might otherwise be lost forever. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the Nation’s largest conservation advocacy and education organization, and our more than 4 million members and supporters, we thank you for the opportunity to provide fiscal year 2011 

funding recommendations for the Department of the Interior and other agencies 

under the purview of this subcommittee. 

We understand the administration and the subcommittee face difficult choices in 

these challenging economic times, and we are pleased with several of the major initiatives in the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposal. We commend the subcommittee for its efforts to strengthen the scientific and planning capacity to address climate change impacts on wildlife through landscape-level conservation and 

management, rapidly increasing the capacity for appropriately sited renewable energy and transmission on public lands, and facilitating essential acquisition of key 

habitat through a commitment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Climate Change Adaptation and Landscape-scale Conservation 

The proposed budget includes a much-needed $35 million increase more than the 

enacted fiscal year 2010 budget to support on-the-ground adaptation at several 

agencies. NWF is strongly supportive of the $171 million requested for the Department of the Interior budget to help agencies assess and respond to the impacts of 

climate change on wildlife. We are particularly pleased to see investments in Landscape Conservation Cooperatives designed to engage and integrate agencies from 

across the Department and with external partners. 

Promote Renewable Energy and Limit Fossil Fuel Subsidies 

Transitioning to a clean energy economy is one of the great challenges facing the 

nation. NWF supports the New Energy Frontier initiative in the President’s fiscal 

year 2011 budget, which invests in development of clean energy resources on public 

lands while acknowledging that not all lands with energy potential are appropriate 

for development. This initiative would invest $73.3 million in renewable energy programs, a $14.2 million increase more than fiscal year 2010. Because it is essential 

that applications are sited appropriately, we strongly support proposed investments 

in new studies of wildlife impacts, site-specific environmental studies, and regional 

analysis of wind energy zones. We remain concerned, however, that the Department 

lacks the necessary policy guidance to support the targeted build out on public lands 

without incurring significant impacts to wildlife and other natural resources. 

NWF also strongly supports the Department’s common-sense budget proposals for 

reducing extravagant subsidies to the oil and gas industry, including a new fee for 

nonproducing leases. To confront climate change, promote cleaner sources of energy, 

and enhance our national security, we will need to phase out tax breaks and subsidies to the most carbon intensive fuels. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants 

The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the Nation’s core program for 

preventing wildlife from becoming endangered in every state. It provides state wildlife agencies and their partners with a broad suite of proactive conservation tools 

to allow for meaningful and cost-effective species conservation. At the heart of this 

program is implementation of federally approved wildlife action plans. We urge Congress to honor its commitment to this important effort and respectfully request that 

the subcommittee provide State Wildlife Grants funding of $100 million, an increase 

of $10 million more than fiscal year 2010 enacted levels. 

Endangered Species Program 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a safety net for wildlife, plants, and fish 

that are on the brink of extinction. While the act has been extraordinarily successful 

in preventing the extinction of plants and animals, funding for its implementation 

has eroded significantly over the past few years. We are dismayed with the President’s proposal to virtually flat-fund the program, and are particularly concerned 

about decreases in the listing and candidate conservation programs. We urge the 

Subcommittee to appropriate at least $217 million in fiscal year 2011 toward the 

Endangered Species Program ($38 million above fiscal year 2010 enacted) as follows: 

Listing ($32 million), Recovery ($95 million), Consultation ($75 million), and Candidate Conservation ($15 million). 
362 

National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is a monumental part of the public lands 

systems in the United States. It is home to endangered species, migrating birds, 

rare flora and fauna, and retreat for hunters and anglers nationwide. The Refuge 

System will also play a crucial role for wildlife as the impacts of climate change continue to increase. Unfortunately the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget reflects cuts 

to a system that must be able to lead the way in a warming climate. The National 

Wildlife Federation, in support of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

(CARE), recommends $578.3 million for Operations and Maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Conservation Planning Assistance 

The Conservation Planning Assistance (CPA) branch delivers on-the-ground conservation of wetlands and other high-value habitats through environmental review 

and technical assistance. Base funding and staff levels for this program have significantly eroded over the past 15 years, and that erosion continues, despite increased 

demands for CPA expertise. As a first step in restoring the agency’s capacity to deliver on-the-ground habitat conservation, we urge the Subcommittee to appropriate 

$32.3 million in fiscal year 2011 toward the Conservation Assistance Program’s 

‘‘General Program Activities’’ account ($6 million above the fiscal year 2011 request). 

Youth in Natural Resources 

We greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s strong support in fiscal year 2010 for 

Secretary Salazar’s Youth in Natural Resources initiative, which will reach and educate youth from all backgrounds about our Nation’s lands, waters and heritage, 

while providing employment opportunities to youth to protect our resources and restore our environment. We urge the subcommittee to continue to grow this program 

and recommend a funding level of $56.6 million (an increase of $20.5 million more 

than fiscal year 2010 enacted). 

U.S. Geological Survey 

National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center 

The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center is an important initiative for improving the scientific support required to successfully cope with the challenges of a changing climate. NWF is supportive of the proposed $8 million increase 

in funding for the center in fiscal year 2011. We would note, however, that following 

the issuance of the Secretarial Order on Climate Change and the establishment of 

several Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, there is a need to clarify and better 

communicate roles and responsibilities within the Department regarding climate 

change planning and science. 

Bureau of Land Management 

National Landscape Conservation System 

The National Landscape Conservation System is our newest public lands system 

containing 26 million acres of some of the most beautiful and best places in the 

American West. It recently received permanent status through the Omnibus Public 

Lands Act of 2009; however it was created in 2000 and this year will be the 10th 

anniversary of the system. As its status continues to rise, the system continues to 

be plagued with inadequate funding and lack of budget clarity. It is becoming more 

difficult to meet its core responsibilities and manage the growing number of visitors. 

Therefore we recommend fiscal year 2011 NLCS funding of $100 million for operations, maintenance and planning. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Trust—Natural Resources Program 

The primary function of the Trust—Natural Resources Management program is 

to assist tribes in the management, development, and protection of Indian trust land 

and natural resource assets. Due to significant unmet annual needs for tribal natural resource management, and the historic underfunding of tribal natural resource 

programs, NWF is concerned about the proposed $17.2 million decrease in this program for fiscal year 2011, and recommends maintaining the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level of $175.62 million. Of the funds requested for this program, just $0.2 million 

are a part of the Department’s Climate Change Initiative. Given the disproportionate impact that climate change will have tribal lands in Alaska and elsewhere, 

we would encourage more robust BIA funding to engage the tribes in preparing for 

and adapting to the impacts of climate change. 
363 

U.S. Forest Service 

Integrated Resource Restoration 

The fiscal year 2011 budget proposal combines the Forest Products, Wildlife & Fisheries, and Vegetation & Watershed line items into a single $694 million budget 

item. The stated intent of this realignment is to shift away from traditional commercial forestry objectives and towards large-scale ecosystem restoration and stewardship. NWF is supportive of the intent to focus more on landscape-scale management 

and restoration, but has concerns about the potential for funding related to wildlife, 

rare plants, and habitat to be obscured through this realignment and possibly decreased during the course of program implementation. We would encourage the development of robust program monitoring and oversight to ensure continued commitment to delivery on wildlife and fisheries objectives. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

The Federal acquisition portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund is the 

primary tool for the Federal Government for acquisition of land for valuable wildlife 

habitat and open space. The stateside portion is vitally crucial to providing a place 

for children and families to connect with nature. However, in recent years LWCF 

has been severely underfunded, in direct contrast to the intention of the original 

program. NWF is pleased to see this administration increasing the funding levels 

of this program, and we strongly recommend a budget of $425 million for Federal 

land acquisition, and $175 million for the stateside program. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Greenhouse Gas Reductions and Inventory 

NWF applauds the President’s call to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 

the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80 percent by 

2050. NWF strongly supports the fiscal year 2011 request of $43 million in new 

funding for EPA programs to help achieve these goals under existing Clean Air Act 

authority. This funding would cover regulatory development activities covering mobile and selected stationary sources, as well as technical assistance to support 

States’ permitting activities. These efforts are critical to combat climate change, 

meet our emission reduction pledges under the Copenhagen Accord, and comply 

with the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. 

NWF also supports the President’s request of $21 million for continued implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. These activities are essential for ensuring that the agency has sufficient quality data to guide climate policy development. 

Ecosystem Restoration Initiatives 

America’s Great Waters are the lifeblood of our nation. Sustained, consistent restoration funding is crucial for the implementation of multi-year, complex ecosystem 

restoration plans. NWF is fully supportive of the proposed increase of $13 million 

for EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office (fiscal year 2011 request of $63 million). 

We are concerned, however, about significant proposed funding decreases for several 

other regional efforts, and urge Congress to maintain fiscal year 2010 funding levels 

for the following ecosystems: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative ($475 million vs. 

$300 million requested); Puget Sound geographic program ($50 million vs. $30 million requested); Long Island Sound geographic program ($7 million vs. $3.8 million 

requested); and Lake Champlain geographic program ($4 million vs. $1.4 million requested). 

National Environmental Education Act Programs 

EPA’s Office of Environmental Education implements highly successful, nationwide environmental education programs. Investment in these programs must ramp 

up quickly to prepare Americans for the clean energy economy, keep America competitive, and foster innovative thinking and solutions to global climate change. We 

are grateful for the subcommittee’s support of environmental education in previous 

years and recommend a funding level of $14 million (an increase of $5 million more 

than fiscal year 2010 enacted). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2011 funding for the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). The Foundation’s fiscal year 2011 funding request is fully authorized and each Federal dollar appropriated will be matched by 
364 

a minimum of one non-Federal dollar. We appreciate the subcommittee’s past support and respectfully request your approval of funding at the following levels: 

—$8.537 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Resource Management General Administration appropriation; 

—$3 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Resource Management 

Endangered Species appropriation to conserve and restore endangered salmon; 

—$4 million through the Bureau of Land Management’s Management of Lands 

and Resources appropriation; and 

—$3 million through the Forest Service’s National Forest System appropriation. 

Since its inception, the Foundation has leveraged nearly $500 million in Federal 

funds into more than $1.6 billion in on-the-ground and in-the-water conservation 

with less than 5 percent aggregate overhead to the Federal Government and fewer 

than 90 staff nationwide. 

The Foundation was established by Congress in 1984 to foster public-private partnerships to conserve fish, wildlife, and their habitats. The Foundation is required 

by law to match each federally appropriated dollar with a minimum of one non-Federal dollar. We consistently exceed this requirement by leveraging Federal funds at 

a 3:1 average ratio while building consensus and emphasizing accountability, measurable results, and sustainable conservation outcomes. 

With your support, fiscal year 2011 funds will support our long-standing grant 

programs and new partnership initiatives with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Forest Service (FS). Several of our 

priority initiatives for fiscal year 2011 are described below. 

Fish Habitat Restoration 

In cooperation with FWS, BLM, and FS, the Foundation provides communitybased grants to assist rural communities, farmers, ranchers and other private landowners with restoring habitats that are essential for native fish species and their 

migration corridors. To the extent possible, the Foundation is also partnering with 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service on these efforts, and successfully leveraging Federal 

support with corporate contributions for fish habitat conservation. Many of these instream and riparian habitat restoration projects are located on or adjacent to public 

lands. To complement these efforts, the Foundation has successfully implemented a 

water transactions program in the Columbia Basin in partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration, local water trusts, and willing landowners. All of these 

approaches for habitat restoration will be necessary to sustain or recover the 700 

fish species in decline in North America. 

The Foundation is building on our long history in fish habitat restoration to strategically target our partnership efforts toward specific species of concern in fiscal 

year 2011 and the next few years. Specifically, we are working with Federal, State, 

and local partners to coordinate efforts to restore habitat for Eastern Brook Trout 

in the Mid-Atlantic region and Salmon in the Pacific Northwest. 

Eastern Brook Trout Restoration 

Brook trout are the only trout native to much of the Eastern United States and 

because they persist in only the coldest and cleanest waters they are positive indicators of watershed health. The mid-Atlantic region has seen the greatest decline in 

brook trout populations, where they are now found only in scattered headwaters 

streams. Foundation grants are focusing on unique threats and opportunities in specific watersheds of Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. It is anticipated that 

restoration activities will meet or exceed the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture 

goals for the mid-Atlantic region. 

Salmon Recovery 

The Foundation is successfully engaging landowners, community groups, tribes, 

and businesses in stimulating smaller-scale, community-oriented habitat restoration 

and protection projects to aid in salmon recovery. In particular, for nearly a decade 

the Foundation has leveraged FWS appropriations with state and local funds to establish local grant partnerships in Washington State. We have partnered with the 

Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board to administer a statewide Community Salmon Fund program that is coordinated with the individual Lead Entity 

groups. In addition, the Foundation has ongoing partnerships with both King and 

Pierce Counties to administer county-specific Community Salmon Fund programs in 

those counties. 

Other focal species for the Foundation’s grants include: Apache trout, Colorado 

Cutthroat trout and native suckers and chubs in the Upper Colorado Basin, and 

Coho salmon and endangered suckers in Klamath Basin. 
365 

Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, and Puget Sound 

Watershed health plays an important role in fish and wildlife conservation and 

has been a feature of the Foundation’s grantmaking since establishing our partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1998. In the last decade, 

the Foundation has formed strategic public-private partnerships to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat while improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, 

Great Lakes, and Long Island Sound. Federal partners in the programs include 

EPA, Department of Interior agencies, Forest Service, USDA’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, NOAA, and others. The Foundation leveraged various Federal 

funds for these partnerships but, more importantly, attracted private contributions 

from corporations and other private foundations. We are employing a similar model 

to develop a partnership and target financial resources in Puget Sound. The Foundation’s watershed grant programs continued positive results in 2009 with priority 

project requests far exceeding available funds. 

Youth in Natural Resources 

The Department of the Interior’s fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $2 million, split between FWS and BLM, for the Foundation to establish a competitive 

grant program for youth conservation job programs. With the movement of Americans to urban areas and more indoor recreational pursuits, America’s youth are developing a gap in their knowledge of fish and wildlife and the need for natural resource conservation. This gap poses a serious threat to the future of the wildlife conservation. Through this unique initiative, local organizations will develop employment programs that foster a conservation ethic, expose youth to career opportunities 

in the conservation community, and ultimately cultivate future generations of wildlife professionals. 

The Foundation will work with FWS and BLM to develop a public-private partnership by leveraging the Federal funding with at least an equal amount of privately financed contributions. Funds will be awarded to Refuges, Fish Hatcheries, 

Friends groups, BLM field offices, Youth Conservation Corps, nongovernmental organizations and others who seek to develop innovative conservation employment opportunities for youth. Wildlife habitat conservation education will be an integral aspect of this grant program and the Foundation will partner with the Department 

of the Interior’s National Conservation Training Center to develop learning goals, 

curricula, and other training material that can be integrated into job programs. 

We request that this new $2 million initiative for Youth in Natural Resources be 

funded above and beyond the Foundation’s fiscal year 2010 enacted levels for FWS 

and BLM, which were $7.537 million and $3 million, respectively. 

Conclusion 

NFWF has a 25-year history with the Department of Interior and has been successful in bringing together public and private partners to build strategic partnerships to address the most significant threats to fish and wildlife populations and 

their habitats. The Foundation has partnerships with 14 Federal agencies and more 

than 50 corporations and private foundations. We have a successful model of coordinating and leveraging Federal funds and attracting support from the private sector 

to form public-private partnerships for fish and wildlife conservation. 

We are working directly with the Federal agencies and our other partners to 

maximize results and produce sustainable conservation outcomes. To that end, the 

Foundation is incorporating monitoring and evaluation into our programs to measure progress, promote adaptive management, demonstrate results, and continuously 

learn from project investments. We look forward to building on our partnerships 

with FWS, BLM and FS in fiscal year 2011 and appreciate the subcommittee’s continued support of these collaborative efforts. 

Background on National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

As of fiscal year 2009, the Foundation has awarded nearly 10,500 grants to more 

than 3,000 national and community-based organizations through successful partnerships with the Department of Interior Agencies, USDA’s Forest Service and Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and others. This collaborative model 

brings together multiple Federal agencies with State, tribal and local governments 

and private organizations to implement coordinated conservation strategies in all 50 

States. 

The Foundation’s grant-making involves a thorough internal and external review 

process. Peer reviews involve Federal and State agencies, affected industry, nonprofit organizations, and academics. Grants are also reviewed by the Foundation’s 

issue experts, as well as evaluation staff, before being recommended to the Board 
366 

of Directors for approval. In addition, according to our Congressional Charter, the 

Foundation provides a 30-day notification to the Members of Congress for the congressional district and state in which a grant will be funded, prior to making a funding decision. 

Madam Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued support and hope the 

subcommittee will approve funding for the Foundation in fiscal year 2011. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairwoman and Members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the National 

Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) and its membership comprised of current and 

former refuge professionals, Friends organization affiliates and concerned citizens, 

thank you for your strong support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) 

including the meaningful funding increases over the past 3 years which allowed the 

NWRS to emerge from years of declining budgets following the 2003 Refuge Centennial. Unfortunately, the President’s budget request, a $3.3 million cut, is a step in 

the wrong direction and if enacted, could reinstate the downsizing plans that called 

for a 20 percent reduction of staff on refuges nationwide. Because NWRS needs at 

least $15 million annually to address management capabilities (rent, utilities, staff 

salaries, gas, etc.) the President’s proposal is in actuality an $18.3 million reduction. 

The NWRA appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2011 

Interior, Environment, Related Agencies Appropriations bill and we respectfully request the subcommittee support the following programmatic funding allocations for 

programs in the NWRS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): —$578 million for the operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts of the NWRS; 

—$600 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), including $150 million for the NWRS; —$19 million for the Challenge Cost Share Program in the Department of the In- terior including $6 million for the NWRS; —$40 million for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives in the FWS; 

—$25 million for Climate Change Inventory and Monitoring for refuges; 

—$100 million for the NWRS construction account for large-scale restoration 

projects, visitors centers and energy efficiency projects; —$5 million for Volunteer Community Partnerships for the NWRS; 

—$25 million for invasive species control and eradication projects on and near ref- uge lands, including $5 million for large-scale projects; —$35 million for the management of the new Pacific Marine Monuments; 

—$75 million for the FWS’ Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program; 

—$115 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program; 

—$52.6 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; 

—$6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund; 

—$10 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) in the FWS’ 

Resource Management General Administration appropriation. 

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response 

NWRS needs strong and incremental increases to fulfill it’s mission and purposes 

and with the tragedy unfolding before our eyes in the Gulf of Mexico with the Deep 

Horizon oil spill, potentially impacting up to 60 national wildlife refuges should the 

oil reach the Gulf Loop, funding the System adequately is more important than 

ever. While refuge staff is feverishly working to protect refuges and wildlife from 

the oil itself, the pervasive lack of funding is noticeably apparent by the lack of 

baseline data at each of the 25 refuges expected to be first impacted. Not one of 

the refuges in the immediate path of the oil spill has baseline inventories for all 

the resources that could be impacted by the oil. Refuges in Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Alabama, and Florida are scrambling to do baseline inventories of wildlife and 

water quality. While we thank the subcommittee for funding NWRS’s Inventory and 

Monitoring program in the fiscal year 2010 budget, NWRS’s lack of this program 

due to years of funding shortages has put America’s wildlife at a distinct disadvantage. Unless refuges get this information now, it will be too late to prove how the 

oil impacted refuge resources. This baseline inventory information is not a luxury 

item; it’s an essential tool. 

National Wildlife Refuge Funding—Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and Construction 

The NWRA is the chair of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

(CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations 

representing more than 15 million Americans. NWRS needs at least $900 million 

in annual operations and maintenance funding to properly administer its 150 mil-
367 

lion acres as mandated in the Refuge Improvement Act. To reach this reasonable 

goal, we respectfully request that you provide $578 million in fiscal year 2011 for 

NWRS O&M. 

The increases in the past 3 years allowed for the suspension of workforce 

downsizing plans that outlined an eventual 20 percent reduction in overall staffing 

levels. But additional increases that build upon recent years are essential. 

Within the $578 request for refuge O&M, we recommend $15 million for inflationary costs. We know the NWRS needs at least $15 million annually to maintain 

management capabilities which includes rent, utilities, salaries, concrete, gas, and 

steel—everything a refuge needs to fully function. The President’s requested $3.3 

million decrease is an effective $18.3 million cut due to these annual needs. Without 

providing adequate funding for these fixed costs, refuges will simply be unable to 

maintain current programs and public services, and the backlog will grow. 

For example, at the Potomac River Refuges in northern Virginia, the past 3 years 

of funding increases allowed the complex to hire a temporary staffer to conduct public outreach and education and provide the only staff presence on the weekends deterring criminals from illegal dumping, poaching, and even prostitution. Should the 

President’s budget cut be enacted, that staff person would likely be eliminated and 

conditions would return to those of only a few short years ago, when the complex 

was plagued with illegal squatters, turtle and fish poaching, dumping, and a prostitution ring. In many cases the simple presence of an official refuge vehicle is 

enough to deter would-be criminals. We must ask ourselves, is a cut to the NWRS 

budget really worth the consequent costs? 

Within the allocation for refuge operations, we request $25 million for inventory 

and monitoring to help refuges cope with climate change; $25 million for invasive 

species removal projects including $5 million for large scale efforts; $5 million for 

volunteer and partnership programs and $35 million for the management of the new 

Pacific Marine Monuments. 

We also ask the subcommittee to expand funding for NWRS’s construction budget 

to $100 million. The FWS has more than $1 billion worth of construction needs, including the replacement of quickly deteriorating structures that are not energy efficient and are becoming more expensive to maintain. Construction funds also support 

large-scale habitat restoration projects such as the Salt Pond restoration efforts at 

the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR. Funds for new visitor/administration 

centers will be a net benefit with regards to both efficiencies and economic impact 

to local communities. Refuges with a broad range of outdoor and indoor programs 

create more revenue, jobs in service industries, and income for local communities. 

Climate Change—FWS and NWRS 

The FWS and NWRS are just beginning to develop strategies to address Climate 

Change and are still woefully behind what is truly needed—especially with species 

in extreme locations such as Alaska and Hawaii on the verge of collapse. We strongly support the FWS initiative to establish Landscape Conservation Cooperatives to 

bring the best science to bear to help all agencies make the most educated management decisions. We recommend an allocation of $40 million to fund these LCCs in 

fiscal year 2011, building upon the investments made this fiscal year. We recommend $25 million for inventory, monitoring, and planning for refuges. 

Invasive Species—Control and Eradication 

The NWRS is succumbing to a relentless onslaught of invasive species with more 

than 2.3 million acres of refuge lands infested with invasive plants and 4,400 

invasive animal infestations. Funding is needed to halt their progress and in some 

cases remove them entirely. Of the total 2.3 million plant-infested acres, the NWRS 

was able to treat only 14.6 percent in 2008—the same year a Government Accountability Office report found that the number one management action that had increased in cost was the management of invasive plants. We urge the subcommittee 

to allocate $25 million for invasives eradication efforts on refuges with $5 million 

for large-scale projects. 

Strategic Growth and Partnerships 

While providing adequate funding to operate and maintain the NWRS is of vital 

importance, most refuges are too small in size to fully achieve their conservation 

objectives. Their integrity depends on the health of surrounding lands and waters; 

and in turn, the health of refuge lands and waters has an enormous impact on surrounding communities. Consequently, there is a growing need to provide funding to 

ensure that lands and waters outside refuge boundaries are conserved. NWRA encourages a Beyond the Boundaries approach, which identifies and prioritizes crucial 

additions to the Nation’s conservation estate while improving connectivity between 
368 

refuges and other conservation lands and encouraging partnerships to implement 

conservation strategies. 

One of the most effect tools for effective partnering for conservation is the Challenge Cost Share (CCS) program and we strongly urge the subcommittee to fund 

the program at $19 million. The program was zeroed out in the administration’s 

budget due to inadequate reporting by DOI agencies; however, the lack of reporting 

was in many instances due to a lack of staff resources—not because the program 

was not receiving a match from partners or was being used inappropriately. The 

program leverages taxpayer dollars, turning a $19 million investment into at least 

$38 million in completed projects. We support DOI efforts already underway to 

strengthen reporting and we hope you will work with the administration to repair 

the program and not eliminate it. The CCS has provided important opportunities 

for tens of thousands of citizen volunteers to do thousands of stewardship projects 

on public lands by leveraging these Federal funds in a way that cannot be duplicated through other Federal funding programs. 

Another demonstrated conservation partnership is the FWS’ Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program and we ask that the Subcommittee appropriate the authorized $75 

million next year. Partners is a powerful tool to work with private land owners and 

leverage Federal dollars. A $75 million investment in the Partners program will conservatively net $300 million worth of additional conservation. On average, every $1 

appropriated leverages between $4 and $10. 

To strategically grow NWRS, NWRA strongly supports President Obama in encouraging Congress to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

to its authorized annual level of $900 million in the next four years. We urge the 

subcommittee to allocate $150 million for the FWS to secure high-priority water 

rights and high-priority lands and conservation easements. Inadequate water quantity and quality represent some of the biggest obstacles for refuges to overcome and 

unfortunately, many refuges do not own the water rights on the refuge or they are 

not guaranteed an allocation of water from a river or stream. 

Currently, there are roughly 8.3 million acres remaining to be acquired within approved refuge boundaries. $150 million for refuge land acquisition may seem high, 

but consider that if Congress appropriated the full $900 million annually only to refuges, it would still take almost 20 years before NWRS could acquire all the lands 

currently in acquisition boundaries. 

Within this request, the NWRA encourages the subcommittee to provide funding 

for the following projects, which have willing sellers, are immediately available for 

purchase and provide increased connectivity between important public and private 

lands that will ultimately increase species ability to adapt: 

—$4.9 million, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (Utah) to acquire 3,000 acres; 

—$2.5 million, Blackwater NWR (Maryland) to acquire 1,515 acres; 

—$4 million, Cache River NWR (Arkansas) to acquire 5,000 acres; 

—$2.5 million, Charles M. Russell NWR (Montana) to acquire 2,400 acres; 

—$500,000, Cokeville Meadows NWR (Wyoming) to acquire 2,200 acres; 

—$2 million, Lake Wales Ridge (Florida) to acquire 800 acres; 

—$2 million, Nestucca Bay NWR, Oregon to acquire 300 acres; 

—$6 million, Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont) to acquire 2,050 acres; 

—$3.5 million, Sheldon—Hart NWR Complex (Nevada, Oregon) to acquire 2,500 

acres; 

—$10 million, Stillwater NWR, Nevada to acquire 10,000 acres of water rights. 

There are several additional extremely worthy refuge land acquisitions that are 

advocated for by refuge ‘‘Friends’’ organizations and refuge partners and we have 

provided the subcommittee with those requests in a separate document. 

The NWRA also urges the subcommittee to appropriate $115 million for the State 

and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program to implement State Wildlife Action Plans; $52.6 

million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; $6.5 million for the 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and $10 million for the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

In conclusion, the NWRA believes NWRS can meet its important conservation objectives only with strong and consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work of 

refuge volunteers. We extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing 

commitment to our NWRS. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ORLEANS AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC. 

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land at Jean Lafitte 
369 

National Historical Park and Preserve in Louisiana. An appropriation of $2 million 

in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is needed 

towards National Park Service (NPS) acquisition of the Fleming Plantation property 

in Jefferson Parish. 

The LWCF is our Nation’s premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands 

at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and 

recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles 

through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire 

management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate 

change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to 

the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the subcommittee for its recent 

effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

The Orleans Audubon Society has had a long-term interest in the Jean Lafitte 

National Historical Park and Preserve and its unique wetlands. We testified before 

Congress urging the creation of the park. One of our members, Frank Ehret, Jr., 

is known as the ‘‘Father of the Park’’ for his tireless and relentless efforts to make 

the park a reality. We also successfully sued developers for violations of the Clean 

Water Act which occurred within the authorized boundary. Most recently, we lobbied to expand the boundary of the park, enlisting the help of National Audubon 

Society’s Public Policy Office. The boundary was expanded with the passage of the 

2009 Omnibus Public Lands Act. 

Encompassing six separate units in south Louisiana, Jean Lafitte National Park 

and Preserve boasts a wealth of historical, cultural, and environmental resources. 

In addition to a visitor center in the famed French Quarter of New Orleans, the 

park units include three Acadian cultural centers. These centers share the stories 

and customs of the Acadians who came to be called Cajuns following their migration 

from French Canada to Louisiana. The Cajuns today are renowned for their music, 

their food, and their ability to hold on to tradition while making the most of the 

present. 

Also located within the park is the Chalmette Battlefield, site of the January 8, 

1815 Battle of New Orleans, commonly regarded as the last great battle of the War 

of 1812. On the battlefield grounds stands Chalmette Monument, which pays tribute 

to the troops who fought there. Along what remains of Rodriguez Canal is a re-creation of the rampart that protected American troops from the British army as well 

as cannons dating from the period and newer replicas. 

A flagship unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve is the 

Barataria Preserve: 20,000 acres of bayous and swamps located near Marrero, just 

south of New Orleans. The preserve offers a multitude of recreational opportunities, 

including kayaking, canoeing, bird watching, hunting, and fishing. Visitors there 

can enjoy an historic swampland environment within a very short drive of New Orleans. They also have the opportunity to learn more about the vital role wetlands 

play in protecting coastal areas. 

Within the recently expanded boundaries of the Barataria Preserve lies the Fleming Plantation: 4,000 acres of magnificent bayous, bottomland hardwood, and 

marsh. The landowner was willing to include the property in the recently passed 

expansion of the park and is now willing to sell it to the NPS. The Fleming Plantation was one of the region’s largest and most productive 19th century sugar plantations. One of the property’s most notable features is the Fleming Cemetery. Also 

known as the Berthoud Cemetery, it contains a large Indian shell mound hidden 

on the bank of Bayou Barataria near the plantation house. The Indian mound dates 

as far back as 500 B.C. Based on archeological research, the presumed function of 

this prehistoric site was that of a ceremonial center and village. In addition to the 

cemetery, the property has a large one-story Creole cottage that was likely one of 

the early plantation buildings. There are also remains of the plantation 

sugarhouse—a tall brick chimney, covered in vines, standing out amidst the large 

oak trees. 

This land acquisition project has unprecedented support from local communities, 

government, ecotourism groups, including bird watchers, and from environmental 

organizations. The following support the Fleming Plantation land acquisition 

project: Orleans Audubon Society, Baton Rouge Audubon Society, Jefferson Parish 

Council of Garden Clubs, Better Swamps and Gardens, Louisiana Ornithological Society, Gulf Restoration Network, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, Coalition to 

Restore Coastal Louisiana, Woodlands Trail and Park, The Nature Conservancy of 
370 

Louisiana, Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Inc., League of Women Voters of Louisiana, Louisiana Audubon Council, National Audubon Society’s Louisiana Important Bird Areas Program, Gulf Coast Initiative of the National Audubon Society, 

Baton Rouge Audubon Society, Delta Chapter of Sierra Club (Louisiana), and Mayor 

Tim Kerner, Town of Jean Lafitte. 

Acquisition of the Fleming Plantation would preserve an important historic and 

ecological site and would lead to the restoration of marshland on the property to 

absorb storm surges. Leaving the property in its current state would perpetuate the 

existing threats from hurricanes to natural areas as well as to developed areas of 

New Orleans. The property hosts an abundance of migratory waterfowl, and within 

its viewshed is Myrtle Grove, the site of the State’s first intended diversion project. 

Consequently, acquiring this land would link the State’s greater coastal protection 

and diversion building effort. This will help protect the Louisiana coast and create 

marsh habitat that would reduce potential damage from hurricane storm surges. 

An appropriation of $2,000,000 from the LWCF in fiscal year 2011 is needed towards the acquisition of the 4,000-acre Fleming Plantation. Adding this historic terrain to the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park would permanently protect this large 

environmentally and historically important property. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Louisiana, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OPERA AMERICA

Madame Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of OPERA America, its Board 

of Directors, and its 114 American member companies. We strongly urge you to support an increased appropriation of $180 million for the National Endowment for the 

Arts for fiscal year 2011. This testimony and the funding examples described below 

are intended to highlight the importance of Federal investment in the arts so critical to sustaining a vibrant cultural community throughout the country. 

Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the diverse needs and 

backgrounds of our communities. New opera companies are being established in 

communities that have never before had access to live performances. Seventy percent of the opera companies in existence today have been established since 1960. 

The growth of the field corresponds to the establishment and growth of the NEA. 

Over the last 20 years, a rich repertoire of American operas has been created by 

composers who communicate the American experience in contemporary musical and 

dramatic terms. The growth in the number and quality of American operas corresponds directly to the investment of the NEA in the New American Works program of the former Opera-Music Theater Program. 

Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts organizations, artists, schools, and teachers collaborated to provide opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond to artistic works. NEA funding has also made 

the art form more widely available in all States, including isolated rural areas and 

inner cities; indeed, NEA funded projects cross all racial, geographic, and socioeconomic lines. 

The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on opera programs 

from the NEA’s 2010 Access to Artistic Excellence Program: 

American Opera Projects, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, $10,000 

To support the commission and developmental phase of Rosencrantz & 

Guildenstern Are Dead, by composer and librettist Herschel Garfein and stage direction by Mark Morris. Based on the 1966 play and 1990 film by Tom Stoppard, the 

work will be transformed into a two-act opera for six principal roles, three smaller 

roles, and 16 instrumentalists. 

Atlanta Opera, Atlanta, Georgia, $20,000 

To support a new production of Mozart’s Die Zauberflo ̈ete (The Magic Flute). The 

company will develop a program tailored for middle and high school students of area 

public schools and an educational touring production that will reach student and 

adult audiences in several Atlanta public schools. 

Austin Lyric Opera, Austin, Texas, $20,000 

To support performances of L’Etoile (The Star), by Emmanuel Chabrier. Education 

and outreach activities will accompany the performances. 
371 

Boston Academy of Music (aka Opera Boston), Boston, Massachusetts, $20,000 

To support Opera Boston’s world premiere of Madame White Snake, by composer 

Zhou Long and librettist Cerise Lim Jacobs. The Chinese community specifically 

will be targeted through educational and outreach activities related to the production. 

Boston Lyric Opera Company, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, $25,000 

To support a new production of The Turn of the Screw, by Benjamin Britten. Performances will be accompanied by community events through partnerships with 

area Boston cultural institutions. 

Cedar Rapids Opera Theatre, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, $15,000 

To support a production of Salome, by Richard Strauss. The production will be 

filmed in HD and broadcast statewide by Iowa Public Television. 

Central City Opera House Association, Denver, Colorado, $20,000 

To support a new production of Three Decembers, by composer Jake Heggie and 

librettist Gene Scheer. Based on an original text by playwright Terrence McNally, 

the musical theater work combines spoken text, soloists, and ensembles accompanied by an onstage chamber orchestra. 

Chicago Opera Theater, Chicago, Illinois, $20,000 

To support a new production of Three Decembers, by composer Jake Heggie and 

librettist Gene Scheer. Based on an original text by playwright Terrence McNally, 

the musical theater work combines spoken text, soloists, and ensembles with an onstage chamber orchestra. 

Dallas Opera, Dallas, Texas, $25,000 

To support a new production of Donizetti’s Anna Bolena. Accompanying outreach 

activities will include lectures, panel discussions with the artists, and a radio broadcast on Classical WRR–FM. 

Des Moines Metro Opera, Inc., Indianola, Indiana, $15,000 

To support the Opera Iowa Touring Educational Troupe. The program will engage 

artists to reach students in underserved rural Midwestern schools. 

Florentine Opera Company, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, $20,000 

To support an audio recording and performances of Elmer Gantry, by composer 

Robert Aldridge and librettist Herschel Garfein. Naxos International will create a 

compact disc recording for release in November 2011 and digital tracks will be available for download. 

Gotham Chamber Opera, Inc., New York, New York, $10,000 

To support the commission, development, and premiere of Dark Sisters, by composer Nico Muhly and librettist Stephen Karam. The opera will serve as the centerpiece of the company’s 10th anniversary season. 

Hawaii Opera Theatre, Honolulu, Hawaii, $22,000 

To support performances of Wagner’s Die Walku ̈ ere (The Valkyrie). The production 

marks the first time that an opera from The Ring cycle will have been performed 

in the State, and it also will serve as a focal point for the company’s 50th anniversary season. 

Houston Grand Opera Association, Inc., Houston, Texas, $30,000 

To support performances of Puccini’s Tosca. Educational components will include 

pre-performance lectures, teacher workshop events, and lecture presentations 

Lyric Opera of Kansas City, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, $15,000 

To support performances of Verdi’s Rigoletto. Education and outreach activities 

will accompany the performances. 

Madison Opera, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, $15,000 

To support a production of The Turn of the Screw, by Benjamin Britten. The production continues the initiative recently established by the company to present 

chamber opera as an expansion of the mainstage performance series. 

Opera for the Young, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, $12,500 

To support artists’ fees for a multi-state tour of a new production of Gilbert and 

Sullivan’s The Pirates of Penzance. Diane Garton Edie has condensed and adapted 

the operetta into a child-friendly version without sacrificing essential story line, language, or representative musical score. 
372 

San Francisco Opera Association, San Francisco, California, $100,000 

To support Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Nibelung’s Ring). Educational 

outreach and enrichment activities will include an Insight panel discussion in San 

Francisco’s Herbst Theater featuring members of the cast and production team and 

preview lectures that will be held at various venues throughout the Bay Area. 

Tulsa Opera, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma, $16,500 

To support a production of Don Quichotte, by Jules Massenet. Various community 

outreach activities will coincide with the production, such as small-scale preview 

performances in bookstores and churches featuring Studio Artists, pre-curtain lectures, and school programs. 

Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending Federal tax 

dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, and its programs are seriously underfunded. Therefore, 

we urge you to continue towards restoration and increase the NEA funding allocation to $180 million for fiscal year 2011. 

On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PRESERVATION ACTION

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: thank you, Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and other honorable members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2011 

appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. 

We are writing to request adequate funding for our Nation’s State and Tribal His- toric Preservation Offices (SHPOs)($55 million and $12 million respectively), the 

Save America’s Treasures ($25 million) and Preserve America ($4.6 million) programs (permanently authorized by President Obama under Public Law 111–11 on 

March 30, 2009), as well as for National Heritage Areas ($14.8 million). 

We are very concerned about the proposed elimination of the Save America’s 

Treasures (SAT) and Preserve America (PA) programs and the substantial reduction 

for National Heritage Areas in the administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget. We also 

wish to comment on the termination language used by the administration for SAT 

and PA which justifies their elimination by stating that it will enable the NPS to 

‘‘. . . focus resources on managing national parks and other activities that most 

closely align with its core mission.’’ In our opinion, these decisions that demonstrate 

a bias towards our natural resources, at the expense of our cultural resources are 

in error, particularly in the face of this administration’s commitment to job creation, 

helping small businesses and the combating of climate change. 

SHPOs and THPOs—The Backbone of our Historic Preservation Program (Awarded $46.5 Million and $8 Million in Fiscal Year 2010 Respectively via the Historic 

Preservation Fund) 

SHPOs carry out the Federal historic preservation program that provides citizens 

the tools needed to revitalize, rehabilitate, and protect the places that give meaning 

to America. Funding for SHPOs leverages investments through local jobs, non-Federal contributions and long-term economic development. In 2009, the Rehabilitation 

Tax Credit, administered by SHPOs, leveraged nearly $5 billion in private investment and created more than 70,000 jobs. SHPOs also review Federal projects for 

their potential impact on historic sites. A recent February 2010 GAO report noted 

that SHPO staff shortages have delayed various American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) projects. Even a modest increase for SHPOs would help fund additional staff vital to conducting ARRA reviews while still providing communities with 

the means necessary to revitalize and preserve their heritage. 

THPOs carry out many of the same functions as SHPOs in tribal areas. There 

are currently 100 THPOs, compared to only 12 in fiscal year 1996 when the program was first funded. Unfortunately, the amount of funds appropriated is not keeping pace with this expansion. The addition of new THPOs each year keeps the average level of support per THPO suppressed at around $75,000, barely enough to operate a program. 

Save America’s Treasures (Awarded $25 Million in Fiscal Year 2010 via the Historic 

Preservation Fund) 

The SAT program was created in 1998 by Executive order to provide matching 

funds for the restoration of resources significant to our national heritage. With 

broad bipartisan support in Congress and the leadership of the two previous administrations, SAT funds have brought new life to irreplaceable historic treasures—including buildings, documents and works of art—in every State. SAT has also pro-
373 

vided tremendous benefit to projects and sites such as Ellis Island, Valley Forge, 

Thomas Edison’s Invention Factory, Mesa Verde, Eleanor Roosevelt’s Val-Kill Cottage, Dr. Martin Luther King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, and the Star Spangled 

Banner. 

Since the program’s creation, approximately $293.7 million has been allocated 

specifically for the restoration of 1,132 historic structures, many of them National 

Historic Landmarks. As a matching grant program, this allocation has resulted in 

the generation of an additional $377 million in private investment. Moreover, SAT 

projects resulted in the creation of more than 16,000 jobs (defined as one full-time 

equivalent job for 1 year), at the reasonable investment of $13,780 per job. 

In addition to the obvious benefit of preserving our Nation’s history, these jobs 

are most often created within small businesses in the construction industry, which 

have been hard-hit by the recession. Builders, plumbers, masons, and electricians 

are only a few of the trades involved in historic preservation generating local jobs 

and spending. In fact, dollar for dollar, building rehabilitation generates more jobs 

than new construction. 

Further, these are ‘‘green jobs,’’ as the restoration and rehabilitation of existing 

buildings prevents the disposal of already produced building materials and vastly 

improves energy efficiency. Approximately 48 percent of our Nation’s carbon emissions come from the demolition, construction, and operation of buildings—almost 

twice as much as from transportation (27 percent.) Nearly half of all greenhouse 

gasses sent into the atmosphere come from buildings. If our Nation wants to pursue 

a climate change policy, then we must make every investment we can into the rehabilitation of existing buildings to reduce the flow of materials into the waste stream, 

increase their energy efficiency and revitalize and repopulate our cities. 

Preserve America and National Heritage Areas (Awarded $4.6 Million and $17.8 

Million, Respectively, in Fiscal Year 2010 From the National Recreation and 

Preservation Account) 

Preserve America grants, administered by the National Park Service (NPS), support projects in five categories: research and documentation, planning, interpretation and education, marketing, and training. The program helps local communities 

develop sustainable resource management strategies and sound business practices 

for the continued preservation and use of heritage assets. Successful projects feature 

public-private partnerships and serve as models to communities nationwide for job 

creation in heritage tourism, historic preservation and education, as well as spurring economic development in the Preserve America communities. 

Funded activities have included rural or downtown survey and documentation 

projects; way-finding, signage, and interpretive guides; regional tourism planning 

and development initiatives; marketing and promotion plans; and hospitality and 

docent training. Eligible applicants include designated Preserve America Communities (of which there are almost 800); SHPOs, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, 

and Certified Local Governments that are in the process of applying for Preserve 

America Community designation. 

National Heritage Areas, of which there are 49, are designated by Congress because their natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources are considered uniquely 

representative of the American experience. While the NPS provides technical assistance and funding, 85 percent of the support for National Heritage Areas comes from 

the impacted regions through private, State, and local government sources. The Federal seed monies have spurred grassroots conservation efforts that are self-determining, self-defined and thereby reflective of their individual values in a national 

context. Each program is customized based upon the significance, threat, resources, 

and need of each community. 

Tourism is a major economic development and job creation tool. In 2006, travel 

and tourism generated $740 billion to the U.S. economy and employed 8 million people. Approximately 55 percent of Preserve America Grants have gone directly for 

heritage tourism development in small to medium-size towns, 19 percent for rural 

heritage and preservation, and 12 percent for heritage tourism projects in larger 

urban areas. In National Heritage Areas, as a result of direct and indirect sales, 

an estimated 152,324 jobs are supported that pay $3.2 billion in wages and salaries. 

Overall, cultural heritage travelers contribute $192 billion annually to the U.S. 

economy. They contribute by paying not only for plane tickets and hotel rooms; they 

support the small businesses wherever they go. 

The ‘‘Core Mission’’ of the NPS 

The administration’s justification of the elimination of SAT and PA is ‘‘so the NPS 

can focus resources on managing national parks and other activities that most closely align with its core mission’’ and ‘‘a need to focus resources on national parks and 
374 

lack of management’’ was the reason cited for the reduction for National Heritage 

Areas. There seems to be an assumption in this language that the NPS’s primary 

role is to focus on managing parks and that historic preservation programs are a 

distraction. As such, this justification is troubling and, at best, inaccurate. 

The ‘‘Organic Act of 1916’’ created the NPS in the Department of the Interior 

‘‘. . . to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life 

therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired.’’ Over the years, the NPS’s role in historic 

preservation has naturally grown and expanded. Since 1933, the NPS has managed 

the Historical American Buildings Survey, the Federal Government’s oldest historic 

preservation program responsible for the creation of more than 556,900 measured 

drawings, large-format photographs, and written histories for more than 38,600 historic structures and sites. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which 

forms the basis of our Nation’s Federal historic preservation program within the Department of the Interior, further expanded the role of the NPS in the designation 

and maintenance of historic resources. Coupled with the fact that the NPS is the 

steward of more than 27,000 significant structures, 66,000 archaeological sites and 

115 million objects in museum collections, one could argue that not only is historic 

preservation an integral part of the mission of the NPS, it helps define it. 

The Historic Preservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

As the sub prepares to debate appropriations for fiscal year 2011, it is important 

to consider the source of funding of our natural and historic resource programs— 

the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) and the LWCF. 

The history of the HPF and the LWCF is interconnected. The LWCF was established in 1965 for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas 

and facilities. The source of funding is lease revenue generated from oil and natural 

gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Recognizing the need to protect 

our cultural resources in concert with our natural resources, in 1976, the LWCF Act 

was amended to include the Historic Preservation Fund to carry out the purposes 

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Like the LWCF, the HPF is funded from OCS lease revenue. 

The LWCF is authorized and receives $900 million in deposits each year, and the HPF $150 million. Subject to the annual appropriations process, however, neither 

has ever received full appropriations—leaving substantial balances in both funds 

that have yet to be used for their intended purpose. In the fiscal year 2011 budget, 

the President took an important and admirable step to move towards full funding 

of the LWCF by proposing a 31 percent increase to $620 million and has expressed 

his intention to reach full appropriation by 2014. In contrast the HPF, which was 

funded at $79.5 million in fiscal year 2010, with the elimination of the SAT program, will realize a 25 percent decrease to $54.5 million—making it the lowest appropriation in more than 10 years. 

Funding for Historic Preservation Programs is in Line With This Administration’s 

Priorities 

Our Nation’s cultural resources and natural resources are both important. A preference for one over the other would not only be short-sighted, but once again, it 

would be in conflict with our desire to create jobs, help small businesses and combat 

climate change. 

We urge you to correct this error and restore funding at the fiscal year 2010 levels 

of $25 million for the SAT program, $4.6 million for PA and $17.8 million for National Heritage Areas. Further, we ask for a commitment to move toward full and 

permanent appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund simultaneous with 

the move toward full and permanent funding from the LWCF—acknowledging that 

both are of importance to our Nation. 

Preservation Action is a national nonprofit grassroots member organization founded in 1974 representing a broad constituency of community volunteers, Government 

officials and other professionals and organizations dedicated to historic preservation, 

smart-growth, community revitalization, and cultural resource management. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PERFORMING ARTS ALLIANCE

We urge the subcommittee to designate a total of $180 million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2011. Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Performing Arts Alliance and its member organizations— 

American Music Center, Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Chorus America, Dance/USA, Fractured Atlas, League of American Orchestras, National Alliance 
375 

for Musical Theatre, National Performance Network, OPERA America, and Theatre 

Communications Group. The Performing Arts Alliance is a national network of more 

than 18,000 organizational and individual members comprising the professional, 

nonprofit performing arts and presenting fields. For more than 30 years, the Performing Arts Alliance had advocated for national policies that recognize, enhance, 

and foster the contributions the performing arts make to America. 

This testimony is intended to highlight the importance of the Federal investment 

in the arts in order to sustain a vibrant cultural community. With more funding, 

the NEA’s core programs could more efficiently bring the best in the arts to all 

Americans: 

—Additional funds would allow the size of individual grants to increase, after having steadily declined since the NEA’s budget was cut by 40 percent in fiscal 

year 1996. 

—Inadequate funding has caused many high-quality grant applications to go unfunded. 

The NEA increases opportunities for the American public to enjoy and benefit 

from the performing arts. Since the establishment of the NEA in 1965, access to the 

performing arts has improved in communities large and small across the country. 

The NEA has helped foster the development of the many regional theatres, opera 

companies, dance companies, orchestras, and performing arts centers that Americans now enjoy. Despite diminished resources, the NEA awards more than 1,700 

grants annually to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that encourage artistic 

creativity, provide lifelong learning opportunities, and engage audiences in the finest the arts have to offer. This modest public investment in the Nation’s cultural 

life has resulted in both new and classic works of art reaching all 50 States. 

With additional funding, the NEA could do more. The NEA has never recovered 

from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal year 1996 and has resulted in the underfunding of its programs. We are appreciative of the increased support this Subcommittee provided for the NEA last year and are already seeing benefits of increased access to public performing art organizations and artists across the country. 

The live arts bring communities together, encourage dialogue, and provide innovation and education opportunities to generations of Americans. 

THE NONPROFIT PERFORMING ARTS COMMUNITY

The following member profiles of the Performing Arts Alliance, which include national service organizations representing new music, arts presenting, chorus, dance, 

musical theatre, opera, orchestras, and theatre fields, exemplify the economic, educational, and quality of life benefits that performing arts organizations bring to communities across the country. 

NEW MUSIC

American Music Center (AMC) is dedicated to building a national community of 

artists, organizations, and audiences, creating, performing, and enjoying new American music. Since its founding in 1939, AMC has been a leader in providing fieldwide advocacy, support, and connection. AMC supports the community by making 

grants to composers and ensembles each year and by offering professional development resources for new music professionals. AMC connects the community through 

an array of information services and through engagement with the broader performing arts field, providing benefits and services for nearly 2,400 members in all 

50 States and 25 countries around the world. 

ARTS PRESENTERS

Performing arts presenters bring professional performing artists from all over the 

world into the communities they serve. They include organizations such as performing arts centers in major urban cities, academic institutions, artists, artist managers, agents, local arts agencies, touring artists and companies, and festivals and 

fairs. Arts presenters facilitate the interaction between artists and audiences, support the creation and touring of new works, and are civically engaged in their communities. The Association of Performing Arts Presenters (Arts Presenters), a national service and advocacy organization, represents an industry of more than 7,000 

nonprofit and for-profit organizations, with members hailing from all 50 States and 

28 countries on 6 continents across the globe. Arts Presenters’ members bring performances to more than 2 million audience-goers each week and spend in excess of 

$2.5 billion annually, and the field of presenters serves more than 6 million audience members every week. Their membership includes a range of organizations from 

very small presenting groups (under $50,000 budgets) to multi-million dollar budgets and individuals who are artists or performing arts professionals, representing 
376 

a diversity of fields, which include all forms of dance, music, theatre, family programming, puppetry, circus, magic, attractions, and performance art. 

CHORUS

Chorus America’s mission is to build a dynamic and inclusive choral community 

so that more people are transformed by the beauty and power of choral singing. 

Chorus America strengthens choral organizations and provides their leaders with 

information, research, leadership development, professional training, and advocacy 

to help them deliver the best possible contributions to their communities and to the 

choral art. The more than 1,600 choruses, individuals, and businesses that are 

members of Chorus America speak with a strong and unified voice to increase recognition of choral singing as an essential part of society. 

DANCE

There are now more than 600 fully professional dance companies in the United 

States. But only 15 percent of the United States’ major professional dance companies are 45 years old or more. As an established art form with national identity and 

presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living memory. And 

yet, the United States can boast some of the great dance companies in the world. 

The key to this spectacular achievement was the creation of a national marketplace 

for dance, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. When the NEA instituted its Dance 

Touring Program in the 1970s, great dance became accessible to every community 

in the United States NEA programs have continued to ensure that the best of American dance is for all of the United States and a showpiece for the rest of the world 

as well. In addition to the more than 600 professional dance companies, the United 

States has more than 1,000 pre-professional and semi-professional groups. Based on 

a 2008 survey conducted by Dance/USA of 145 companies with expense budgets of 

$500,000 or more, these 145 dance companies: employed more than 7,000 people in 

a mix of full-time and part-time positions, performed for total home audiences of 

nearly 4 million people, paid approximately $321.4 million in wages and benefits, 

and received $10.4 million from State, local, and government contributions, representing only 2 percent of total income. 

FRACTURED ATLAS

Fractured Atlas is a nonprofit organization that serves a national community of 

artists and arts organizations. Their programs and services facilitate the creation 

of art by offering vital support to the artists who produce it, and they help artists 

and arts organizations function more effectively as businesses by providing access 

to funding, healthcare, education, and more, all in a context that honors their individuality and spirit. Their fiscal sponsorship program has grown from six local 

groups to more than 1,800 nationally, and in 2010 their membership topped 11,000 

artists and arts organizations, with an expanded audience of 110,000 through their 

Open Arts Network. Fractured Atlas has been an arts industry leader in the use 

of technology to address challenges facing the arts community, share information 

and resources, and empower arts organizations with practical tools for managing 

their operations. 

MUSICAL THEATRE

National Alliance for Musical Theatre (NAMT) is the national service organization 

dedicated exclusively to musical theatre and serving some of the leading musical 

theatre producers in the world. Last season, NAMT members collectively staged 

more than 25,000 performances attended by more than 13 million people, employed 

13,000 people, and provided education programs for more than 1 million students 

and teachers. NAMT has presented its Festival of New Musicals annually since 

1989, bringing together theatre producers and writers, with the goal of furthering 

the development and production of new musicals. NAMT’s Festival has showcased 

more than 300 writers and 200 new musicals, which have had thousands of subsequent productions worldwide. 

NATIONAL PERFORMANCE NETWORK

The National Performance Network (NPN) is a group of diverse cultural organizers, including artists, working to create meaningful partnerships and to provide 

leadership that enables the practice and public experience of the contemporary arts 

in the United States. As a nationwide network, NPN functions as an applied learning community. NPN’s resources currently support and connect 61 performing arts 

organizations, called NPN Partners, in more than 36 cities across the country. The 
377 

NPN constituency ranges from two-person operations to multi-million dollar arts 

centers. NPN Partners are ethnically, culturally, and stylistically diverse and reflect 

a cross-section of urban, suburban, and rural communities that are generally underrepresented. More than 425,000 audience members have attended NPN-sponsored 

performances and more than 285,000 people have participated in NPN residency activities. 

OPERA

OPERA America members are found in communities all across the country—a 

total of 117 companies in 43 States. In the United States, more than half of these 

companies were established after 1970, and one quarter of the total were established since 1980, making the growth of opera throughout North America a relatively new phenomenon. American opera companies are well-known for their innovative and exemplary education and outreach programs, many of which are funded 

in part with NEA grants. Virtually all U.S. opera companies run such programs in 

their communities. Opera companies help fill the void left by discontinued arts education in many public school systems and can help young people communicate the 

realities of their lives via disciplined artistic expression. The audience for education 

and community programs served by United States and Canadian companies during 

the 2007–08 season totaled more than 2.2 million people. All together, the opera 

companies of America provide more than 55,000 jobs each year and had expense 

budgets more than $826 million for the 2007–08 season. 

ORCHESTRAS

In its more than 40-year history, the NEA has provided invaluable leadership and 

support for musicians, orchestras, and the communities they serve through direct 

grants, support to state arts agencies, and national leadership initiatives. Supported 

by a network of musicians, volunteers, administrators, and community leaders, 

America’s adult, youth, and college orchestras total more than 1,800, existing in 

every State and territory, in cities and rural areas alike. More than half a million 

individuals are involved in orchestras, including conductors, staff, board members, 

musicians, and volunteers. The NEA’s fiscal year 2009 grants to organizations included 119 grants to orchestras and the communities they serve, supporting arts 

education for children and adults, expanding public access to performances, preserving great classical works, and fostering the creative endeavors of contemporary 

classical musicians, composers, and conductors. In addition to concerts, orchestras 

offer more than 40 different kinds of programs for their communities, including preschool programs, in-depth, multi-year community residencies, long-term partnerships with schools, instrumental instruction, educational classes for seniors, and 

programs in hospitals and libraries. 

THEATRE

In 1961, nonprofit theatre in America consisted of only 16 theatre companies. 

Today, thanks in large part to the pivotal role played by the NEA, the number of 

theatre companies is estimated to be more than 1,900. Almost every Pulitzer Prize 

winning play since 1976 originated at an NEA-funded theatre. Theatre Communications Group (TCG), the national organization for the American nonprofit theatre, reports that the estimated 1,919 theatres in the United States employ more than 

131,000 workers—actors, directors, playwrights, designers, administrators, and technicians—and constitute a more than $1.9 billion industry. Collectively, these theatres are estimated to have offered 202,000 performances that attracted 32 million 

patrons. TCG offers grants to theatres and theatre artists, conducts research on the 

health of the nonprofit theatre field, convenes various meetings around the country 

to bring theatre professionals together, serves as the U.S. Center of the International Theatre Institute to promote international cultural exchange, produces a 

wide array of publications about and for the theatre field, and serves as the primary 

national advocate for the nonprofit professional theatre field. Based on recent surveys of 196 nonprofit theatres, TCG reports that more than 1,200 outreach and educational programs are in existence today, serving more than 2.7 million people—including a large number of at-risk children. 

CONCLUSION

Performing arts organizations are a vital component of community life, allowing 

citizens to appreciate our Nation’s culture and heritage through excellent artistic 

programming. The arts illuminate the human condition, our history, contemporary 

issues, and our future. The NEA is an investment that realizes significant returns 
378 

on the Federal dollars invested, both measurable and intangible. We urge you to 

designate no less than $180 million to the NEA. Thank you for your consideration 

of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE POCONO HERITAGE LAND TRUST

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land at Delaware 

Water Gap National Recreation Area in Pennsylvania. An appropriation of $2.95 

million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

in order for the National Park Service to acquire the 167-acre Mosier’s Knob property. 

I am president of Pocono Heritage Land Trust, a nonprofit conservation group 

based in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The land trust was founded in 1984 to preserve environmentally sensitive lands in the Pocono region of northeastern Pennsylvania, and it plays an active role in open-space protection programs funded by Monroe County and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. As of March 2010 Pocono Heritage Land Trust owns or holds conservation 

easements (protection agreements) on 11 separate properties totaling more than 

3,000 acres of land in Monroe and Lackawanna counties, Pennsylvania. PHLT 

strongly supports the effort to purchase additional acreage for the Delaware Water 

Gap National Recreation Area in the vicinity of Shawnee-on-Delaware, Pennsylvania. 

The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is a natural and recreational 

treasure in the mid-Atlantic section of the Appalachian Mountains. At roughly 

70,000 acres, it is the largest national park unit between Maine and Virginia. The 

park’s proximity to the metropolitan areas of northern New Jersey, New York City, 

and Philadelphia helps it attract more than 5 million visitors annually. Attractions 

include scenic viewpoints along major thoroughfares, hiking, biking, hunting, fishing, camping, and many opportunities to learn about the many historical and cultural sites in the park. The park also includes 27 miles of the Appalachian Trail. 

Within the park boundary, there are a number of privately owned properties that 

face potential development. Acquisition of these inholdings from willing sellers allows the National Park Service to consolidate ownership and improve management 

of forest, habitat, and recreational resources. In fiscal year 2011, the National Park 

Service has the opportunity to acquire the 167-acre Mosier’s Knob property in 

Smithfield Township, Pennsylvania. 

The Mosier’s Knob property is immediately adjacent to the boundary of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and situated along a ridge overlooking 

the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River, a designated unit of 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The property has abundant natural 

resources and wildlife habitat, which consists of forested lands that drain into 

Shawnee Creek to the north and the Delaware River to the south. The Shawnee 

Creek watershed supports wetlands, rare plants, and a wide variety of wildlife species, including amphibians, reptiles, and aquatic species that are identified by the 

State of Pennsylvania and nationally as species of special concern. All of these species would benefit from managing the property for conservation and open space. The 

property also intersects two sites identified in the Monroe County Natural Areas Inventory as important to conserving the biological diversity of the county and state. 

These natural area sites contain one or more species of special concern and are recognized as locations that should be managed as protected conservation lands. 

Nearby recreational opportunities include picnicking, swimming, and walking the 

McDade Trail. Fishing and boating on the Delaware River are major recreational 

activities that take place throughout much of the year. A few scenic roadways run 

parallel to the river along the ridge of the mountain and provide amazing viewsheds 

of the river and landscape vistas of the park. Purchase of the property would reduce 

the number of additional roadways and driveways associated with any development, 

thereby eliminating air and water quality impacts, noise pollution, and any intrusion upon the night sky. 

Residential development continues to be a concern in the area around Shawneeon Delaware. The Mosier’s Knob parcel, for example, is owned by a development 

company and is part of a larger development plan for the valley. Without Federal 

protection, it is likely the landowner will develop the property. Development on 

Mosier’s Knob would dramatically impact one of the park’s most important 

viewsheds. A viewshed analysis conducted by the park determined that development 

would be visible both day and night from the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. 

Residential or commercial development in the Mosier’s Knob area has the potential 
379 

to degrade the water and environmental resources within the national park. 

Stormwater runoff and an increase in potential flooding could have devastating effects on the fragile natural resources within the Delaware Water Gap National 

Recreation Area. 

An appropriation of $2.95 million to the National Park Service in fiscal year 2011 

for the acquisition of the Mosier’s Knob property would consolidate ownership and 

improve management of forested areas within the park, protect wildlife habitat, enhance local park and trail networks, and protect the watershed of the Delaware 

River within the national recreation area. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation’s premier Federal program 

to acquire and protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and 

at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting 

healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, 

improving wildfire management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing 

the many demands this subcommittee faces, I also want to thank the committee for 

its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise 

investment in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one that will permanently 

pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Pennsylvania, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PELICAN ISLAND PRESERVATION SOCIETY

The Pelican Island Preservation Society, an all-volunteer group with more than 

350 members, mission is to support the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Our organization is greatly concerned about the major funding deficit for operations 

and maintenance (O&M) facing the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and 

the severe impact this is having on the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge and 

other refuges in the system. Our request is that O&M funding be increased to $578 

million in fiscal year 2011. 

I wish to thank the subcommittee for your support over the past 3 fiscal years 

in recommending meaningful increases in funding for the NWRS. Those increases 

have served to partially stabilize a critical funding deficit which resulted in major 

losses of personnel and a significant loss of capability to manage refuges. While the 

increases have provided some relief, major funding problems still exist and sizeable 

annual increases in O&M funding must be forthcoming if the system is ever to 

reach its full potential. In fact, the administration’s budget request represents a cut 

in O&M funding compared to fiscal year 2010. Essentially, the funding level requested by the administration represents a $18.3million step backward in terms of 

spending power. 

Inadequate funding has historically severely hampered the ability of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to effectively manage refuges. The current backlog of approximately 

$3.7 billion in operations and maintenance needs is a direct result of many decades 

of neglect in the budgetary arena. This backlog must be addressed in an aggressive 

manner. 

On our local level, inadequate funding has significantly affected refuge management programs. A central staff currently manages three refuges—Pelican Island, 

Archie Carr, and Lake Wales Ridge. In 2003 the staff reached its record high level 

of six permanent full-time employees plus temporaries. As a result of the funding 

crunch, the staff was reduced to two permanent positions. Recent funding increases 

have allowed increasing the staff to three permanent full-time employees and two 

term employees. Five employees to manage three refuges, two of which are urban 

in nature, simply doesn’t provide the manpower needed to do an acceptable job of 

refuge management. No one on the staff has law enforcement authority which 

makes it very difficult to protect refuge resources. To complicate management problems, Lake Wales Ridge is located 100 miles (a 2-hour drive) from the refuge office 

in Vero Beach. No one is stationed at Lake Wales Ridge. 

The role that refuges can play in helping to alleviate current economic problems 

should not be overlooked. There are major economic factors associated with the 

management of refuges. The NWRS attracts 41 million visitors annually who generate over $1.7 billion for local economies, including 27,000 jobs and approximately 
380 

$543 million in employment income. Further, on the average refuges return $4 of 

economic activity for each $1 appropriated for their operation. Continued underfunding of refuges will result in negative impacts on local economies—something to 

consider during the tough economic times facing our country. 

Invasive species are a major problem facing refuge managers. Despite added emphasis on identification and control, valuable wildlife habitats continue to be lost. 

We urge the subcommittee to continue its strong support for the control of invasive 

species. I urge the subcommittee to support an allocation of $300 million to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service budget for land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The acquisition of important habitat for endangered species and other 

fish and wildlife has been severely reduced in recent years due to very low allocations. The increased funding level in fiscal year 2010 represents a turn in the right 

direction; however, we need to build on that and then maintain a sustained funding 

level in the area of $300 million into the future. 

In summary, the NWRS is facing a severe funding deficit which should be addressed in an aggressive manner. I ask that the subcommittee support increased 

O&M funding for the NWRS to $578 million in fiscal year 2011. Further, I ask that 

the subcommittee support an allocation of $300 million from the LWCF for refuge 

land acquisition in fiscal year 2011. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC LANDS FOUNDATION

Senator Feinstein: We thank you for this opportunity to present your subcommittee with our views regarding the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) 

budget request for fiscal year 2011. As a national, non-profit organization comprised 

principally of retired, but still dedicated, BLM employees, the Public Lands Foundation (PLF) has a unique body of experience, expertise and knowledge of public land 

management. As retirees, we believe we offer an objective and nonbureaucratic view 

of what is currently happening on the National System of Public Lands (NSPL). The 

PLF supports the BLM and its programs, but we are independent in our views and 

requests. We strive to improve the effectiveness of BLM by encouraging (1) professionalism of its employees; (2) increasing public understanding; and (3) proper scientific management of lands administered by BLM. 

Overview 

Some of the most significant management challenges for BLM stem from rapid 

population and urban growth in the West and accompanying increased demands for 

access and use of the NSPL. The BLM’s customers are as diverse as the natural 

resources the Bureau manages. 

The public lands provide the Nation with opportunities for expanding the development of renewable energy as well as traditional needs for oil, natural gas, coal, nonenergy minerals, grazing land and timber. Recreation, wildlife, wild horses, cultural 

resources and special places are significant attributes of those lands as well. 

Management activities contribute to the vitality of State and local economies, gen- erating an expected $4.5 billion in revenues for 2011, mostly from energy development. 

Budget Overview 

The PLF is pleased with several aspects of the overall budget request for the 

BLM. In particular we are pleased to see increases in two important areas, the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) and the inspection and enforcement 

processes associated with oil and gas development. 

The NLCS is unique and comprised of treasured landscapes, designated for their 

outstanding cultural, ecological and scientific values. These areas range from redrock deserts, rocky coasts, and deep river canyons to high mountains and arctic tundra. Management of the NLCS has long been underfunded. 

We believe the Secretary’s recently announced onshore oil and gas reforms will 

assist in restoring balance on the public lands, while ensuring continued production 

of critical energy resources. The shift toward greater funding of inspection and enforcement of oil and gas development has long been overdue. The fees proposed in 

the BLM’s budget will help to offset the cost increasing oil and gas inspection and 

enforcement activities. 

We are also pleased to see increases for land acquisition, renewable energy permit 

processing, the Youth in Natural Resources Initiative, climate change adaptation 

strategies and the Secretary’s proposal to eliminate the sunset date for the Federal 

Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) and to allow lands identified in newer 

BLM land use plans as suitable for disposal to be sold using FLTFA authority. 
381 

However, we have a number of concerns with other parts of this budget proposal. 

Challenge Cost Share (CCS) 

Historically, the BLM has used CCS to fund small, locally based, partnership work. Most CCS grants from BLM have been less than $5,000 each. Most of this 

money has been used to restore degraded habitats by purchasing needed materials 

and utilizing the labor of local communities and organizations to implement the restoration. These sorts of projects have been the backbone of efforts to restore sage 

grouse and other sensitive habitats. 

We understand the concerns of the Inspector General, but greater emphasis and 

requirements for improving accounting and reporting of expenditures and accomplishments would be superior to ending this critical program. 

Absorption of Fixed Costs 

The absorption of $15.9 million of fixed costs will have significant impacts for all 

BLM programs. This type of absorption serves as a tax across all programs and significantly erodes capacity to accomplish much critical work in smaller programs. 

Wild Horses and Burros 

We are supportive of the Secretary’s proposal as an interim solution. The proposed increase of $12 million for the program will definitely help, but we are a bit skeptical of the $42.5 million request for land acquisition in the East and Mid-West as 

a long-term solution. We believe that the best solution can only come from gathering 

individual stakeholders together and coming up with a solution in the West where 

the horses belong. 

Land Use Planning 

The reduction of $8.2 million for land use planning will have lasting impact on 

future decisions on public lands administered by the BLM. Designed to last for 15 

to 20 years, new or revised land use plans will be few and far between. The primary 

tool the BLM has to affect long term change on public lands is land use planning, 

thus the Administration is giving up a significant opportunity to improve management direction and future decisions for units of the NLCS and other areas of the 

NSPL. The reduction of $1 million for travel management planning is troublesome, 

since this process is essential to improving management of off highway vehicles, a 

concern of everyone. 

Alaska Conveyance 

The reduction of $13 million from the Alaska Conveyance Program will be devastating to the BLM in Alaska and the U.S. Government’s commitment to the State 

of Alaska, the Native Corporations and individual native allottees to transfer lands 

that have been promised to them for decades. This would be roughly a 20 percent 

reduction in land transfer capability and will result in reductions in force and a loss 

of 638 Survey Contracts for many small villages in Alaska. 

Hazardous Fuels Reduction 

The Department of the Interior maintains budget control for fire funding for BLM 

and other Bureaus. The Department’s proposal to reduce funding for hazardous 

fuels reduction by $42.6 million and Burned Area Rehabilitation by $2 million is inconceivable to us. At a time when the Secretary proposes to focus the Department 

on climate change, the budget proposes to reduce the most significant tool the BLM 

and other Bureaus have to reduce the impacts of climate change. The spread of 

invasive species such as cheat grass will go unchecked. The budget also proposes 

to focus remaining funds on projects in the Wildland Urban Interface only. This will 

result in more catastrophic wild fires on the majority of public lands across the 

West. Fires will be larger, burn more quickly and frequently if this reduction stands. 

Mr. Chairman, we hope these comments and concerns assist you in budget deliberations for the fiscal year 2011 budget for the BLM. We remain sincere in our efforts to assure proper management of the National System of Public Lands. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC TRUST ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL INSTITUTE OF

FLORIDA, INC. 

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of the Thomas Creek—Northeast 

Florida Timberlands project in Florida. An appropriation of $3.5 million from the 

Forest Legacy Program is needed in order to protect the first 294 acres of a 588- 

acre property. I am thankful that this project was included in the President’s budget 

request for fiscal year 2011 at a funding level of $3.5 million. 
382 

It goes without saying that the State of Florida has experienced tremendous 

growth in recent decades, and one of the results of that growth has been the diminution of the State’s forested lands. Among the goals of Florida’s Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is the mitigation of the rapid loss of environmentally important forests 

through the conservation of these forested communities. Statewide this effort is focused specifically on lands threatened by permanent conversion to nonforest uses 

and where partnerships complement existing land conservation efforts. In North 

Florida, FLP goals are expanded to include the support of sustainable forestry practices, a focus on riverine systems, the conservation of critical fish and wildlife habitat, and outreach to private nonindustrial forest landowners. This year the State of 

Florida has submitted a Forest Legacy project, Thomas Creek—Northeast Florida 

Timberlands, which meets these important state and regional goals. 

Northeastern Florida is home to a diverse coastal ecosystem of marshes, wetlands, 

river corridors, forests, and uplands. The landscape has featured centuries of history 

through the Pre-Columbian, European colonization, and American periods. Given 

the presence of the large and growing population of Jacksonville in the center of the 

dynamic ecosystem, much of the conservation in the region is a cooperative effort 

among Federal, State, and local agencies, private landowners, and interested organizations. A centerpiece of this cooperative approach is the Timucuan Ecological and 

Historic Preserve (EHP), a unique preserve created by Congress in 1988 that extends more than 46,000 acres at the mouths of the St. Johns and Nassau rivers. 

The City of Jacksonville is leading an initiative with the National Park Service, 

the State of Florida, and private partners to protect a 1,780-acre forested property 

south of Thomas Creek and adjacent to Timucuan EHP. Within this larger effort, 

588 acres have been proposed for acquisition by the City of Jacksonville as part of 

the Forest Legacy Program. In fiscal year 2011, the President’s budget includes the 

first 294-acre phase of this Forest Legacy property, which has a one-half mile border 

with Jacksonville’s Bear Branch Preserve on its western side. On its northern flank 

lies State-owned conservation land within Timucuan EHP along Thomas Creek. The 

property also includes a portion of the site of the 1777 Battle of Thomas Creek, 

known as the southernmost continental encounter between the Americans and British during the Revolutionary War. 

The City plans to manage the Forest Legacy property for recreation, wildlife habitat, water quality protection, and sustainable forestry purposes. Eight miles of existing logging trails would be available for hiking and other recreational uses such as 

camping and hunting. The project area includes hardwood marshes along one-half 

mile of Bear Branch, a tributary of Thomas Creek. The slash pine and loblolly pine 

found on much of the tract are currently managed as a working forest. The City 

will continue sustainable forestry on the tract, recognizing the importance of forestry in the economy of northern Florida. 

The landscape provides habitat for many notable species including bald eagle, 

wood duck, hooded merganser, deer, turkey, and quail. Bobcats have been sighted 

in the area. The watershed is also thought to have habitat suitable for wood storks, 

gopher tortoises, flatwoods salamanders, and eastern indigo snakes, all Federal or 

State-listed threatened or endangered species. West Indian manatees are known to 

frequent the waters of Thomas Creek and the preservation of this land would aid 

in protecting the water quality for this endangered species’ habitat. Additionally, a 

number of Species of Greatest Conservation Need, as listed in the Florida Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, have been identified on the property, including little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and white ibis. 

Because of its links to the Nassau River watershed, the State of Florida has listed 

this area as a priority for acquisition and conservation through the Florida Forever 

Program. The project area, known as the Northeast Florida Timberlands and Watershed Reserve, covers forested watershed land in Nassau, Duval, and Clay counties. 

The reserve was categorized in September 2008 by the state as an ‘‘A’’ list priority 

acquisition area and as 1 of 21 projects listed as highest priority. The goal of the 

reserve is to provide a wildlife and recreation corridor and a growth boundary for 

the rapidly growing Jacksonville area. 

In addition to Timucuan EHP and Bear Branch Preserve, the larger 1,780-acre 

property is within the vicinity of several other public facilities and sites. About a 

mile to the west is the 526-acre Jacksonville National Cemetery. Authorized by Congress in 2003, the cemetery opened in January 2009. Jacksonville International Airport and facilities of the Florida Air National Guard are about 1.5 miles to the 

south. 

This key location also poses significant development threats to the area. The airport is a large economic generator in the region, and lands around it are expected 

to see high rates of growth in upcoming years. The property also has proximity to 

Interstate 95, allowing for easy access to the rest of the Jacksonville metropolitan 
383 

area. In fact, zoning is in place to convert the property into a golf course and residential community of 800 homes. But for the current downturn in the economy, this 

land would be well on its way to being developed within the next five years. These 

threats to the property will only increase in the future given its accessibility and 

population and economic growth trends. An appropriation of $3.5 million from the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 

2011 is needed to begin the protection of the recreational, historical, and natural 

resources of the Thomas Creek—Northeast Florida Timberlands property. The City 

of Jacksonville will provide $2 million to match the funds provided by the Forest 

Legacy Program for the first phase of this project. 

I urge you to do all you can to ensure that this worthwhile program is funded 

adequately in fiscal year 2011 and that the Thomas Creek—Northeast Florida 

Timberlands project receives $4 million in fiscal year 2011. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Florida, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Dillon, Sr., Tribal Chairman of the Puyallup 

Tribe of Indians. We thank the subcommittee for past support of many tribal issues 

and in your interest today. We share our concerns and request assistance in reaching objectives of significance to the Congress, the tribe, and to 25,000∂ Indians 

(constituents) in our urban service area. 

U.S. Department of Interior—Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).—The Puyallup Tribe 

submits the following detailed written testimony to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee 

on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. We look forward to working with 

Congress to insure that funding levels for programs necessary for the Puyallup 

Tribe to carry-out our sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for the benefit of the 4,004 Puyallup tribal members and the members from 

approximately 355 federally recognized tribes who utilize our services are included 

in the fiscal year 2011 budget. 

Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement.—The Puyallup Reservation is located in the 

urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of Washington. The 18,061 acre reservation encompasses most of the City of Tacoma, but the area is a ‘‘checkerboard’’ of 

tribal lands, Indian-owned fee land and non-Indian owned fee land. Our reservation 

land includes parts of six different municipalities (Tacoma, Fife, Milton, Puyallup, 

Edgewood, and Federal Way). The Puyallup Tribe also provides services for the 

4,004 tribal members and 25,000∂ Native Americans from more than 355 tribes 

and Alaskan Villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division currently has 

a Chief of Police, 26 commissioned officers and 2 reserve officers to cover 40 square 

miles of reservation in addition to the usual and accustomed areas. Due to limited 

Federal funding for law enforcement in Indian Country, only 2 officers are funded 

with Public Law 93–638 funds. The remaining Patrol Officers (26) and Detention 

Officers (9) positions are funded by the tribe. The total cost of law enforcement services, including facilities operations and maintenance, exceeds $5.7 million per year. 

These costs are paid for with tribal earned income. With the continuing increase in 

population, increase in gang related activities on the Puyallup Reservation and the 

impact of the manufacturing of methamphetamines in the region, the services of the 

Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division are exceeding maximum levels. 

A major area of concern has been the status of the tribe’s detention facility. Due 

to damages from the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake, we have had to relocate 

to modular/temporary facilities. Operated as a ‘‘regional detention facility’’ the Puyallup Tribe was able to provide detention service to surrounding tribes. Since the 

relocation to modular facilities the tribe’s ability to effectively and safely incarcerate 

detainee’s has been compromised due to the condition of the temporary detention 

facilities. These conditions have been verified by a recent inspection by the BIA. 

with a recommendation that no further funds be allocated to try and bring the facility up to any standard. In an effort to protect the safety and welfare of the native 

community the Puyallup Tribe has initiated the design and construction of a 46,697 

square foot ‘‘Justice Center’’ to be located on the Puyallup Indian Reservation. The 

total construction cost of the Justice Center is estimated at $23.8 million, is being 

designed for a ‘‘phased’’ implementation and will provide necessary facilities for the 

delivery of judiciary services including a tribal court, court clerk, prosecution, probation, public defender and law enforcement services including Police Headquarters 

and a 17,465 square foot, 28-bed ‘‘Adult Detention facility’’ (phase I). The tribe was 

successful in securing fiscal year 2009 Department of Justice ARRA Correctional Fa-
384 

cilities on Tribal Lands Program: Construction of Detention Facilities for Adult and 

Juvenile Offenders funding in the amount of $7,936,648 for the construction of the 

28-bed Adult Detention facility. An additional $1.1 million necessary for the completion of phase (I) is being provided with Tribal Revenues. It is anticipated that this 

facility will come on-line at the beginning of fiscal year 2012 with an estimated operations and maintenance cost of $1.3 million. The Puyallup Tribe has commenced 

the process of submitting a Public Law 93–638 contract request to the BIA for O&M 

funding for the facility. In order to complete the tribe’s ‘‘Justice Center’’ approximately $14.8 million is necessary for the construction of the Law Enforcement facility (Phase II) and the Judicial/Tribal Court Center (Phase III). 

—Request subcommittee support to increase funding to the BIA Public Safety and Justice Law Enforcement at the fiscal year 2010 enacted budget level of $52 

million and further request that the BIA transfer law enforcement back into 

tribal priority allocations (TPA); 

—Support from the subcommittee on the tribe’s Public Law 93–638 contract request to the BIA for operations and maintenance funding for the tribe’s adult 

detention facility, estimated at an annual cost of $1.3 million; 

—Support from the subcommittee to fund the Tribal Courts budget in the fiscal year 2011 budget at no less than $25 million and request that the subcommittee 

issue directive language to BIA to include increased funding for the tribal courts 

fiscal year 2012 budget to allow for construction/renovation of tribal court facilities. 

Fisheries, Wildlife and Natural Resources Management.—The Puyallup Tribe as 

steward for land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish, shellfish, 

and wildlife areas has treaty and Governmental obligations and responsibilities to 

manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the regional community. Despite our 

diligent program efforts, the fisheries resource is degrading and economic losses are 

incurred by Indian and non-Indian fisherman, and surrounding communities. Our 

resource management responsibilities cover thousands of square miles in the Puget 

Sound region of the State of Washington with an obligation to manage production 

of anadromous, non-anadromous fish, shellfish and wildlife resources. Existing levels of support are inadequate to reverse the trend of resource/habitat degradation. 

Resource management is constrained due to funding shortfalls. We seek Committee 

support and endorsement in the following areas: 

—Tribal fisheries resource management, hatchery operation and maintenance 

funding via Public Law 93–638 contracts have not increased substantially since 

establishment of base budgets in 1984. The demand on Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Program has grown exponential since the eighties and is currently faced 

by Endangered Species Act listings on numerous species. We request and concur 

with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission that increases in fiscal year 

2010 rights protection implementation funding be used to establish new base 

management funding for fiscal year 2011. We further support the existing BIA 

hatchery maintenance and rehabilitation and the hatchery reform implementation be funded at the proposed fiscal year 2011 budget level; 

—Steelhead numbers throughout the south Puget Sound region have diminished 

markedly over the past 20 years. Generally, harvest management restrictions 

in the form of fishing closures, wild fish release regulations and curtailed seasons and/or bag limits have been enacted to protect wild stock. To avoid possible 

extinction the Puyallup Tribe proposes to construct a steelhead enhancement facility to be located on a 13-acre property owned by the tribe on Wilkeson Creek 

in eastern Pierce County. The program will be capped at rearing 150,000 smolts 

on a combination of surface and pumped well water. The steelhead will be 

reared for approximately 15 months. This project will facilitate the Puyallup 

Tribe and other resource agencies involved to help stave of extinction of wild 

winter steelhead in the Puyallup Watershed. We request subcommittee support 

to appropriate $1.426 million for the Wilkeson Creek Property Steelhead Hatchery Project; 

—Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program—United States/Canada Pacific 

Salmon Treaty.—The TFW and the United States/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty programs has allowed for the expansion of tribal participation in the State 

forest practice rules and regulations and participate in inter-tribal organizations 

to address specific treaties and/or legal cases which relate to fishing rights, harvest and management. We request subcommittee support to provide funding for 

the TFW and United States/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty at the fiscal year 

2010 enacted budget level; 

—Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights Program.—Tribal Wildlife Management 

has been the lead agency in management activities to benefit the South Rainier 

elk herd since 2004. The South Rainier elk herd is the primary stock of elk har-
385 

vested by the Puyallup Tribe. The Tribe has not only established more reliable 

methods for population monitoring, but has also been proactive in initiating 

habitat enhancement projects, research, and land acquisition to ensure sustainable populations of elk for generations. Funds that have been made available 

to the tribe have been on a very competitive basis with a limited amount per 

program via USFWS Tribal Wildlife Grants and BIA Unresolved Hunting and 

Fishing Rights Grants. We request subcommittee support to provide fiscal year 

2011 base funding in the amount of $100,000 for the wildlife management program budget. 

Operation of Indian Programs and Contract Support Costs.—The President’s fiscal 

year 2011 budget needs increased funding for the BIA—Operation of Indian Programs. Within the Operations of Indian Programs is the TPA. The TPA budget functions include the majority of funding used to support on-going services at the ‘‘local 

tribal’’ level, including; law enforcement, natural resources management, child welfare, housing, tribal courts, and other tribal governmental services. These functions 

have not received adequate funding to allow tribes the resources to fully exercise 

self-determination and self-governance. Further, the small increases ‘‘TPA’’ has received over the past few years have not been adequate to keep pace with inflation. 

At a minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the following: 

—Support by the subcommittee to fund operation of Indian programs fiscal year 

2011 request of $2.4 billion and fund Contract Support costs at 100 percent 

level; 

—Tribal communities have some of the greatest needs in the areas of child abuse 

and neglect and mental health services. Addressing the current unmet needs in 

providing services to our most vulnerable and victims of abuse should be a priority of all people. The Puyallup Tribe proposes the development of a Child Advocacy Center and Domestic Abuse Center designed to provide services for children, youth and families in need of child welfare, mental health and juvenile 

justice services. We request Committee support to increase funding for Indian 

Child Welfare (TPA) by $45 million; Increase Urban Indian Child Welfare Programs by $15 million; and Increase Child Welfare Assistance, BIA by $55 million. 

Education.—Under DOI, BIA’s budget has historically been inadequate to meet 

the needs of Native Americans, resulting in unmet educational needs that have multiplied over the past decade. The Puyallup Tribe operates the pre-K to 12 Chief 

Leschi Schools which includes a verified 2008–2009 School student enrollment of 

910∂ students, including ECEAP and the FACE program. The enrollment figures 

represents near capacity with all classrooms being utilized on a daily basis. With 

an increasing number of ‘‘pre-kindergarten’’ enrollment, Chief Leschi Schools will 

exceed design capacity in the near future. We request subcommittee support in the 

following: 

—We concur with the subcommittee’s strong opposition to the President’s proposed cut to Indian school construction and request that Indian school construction funding be restored to the level of $293 million; 

—The proposed fiscal year 2011 budget level of $804 million for education programs is an increase of $5 million from the fiscal year 2010 level. However, this 

amount is inadequate, does not include any across-the-board increases for tribal 

and BIA schools and no inflationary adjustments. We concur with the NIEA recommendations to increase education programs in fiscal year 2011 and 2012; 

DHHS Indian Health Service.—Funding for the Indian Health Service fails to 

meet the needs of health services for Native Americans. The Puyallup Tribe has 

been operating their healthcare programs since 1976 through the Indian Self-determination Act, Public Law 93–638. The Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) operates a comprehensive ambulatory care program to an expanding population in Tacoma and Pierce County, Washington. 

There are no IHS hospitals in the Portland area so all specialties and hospital 

care have been paid for out of our contract care allocation. The Contract Care allocation to PTHA has been significantly inadequate to meet the needs since 2004 when 

the Puyallup Tribe subsidized Contract Health with a $2.8 million contribution; in 

2005 PTHA shifted to a priority one status. By 2009 the tribal subsidy reached a 

staggering $6 million. Given that the PTHA service population is only comprised of 

17 percent Puyallup Tribal members tribal budget priorities in 2009 indicate the 

tribe will no longer be able to make subsidies to the PTHA. Contract Health dollars 

are expected to run out by mid 2010. We request the following subcommittee support for the fiscal year 2011 budget; 

—Fund Puyallup Tribal Health Authority Contract Health Care Fund an additional $6 million to match fiscal year 2010 tribal expenditures. Fund the Indian 
386 

Health Service Contract Health Services budget at $864 million for fiscal year 

2011, an increase of $84 million; —Fund IHS at the $428 million increase required to maintain current service levels including medical inflation, payroll increase and population growth; —Fund Contract Support Costs at $444 million for fiscal year 2011, an increase of $46 million over the fiscal year 2010 level; 

—Exempt IHS budget from rescissions. IHS health programs are subject to the 

same rates of medical inflation as the Veterans Administration and are deserving of the same consideration; 

—The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Public Law94– 437) provides funding for the Indian Health Services and has been pending re-authorization since 

fiscal year 2000. The Puyallup Tribe of Indians supports all efforts by Congress 

and the administration to pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION

‘‘The Great Spirit bestowed life to all of us... including the animals, 

birds, fish, insects and plants. Our collective Native warnings and predictions were ignored in the rush to capitalize and exploit the bountiful resources of the land. Countless irreplaceable species are preserved now in 

museums or documents in textbooks. As the consequences of unmanaged 

exploitation and pollution reach irreversible proportions, the United States 

heeded our centuries old appeals for environmental protection. We only 

hope it’s not too late and that Mother Nature’s wounds can still be healed. 

We will continue to serve as the environmental conscience to the nation and 

the world.’’ 

JOSEPH B. DELACRUZ, 

President, 

Quinault Indian Nation, 1972–1993. 

Thank you Senator Feinstein for the opportunity to submit written testimony on 

the fiscal year 2011 budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian 

Health Service (IHS). On behalf of the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN), we ask that 

this subcommittee not access unfair/disproportionate rescissions on fiscal year 2011 

funding for the BIA and IHS and other Indian program funds. Our requests and 

recommendations are as follows: 

TRIBAL-SPECIFIC PRIORITY REQUESTS

$7 million a year for Blueback Restoration—BIA (for 2011–2019); $480,000 for Re- source Protection and Enforcement—BIA; and $500,000 for Substance Abuse Strategy—IHS. 

LOCAL/REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; Northwest Portland Area Indian Health 

Board; and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

NATIONAL AND SELF-GOVERNANCE REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS—BIA REQUESTS

Provide $82.9 million general increase to BIA Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) for 

inflationary and fixed costs; provide $64 million increase for BIA Contract Support 

Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC; provide $5 million increase in the Indian SelfDetermination (ISD) Fund; provide 100 percent of fixed costs (uncontrollable), including Tribal Pay Costs; and increase funding to the Office of Self-Governance to 

fully staff the office for the increase of tribes entering Self-Governance 

NATIONAL AND SELF-GOVERNANCE REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS—IHS REQUESTS

Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory inflation and population growth increase 

to maintain existing healthcare services; $330 million increase for Contract Health 

Services (CHS); $122 million increase for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost 

(CSC), including Direct CSC; and a $5 million increaseto the Indian Health Service 

(IHS) Office of Tribal Self-Governance. 

TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS JUSTIFICATION

$61 Million Blueback Restoration ($7 Million Annually From 2011–2019) 

The Blueback Restoration Program is designed to halt the current habitat loss 

and deterioration and to repair and restore natural habitat forming processes and 

sockeye production on the QIN floodplain. Conditions that will result from imple-
387 

mentation of this program will benefit other salmon stocks in the system and will 

serve to protect private property and public infrastructure. The program plan calls 

for formation of public and private coalitions and partnerships to implement restoration actions. 

The QIN River Blueback (Sockeye Salmon) Restoration Program will help to restore the natural beauty and productivity of the QIN river basin to historic levels, 

thus making it a more attractive tourism destination. In addition, the program will 

provide local construction jobs during its implementation phase, and the restoration 

program will result in conditions that will improve and sustain commercial and 

sport fishing on the Quinault River. The program will also benefit local residents 

and businesses by reducing the likelihood of flooding and property loss and increasing local economies both in the near and long term future. Implementation of the 

restoration program will help avoid the burdensome and restrictive consequences of 

having the Quinault sockeye listed as threatened or endangered under provisions 

of the Endangered Species Act. 

This unique and valuable stock of salmon is near collapse due mostly to degraded 

habitats in the upper Quinault River basin and in Lake Quinault. This habitat loss 

has occurred over the past century due to historic timber harvesting, property development, and infrastructure construction. Natural processes on the floodplain began 

unraveling in the late 1800s and the deterioration is continuing in the present time. 

This is a long-term project expected to take up to 20 years to complete structure 

placement and enhancement, including the engineering and material procurement, 

with full implementation occurring in the decades following as natural processes rebuild the habitat to historic conditions. Through successful efforts of this program, 

it will protect and restore the livelihoods of 100 commercial fishermen and 25 sport 

fishing guides in Grays Harbor and Jefferson Counties and the Quinault Indian 

Reservation. 

The program will also contribute partial support for approximately 20 jobs in the 

fish processing industry in western Washington, thus improve the economic status 

of the families living in the communities within the Quinault Indian Reservation. 

The program will provide employment for 10–30 laborers and equipment operators 

in Grays Harbor and Jefferson counties during the construction phases of individual 

projects. 

This project will reverse adverse environmental impacts by restoring habitats and 

ecosystems of the Quinault River and Lake Quinault while at the same time stabilizing the river channel in efforts to protect infrastructure and property loss. 

The construction phase of this plan was implemented in the fall of 2008 with the 

construction of 12 engineered log jams. With full funding as needed on an annual 

basis, the basic construction phase of this project is expected to be completed at the 

end of fiscal year 2019. Fertilization, data acquisition, and monitoring will continue 

for many years. 

$480,000 for Resource Protection and Enforcement (Six Enforcement Officers) 

The QIN operates many natural resource programs that are not funded to sufficient levels. We particularly are in need of funds to protect QIN and Indian resources through enforcement of regulations, infraction and trespass detection, and 

investigation. With a reservation area in excess of 200,000 acres coupled with the 

larger usual and accustomed area outside the reservation where we exercise fishing, 

hunting and gathering treaty rights under our self-regulatory status, we cannot possibly accomplish the needed level of detection and enforcement with current funding. In 2010 dollars, we estimate the cost to support one enforcement officer at $80,000 

per annum. This covers compensation, benefits, equipment, vehicle, supplies, and 

training. We are in need of reliable, continued funding to support an additional six 

enforcement officers to provide better protection of our fish, wildlife, and forest resources. 

$500,000 SUBSTANCE ABUSE STRATEGY PLAN

The Quinault Indian Nation Substance Abuse Strategy seeks to improve, integrate, and strengthen the overall health and services to protect the communities on 

the reservation from the significant risks related to methamphetamine productions 

and use by targeting enforcement, outreach, prevention, stabilization, and harm reduction services to high risk-populations. 

Methamphetamine use within the Quinault Indian Nation is a serious concern 

and a significant public health and social challenge. Since its introduction to the 

community, the government of the Quinault Indian Nation has taken a proactive 

approach to dealing with crystal meth. It affects a number of different groups; however, it is most prevalent among youth and young adults. 
388 

Some of the major problems contributing to the spread of meth trafficking is the 

size and isolation of our communities, and jurisdictional issues related to law enforcement on tribal lands. Tribal and local agencies are discovering that cooperation 

and collaboration represent a way to leverage resources to attack the threat of 

methamphetamine. Cooperative, inter-jurisdictional law enforcement efforts are the 

only way that Federal, tribal, and State law enforcement agencies will be able to 

effectively combat methamphetamine. 

The Quinault Indian Nation’s Substance Abuse Strategic Plan is part of a broader 

more comprehensive alcohol and drug strategy being developed that recognizes the 

need to plan for the future. The Nation has encouraged collaborative relationships 

among government departments, health authorities, professionals, community members, and families to create conditions that prevent drug use, treat drug users, educate the public and hold offenders accountable and control access to ingredients and 

supply while helping to ensure safer communities. 

Most importantly, we have actively sought the guidance and wisdom of our elders 

and with the participation of our youth, community, churches and school districts 

we have undertaken a multidisciplinary approach and strategy, emphasizing prevention, enforcement, treatment and aftercare. Unfortunately, the best plans prove 

valuable only when the funding is available to execute and implement the strategy. 

We have found that at every level and in every discipline, funding to support our 

strategy is appallingly inadequate. 

We stress the urgent need to reclaim our communities to protect our families, our 

elders and our next seven generations from this menacing and deteriorating drug 

on the Quinault Indian Nation Reservation. 

We support all requests and recommendations of the Intertribal Timber Council, 

the National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity on behalf of the people of the Quinault Indian Nation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIRD OBSERVATORY

Honorable Senators on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I am writing on behalf of the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) concerning the need to increase funding to conserve our Nation’s migratory birds. RMBO is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization incorporated in the State 

of Colorado with a mission to conserve native birds and their habitats. Our migratory birds are a shared biological treasure that benefits all U.S. citizens, directly or 

indirectly, in myriad ways. From the cheerful songs that greet us in our backyards, 

to the economic engine that birds provide for outdoor recreation and tourism, birds 

are an integral part of our economy and quality of life. Unfortunately, this renewable resource is in jeopardy and requires increased attention and commitment on 

behalf of our society to ensure its sustainability. 

We respectfully request that you increase funding for the Neotropical Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) to $6.5 million in fiscal year 2011. While this level 

of funding still falls far short of what is needed to effectively conserve our Nations’ 

bird populations, it will help slow the decline of some of our most vulnerable species 

by providing critical resources to ongoing conservation projects in these difficult economic times. This relatively modest investment will help reduce future costs that 

would likely be incurred if species were to become federally listed as Threatened or 

Endangered in the future. Although we would like to see appropriations for this 

fund increased to at least $20 million annually, we respectfully ask that at a minimum, you do not reduce funding for this important and cost-effective program that 

leverages three non-Federal dollars for every Federal dollar granted. 

Birds are an incredibly important part of our environment that provide invaluable 

ecosystem services and support our economy both directly and indirectly. In 2006, 

more than 48 million Americans engaged in bird watching and bird feeding, contributing more than $82 billion to the U.S. economy and supporting 671,000 jobs. Birds 

keep our ecosystems healthy by controlling pests and disease vectors, pollinating important agricultural crops, trees and other plants, dispersing seeds of wide variety 

of plants, and facilitating nutrient cycling and decomposition through the consumption of carrion. Birds also excavate cavities and burrows that are essential to other 

wildlife. As birds migrate across the continent, they carry these ecosystem services 

with them. In Canada’s boreal forest alone, birds provide an estimated $5.4 billion 

in pest control services. 

Birds are our society’s most accessible and sensitive indicator of environmental 

health and ecological change. They are ambassadors for entire ecosystems and our 

best means for conserving all biodiversity. NMBCA funding has thus benefited 
389 

countless other species in addition to birds, although much more needs to be done. 

Recent reports, including the 2009 and 2010 State of the Birds, the Partners in 

Flight Landbird Conservation Plan, the Partners in Flight Tri-national Vision, the 

Waterbirds for the America’s Plan, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, highlight the continuing decline of our Nations’ birdlife and the increasing threats they 

face. These reports also highlight the critical need to increase funding for programs 

such as the NMBCA. 

Since its creation in 2002, the NMBCA has provided funding for programs that 

protect migratory birds in the places where they most need our help, whether it is 

on their breeding or wintering grounds, or places in between. The NMBCA recognizes that a multi-pronged approach is needed to effectively conserve birds, including habitat protection and management, education and outreach, research and monitoring, and law enforcement. By investing in these conservation activities across 

the hemisphere, the NMBCA protects our collective investments in natural resource 

conservation in the United States. by helping to ensure that our migratory bird populations return to our backyards, forests, wetlands, and grasslands each spring. 

The RMBO acknowledges all the important work being accomplished in the U.S. 

Senate, and recognizes the many competing needs for funding. We respectfully ask 

that you consider our request to modestly increase funding for the NMBCA, a 

unique, innovative and collaborative program for migratory bird conservation. Increased support for the NMBCA will demonstrate the ongoing leadership and commitment by the United States to biodiversity conservation at this critical point in 

our history. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN CLIMATE ORGANIZATION

This statement is being submitted on behalf of the following representatives of 

Government agencies, water providers, and organizations with a stake in Colorado’s 

water future: Nolan Doesken, Colorado State Climatologist; Eric Kuhn, General 

Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District; David Little, Director of 

Planning, Denver Water; Brett Gracely, Water Resource Planning Supervisor, Colorado Springs Utilities; Brad Udall, Director, CU–NOAA Western Water Assessment; 

Stephen Saunders, President, Rocky Mountain Climate Organization; Joel Smith, 

Principal, Stratus Consulting; Drew Beckwith, Water Policy Analyst, Western Resource Advocates; Drew Peternell, Director, Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water 

Project. 

We respectfully request your consideration of inclusion of additional fiscal year 

2011 funding above the budget request for the following critical funding needs for 

climate data monitoring programs: 

—Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Data Program.—$1,440,000 for the stream gage network, and for fiscal year 2012 and 

years beyond, $1,264,000 per year for recurring operations and maintenance 

costs; 

—Department of the Interior, USGS, Water Data Program.—$272,000 for reservoir 

storage monitoring, and for fiscal year 2012 and years beyond, $95,200 per year 

for operations and maintenance costs; 

—Department of the Interior, BLM, Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) 

Program.—$162,000; 

—Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), RAWS Program.— 

$258,000. 

Since 2007 our organizations, and others in Colorado, have been collaborating on 

strategies to prepare for the changes that scientists have identified as the likely impacts of climate change on the most critical natural resource in the West—the water 

resources that enable our people, commerce, and natural systems to thrive. Key to 

our ability in this region to understand and adapt to the effects of climate change 

on water supplies will be good information on what changes are occurring with respect to such key elements as temperatures, precipitation, snowpack, the timing of 

snowmelt, streamflows, and soil moisture. The data collection systems that currently exist to gather this information were not designed to track changes in climate, and so are incomplete to meet today’s needs. Many of the programs for collecting and disseminating these data have deteriorated or have been diverted over 

the last quarter-century, with the result that many long-term climate and 

streamflow records have been interrupted. 

The additional climate/water monitoring needs we identify are for systems in Colorado and the Upper Colorado River Basin, but they are needed for national reasons. The State of Colorado supplies 70 to 75 percent of the water in the Colorado 

River. About 30 million Americans, or about one-tenth of all Americans, living in 
390 

seven States—Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming—depend on Colorado River water. The largest city in each of those seven 

States depends on Colorado River water. Twenty-two of the 32 largest cities in those 

seven States depend on Colorado River water. Fifteen percent of the Nation’s crops 

and 13 percent of the Nation’s livestock depend on Colorado River water. Some of 

the Nation’s most spectacular natural resources, including our largest concentration 

of national parks, depend on Colorado River water. 

Yet scientists consistently tell us that a changed climate is likely to reduce the 

flow of the Colorado River. As this is already the most over-allocated river in the 

Nation, this presents a challenge of great national significance. 

No less important to those who depend on them are the other rivers that originate 

in Colorado, including the Rio Grande, Arkansas, and North and South Platte rivers, which supply additional millions of Americans not just in our State but in 

downstream States. These rivers, too, may be substantially affected by the hotter 

and drier conditions projected to result in the interior West from a changed climate. 

To be able to address these challenges, we have a pressing, critical need to know 

more than we now do about our water resources and how they may be affected over 

time. That is the purpose of our proposal for relatively modest increases in these 

key budget accounts: 

Department of the Interior, USGS Water Data Program—Stream Gage Network 

Drought information users in the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB) would like 

increased opportunity to compare current stream flow with historical conditions. 

They call for the re-establishment of long-term gaging stations, presently inactive, 

having at least 20 years of record. The USGS has identified more than 80 stations 

meeting these criteria just in the portion of the basin in the State of Colorado. This 

effort would help address the strong desire of UCRB drought information users to 

have and maintain gaging stations on ‘‘indicator’’ or ‘‘sentinel’’ watersheds without 

storage or diversions, and many years of long-term native flow. Near real-time reporting of observed flows, presented in historical context would give users the needed understanding of present natural conditions and how they compare with the 

past. 

Our Funding Request.—Costs to establish new gages are on the order of $18,000 each, while annual O&M costs are $15,800. Our funding request is for full re-establishment of these 80 stations, totaling $1.44 million in capital investments. For fiscal year 2012 and beyond, $1.264 million per year is needed for recurring annual 

costs for operations and maintenance of these stations. 

Department of the Interior, USGS Water Data Program—Reservoir Storage Monitoring Network 

Knowledge of current reservoir levels and storage volumes is a vital component 

of drought monitoring in the UCRB. Only 27 of the 44 reservoirs in the basin that 

are systematically tracked for their levels and volumes by USGS and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have automated monitoring systems. For the remaining 17 reservoirs, a very labor intensive process of telephone reporting by the Department of 

Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service is required, which can only be 

accomplished once a month. A major monitoring gap could be filled by adding automated reservoir level recording to these 17 reservoirs. 

Our Funding Request.—The cost will be $16,000 per reservoir monitoring station, 

for a total capital investment funding request of $272,000 for fiscal year 2011. For 

fiscal year 2012 and beyond, $95,200 per year is needed for recurring annual operations and maintenance costs for these 17 stations. 

Department of the Interior, BLM—RAWS Network 

There are about 70 sites of the RAWS network operated by the BLM (27 stations) 

and USFS (43 stations). The principal purpose of the network is to monitor fire danger, though it could provide valuable drought information at low elevations as well. 

A shortcoming of the stations is their measurement of precipitation with tipping 

bucket instruments, which unfortunately do not provide useful observations in the 

cold season. 

Our Funding Request.—Upgrading these stations to provide useful, year-round 

precipitation data would cost on the order of $6,000 per station. Our fiscal year 2011 

funding request is for $162,000 to upgrade the 27 BLM RAWS stations in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin. For fiscal year 2012 and beyond, there will be a small increase in annual maintenance costs. 

Department of Agriculture, USFS—RAWS Network 

There are about 70 sites of the RAWS network operated by the BLM (27 stations) 

and USFS (43 stations). The principal purpose of the network is to monitor fire dan-
391 

ger, though it could provide valuable drought information at low elevations as well. 

A shortcoming of the stations is their measurement of precipitation with tipping 

bucket instruments, which unfortunately do not provide useful observations in the 

cold season. 

Our Funding Request.—The fiscal year 2011 funding request is for $258,000 to 

upgrade the 43 USFS RAWS stations in the Upper Colorado River Basin. For fiscal 

year 2012 and beyond, there will be a small increase in annual maintenance costs. 

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these requests further, and stand 

ready to supply additional information as needed. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RAMAH NAVAJO SCHOOL BOARD, INC. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Nancy MartineAlonzo, and I am the president of the Board of Trustees of the Ramah Navajo School 

Board, Inc. (RNSB), which governs the more than community programs on the 

Ramah Navajo Reservation in Cibola County, New Mexico, at Pine Hill, New Mexico. 

RNSB and the Ramah Navajo community people are extremely grateful for the 

continuing support and Federal funding we have received for the past 40 years, 

which has impacted the 4,000-plus members of the Ramah Band of Navajo Indians. 

Without the congressional funding commitment in a pioneering effort in 1970, the 

dreams, hopes, and reality of the RNSB’s legacy for taking control of its educational 

responsibilities, and thus, our presence here would not have been possible. 

My testimony today is on the need for Congress to appropriate funding to address 

the infrastructure needs of our Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funded school and 

other Federal community programs in two categories. Requests ‘‘1 through 4’’ are 

for the operational funding needs of all BIE Grant Schools throughout the country, 

including our own Pine Hill School, and request number ‘‘5’’ is for our increased 

telemedicine capacity for our own tribal health clinic: 

Increase Tribal Grant School Support Costs by $23.2 Million Above the Budget Request.—This is the account that funds administrative costs incurred by tribes that 

have elected to take over operation of BlE schools on their reservations. But funding 

for these costs has not only failed to meet the requirements of the law, it has fallen 

to such a low level—only 61 percent of what the law requires—that the viability of 

tribally operated schools is in jeopardy. The amount supplied in the fiscal year 2010 

budget—$43.37 million—was even less than the amount supplied in fiscal year 

2003. For the K–12 Pine Hill School, we have had to subsidize this massive underfunding of school administrative costs. We should not have to do this, but we have 

no choice. Our indirect costs pool presumes that we receive 100 percent of the administrative costs the law requires. When we do not, which has been the case for 

19 of the last 20 years, RNSB, must make up the difference. It is clear that the 

Obama administration recognizes the importance to Indian self-determination of 

supplying needed funding for a tribe’s indirect costs—called ‘‘contract support costs.’’ 

For fiscal year 2010, the President and Congress joined to provide an enormous 

$116 million increase for the contract support costs of tribes performing Indian 

Health Service (IHS) Contracts. But why has not this desire to meet its commitment 

to tribes extended to tribally operated school programs. There is no justification for 

this disparate treatment. The President seeks $46.37 million for Tribal Grant Support Costs, an increase of $3 million. While we appreciate a request for a meaningful increase for the first time in 9 years, it is grossly insufficient to meet our costs 

and will not even enable BIE to pay 65 percent of the statutorily required amount. 

We calculate that full funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs will require $69.6 million. Thus, we ask the subcommittee to recommend an increase of $23.2 million 

above the budget request for Tribal Grant Support Costs. 

Increase Indian School Equalization Funds (ISEF) Budget by $39.8 Million to a 

Total of $431 Million in Order To Fulfill the Federal Government’s Obligation to Indian Children in the BIE School System.—These funds support our education program, which is, of course, the core function of our school. In order to pay competitive 

teacher salaries and maintain student-teacher ratios required by New Mexico law, 

our School Board has annually contributed its ISEF funds to cover support and auxiliary cost for the past several years. Without an increase to ISEF, our school could 

not recruit and retain high-quality personnel needed for our educational program 

to succeed. Key support services also require additional subsidies. For example, our 

food service budget, transportation, facilities and maintenance falls short of the 

amount needed, and we must also subsidize school security, a school nursing staff, 

and after-school programs. All of these costs should be the responsibility of the BIE. 

But the agency’s budget for the ISEF chronically fails to supply the level of support 
392 

needed, and does not take into account the enhanced costs of operating a small 

school such as ours in a sparsely populated reservation community. Over the past 

7 years, the ISEF budget has increased by only 13 percent—less than 2 percent per 

year. For fiscal year 2011, the administration seeks to decrease the ISEF budget by 

more than $500,000. Instead, we urge that the ISEF budget be increased by $39.8 

million to a total of $431 million in order to fulfill the Federal Government’s obligation to the 42,000 Indian children in its BIE school system. 

Student Transportation for Fiscal Year 2009 (President’s Request: $46,912,000).— 

Student transportation has a long history of being underfunded. Since 1975 until 

now, on the average, 90 percent of students attending the Pine Hill School travel 

by school buses on 450 miles of mainly unimproved roads of gravel or dirt. These 

road conditions result in much wear and tear on our bus fleet and are compounded 

during inclement weather. When fiscal year 2008 transportation funding resulted in 

only $2.61 per mile, this was only enough to cover 70 percent of our transportation 

needs, so we are forced to reprogram ISEP funds to offset this shortage for our 

transportation needs since students must first get to school and back home before 

any education can happen. Since the cost of fuel is rising, as is repair and maintenance, we request an increase in student transportation to reflect the $3.10 per mile 

for funding of $55,256,000. This would be getting us closer to the national average 

rate of $3.58 per mile. Until we receive adequate school bus funding, we will continue to have to reprogram funds from instructional programs to pay the costs of 

getting students to school. Also, we do not receive any funding for extracurricular 

and cocurricular activities that augment our school improvement efforts, such as 

school field trips and athletic events. 

College Scholarships.—Any reduction in appropriations for college scholarships for 

American Indian students is an open invitation for increasing unemployment among 

our Indian youth. During the past several budget cycles, scholarship funding has 

steadily been reduced while the number of applicants increases. There is absolutely 

no logical reason to put programs such as ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’ in place with a 

Federal mandate when the opportunities for attaining postsecondary education is 

being reduced at the same time. If our country is to sustain benefits from our youth 

by becoming our future leaders, it needs to provide scholarship funding that parallels the ever increasing need for college educated Indians in education, business, 

health, natural resources, and all other professions needed by tribes throughout the 

country. 

RNSB is also requesting $1 million for: 

—Telemedicine Capability ($1 million).—The Pine Hill Health Center, a tribal 

clinic that is part of the IHS system, has a great need for telemedicine and associated 21st century capabilities. Our current computer system was installed 

when there were only 35 staff members and 1,000 sq. ft. of space. Our health 

programs have grown over the past 35 years to meet the needs of the Navajo 

people in this rural area to more than 70 employees and 10,000 sq. ft. to provide 

medical, emergency ambulance services, pharmacy, dental, wellness, and behavioral health services. Recruitment and retention of highly qualified medical staff 

and proper maintenance and replacement of equipment are extremely hard to 

sustain in our rural isolated community. 

The telemedicine needs include replacing and enlarging the computer system that 

handles the patient database and financial systems. Such an overhaul will include 

such things as installation of equipment for federally mandated electronic health 

record requirements, telehealth (video conferencing for specialist consultation on urgent patient questions, as well as psychiatric and mental health emergency 

consults), installation of a digital dental system, upgrading of radiology equipment 

to handle digital radiology and teleradiology capability, and the associated costs, i.e., 

routers, servers, uninterrupted power supplies, replacement of our financial management system, cabling and installation, and replacement and additional PCs. 

Presently, providers rely on a ‘‘wet’’ film and no radiologist interpretation due to 

remoteness of area. The medical and dental providers currently have no electronic 

links to the patient records and information at other IHS facilities or to the nonIHS hospitals and doctors’ offices where referrals are made to either send or receive 

important diagnostic information. We currently rely on telephone, fax and postal 

mail communications, which cause delays in making appropriate medical decisions 

and delaying patient care. Another example is a referral of one of our patients for 

CT exam. Because we have no connectivity to these institutions we had to rely on 

the CT report coming by mail. Our physicians received the report 3 weeks later with 

a definitive cancer diagnosis which delayed cancer treatment by approximately 1 

month. Lab information is often not available until the next day, whereas electronic 

linkages would give results within 30–60 minutes. Having immediate access to pa-
393 

tient care information would increase the quality of care given as well as the efficiency of services. 

Our request is certainly consistent with the mission and activities of the IHS, which is expanding its efforts in the area of telemedicine. IHS has requested a $40 

million increase (for a total of $135 million) in the area of health information technology for fiscal year 2011 in the Hospitals and Clinics program. We also note that 

the IHS medical equipment account, for which the administration requested $23.7 

million (a $1 million increase), could be a source of funding for telemedicine equipment. We ask Congress to specify that the IHS provide increased funding to help 

meet the urgent telemedicine needs of the Ramah Navajo community. 

The Ramah Navajo Community.—The main Navajo Nation Reservation is spread 

out over Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, but the Ramah Navajo reservation area: 

(1) Is geographically separated from the main reservation lying 175 miles southeast 

in Cibola County, New Mexico; (2) Covers approximately 300 square miles in a 

rural, isolated high desert area; (3) Has few paved roads, no business center, and 

the nearest towns are more than 60 miles away; (4) Was ignored for most of its history by Federal, State, and tribal governments; and (5) Began to realize that it must 

start exercising more self reliance in the late 1960s when the local public school was 

condemned, closed, and the State declined to rebuild it. 

Efforts begun in the 1960s by Ramah Navajo grass roots leaders to obtain funding 

for their own school by traveling to Washington, DC, to make direct appeals to congressional leaders. These efforts were successful and the construction of the community-controlled K–12 Pine Hill School was soon begun. The new RNSB then acquired 

other much needed programs for the community, such as an IHS clinic, a radio station funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and other services. All of 

these efforts by the Ramah Navajo people—as well as a similar effort by another 

Navajo community—led to the passage of the ‘‘Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act’’ of 1975 (Public Law 93–638), the most important congressional law in modern American Indian history. 

RNSB is celebrating its 40th Anniversary in 2010 in community self-determination since its founding in 1970. RNSB and the Ramah Navajo Chapter have established and continue to maintain: (1) Authority from the Navajo Nation to directly 

contract programs from Federal and State governments; (2) Recognition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to contract on a government-to-government relationship; and 

(3) Our own BIA Ramah Navajo Agency. 

Today, RNSB not only operates a K–12 BIA grant school, but also more than 30 

other programs for the Ramah Navajo community, including, among others, a 

Health Clinic, Social Services, four preschool programs (Head Start, FACE, Early 

Intervention, and Day Care), Behavioral Health Services, Wellness Center, a Workforce Investment Act program, Adult Education, GED program, School Farm, Fair 

Grounds, and a Radio Station. RNSB, therefore, provides most major services for 

the community. We have an annual operating budget of about $17,500,000, of which 

roughly 80 percent is used for personnel costs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SIERRA FOOTHILLS AUDUBON SOCIETY

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the Sierra Foothills Audubon Society in support of acquiring land at Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests in California. An appropriation of $5.5 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund in order for the Forest Service (USFS) to acquire an 

assemblage of properties totaling 3,187 acres. 

The Sierra Foothills Audubon Society is located next to the Tahoe National Forest 

and is very concerned about the birds and other wildlife of the forest. The irrational 

checkerboard ownership pattern in the central Sierra Nevada is one of the most significant challenges facing USFS land management. Incompatible uses on private 

parcels interspersed with public lands degrade wildlife habitat, water quality, recreational access, and scenic views on the public lands and complicate forest management and fire control. Disruption of north-south habitat connectivity, essential to 

wildlife migration in the Sierra Nevada, will have much more serious effects as climate change significantly shifts wildlife habitats. For these reasons, the USFS has 

made consolidation of public ownership in checkerboard areas an acquisition priority 

in California. Acquiring all the private lands in the checkerboard region with significant wildlife, watershed, scenic, and recreational values will be a very long-term effort; consistent progress is essential. 

We are asking you to support funding for parcels in six areas, all but one of which 

are in the region of checkerboard ownership. These parcels are the Tahoe and Eldo-
394 

rado National Forests’ highest acquisition priorities in fiscal year 2011. The merits 

of the parcels in each area are briefly described below. 

Castle Peak Area (Tahoe National Forest, Checkerboard Region) 

Our highest priorities for acquisition are parcels in the Castle Peak area on the 

Sierra Crest in Tahoe National Forest. Most of the Castle Peak area is included in 

the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness. The Castle Peak area is highly scenic and is 

a very popular year-round recreation area for the large populations of northern California and western Nevada. Thousands of acres in the Castle Peak area have been 

purchased in recent years, thanks in part to your support, but the acquisitions are 

not yet complete. 

The White Rock Lake parcel, most of which is roadless, is on the northern edge 

of the proposed wilderness. Including the roadless portion of the parcel in the proposed wilderness would make its boundary more logical and defensible. Acquisition 

of the parcel would consolidate public ownership of the White Rock Lake watershed, 

better protecting the Lake and its population of Federal endangered mountain yellow-legged frogs. 

Two parcels southwest of Castle Peak and close to the proposed wilderness have 

significant recreational values. Acquisition of these parcels would make possible an 

improved routing of the popular Hole in Ground bicycle trail onto public lands. 

These parcels, which are near already subdivided lands, are potential locations for 

second-home development, which makes their acquisition more urgent. 

Sagehen Creek Watershed (Tahoe National Forest, Checkerboard Region) 

The University of California’s Sagehen Creek Field Station has used the Sagehen 

Creek watershed as an outdoor classroom and site for wildlife, forestry, and hydrology research since 1951. Recognizing this use, the USFS has designated the public 

lands in the watershed as the Sagehen Creek experimental forest. 

Consolidated public ownership of the experimental forest would ensure that incompatible activities on private land in the watershed do not confound research data 

and restrict educational activities. Acquisition of sections 13 and 15 on the southern 

and western boundaries of the experimental forest would significantly decrease the 

private lands in the Sagehen Creek watershed. Acquisition would also add to the 

public lands in the north-south wildlife corridor on and near the Sierra Crest, in 

which ownership is significantly fragmented. 

Lacey Valley Meadows and Webber Lake (Tahoe National Forest, Checkerboard Region) 

The 1,500 acres of beautiful subalpine meadow in Lacey Valley south of Webber 

Lake are an outstanding feature of a 3,000-acre property in the vicinity of the Lake 

that will be available for acquisition. Two sections in the upper end of the Valley 

are available in fiscal year 2011. 

The meadow and riparian areas of Lacey Valley are habitat for waterfowl and for 

the willow flycatcher, which is on the State endangered list. The meadow and the 

surrounding uplands provide habitat for deer and numerous species of raptors and 

predators. 

Though meadows are only a small percentage of the lands within Tahoe National 

Forest, they contribute disproportionately to the forest’s scenic, wildlife, and recreation values. A large proportion of meadows within the forest are privately owned; 

early settlers valued the resources of meadows and their suitability for settlement. 

Now meadows are attractive locations for second-home and resort development 

which seriously degrades their ecosystems and denies the general public access. 

Promptly responding to opportunities to acquire meadows is essential because 

meadows are so attractive to residential and resort developers. Acquisition of the 

forested ridges surrounding the Lacey Valley meadows ensures protection of the 

meadows and creeks. 

English Mountain (Tahoe National Forest, Checkerboard Region) 

Purchase of this parcel would help consolidate very fragmented public ownership 

immediately northeast of English Mountain by acquiring the remainder of a checkerboard section. The parcel contains most of the northeastern slopes of English 

Mountain and also Secret Lake, a small alpine tarn, and its outlet stream. Purchase 

of the section is the beginning of the highly desirable eventual consolidation of public ownership of beautiful English Meadow and other meadows along the Middle 

Yuba River. The Grouse Lakes Potential Wilderness, which includes the summit of 

English Mountain, is immediately to the south of the parcel. Though part of the section has been logged, some mature mixed conifer forest remains. 
395 

Big Avalanche Cave (Tahoe National Forest, Checkerboard Region) 

Public ownership of the parcel would protect and guarantee public access to this 

regionally significant limestone cave system with 1,500 to 2,000 feet of passages. In 

the opinion of northern California speleologists, Big Avalanche Cave, where extensive exploration of easy passages with minimal resource impacts is possible, is the 

most important recreational cave in the northern Sierra Nevada. A colony of Townsend’s Big-eared Bats, a species of concern in California, occupies a summer roost 

a few miles away. The cave is a suitable and likely winter hibernation site for this 

colony. Both the Western Cave Conservancy and the National Speleological Society 

support this acquisition. 

Martin Meadow (Eldorado National Forest) 

The volcanic ridge east of Silver Lake, between Silver Lake and the Kirkwood Ski 

Area, is a striking scenic backdrop for Silver Lake. This parcel is on the west slope 

of the ridge, within a potential addition to the Mokelumne Wilderness, surrounded 

on three sides by Forest Service land. Public ownership of the parcel will preserve 

its wilderness character and the wilderness character of surrounding national forest 

lands. 

Conclusion 

Your past support of appropriations to purchase private lands with significant 

wildlife and recreational values in Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests has been 

invaluable. Sierra Foothills Audubon Society urges you to continue your past support by supporting this $5.5 million appropriation for fiscal year 2011. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE

On behalf of the tribal leadership and members of the Squaxin Island Tribe, I am 

submitting our funding requests and recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 

budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). 

The Squaxin Island Tribe requests that if a mandatory rescission is applied to all 

Federal programs, we ask that Indian programs not be required to absorb a disproportionate loss of funds with a double rescission on these funds. 

TRIBAL-SPECIFIC REQUESTS

$750,000 for Northwest Indian Treatment Center Residential Program in IHS; 

$850,000 for public health and safety of the Squaxin Island Community in the BIA; 

increase Tribal Historic Preservation Program funding; $100,000 Squaxin Shellfish 

Expansion and $750,000 for Shellfish Enhancement Program; and $5 million to fulfill the final payment to the Puget Sound Regional Shellfish Settlement. 

REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board; Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

SELF-GOVERNANCE (SG) AND NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BIA 

Provide $82.9 million general increase to BIA TPA for inflationary and fixed costs; 

provide $64 million increase for BIA CSC, including Direct CSC; provide $5 million 

increase in the ISD Fund; increase Office of Self-Governance (OTSG) budget to fully 

staff to meet the needs of the increase in tribes entering SG; and provide 100 percent of fixed costs (uncontrollable), including tribal pay costs. 

IHS 

Provide $474 million for IHS mandatory inflation and population growth increase 

to maintain existing healthcare services; $330 million increase for Contract Health 

Services; $122 million increase for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC), 

including Direct CSC; and increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG. 

We support the requests of the National Indian Health Board and the National 

Congress of American Indians. 

SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE BACKGROUND

The Squaxin Island Tribe, a signatory of the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty, is located in Kamilche, Washington in SE Mason County. The 2009 year-end tribal 

member enrollment was of 1,015. Squaxin has an estimated service area population 

of 2,767, a growth rate of about 10 percent, and an unemployment rate of about 30 
396 

percent, according to the BIA Labor Force Report. According to the Mason County 

Economic Development Council, Squaxin is the largest employer in Mason County. 

TRIBAL-SPECIFIC REQUESTS JUSTIFICATIONS

$750,000—‘‘D3WXbi Palil’’ meaning ‘‘Returning from the Dark, Deep Waters to 

the Light’’ Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC) has not received an adequate increase in its base IHS budget since the original congressional set-aside in 

1993. An increase of $750,000 would restore lost purchasing power and the need to 

add mental health and psychiatric components to treatment. This increase would 

allow NWITC to continue its effective treatment of Native Americans. 

The Squaxin Island Tribe operates the NWITC located in Elma, Washington (6th 

Congressional District). NWITC is a residential chemical dependency treatment facility nationally recognized as a ‘‘Center of Excellence’’ and was developed to serve 

unmet needs of rural populations that were not being provided by other urban residential treatment centers in the Northwest. The facility is clinically designed to 

serve American Indians who have chronic relapse patterns related to unresolved 

grief and trauma 75 percent of whom have co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders. Addiction treatment is supplemented with mental health assessments and treatment, mental health groups, post-treatment planning, medication management, resource coordination and cultural and spiritual activities to help 

patients re-anchor in their traditions and reclaim their identity. 

NWITC is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, an international accrediting organization for behavioral health programs. It is 

also certified and licensed by the Washington State Department of Health. The 

NWITC residential program serves the tribes of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho and 

sometimes tribes from the Southwest. 

The residential portion of the facility houses 24 patients in a circa 1900 singlefamily residence which was converted in the 1930s into a retirement home. In 2006, 

a new Counseling and Cultural Center building was constructed using both the Department of Housing and Urban Development Indian Community Development 

Block Grant and tribal funds that replaced two rented modular buildings that were 

in extremely poor condition. In 2009, we received $140,418 in American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding from the IHS for maintenance and improvement to address urgently needed deficiencies. The project included design, construction and installation for the Center’s life safety, general safety, ADA compliance, 

mechanical, roof, structural, and architectural needs. 

Treatment has changed over the years in response to meth addiction and its effects on the brain and the individual’s capacity to recover. Now NWITC provides 

evaluations for psychotropic medication, mental health counseling and treatment 

oriented to unresolved trauma in addition to other traditional forms of treatment. 

There has also been an expansion of cultural components of treatment. These elements have been required to maintain effectiveness, but they also increase the cost 

of treatment. 

$850,000 for the Squaxin Island Department of Public Health and Safety to hire 

six additional FTE officers for 24-hour coverage in order to ensure the safety of the 

community and a public defender: public safety is a high priority for the Squaxin 

Island Tribe. The Squaxin Island Tribal Public Safety and Justice Department is 

dedicated to protecting lives, maintaining peace, and ensuring that the property and 

resources of the Squaxin Island Tribe are protected through the enforcement of the 

laws and regulations set forth by the Squaxin Island Tribal Council. Law enforcement officers patrol the reservation, South Puget waterways and usual and accustomed hunting areas, protecting human life and natural resources upon which tribal 

members rely on for cultural and economic sustenance. 

The Squaxin Island Public Safety and Justice Department has continued to operate on funding levels insufficient to meet the needs of this Department and our community. This has resulted in operating a program at minimum capacity, which has 

placed a negative impact on the service level provided to the Squaxin Island Community. The process of protecting the public is hampered by the lack of officers to 

provide the 24-hour coverage, which is very critical in life and death situations. 

The Public Safety Department successfully manages the Squaxin Island Tribal 

Court, which consists of three divisions: a tribal court, an appeals court, and an employment court. The Department also manages a shellfish and geoduck harvesting 

monitoring program. Officers are trained in scuba diving and assist with compliance 

and safety issues. 

A public defender is needed for the justice program. Currently the tribe is under 

contract to provide legal representation to the community members. The court caseload and number of police calls continue to grow at an increasing rate. Current 
397 

funding is inadequate to meet the needs of the growing community, protect natural 

resources, and to fully participate in regional and homeland security programs and 

initiatives. 

The tribe is enhancing the shellfish habitat and production programs, which has 

increased the demand on the water enforcement program to address issues of illegal 

harvesting. With current funding and staffing levels, it will be almost impossible to 

adequately protect the tribe’s investment in enhancing natural resources. The 

Squaxin Island Tribe is seeking both long-term and immediate assistance. 

Increase Tribal Historic Preservation Program Funding.—$12 Million for Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officers (THPO). In 1992, Congress adopted amendments to 

the National Historic Preservation Act (Public Law 102–575) that allow federally 

recognized Indian tribes to take on more formal responsibility for the preservation 

of significant historic properties on tribal lands. Specifically, section 101(d)(2) allows 

tribes to assume any or all of the functions of a State Historic Preservation Officer 

with respect to tribal land. In 2002, funding was decreased by approximately 50 percent because of insufficient monies in the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) to support current and additional THPOs at the earlier funded levels. In 2010, there are 

100 THPOs and the HPF funding is not keeping pace with the expansion. 

In 2009, we received approximately 150 requests from agencies preparing to do 

land projects that required our THPO to perform research of the land with only a 

30-day window. Funding does not support a full-time archeologist, as required by 

the statute or assistants to perform the paperwork. Tribal resources supplement 

this office because it is critical to the Squaxin Island people to protect our sites and 

our lands. 

The President’s proposed level of $8 million in fiscal year 2011 will continue to 

increase the shortfall that THPOs are experiencing, yet the program continues to 

expand. There were 21 new programs in fiscal year 2009 which keeps the average 

level of support per THPO suppressed and underfunded. We support the request of 

the NTHPO for $12 million in fiscal year 2011. We further recommend that future 

program expansion be funded with increased appropriations for the program in 

order not to impact the funding of existing THPO programs. 

$850,000 SQUAXIN SHELLFISH EXPANSION AND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

The Squaxin Island Tribe fully supports the funding of the Shellfish Grower’s Settlement Agreement Account. These funds will help assure that, over the long run, 

the tribes maintain their access to shellfish resources consistent with the rights they 

reserved by treaty. 

In order to implement the shellfish decisions in the U.S. v. Washington litigation, 

the tribe offers the following perspectives and funding requests for the highest-priority activities needing funding now. The tribe is committed to working cooperatively with noncommercial tideland owners in order to access the tribal share of naturally occurring shellfish on their lands. These are shellfish beds that are not included in the provisions for the settlement lands. Our program would identify and 

locate tidelands, contact their owners, survey shellfish populations consistent with 

the Federal court defined process, and manage harvests of the treaty share by tribal 

members. The costs to improve our coverage of this activity will be about $100,000, 

primarily for personnel. 

Consistent with the implementation of the Shellfish Grower’s Settlement Agreement fund, the tribe needs to improve our infrastructure for enhancement of shellfish on tidelands acquired with the settlement funds. As we purchase available tideland properties with the Shellfish Grower’s Settlement Agreement funds, these 

beaches will need to be restored and enhanced into full productivity to provide clams 

and oysters for tribal harvest. Funding would include beach substrate restoration, 

seeding beaches with juvenile shellfish, maintaining predator protection gear, surveying shellfish age class and population structure, and coordinating harvest. Funding of $250,000 annually would provide for personnel, purchased clam seed, predator protection gear and equipment to improve 7 acres of tidelands per year. 

The Squaxin Island Tribe also foresees the necessity of initiating enhancement of 

geoduck, a large shellfish bivalve found in the waters of the northwest. This species 

is long-lived—more than 50 years in some cases—and regularly grows to between 

1 and 2 pounds per individual. Due to the long recovery time for harvested beds 

of this species, enhancement techniques have been developed to replant geoducks 

in substrate where they will grow to maturity sooner than through natural recovery. 

We propose to enhance 5 acres annually at an expense of $500,000, which covers 

personnel, geoduck seed (immature geoduck), predator protection devices and other 

equipment. We believe this expenditure is necessary to supplement the existing harvest of naturally occurring geoduck and reduce pressure on natural stocks. 
398 

On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribal Council and tribal members thank you for 

this opportunity. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ST. MARKS REFUGE ASSOCIATION, INC. 

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the St. Marks Refuge Association, Inc. and its 300∂ members, we thank you for supporting the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). We urge you to continue carrying the flag 

for America’s wildlife, wild lands, and for the people who work on the Nation’s refuges because every refuge matters. 

We are asking for your positive vote on these four matters that desperately need 

funding: —Fund $578 million for operations and maintenance accounts. The NWRS needs $900 million annually to adequately manage its 150 million acres; a funding allocation of $578 million in fiscal year 2011 will put the NWRS on the road towards full funding. This money will go along way toward making buildings and 

roads safe for visitors and refuge employees. —Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million, in- cluding $300 million for strategic land and easement acquisitions by the NWRS. 

NWRA urges Congress to pass S. 2747, legislation to permanently fund the 

LWCF. There is no better time than right now, with sinking real estate prices, 

to make sure that acreage from willing sellers can be added to refuges. —Fund the Department of the Interior’s Challenge-Cost Share Program.—The program was created to leverage funding through strategic partnerships to obtain 

greater conservation objectives that would not be achieved by the Federal Government on its own. —Restore the $4 Million cut to the Visitor’s Services Program.—As a longtime (26 

years and counting) volunteer for St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, I know 

how much refuges depend on volunteers on a variety of fronts. Our environmental education program would not reach as many children (more than 7,000). 

We would not be able to serve our visitors so well (after a recent lighthouse 

challenge event for four lighthouses in our area, we were cited as the best organized and most knowledgeable of all). St. Marks, like many refuges, is located 

in a rural county. Visitors and volunteers contribute mightily to the local economy, a boost that is sorely needed at this time. 

We know you have a tough job in Washington, and we know you have a lot of 

difficult decisions to make. We assure you that increased funding for refuges is a 

sure bet investment in America’s future. 

We appreciate you and thank you for your time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATES OF COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND WYOMING

I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2011 appropriations to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2011 included FWS funding at the levels 

I am requesting for these programs. The State of Wyoming supports action by the 

subcommittee to: 

—Appropriate $709,000 in ‘‘Recovery’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery 

Element; with the $85,611,000 item entitled ‘‘Recovery’’) to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) for fiscal year 2011 to allow FWS to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The same level of funding was included in the President’s recommended 

budget for fiscal years 2008 through 2010. —Appropriate $485,000 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $50,307,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National 

Fish Hatchery. Operations at this facility are integral to the Upper Colorado 

Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

—Allocate $200,000 in ‘‘Recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery 

Implementation Program for fiscal year 2011 to meet expenses incurred by 

FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 
399 

The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs are highly successful collaborative conservation partnerships working to recover the four species of endemic 

Colorado River fish on the Federal endangered species list; while at the same time 

water use and development has been able to continue in our growing Western communities. These programs are unique efforts involving the States of New Mexico, 

Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and 

environmental interests. They are achieving Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for water projects and fully complying with interstate river compacts and the 

participating States’ water law. 

Since 1988, the two programs, collectively, have provided ESA section 7 compliance (without litigation) for more than 1,850 Federal, tribal, State and privately 

managed water projects depleting more than 3.7 million acre-feet of water per year. 

The Department of the Interior recognized these programs with its nationwide Cooperative Conservation Award in April 2008 as outstanding collaborative partnerships accomplishing substantial on-the-ground conservation results. Substantial 

non-Federal cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is embodied in both programs. 

We once again request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2011 

funding to allow the FWS to continue its vitally important participation and financial support of these two multi-state, cooperative, recovery programs. We recognize 

and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your subcommittee has 

greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUZANNE ROY

Dear members of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Subcommittee: As a taxpayer, I urge you to critically evaluate Secretary Salazar’s 

request for an increase in the budget for the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) 

highly controversial and troubled Wild Horse and Burro Program. 

Currently, the BLM program relies on mass roundups and removals of wild horses 

in numbers that far exceed adoption demand. As a result, the BLM has now stockpiled more wild horses in Government holding facilities (33,000∂) than are left on 

the Western range. This inefficient and inhumane policy costs taxpayers $44 million 

a year, and the price tag continues to grow as more and more horses are captured 

and removed from their natural habitats. (12,000 wild horses are targeted for capture and removal in fiscal year 2010 alone.) 

Allocating even more funds to this poorly managed program without serious requirements for reform would be fiscally irresponsible. Please ensure that any appropriations for BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro program include these requirements: 

—A suspension of roundups in all but truly emergency situations; 

—A prohibition on the use of any funds to euthanize healthy horses or sell horses 

directly or indirectly to slaughter; 

—Phasing out long-term holding and shifting BLM resources toward managing 

horses on the range in a humane and minimally intrusive manner as Congress 

intended; and 

—Suspension of any plan for the relocation of wild and free roaming horses and 

burros until Congress has a chance to review the program. 

Thank you for your attention to this issue. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE

On behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, I am pleased to submit testimony 

concerning the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS). I want to express my appreciation to this 

subcommittee, its Chairman and members for their strong support of Indian tribes. 

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is situated in North and South Dakota. The reservation comprises 2.3 million acres, of which 1.4 million acres is tribally owned and 

tribally owned allotted lands. About 10,000 tribal members and nonmembers reside 

on the reservation in eight communities and in smaller towns. The tribe’s primary 

industry is cattle ranching and farming. 

The tribe is working steadily to expand opportunities for economic development 

to provide jobs for our members and improve the standard of living on our reservation. We operate the Standing Rock Farms, a Parts on Demand operation, two tribal 

casinos, and a sand and gravel operation which help us supplement services and 

programs for our more than 14,000 enrolled members. Despite the measures we are 

undertaking locally to improve living conditions on our reservation, we have persistent unemployment above 50 percent, a high drop out rate among our high school 
400 

students, and more than 40 percent of Indian families on our reservation live in poverty. 

Living conditions on Standing Rock are difficult. According to statistics of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in 2009, more than 1,113 

member households on Standing Rock had family incomes between 30–80 percent 

of median family income in the area. Of this figure, 464 households, 4 in every 10 

homes, earned less than 30 percent median income. Four in every 10 homes are 

overcrowded. The majority of our tribal elders suffer from diabetes, heart disease, 

and hypertension. Only one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) of our members are above 

the age of 65. Accidents are the leading cause of death among our members. We 

must reverse these harmful trends. All Americans, including the Nation’s first 

Americans, deserve an opportunity to compete successfully in today’s global economy. 

On January 27, 2010, I declared a State of Emergency on the Standing Rock 

Sioux Reservation. Our reservation was still recovering from storm and flood damage to our communities and roadways that occurred in 2008–2009 when our reservation was hit with severe winter storms beginning on December 23, 2009, January 

4, 2010, and January 22, 2010. These storms brought blizzard conditions and strong 

winds that knocked down thousands of electrical poles and power lines and brought 

heavy snows that stranded our members in their homes without heat and electricity 

for days. We have expended nearly 75 percent of our annual allocation of BIA Road 

Maintenance Program funds to cover heavy equipment rentals, fuel, repair costs and 

overtime labor expenses to keep our roadways open. 

In order to move our community forward, I urge the Congress provide increased 

funding for infrastructure and economic development, healthcare, public safety, and 

education. 

Economic Development and Infrastructure Needs.—More than 20 years ago, another committee of Congress dedicated to improving the living conditions on Indian 

reservations made the following observation: 

‘‘The conditions for successful economic development on Indian lands are essentially the same as for any other predominantly rural community. There must be 

community stability, including adequate law enforcement and judicial systems and 

basic human services. There must be adequate infrastructure including roads, safe 

water and waste disposal systems, and power and communications utilities. When 

these systems and services are in place, tribes are in the best position to implement 

economic development plans, taking into account the available natural resources, 

labor force, financial resources and markets.’’ 

The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs made this statement in 1988 in their report that accompanied sweeping legislative to the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act. Public safety and an efficient judicial system are pre-conditions to building strong, stable governments. For several years, we have sought 

funds to plan a comprehensive police, tribal courts, and detention facility, but the 

BIA has inadequate funds for planning, design, NEPA environmental studies and 

construction. We should not have to be waitlisted for years to secure planning and 

construction funding for such important governmental programs. Our existing facilities are outdated and inadequate to modern public safety and criminal justice needs. 

Our tribal courts operate with 24 staff working in 17 offices spread out over 3 buildings. 

We are very appreciative of the Recovery Act funding that Congress made available for Indian tribes. This level of investment in infrastructure, however, must be 

continued by Congress for Indian country. Construction projects create jobs locally 

and put our members to work. We object to the inadequate annual funding of $26 

million for the BIA Road Maintenance Program. This program has remained at 

roughly the same level for more than 20 years. Road maintenance is a public safety 

program. Poor road conditions contribute to the unacceptably high levels of serious 

injury and death on Indian reservation roads each year. 

We urge Congress to fund this program at $150 million as recommended by NCAI. 

Many tribes and BIA regions need millions of dollars just to replace outdated and 

obsolete maintenance equipment, purchase and store fuel, buy replacement parts for 

serviceable equipment, and stockpile maintenance supplies. We are still paying off 

a 2004–2006 $26 million community streets project that paved streets, installed 

curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street lights throughout our reservation. In order to 

protect this multi-million investment, we need funds to carry out routine road maintenance (crack sealing, pot hole repairs, etc.) to ensure that we realize the full useful life of these routes. Maintaining these routes saves us millions. 

Congress should also increase appropriations for Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development programs within the Interior Department and for the construc-
401 

tion budgets of the BIA and the IHS to help tribes build, rehabilitate and maintain 

schools, police departments, courts, hospitals and clinics, and wellness centers. We 

also urge Congress to appropriate fiscal year 2011 funding for the Tribal Work Experience Program to help our members obtain the job skills they require to compete 

in a competitive labor market. 

Public Safety Needs.—We have far too few public safety officers patrolling our 8 

districts and small communities on our 2.3 million-acre reservation. In the spring 

and summer of 2008, following the deaths of several of our members, the BIA began 

‘‘Operation Dakota Peacekeeper’’ as part of the Interior Department’s Safe Indian 

Communities initiative to reduce crime, target illegal drug activities and provide 

much needed investigative support to prosecute domestic violence and crimes 

against children. A total of 56 BIA officers were detailed from their reservations to 

Standing Rock over a 7-month period. This more than quadrupled our normal BIA 

Police force. Before the surge, we had only ten BIA public safety officer positions 

filled. This was enough for only 2 officers per 24-hour shift to patrol a 2.3 million 

acre reservation encompassing 4 towns, 8 separate communities, 2,500 miles of 

roads, and a population of 10,000 residents. In the month of June, police made a 

total of 541 arrests. Of these, 341 arrests, about two-thirds of all arrests, were made 

by surge officers. 

The public safety surge was a big success. Our members, especially our tribal elders, felt safe in their homes and began leaving doors unlocked and windows open 

at night. It also highlighted the glaring need for greater numbers of patrol and 

other public safety personnel on our reservation. Recently, the tribe volunteered to 

be one of four tribes participating in the Interior Department’s 24-month Reduction 

in Crime Initiative. 

We support the President’s increases in the fiscal year 2011 budget to add $19 

million above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for the BIA to reimburse the Justice 

Department so that agency may hire 45 FBI agents to investigate crimes but more 

public safety officers are needed. 

The Standing Rock Sioux Reservation lies in BIA District 1 which encompasses 

the eight State region of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan. A 2006 Gap Analysis performed for the BIA identified that District 1 had 108 law enforcement officers, but needed 483 officers, a gap of 375 officers or 78 percent unmet staffing need. District 1 had 30 detention staff, yet needed 

177 corrections officers, a gap of 147 or 83 percent unmet staffing need. A 1997 Justice Department study found that Indian Country had 1.3 officers for every 1,000 

inhabitants, versus 2.9 officers in non-Indian jurisdictions. BIA District 1 is among 

the areas with the greatest need. While the BIA has made some improvements in 

the number of law enforcement and detention officers, the gap has not been closed. 

This places our communities at risk. 

BIA equipment and technology is outdated, including police cruisers, radios and 

communications infrastructure. We do not even have access to computerized law enforcement statistics. We have no 9–1–1 service on the Reservation. In emergencies, 

tribal members residing on the South Dakota portion of the reservation who dial 

9–1–1 reach the McLaughlin or Mobridge police departments. 

To address these shortfalls, we recommend that BIA Criminal Investigations and 

Police Services should be funded $25 million above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level. BIA Detention/Corrections should be increased by $10 million. We recommend 

the BIA Public Safety and Justice Facilities Improvement and Repair program be 

funded above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and we request an additional increase of $20 million for the Tribal Justice Support Program to improve tribal 

courts. Congress must also provide funds for BIA facilities and construction for 

short-term and long-term housing for public safety officers as a recruitment and retention tool. These increases should continue incrementally each year until the recommendations of the Gap report are met. 

We strongly support the administration’s efforts to work with the United Tribes 

Technical College in Bismarck, North Dakota to provide a ‘‘bridge program’’ to 

State-certified public safety officers to meet mandatory minimum training requirements for Federal law enforcement service. There is still a need, however, for a 

Northern Plains BIA Law Enforcement Academy so that more officers can be 

trained and tribes in the Great Plains, Rocky Mountain, Midwest and other proximate BIA Regions can send members to a training academy closer to their home 

reservations. 

Education Needs.—According to NCAI, Native Americans attain bachelor and 

higher education degrees at half the rate of their non-Indian counterparts. At 

Standing Rock, our tribe has provided $3 million over 3 years to support a scholarship program to provide more than 300 students with grants of between $3,000– 

$3,500/semester which allow them to pursue degrees from accredited colleges, uni-
402 

versities and vocational schools. BIA financed scholarships total about $500,000 per 

year (meeting 25 percent of need). By providing scholarships to our students, they 

are able to remain in school and obtain a degree and education that can open doors 

to life-time careers. Education is so critical to the future of our members and can 

lift them out of poverty. We cannot do this alone and require increased funding for 

this vital program. We are pleased to report that in a joint venture with the BIA 

and IHS, the tribe built a new elementary school and our children are excited to 

move into the new structure next month. 

Healthcare.—According to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs’ Views and Estimates letter concerning the fiscal year 2010 budget, the need for Contract Health 

Services (CHS) for Native Americans exceeded $1 billion. The President’s fiscal year 

2011 budget proposes an $84 million increase in CHS from $780 million to $864 million. This would still represent at least a 15 percent shortfall in CHS needs. By any 

objective measure, healthcare funding for Native Americans is far too low. This deprives so many of our members a healthy and long life. 

Throughout Indian country and certainly here on Standing Rock, many members 

go without needed healthcare services each year because of inadequate CHS dollars. 

As Congress enacts sweeping healthcare reforms, we urge Congress to increase CHS 

appropriations and increase the IHS’ hospitals and clinics funding generally, so that 

tribes and the IHS may more comprehensively address the healthcare needs of our 

members. 

We also supports increased funding to cover the BIA and IHS contract support 

cost (CSC) obligations that exist under self-determination contracts, including our 

tribe’s contracts. Although we support the President’s impressive proposed increase 

of $45 million for IHS contracts, that sum will only cover the CSC obligations associated with the proposed fiscal year 2011 program increases. The increase therefore 

will not begin to touch the recurring $105 million shortfall that currently exists. To 

the extent budgetary concerns foreclose tackling this entire shortfall in 1 year, we 

support added increments of $35 million for each of the next 3 years to finally get 

these contracts paid in full. For similar reasons, we support the President’s proposed increase in CSC funding for the BIA, and hope that by adding $23 million 

more in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 the BIA’s shortfall will at long last 

similarly be resolved. 

Thank you for providing our tribe the opportunity to present testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SAWTOOTH SOCIETY

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of protecting land in the Sawtooth 

National Recreation Area in Central Idaho. An appropriation of $2 million is needed 

in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund toward the acquisition by the Forest Service of a negotiated conservation easement on the 160-acre 

Rodeo Grounds Ranch property. 

The conservation of the abundant natural resources of the Sawtooth Mountains 

in Central Idaho has been a national goal for over a century. In May 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt designated a nearly 2 million acre forest reserve that was 

eventually named the Sawtooth National Forest. Seven decades later in 1972, Congress passed Public Law 92–400 to prevent subdivision development in the heart of 

the Sawtooths, ‘‘to assure the preservation and protection of the natural, scenic, historic, pastoral, and fish and wildlife values,’’ and to enhance public recreation in a 

new Sawtooth National Recreation Area (NRA). The Sawtooth NRA encompasses 

approximately 775,000 acres that include some of the most iconic and beautiful 

high-mountain forests and valleys in the American West. 

These mountains form the headwaters of six important rivers—the Middle Fork 

Boise, the North Fork Boise, the South Fork Payette, the Big Wood, the East Fork 

Salmon, and the Salmon—that ultimately feed the Snake River and offer vital habitat for four threatened and endangered salmonid species. More than 1,000 lakes and 

glacial tarns are also found inside the recreation area. The area’s clear waters and 

the lands that surround them offer some of the finest and most renowned outdoor 

recreation in the world including fishing, white-water sports, hiking, Nordic skiing, 

rock climbing and backcountry camping. With a proud ranching tradition stretching 

back for over a century, traditional land uses have long been interwoven with the 

public values here, and the stewardship of these natural and recreational assets has 

been outstanding. 

Recognizing the conjoined needs to maintain these historic uses and to protect 

this remarkable landscape for public recreation, the legislation creating the recreation area placed limits on outright Federal land purchases in the Sawtooth NRA 
403 

while explicitly encouraging the use of conservation easements to retain the area’s 

outstanding rural character, working ranches, and recreation opportunities. The resulting easement-oriented acquisition program is thereby critical and has been 

fueled by congressional appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

since 1972. To date, this investment has brought easement protections to some 

17,000 acres of private land within the Sawtooth NRA. However, vitally important 

parcels remain to be protected. 

Available for acquisition at the Sawtooth NRA in fiscal year 2011 is a conservation easement on the 160-acre Rodeo Grounds Ranch. This easement is one of the 

very top priorities for Region 4 of the Forest Service and is located just 5 miles from 

the historic town of Stanley. The property is a key component of the viewshed along 

Idaho Route 21—the Ponderosa Pine Scenic Byway—that connects Sawtooth NRA 

to Boise. The ranch also has substantial frontage on Valley Creek, a major Salmon 

River tributary, which is vital to critical fisheries. Valley Creek provides habitat for 

all four fish species listed as threatened or endangered in Sawtooth NRA: Chinook 

salmon, sockeye salmon, bull trout, and steelhead. The Forest Service has identified 

Valley Creek as one of the most important tributaries in the Upper Salmon River 

watershed for the recovery of Chinook salmon, especially for rearing and spawning 

habitat. 

The conservation easement on Rodeo Grounds Ranch will allow for recreational 

access by anglers to Valley Creek. This access would likely be lost if the property 

were to be developed, converted from existing use, or fragmented into smaller holdings. The easement will protect the historic ranch structures on the property and 

the scenic landscape of the valley. Several surrounding tracts have already been 

protected through similar conservation easements. An appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation is needed 

in fiscal year 2011 toward this conservation easement purchase to protect the fisheries, recreational, and scenic resources of the ranch and enhance the public enjoyment of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation’s premier Federal programs to acquire and protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public 

lands and at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across the 

country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including 

promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds and improving wildfire management. Recognizing the many demands this 

subcommittee faces, I want to thank the committee for impartially considering these 

requests and your important work to ensure these limited and much-needed funds 

are allocated to those projects which will most leverage Land and Water Conservation Fund principles. I fully believe an investment in the Rodeo Grounds Ranch conservation easement is such an investment and one that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Idaho, 

and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

The Sawtooth Society, formed in 1997, is a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated exclusively to: serving as an advocate for the SNRA; preserving open 

space in the SNRA; and enhancing recreation facilities and services in the SNRA. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SKOKOMISH TRIBE OF WASHINGTON STATE

My name is Joseph Pavel, I am Vice-Chairman of the Skokomish Tribe of Washington State. I would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify 

and would like to welcome Chairman Moran to Indian country. I know that Congressman Dicks would very much welcome a visit to my reservation and the 6th 

Congressional District of Washington State. 

The Skokomish Indian Reservation is a rural community located at the base of 

the Olympic Peninsula with a population of more than 1,000 people. The 5,300-acre 

Reservation is a fraction of the 2.2 million acre of the tribe’s Treaty area. The 

Skokomish Tribe appreciates the work of the subcommittee and asks that you provide increased funding in areas that are key to the continuing development of tribal 

communities. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA) PROGRAMS

Law Enforcement.—The Skokomish Tribe respectfully requests increased funding 

for our law enforcement programs within the BIA. 

Since 1997, the Skokomish Department of Public Safety has grown from one untrained officer, to six Washington State certified/Washington State equivalency 
404 

trained or BIA-certified law enforcement officers (this includes our two conservation 

law enforcement officers). Our officers provide day-to-day law enforcement services 

on the reservation. They are also responsible for patrolling the 2.2 million acres that 

make up our treaty protected fishing and hunting areas. To be fully staffed at a 

baseline minimum for the area and scope of service that the Skokomish Department 

of Public Safety is tasked with, we need a total of 18 officers. Thus, we are almost 

80 percent below what is needed to safely serve our community. 

In a recent report, the Skokomish Reservation was reported as having a violent 

crime rate that is five times higher than the national average. Between 2006–2010, 

there were 501 ‘‘Part One’’ offenses—manslaughter, rape, domestic violence, child 

abuse, assault with a weapon, burglary, and arson. For the same period, there were 

an additional 2,210 offenses for lesser crimes, like assault with no weapon, drug 

selling or manufacture, and vandalism. This means that at least 50 percent of the 

people who live on the Skokomish Reservation are likely to have been a victim of 

a crime and in many instances the victim of a violent crime. As result of this, the 

Skokomish Tribal Council has made addressing public safety needs a priority and 

have directed staff to find the resources and programs necessary to respond to this 

overwhelming law enforcement need. 

In light of this significant tribal need, we are deeply concerned that the BIA has 

not sought an increase in funding for tribal law enforcement personnel funding. Instead, the BIA has requested $19 million to fund 45 FBI agents in Indian country. 

We recognize that there is a deficit of FBI agents serving Indian country, but we 

doubt that using the BIA’s limited resources to fund what is a Department of Justice function is a wise use of these resources. Crime in Indian country is going to 

be addressed by having trained law enforcement personnel living and working in 

our communities. It will not be addressed by staffing FBI agents in Seattle, Minneapolis, or Denver. 

Moreover, we remain deeply concerned that the BIA continues to ignore the needs 

of tribally operated law enforcement agencies and has directed the increases of the 

last 2 years to its BIA operated law enforcement agencies. Specifically, in the 13 

years that the tribe has operated its law enforcement program, we have not received 

a BIA programmatic increase in our law enforcement funding. While we do not 

doubt that the BIA has serious needs, so do the tribal law enforcement departments, 

which make up 78 percent of the law enforcement agencies in Indian country. We 

urge that any increase in law enforcement funding be allocated proportionately 

among the BIA and tribally operated law enforcement agencies. 

Tribal Courts.—Increased law enforcement creates a commensurate need for increased funding for tribal courts. Having a fair and qualified judiciary is the bedrock 

of any government’s justice system. Skokomish has long understood this. In 1963, 

the Skokomish Tribe was the first tribe in the Northwest (and one of the first in 

the country) to institute a tribal court to address fishing violations on the 

Skokomish River. The first tribal judge was my mother, a 33-year-old nurse and 

mother of five (at that time), Anne Pavel. My mother was not law trained nor had 

she received any judicial training. She was, however, a dedicated tribal member, 

who understood the importance of regulating fishing on the Skokomish River. She 

held her first hearing in a building heated by a coal stove, with her brother as her 

court reporter. 

While the responsibility and scope of tribal courts have greatly increased in the 

nearly 50 years since my mother’s first hearing, the BIA has not provided these important institutions with the commensurate level of funding. Today, tribal courts 

handle huge criminal, civil and juvenile dockets, which could not be handled by the 

already overburdened State and Federal courts. At Skokomish alone we have 458 

open criminal cases. Unfortunately, even though we participate in the Northwest 

Intertribal Court System—an inter-tribal organization that my mother started, 

which allows tribes to work cooperatively and a cost effective manner address our 

justice systems needs—we can still only afford for our tribal judge and our prosecutor to work 3 days a month. Most of our courts cannot afford to provide public 

defenders and many do not have law trained prosecutors. Fortunately, through the 

dedicated work our tribal leaders most of our judges are now law trained. 

While the Department did not propose any cuts in tribal courts, it did not propose 

any increases. Moreover, for the tribes in the Northwest Region, last year’s $10 million increase in tribal court funding did not translate into any increased funding for 

our tribal courts systems. We urge the subcommittee to direct the Department to 

allocate tribal court funding in a way that is fair and ensures that all tribal court 

systems receive an appropriate share of the funding. 
405 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

The Skokomish Tribe would like to thank the subcommittee for your commitment 

to maintaining funding for key environmental programs. In particular, the subcommittee’s funding in fiscal year 2010 of $50 million for Puget Sound Restoration 

efforts, we urge the subcommittee to reject the EPA’s proposed $30 million cut to 

this program for fiscal year 2011. This funding is critical to the collaborative efforts 

to the restore the health of the Puget Sound, and in particular the Hood Canal— 

the Jewel of the Puget Sound—and to the tribe’s efforts to manage and protect our 

treaty protected resources in the Hood Canal. 

The Hood Canal is threatened by the Low Dissolved Oxygen levels (LDOL), which 

means this vital ecosystem is essentially suffocating. LDOL is caused by many 

things, but the primary cause is the sewage that is discharged directly into the 

Hood Canal. LDOL has caused a number of fish kills in the Hood Canal and the 

Hood Canal to be closed to other seafood harvesting throughout the year. Last summer, the Tribe had to close our shellfish harvest on one of our beaches, because of 

fecal contamination. Through the tribe’s work it was learned that this contamination was primarily the result of the conduct of sports fishermen, who elected to use 

our sacred resources as their lavatories. 

The impact of this closure on the economy of the Skokomish Tribe and our members was severe. More than 90 percent of the families on the Skokomish Reservation 

are supported by Treaty harvesters, men and women who exercise their treaty 

rights to gather resources to provide for their families. When our beaches are closed, 

it means that 90 percent of the families on the reservation do not get a paycheck 

until they are open. 

Beyond the impacts on the tribe’s and the region’s economy, the health of these 

water resources is at the very heart of the Skokomish tribe’s culture. The Hood 

Canal is the place where we have for centuries gathered and prayed. In recent times 

this has not always been possible due to necessary closures. This is unconscionable 

and the dedicated effort to address this issue must continue. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE (IHS)

The Skokomish Tribe strongly supports the $354 million increase requested for 

the IHS. In particular, the Tribe appreciates the $84 million increase for contract 

health care. However, at Skokomish, like Indian people throughout the Nation, we 

face disproportionately higher rates of diabetes and the complications associated 

with diabetes. Heart disease, cancer, obesity, chemical dependency, and mental 

health problems are also prevalent among our people. While we have a tribally operated ambulatory clinic staffed with dedicated professionals, we do not have access 

to an IHS hospital. Consequently, anyone needing in-patient treatment, physical 

therapy, or diagnostic services must be referred out. This means that our contract 

health program is always taxed and frequently we do not have the resources to refer 

people out. The reported shortfall for contact healthcare is $1 billion. Thus, while 

we appreciate the $84 million increase it is woefully inadequate. 

We commend the IHS for the requested $9 million increase for dental healthcare. 

Studies have shown that poor dental care and chronic tooth decay is related to heart 

disease, and other serious chronic health conditions. The IHS reports that only 25 

percent of Alaska Native and Indian people have access to dental care, the lack of 

access results in preventable tooth extractions, poor juvenile care, and in some instances death. 

We also commend the IHS for its focus on alcohol and substance abuse. However, 

the targeted $4 million increase is not enough. I suspect every reservation in the 

country has substance abuse treatment needs that are not being addressed. In particular, we are experiencing an increasing dependency on ‘‘prescription drugs.’’ Our 

data shows that prescription drug use has nearly doubled in the last 2 years; and 

at the same time our data is showing that methamphetamine use, which was on 

a decline, is now back on the rise. It is important to note that this data is from 

individuals who have contact with the tribe. It does not reflect the many people who 

are using but with whom the tribe has no contact. 

While the statistics demonstrate the problem in very stark terms, we are experiencing the problem of substance abuse in heart breaking losses. In the last two 

weeks in December, we buried two young men who lost their lives due to addiction. 

These young men were sons, brothers, nephews and cousins, but as a tribal leader 

these losses represent the potential loss of my tribe’s future. We will not survive 

as a people if our young men and women continue to leave this earth sooner than 

they should. I implore the subcommittee to provide at least a $19 million increase 

for alcohol and substance abuse programs nation wide. 
406 

TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

In 1995, Congress began encouraging tribes to assume historic preservation responsibilities as part of self-determination. These programs conserve fragile places, 

objects and traditions crucial to tribal culture, history, and sovereignty. As was envisioned by Congress, more tribes qualify for funding every year. Paradoxically, the 

more successful the program becomes, the less each tribe receives to maintain professional services, ultimately crippling the programs. In fiscal year 2001, there were 

27 THPOs with an average award of $154,000. In fiscal year 2011 it is estimated 

that there will be 95 tribes operating the program, receiving less $50,000. We join 

the National Congress of American Indians in seeking a $4 million increase in funding for this program. 

CONCLUSION

I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony on 

these important issues. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ST. VINCENT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Madam chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I, Landy Luther, 

am the current president of the supporters of St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR). Our organization was established to promote better understanding, appreciation, and conservation of the natural history and environment of St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Our goals are: Increase public awareness of the refuge, provide financial support to the refuge, and to support refuge projects. We feel 

that our mission and goals are consistent with the acquisition of the property that 

is the subject of this testimony. 

I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land 

at St. Vincent NWR in Florida. An appropriation of $1.25 million is needed in fiscal 

year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in order for the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to acquire the 3.21-acre property to provide 

the agency permanent access to the barrier island refuge. 

The St. Vincent NWR encompasses a 12,500-acre undeveloped barrier island lying 

opposite the mouth of the Apalachicola River, in the Gulf of Mexico. Located just 

off the Florida panhandle in western Franklin and Gulf counties, the island is 4 

miles across at its widest point and 9 miles long. This triangular island is larger 

and wider than most of the northern Gulf Coast barrier islands. Prior to becoming 

a refuge, St. Vincent was used primarily as a private hunting and fishing preserve. 

Established in 1968, the refuge was originally intended as a sanctuary for waterfowl, the majority of which are resident wood ducks and migrating blue winged teal. 

Since then, however, the refuge mission has been broadened to include the protection of habitat for endangered species and to provide a variety of recreational activities. 

St. Vincent NWR provides a sanctuary for a number of threatened, endangered, 

and recovering species. Loggerhead sea turtles come ashore to nest on the island’s 

pristine beaches. Indigo snakes inhabit gopher tortoise burrows in the dunes. Wood 

stork and peregrine falcons stop on the island during their seasonal migrations, and 

bald eagles nest in the pines near the island’s freshwater lakes and marshes. In 

1990, St. Vincent became one of several Southeastern coastal islands where endangered red wolves are being bred. Once weaned, the wild pups raised here are taken 

to reintroduction sites such as Alligator River NWR in North Carolina. These solitary animals once roamed the Southeast, but predator control programs and habitat 

loss have decimated their populations. 

St. Vincent serves as an important stop-off point in the Gulf of Mexico region for 

neotropical migratory bird species. Seaside sparrows nest in huge numbers and various other neotropical birds stop for food and shelter during spring and fall migrations. More than 260 bird species have been logged on the refuge and Christmas 

bird counts by the Audubon Society typically include more than 100 species. Wildlife 

is attracted to the island’s diversity of habitat types. Ten separate habitat types 

ranging from tidal marsh to scrub oak and pure stands of cabbage palm have been 

identified on the island. Plants on the island include 15 that are listed as threatened by the State of Florida. 

Currently, the refuge staff travels to and from the undeveloped and uninhabited 

island using a boat that is docked on a mainland marina at Indian Pass. The dockage rights are subject to a month-to-month lease from a private landowner who has 

recently indicated an intent to sell and/or develop the property. Faced with the loss 

of this facility, the refuge staff must find another location to dock the boat, as it 
407 

is critical for the management of the refuge to secure appropriate access to the island. Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2011 is the 3.21-acres Schoelles tract. 

Located close to the refuge’s administrative offices in the City of Apalachicola, the 

site includes a boat ramp and marina to accommodate the refuge boat. Properties 

available for purchase with pre-existing facilities are rare in this area. It is very difficult to obtain permitting for new marinas and ramps in Florida, making this property prime for development if it is not obtained by the refuge. Not only will the 

property’s existing wet-slip marina and boat ramp provide immediate access for the 

refuge staff’s motorized boat, it will also allow access to nonmotorized boats such 

as canoes and kayaks. 

Conserving this property will prevent its development into a coastal residential 

subdivision. Limiting coastal development is critical to reducing the costs associated 

with storm and hurricane damage as well as to protecting the quality of adjacent 

waters. Bounded to the north by Highway 30A and to the south by St. Vincent 

Sound, the inclusion of the parcel within refuge boundaries would provide a small 

buffer zone along the sound, designated a Class II Florida Outstanding Waterway. 

St. Vincent Sound supports endangered species communities, important recreational 

and commercial fisheries, and sea grass beds that provide significant waterfowl 

habitat. The significance of these waters is underscored by the fact that they are 

protected as part of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Reserve. A $1.25 million appropriation from the LWCF in fiscal year 2011 will maintain 

necessary access to St. Vincent Island for FWS staff; improve access to St. Vincent 

Sound for fishermen, oystermen, and recreational boaters; and protect additional 

natural resources along the mainland shore. 

The LWCF is our Nation’s premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands 

at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and 

recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles 

through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire 

management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate 

change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to 

the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the committee for its recent effort 

to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in 

the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and 

to our great natural and historical heritage. 

I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Florida, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

LETTER FROM THE MOUNTAINEERS

MARCH 24, 2010. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN FEINSTEIN: The Mountaineers is one of the oldest and largest 

conservation organizations in the Pacific Northwest. We have a long history of involvement with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the protection of both fish 

and wildlife species and their habitat, stretching back to the act’s inception. Our involvement has entailed written comments, oral testimony, lobbying and where necessary, litigation, at State, regional, and Federal levels. The Mountaineers would 

like to thank you for consenting to consider our comments on ESA funding for fiscal 

year 2011 after the deadline of Friday March 19, 2010. We respectfully submit the 

following suggestions. 

We are very concerned that this landmark legislation have adequate funding to 

realize its objectives, especially as it pertains to the listing of species. For decades 

Congress has inadequately funded the implementation of the ESA. We urge you to 

move aggressively to redress this historical shortfall by taking the following measures in the designated listing-related contexts. 

Candidate Conservation.—We recommend a doubling of staff in this program, 

which provides interim protection for species while they await listing. Since the ESA 

wait list was enacted, 64 species have gone extinct, seven times the number that 

have done so under the ESA’s full protection. A candidate species must await listing 

for almost two full decades. We consider this prima facie evidence that the act, as 

envisioned, is failing, badly and that a funding shortfall is a factor, if not the major 
408 

reason why. Today a staggering 249 domestic and 20 species await listing, vulnerably exposed to extirpation. 

Recovery.—The primary purpose of the ESA is to recover listed species, not merely 

to preclude them from going extinct. Current estimates of funding levels to recover 

species approximate $100 million. We urge that the Congress fund recovery of species at a level of no less than $95 million for fiscal year 2011. 

Consultation.—Current estimates of the shortfall for funding in this context range 

as high as $122 million. The number of consultations has increased markedly in recent years simultaneous with a shortfall in personnel. We urge that funding be provided in amounts adequate to address these problems. We also request that consultation-dedicated funding be granted for use in the context of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) only to the extent it advances recovery and facilitates HCP implementation and the critical monitoring of that implementation over time. We specifically urge that Congress not permit this consultation funding to be used for expansion of the use of HCP’s and Incidental Take Permits, as it has been, previously. 

ADDITIONAL ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTIONS

Cooperative Endangered Species Fund.—Given that 65 percent of federally listed 

species are found on non-Federal lands, it is critical that State endangered species 

conservation activities be adequately funded. A total of at least $160 million is needed. We request a total appropriation of $100 million in fiscal year 2011 including 

20 million for conservation grants to States, an increment of $15 million more than 

prior levels. 

Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship Grants.—We request that these 

programs be restored to their fiscal year 2007 levels of $23.7 million for the private 

landowner and tribal lands grants and $7.3 million for the stewardship grants. Recovery of our Nation’s imperiled species is not likely, perhaps even impossible without the cooperation of private landowners and tribes. These critical programs should 

be resurrected, fully, but not at the expense of those items designated above. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wildlife and Fisheries Management and 

Threatened and Endangered Species Management.—We request an increase of $25 

million more than fiscal year 2010 levels to begin meeting this program’s needs, for 

a total appropriation of $65.4 million in fiscal year 2011 for wildlife and fisheries 

management and $32.6 million for threatened and endangered species management. 

The role of the BLM in species recovery is critical. In the past, large sums of money 

intended for this purpose have been diverted to other BLM objectives. We urge Congress also to exert much stronger oversight in the way its funds are expended by 

BLM. The agency is understaffed in this context, and woefully underfunded. It is 

estimated that BLM only gets ten percent of what they actually need for threatened 

and endangered species. 

In making these requests The Mountaineers would observe the broad and deep 

support the ESA continues to receive among the public at large. Huge revenues are 

derived from the enjoyment of watching wildlife species, that eclipse revenues derived from consumptive uses like hunting and fishing. The ESA can operate as a 

powerful tool to protect species and preserve a priceless heritage—but only if it is 

adequately and consistently funded by the Congress. 

We again, would like to thank the subcommittee for consideration of these remarks after the deadline. 

Sincerely, 

MARTINIQUE GRIGG, 

Executive Director. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy’s recommendations for fiscal year 2011 

appropriations. My name is Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr. and I am Director of Federal 

Land Programs. 

The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit conservation organization 

working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and 

waters they need to survive. We are best known for our science-based, collaborative 

approach to developing creative solutions to conservation challenges. Our on-theground conservation work is carried out in all 50 States and more than 30 foreign 

countries and is supported by approximately 1 million individual members. We have 
409 

helped conserve nearly 15 million acres of land in the United States and Canada 

and more than 102 million acres with local partner organizations globally. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).—Thank you for your leadership in 

restoring critically important funding for LWCF in recent years. We are gratified 

by the President’s commitment to fully fund LWCF and look forward to working to 

implement and secure funding to support the President’s America Great Outdoors 

Initiative. 

We support the President’s funding level of $384 million for Federal LWCF and $50 million for the stateside. This year, the Conservancy is specifically recommending 32 biologically rich land acquisition projects totaling $88.7 million. Priorities include Oregon’s Hells Canyon NRA, California’s Smith River NRA (Six Rivers 

National Forest), Wisconsin’s Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest and Pennsylvania’s Cherry Valley NWR, the Nation’s newest refuge. We also support continued 

investments in large landscape-scale projects in New England’s Silvio O. Conte 

NFWR, and Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area and the Montana 

Legacy Project. 

Forest Legacy.—We support the President’s request of $100 million for this pro- gram, and are specifically proposing 6 projects totaling $20.4 million. We hope this 

year to complete the phased acquisition of the 127,000-acre Northern Cumberlands 

project, Tennessee’s largest conservation project since the creation of Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park. Other priority projects include Kentucky’s Big Rivers 

Corridor, Montana’s Clearwater Lands and the second phases of both New York’s 

Follensby Pond and Texas’ Longleaf Ridge. 

Climate Change.—The Conservancy welcomes the President’s commitment to address the global climate challenge and supports the administration’s fiscal year 2011 

proposed increases for climate-specific programs and activities. We also appreciate 

this subcommittee’s leadership in highlighting climate change adaptation and 

science funding, including the USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science 

Center. We particularly look forward to working with the FWS and other Department of the Interior bureaus to support and implement the work of the Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives. The Conservancy is committed to advancing landscape 

scale conservation projects, and protect large, interconnected, and ecologically significant habitat. Coupled with robust funding to complementary conservation programs, the administration’s science-based investments will help address the critical 

challenges to people and nature in a world whose climate is changing. 

Wildland Fire Management.—We appreciate the subcommittee’s continued attention to high-cost wildfire and proactive management to reduce fuels and protect 

communities from damaging fire. We have three recommendations for wildland fire. 

First, increase hazardous fuels reduction funding by 10 percent more than enacted 

to $395.3 million for the Forest Service (USFS) and $208.2 million for DOI as a necessary investment to reduce threats to communities and abate costs of future wildlife. Second, increase to $78.2 million funding for National Fire Plan State Fire Assistance and increase to $7.7 million funds for Department of the Interior Rural Fire 

Assistance. These investments are needed to improve community safety and build 

local capacity for controlled burning as fuels reduction treatment. Finally, we support full funding of fire suppression needs for 2011 through the fire suppression 

budget, Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) Fund 

and Contingent Reserve Fund as necessary to safeguard critical conservation programs from ‘‘fire borrowing.’’ 

Integrated Resource Restoration.—The Conservancy strongly supports the President’s fiscal year 2011 proposal for the U.S. USFS’s integrated resource restoration 

budget. First, we recommend full funding of $40 million for the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program, which with the support of the Chairman and many 

members of the subcommittee, was authorized last year and funded by this subcommittee at $10 million. Second, we support creation of the Priority Watershed and 

Job Stabilization Initiative to provide $50 million on a competitive basis for projects 

that improve watershed conditions and provide employment in restoration, wood energy and value-added processing. Third, we support creation of the integrated resource restoration budget with $694 million by combining programs that were formerly separate functions of wildlife and fisheries habitat management, vegetation 

and watershed management, and forest products. Separate funding for these activities has led to disparate, uncoordinated activities in wildlife, fisheries, timber, and 

watershed improvement that did not necessarily contribute to restoration goals. The 

new budget structure will break new ground by measuring activity accomplishment 

by ecological outcomes and effects on watershed condition, rather than acres of habitat or miles of stream restored, and by promoting increased use of stewardship contracts and timber sales where they make fiscal sense. We trust that this new budget 

will better enable the USFS to provide important ecosystem services such as clean 
410 

and abundant water, renewable energy from biomass, restored wildlife and fish 

habitat, carbon sequestration and healthy forests and grasslands. 

Forest Health Management.—America’s forests are threatened by existing and a 

growing number of non-native pests and diseases. The Conservancy appreciates the 

subcommittee’s leadership in consistently providing funding above the President’s 

request. The Forest Health Management program should receive an increase to 

$145 million to effectively address economically and ecologically damaging pests, including the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, 

Sudden Oak Death, thousand-canker disease (threatening walnut trees), and the 

gold-spotted oak borer. 

USFS Research Program.—We recommend an increase of $3 million above enacted for the ‘‘Invasives R&D’’ line item within the USFS Research Program. This 

would permit maintaining at current levels research to improve detection and control methods for the Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid and other nonnative forest pests and diseases. 

Endangered Species.—The Conservancy supports an increase for the FWS’s Coop- erative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) to $100 million. The Conservancy and its partners, including multiple State and county governments, have 

used the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Recovery Land Acquisition Programs to secure key habitat for numerous threatened, endangered and at-risk species. In recent years, CESCF funds have been used to provide permanent habitat 

protection throughout California, including recent grants for the San Diego MSCP 

and the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP. The recent MT Clearwater Lands 

Project grant leverages other investments in the Forest Legacy Clearwater Lands 

Project and the USFS Montana Legacy Project. The recent planning grant for an 

HCP in Tennessee’s Cumberlands Region complements the Forest Legacy North 

Cumberlands project. Last year’s recovery land grant for a conservation easement 

on private lands in Northern Idaho’s Kootenai Valley protected a critical link between higher elevation public lands of the Selkirk Mountains and low-elevation 

State and private lands. We also support continued funding for the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, and fish hatchery needs associated with the recovery plans 

in this region. 

State Wildlife Grants.—The Conservancy endorses the Teaming with Wildlife Coa- lition’s funding recommendation of $100 million. Strong Federal investments are essential to ensure strategic actions are undertaken by State and Federal agencies 

and the conservation community to conserve wildlife populations and their habitats. 

We also support a $5 million competitive grant program as a subset of the State 

Wildlife Grant Program. 

National Wildlife Refuge System.—The Conservancy applauds the subcommittees’ 

significant increases in recent years for operations and maintenance of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, a cornerstone of our commitment to fish and wildlife resources throughout the Nation. As a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge 

Enhancement (CARE) coalition we are supporting a request for $578 million in fiscal year 2011 for the operations and maintenance of the system. 

Migratory Bird Programs.—The subcommittee has consistently provided vitally 

important investments for a number of migratory bird programs. Such investments 

are essential to reverse declines in bird populations through direct conservation action, monitoring and science. We urge the subcommittee to increase funding over 

the President’s request and fiscal year 2010 enacted for such established and successful programs as NAWCA and the Joint Ventures, and the Migratory Bird Management Program. 

Partnership Programs.—We recommend funding levels of the President’s request 

or fiscal year 2010 enacted for the FWS Coastal Program and Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program and request $10 million for the National Fish Habitat Initiative. 

International Programs.—The Conservancy, as part of an alliance of major international conservation groups, supports $15 million to the FWS’ Multinational Species Conservation Funds. We and the alliance also strongly support $21 million for 

the FWS office of international affairs which includes Wildlife Without Borders; $6.5 

million for the FWS’ Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund; and $16 million for the USFS’s International Programs. 

Bureau of Land Management Climate Change, Ecoregional Assessments & Resource Management.—The Conservancy supports the administration’s recommended 

funding for BLM’s Climate Change Adaptation Initiative. This will enable focus 

upon completing ecoregional assessments, a key information tool for the agency to 

respond to the growing challenges of climate change and energy development. Evaluation of ecoregions and comparison of assessments across multi-State regions will 

provide information to guide future planning and management decisions. 
411 

Ecoregional assessments are a critical contribution to the Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives which link science with conservation planning to address broad-scale 

challenges of a changing climate to species and habitats. We also recommend robust 

funding for BLM resource management and transportation planning activities. 

These funds are needed to complete a significant number of ongoing planning efforts 

and to initiate new planning efforts in key places, without which the agency cannot 

make informed mitigation and siting decisions for traditional and renewable energy 

proposals and take the management actions necessary to improve priority wildlife 

and aquatic habitats, ensure water quality, control invasive species and manage offroad vehicle use. BLM should also be encouraged to use existing data sets when 

available so that funding can be focused on critical data needs instead of creating 

duplicitous data sets. 

USGS—Water Resources.—We support increased funding levels for the National 

Streamflow Information Program and the Cooperative Water Program. These programs provide scientific data needed by multiple public and private water managers 

and their partners. As climate change, drought and population growth increase the 

demands on water resources, it is critical to invest in the integration of State and 

Federal water resource data and to better understand water needs of human communities and the environment. 

Environmental Protection Agency.—The EPA Geographic programs provide critical 

leadership, technical support and funding for on-the-ground actions to improve 

water quality and restore aquatic ecosystems. We support $300 million for the Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative. We also support $103 million for the implementation 

of the various programs and activities defined in the President’s Chesapeake Bay 

Executive order, including funding EPA’s Chesapeake Bay program. We support $50 

million to support implementation of the Puget Sound Partnership’s Action Agenda 

and $20 million for implementation of the Long Island Sound program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy’s recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TOWN OF OPHIR, COLORADO

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: We appreciate 

the opportunity to present this testimony in support of acquiring land at 

Uncompahgre National Forest in Colorado. An appropriation of $4.3 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in order 

for the Forest Service (USFS) to complete the acquisition of the 445 acres in Ophir 

Valley. We are pleased that the fiscal year 2011 President’s budget included $1 million for this project; however, it can be completed this year with an appropriation 

of $4.3 million. 

Located in the heart of southwestern Colorado’s San Juan Mountains, the Ophir 

Valley project area in the Uncompahgre National Forest is one of the San Juans’ 

hidden gems. A short detour of only a mile off of Highway 145—part of the nationally acclaimed 236-mile San Juan Skyway Scenic Byway—brings visitors into a compact valley ringed by 13,000 foot peaks and serrated ridge lines. 

Against a backdrop of unsurpassed alpine scenery, the Ophir Valley offers an 

abundance of recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. Hiking, camping, 

mountain biking, cross-country skiing, four-wheeling, and fishing are all popular 

pastimes. In addition, the valley supports habitat for the Canada lynx, a federally 

listed threatened species, and provides important habitat for the endangered 

Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly and other sensitive species. It also contains the 

headwaters of Howard Fork, a key tributary to the San Miguel River, which The 

Nature Conservancy has called ‘‘one of the last naturally functioning rivers in the 

West.’’ The San Miguel sustains a globally rare narrowleaf cottonwood-Colorado blue 

spruce/black twinberry plant community. 

While much of the Ophir Valley is in public ownership, the region’s mining heritage also created hundreds of privately owned patented mining claims scattered 

across the landscape like matchsticks. These private inholdings once were vital to 

sustaining 19th-century efforts to find and extract mineral wealth. Now, however, 

at a time when hard rock mining in southwestern Colorado appears increasingly 

less viable economically, many former mining districts, such as Ophir, are seeing 

these private inholdings develop into sites for second homes. As a result, more and 

more of the Ophir Valley’s subalpine and alpine environments are at risk of being 

developed, potentially creating significant management issues for the USFS, fragmenting wildlife habitat, and spoiling the scenic splendor and recreational opportunities so important to residents and visitors. 
412 

Currently, the USFS has the opportunity to acquire all of the remaining acres out 

of a total 1,145 acres of patented mining claims that had been under one ownership 

in the Ophir Valley. Prior to this acquisition effort, these claims represented approximately 90 percent of the valley’s privately owned inholdings. Federal appropriations provided in previous years have allowed the USFS to begin acquiring these 

mining claims, and the requested $4.3 million in fiscal year 2011 will allow the 

agency to purchase the final 445 acres. This project resolves many land use and access conflicts that stem from the development of private inholdings within public 

lands, while promoting effective land management practices by the USFS. In particular, the ongoing acquisition protects critical habitat, maintains high-quality recreational opportunities on public lands, protects water quality, and helps maintain 

the quality of life of the region’s residents. 

This protection effort is a natural extension of the successful Red Mountain 

project, located just to the north and east of the Ophir Valley along a different portion of the San Juan Skyway. It will also complement other land protection and 

recreation enhancement efforts along and adjacent to the San Juan Skyway, one of 

only 27 All-American Roads in the National Scenic Byway program. In recent years, 

for example, Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund has pledged $5.7 million for land 

protection in the area. In fiscal year 2011, an appropriation of $4.3 million is needed 

to enable the USFS to complete the protection of these critical inholdings. 

The LWCF is our Nation’s premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands 

at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and 

recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles 

through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire 

management and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate 

change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to 

the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget and we support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing the many demands this subcommittee faces, we also want to thank the subcommittee for its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in the LWCF is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American 

people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

We want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this 

opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Colorado, and we appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF 10 TANKER AIR CARRIER, LLC 

10 Tanker Air Carrier (10 Tanker), a privately owned aerial firefighting company, 

respectfully requests that this written statement be added to the record of the hearing before the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Concerning Oversight of Fire Policy that was held 

on May 26, 2010. 

We commend the outstanding leadership and public service of Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and the members of this subcommittee in holding this hearing. We also commend our professional fire fighter colleagues at the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management, and the many State and 

local fire fighters who work tirelessly and with significant personal risk to prevent 

and to suppress wildfires. 

We have reviewed the written testimony and the video of this hearing. Significant 

portions of the hearing focused on the Station Fire of 2009 in southern California. 

We are surprised that there was no mention of the use of the two DC–10 aircraft 

operated by 10 Tanker in containing that very large fire. 

The fire started on August 26, 2009, and, as has been well documented in other 

testimony, it grew rapidly for a variety of reasons. 10 Tanker was dispatched 

through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) contracts (not USFS) from August 29 through September 7, 2009. 10 Tanker flew a 

total of 31 missions dispensing approximately 350,000 gallons of line-building retardant that had a significant impact on fire containment, property protection, and 

personnel safety. 

The hearing emphasized the necessity for rapid initial attack to prevent the widespread damage caused by the Station Fire. We note that, while the fire started on 

August 26, 10 Tanker assets were not dispatched until August 29. While the majority of 10 Tanker missions on the Station Fire were to build extended lines to permit 

ground personnel to access those areas necessary to contain the fire, through our 

experience with more than 340 missions flown over more than 45 named fires, we 
413 

have proven to ground commanders that we also have significant potential in direct 

suppression applications. We have also proven that the DC–10 tanker can be fully 

integrated into a suppression effort without impeding the activities of the other aerial and ground members of the team. We are over the drop zone for less than 2 minutes; our gravity feed system is no hazard to ground crews at our 200–300 feet drop 

altitude; our aircraft performance permits turn radii commensurate with that of any 

other fixed-wing aircraft; we can provide one or more drops in a single mission; we 

can operate from most of the airports that the USFS has in its strategic plan plus 

any other airport that has 8,000 feet of runway; and we can apply in one air mission 

the same amount of suppressant as five or more of the other aircraft available to 

any agency’s ground commander. 10 Tanker’s niche is in any wildfire contingency 

where the ground commander determines he needs to accomplish in one mission at 

jet speed what might otherwise take six other aircraft and significantly more time. 

Due to its capacity, jet speed, and rapid turn-around capability, there is no other 

aerial fire-fighting asset in existence that can provide such massive deliveries in 

time-critical situations. 

There was also a discussion in the hearing about replacement of aging firefighting 

tankers. While the discussions in the hearing centered on future ‘‘large tankers’’ 

such as the C–130 MAFFS, the DC–10 is classified by the USFS as a ‘‘very large 

tanker.’’ 10 Tanker has invested tens of millions of dollars in private capital to create a modern firefighting tanker to address the urgent needs of State and Federal 

agencies for innovation, modernization, and availability of air tankers. We have 

partnered with the Federal Aviation Administration, the USFS and the other Federal agencies to demonstrate our safety and our significant increase in capacity, 

speed of delivery, and cost effectiveness in aerial firefighting. They, in turn, have 

taken all the prudent steps to assure public safety and utility of our tanker, and 

have formally approved its use on wildfires on public lands. 

While we recognize the need for a variety of fixed and rotary wing assets in effective wildfire management, we would urge responsible legislators and agency personnel to reinforce the need for this proven, cost-effective asset at the Federal level. 

Only Cal Fire, not USFS, has made the commitment with an exclusive use contract 

with 10 Tanker. With Federal commitment to traditional exclusive-use contracts in 

the future, this world-class firefighting asset can be immediately available to any 

ground commander throughout the United States. Furthermore, there is sufficient 

private capital to fund additional DC–10 assets with as little as 6 months’ notice. 

Then the citizens of all States would be protected by this modern firefighting tanker. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TROUT UNLIMITED

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: On behalf of 

Trout Unlimited’s more than 140,000 members nationwide and more than 1,100 

members in the great State of Vermont, I appreciate the opportunity to present this 

testimony in support of acquiring land at Green Mountain National Forest in 

Vermont. An appropriation of $800,000 is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund in order for the Forest Service to complete the acquisition of the 660-acre Deerfield River property. This project is part of a larger request of funds for the national forest. 

The Green Mountains of Vermont are one of the northeast region’s most popular 

and heavily visited areas, which each year draw millions of tourists attracted to its 

scenic beauty. The forest is within a day’s drive for Vermont residents and visitors 

from the surrounding states of New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut, and provides easy access to an outstanding recreational area. The Green 

Mountains region contains outstanding natural resources such as wildlife habitat for 

black bear, deer, and neotropical songbirds, as well as extensive timber resources. 

The area boasts excellent trout streams and encompasses the watersheds that provide drinking water for many Vermont communities. The acquisition of properties 

in the Green Mountain National Forest protects recreational opportunities that have 

long been important to residents and visitors alike, such as camping, hiking, hunting, and cross-country skiing. Federal appropriations in recent years have allowed 

the Forest Service to acquire and protect critical watershed properties in the northern section of the forest as well as excellent recreation and habitat lands in the 

Taconics region. 

Two properties totaling 660 acres that lie along the Deerfield River in Readsboro 

offer substantial aquatic resources and intact forest contiguous to existing Green 

Mountain National Forest (GMNF) lands. The properties’ northern hardwood and 

conifer forest, 95 acres of wetlands and 1.4 miles of frontage on the Deerfield River 
414 

provide excellent opportunities for continued forest management, recreation, wildlife 

habitat protection, and watershed conservation—all of which are U.S. Forest Service 

strategic goals for land conservation. Due to the quality of the habitat, ecological 

and aquatic features, and connectivity with existing GMNF ownership, the properties are a conservation priority of the GMNF. These parcels would complement existing U.S. Forest Service lands and improve access for management and public 

recreation, and are part of a larger land acquisition program underway at the 

GMNF in fiscal year 2011. 

Trout Unlimited’s mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America’s 

coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. Our vision is, by the next generation, to 

ensure that robust populations of native and wild coldwater fish once again thrive 

within their North American range, so that our children can enjoy healthy fisheries 

in their home waters. Due to cool temperatures, excellent water quality, consistent 

food supply, and high oxygen content, the West Branch of the Deerfield River and 

its tributaries located within the boundaries of these parcels serve as refugia for 

wild and native Brook Trout, and have served as a site for Atlantic salmon restoration efforts. Protecting the larger ecological context in which the existing populations of these fish survive is one of the four pillars of the Trout Unlimited conservation framework. Both Trout Unlimited and the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture have identified the West Branch subwatershed for highest conservation priority. Against a backdrop of climate change and increased development pressure in 

Vermont, the Vermont Council of Trout Unlimited views the conservation of these 

parcels as mission critical. 

Additional benefits would accrue to the citizens of and visitors to Vermont. The 

clean and scenic Deerfield River is a popular recreation destination, used by 

kayakers, fishermen, and wildlife watchers. By connecting previously unconnected 

tracts of GMNF, there is an opportunity to link existing hiking and snowmobiling 

trails and create new trailheads to provide easier public access. The GMNF plans 

to encourage hunting, hiking, skiing, and other nonmotorized recreation, with 

snowmobiling on designated trails. Home to moose, deer, turkey, and other game 

species, the property will be a valuable resource to local hunters who have seen access to land decreasing in recent years, as new owners subdivide and post properties 

that have traditionally been open for hunting. Conservation of this forest will encourage and strengthen the region’s forest industries and growing tourism economy 

by preserving the rural character of Readsboro and providing increased public recreational opportunities. 

The forested plateaus, ridges, swales, and drainages provide for diverse ecological 

assemblages as well as forest structure and function. Black bear, deer, and moose 

use the properties as forage habitat as well as for their connectivity to existing protected forest. In addition to the dominant birch-beech-maple stands are several conifer stands which offer wintering areas for deer and moose. The 95 acres of wetlands 

and two miles of headwater streams located on the properties provide habitat for 

beaver, migratory waterfowl, and other aquatic species. 

A Wildlife Habitat Suitability Analysis by Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department 

showed these properties as highly valuable for black bear and rated this section of 

Route 100 as an important wildlife corridor. These critically located Deerfield River 

properties are at risk of development and fragmentation due to their frontage on 

Route 100 and proximity to conserved land. A recent USFS publication (A Sensitivity Analysis of Forests On The Edge, 2009) shows the Deerfield River watershed 

to be among the top 10 percent in the country with the highest projected rates of 

change in housing density between 2000 and 2030. 

In fiscal year 2011, an appropriation of $800,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Green Mountain National Forest would allow for the protection of these important natural resource properties, ensuring wildlife habitat 

connectivity, water quality protection, and public recreation opportunities in a 

threatened landscape. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation’s premier Federal program 

to acquire and protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and 

at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting 

healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, 

improving wildfire management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. Recognizing 

the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank the committee for its 

recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted program. This wise investment in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one that will permanently 
415 

pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in 

Vermont, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

The Wilderness Society (TWS) represents more than 500,000 members and supporters who share our mission to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care 

for our wild places. We thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year 2011 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies appropriations bill. 

We applaud the leadership and members of this subcommittee for increasing appropriations in fiscal year 2009 and 2010 for essential public land conservation programs and reversing the near decade-long pattern of severe funding cuts to numerous conservation programs. Despite this progress, conservation programs continue 

to suffer from underfunding. Additionally, the effects of climate change are impacting public lands nationwide and have only begun to be addressed by land management agencies. 

Protection and proper stewardship of these lands buffer the effects of flooding and 

wildfire, conserve water, support healthy fisheries and wildlife populations, and sequester carbon. Our forests currently sequester an estimated 14 percent of all U.S. 

greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Additional 

protections for these important carbon stores should be considered. 

Conservation programs are also pivotal to the success of the outdoor recreation industry, which contributes $730 billion annually to the economy while supporting 

nearly 6.5 million jobs across the country. According to a recent Department of the 

Interior study, conservation activities are a driving force to create jobs, as every $1 

million taxpayers invest in ecosystem restoration projects creates 30 jobs, and every 

$1 million invested in recreation projects produces 22 jobs. 

We urge bold, immediate action in making additional investments for fiscal year 

2011. TWS recommends: 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Our 682 million acres of Federal land and waterways provide a critical opportunity to address the unprecedented challenges that climate change poses to our forests, fish and wildlife, and riparian resources. The strategic acquisition of key 

inholdings, buffer areas, and wildlife migration corridors within and adjacent to existing public lands enhances adaptation efforts and fosters intact landscapes. These 

natural areas also store carbon, buffer flooding, conserve water, and support healthy 

fisheries and wildlife populations. Hand-in-hand with mitigating the deleterious impacts of our environment from burning fossil fuels is the need to respond to climate 

change with a foresighted investment in land protection and natural resource adaptation across the Federal public lands. President Obama has indicated that LWCF 

should be fully funded by 2014, and we support a significant funding increase that 

will lead to his goal. TWS’ fiscal year 2011 recommendation for the LWCF is $600 

million ($425 million for Federal and $175 million for State grants). 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Onshore Oil and Gas Policy 

The administration proposes the following laudable reforms of the BLM’s oil and 

gas program: 

—A proposed fee on onshore Federal operators designed to bring in $10 million 

per year for the I&E program. 

—Continuation of the $6,500 APD fee in fiscal year 2011 which was approved by 

Congress for fiscal year 2010 (estimated revenues—$45.5 million). 

—A $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing onshore leases (needs authorizing legislation). 

—Repeal of section 365 of EPACT which diverted lease rental revenues to fund 

the ‘‘Permit Streamlining Pilot Offices’’, and prohibits the BLM from charging 

APD fees (the latter provision in effect overridden by Congress in the fiscal year 

2010 appropriations bill). 

—Initiation of a new rule to raise royalty rates for Federal onshore oil and gas 

leases, with a goal of raising oil and gas revenues by $1 billion over 10 years 

(royalty rates under consideration are not discussed in the budget proposal, 

however). 

TWS supports all of these proposals. The BLM is moving forward with important 

management reforms of the onshore program that should, when fully implemented, 
416 

lead to a better balance between oil and gas developed on western public lands, and 

the protection of the many natural resource values that have been impaired by the 

previous administration’s oil and gas policies. 

BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System (NCLS) 

The BLM’s NCLS comprises some 26 million acres of congressionally and presidentially designated lands and waters, such as National Monuments and National 

Conservation Areas. Stewardship of the NCLS’s many units provides jobs for thousands of Americans while supporting vibrant and sustainable economies in surrounding communities. The NCLS provides immeasurable public values in return 

for modest investments: outstanding recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, 

clean water, wilderness, and open space near fast-growing cities. The NCLS also 

provides a living laboratory where the challenges of climate change can be studied 

and landscape level habitat restoration can take place. Recent changes have improved clarity in the NCLS’s budget, but the NCLS still suffers from a lack of prominence in the BLM’s budget structure and there is a real need for subaccounts that 

reflect the diversity of the NCLS’s many units. 

—TWS’ fiscal year 2011 recommendation is full budget clarity for the NCLS—two new subactivities and funding of $100 million, a modest increase of approximately $25 million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. —Restore the Challenge Cost Share Program at full funding of $19 million. This 

is a cross-cutting program within Department of the Interior, which provides a 

1:1 match for volunteer activities. 

Renewable Energy 

TWS is a strong proponent of transitioning our country to a sustainable energy 

economy by developing our renewable energy resources quickly and responsibly. We 

believe renewable energy is an appropriate use of the public lands when sited in 

areas screened for habitat, resource, or cultural conflicts. As such, we are supportive 

of the request for a $14.2 million increase for renewable energy programs across Department of the Interior, bringing the fiscal year 2011 request to $73.3 million. TWS 

is pleased that Department of the Interior’s request is consistent with the principle 

of both protecting lands and installing energy facilities, as seen in the proposed $3 

million increase over the $16.1 million enacted in fiscal year 2010, for project-level 

environmental review. With these expanded resources, TWS hopes the Department 

of the Interior will see fit to clearly document policies for thorough and expedient 

environmental review, suitability screening, energy zone identification, and fair return for taxpayers. 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Funding 

An analysis compiled by the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement shows that the NWRS needs at least $900 million in annual operations and maintenance 

funding to properly administer its 150 million acres, educational nature programs, 

habitat restoration projects, and much more. We appreciate the subcommittee’s vision and leadership while providing funding increases in fiscal year 2008-fiscal year 

2010. We urge the Congress to build upon these important steps toward restoring 

the NWRS by considering our request in the fiscal year 2011 budget. To reach this 

goal, TWS recommends providing $578 million in fiscal year 2011 for the operations 

and maintenance of America’s NWRS. 

National Forest Funding 

TWS supports the overall funding levels in the proposed Forest Service (USFS) 

budget; however, we recommend adjusting the funding levels of several programs. 

For example, important and fundamental programs like inventory and monitoring 

and land management and planning should have funding levels of $180.5 million 

and $80 million, respectively, in fiscal year 2011. This is especially important in a 

year when the administration is undergoing a national forest planning rulemaking 

and when climate change requires that we perform more research. TWS additionally 

recommends that the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program receive $76 million, 

the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Program be restored and receive $163 million, 

and Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Program receive $408 million. 

TWS is pleased that the administration is working on shifting forest management 

from timber-based to more restoration-based. However, we do have concerns about 

a proposal that would eliminate three important programs, and thus important 

measurements of the health of our national forests. Additionally, the USFS must 

be provided with direction from Congress to ‘‘right-size’’ its massive and decaying 

road system, which is a major threat to the drinking water of more than 3,400 communities and has resulted in ecosystem degradation and a more than $8 billion road 

maintenance backlog. The Western Governors’ Association, the U.S. Conference of 
417 

Mayors, major sportsmen groups, and others have also urged the USFS to bring its 

roads system down to a sustainable size. To achieve forest restoration goals in fiscal 

year 2011, TWS recommends: 

—The USFS receive congressional direction to develop a restoration plan that is 

rooted in the latest science and includes input from the public; 

—The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is fully funded and 

moved into the National Forest System budget; 

—Congress continues its commitment to reduce fire risk to communities by funding the two State Fire Assistance programs at $150 million, collectively; and 

—Congress funds the Legacy Roads and Trails program at $120 million, $30 million of which for the minimum roads system analysis (pursuant to 36 CFR 

212.5(b)). 

Acquiring land for conservation purposes is a critical duty for the USFS. The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) helps to preserve working forestlands threatened by conversion and development. To date, this program has protected more than 1.9 million 

acres in 42 States and territories. A total of $444 million of Federal funds have been 

matched by $484 million in non-Federal funds and donations, making the Federal 

share only 44 percent of overall project costs. TWS’ fiscal year 2011 recommendation 

for the FLP is $150 million, an increase of $70.5 million more than the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level of $79.5 million. 

The Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program, established in the 

2008 Farm Bill, will give communities, tribes and nonprofits 50/50 matching funds 

to help purchase economically, ecologically and culturally important forestlands to 

create community forests. The program also ensures technical assistance through 

state forestry agencies to help implement outstanding forest management. TWS’ fiscal year 2011 recommendation for Community Forest and Open Space Program is 

$10 million, an increase of $9.5 million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

The Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) Act of 

2009 requires the USFS to complete a Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy by 

the end of fiscal year 2010 to identify the most cost-effective means for allocating 

fire management budget resources, employ the appropriate management response to 

wildfires, and assess the level of risk to communities and the impacts of climate 

change on wildfire, among several other factors. While the agency has recently 

begun this process, we believe they will be able to produce a better product if given 

additional time. TWS recommends for fiscal year 2011: 

—Congress provide the USFS with an additional year to ensure a more comprehensive strategy; 

—TWS recommends allocating $2 million for the agency to convene a panel of scientists to inform the development and allow for a public review process. 

Fire Funding—USFS and Department of the Interior 

TWS is pleased that the administration proposes funding the USFS and Department of the Interior FLAME funds. However, it is unclear that the USFS and the 

Department of the Interior require four emergency funds through the additional 

proposed contingency reserve budgets for each department. The FLAME fund is intended to fund suppressing high-cost fires during the fire season and be accessible 

when annual suppression funds are nearly exhausted. The FLAME fund also requires the administration to report to Congress quarterly on the status of the fund, 

which would provide appropriators the opportunity to replenish the fund as needed. 

The purpose of the fund is to eliminate the need for the USFS to transfer funds 

from non-fire programs—a practice that has too often led to disruptions in program 

implementation. TWS recommends that the proposed funding in the USFS and Department of the Interior contingency reserve accounts be transferred to their respective FLAME funds. Additionally, Congress must continue to stress to the USFS the 

need to replace the 10-year rolling average estimate with a more predictive statistical modeling approach for calculating emergency and annual suppression estimates. 

Council on Environmental Quality 

CEQ serves as the principal environmental policy advisor to the President. CEQ 

has broad statutory responsibilities for advising the President in the development 

of environmental policies and legislation; assessing and reporting trends in environmental quality and recommending appropriate response strategies; and overseeing 

implementation of NEPA. CEQ is severely understaffed. CEQ’s staff ranged from 

50–70 in the 1970s and 1980s in both Republican and Democratic Administrations, 

but it is currently staffed by only 24 FTEs. Additional resources are critical and 

TWS recommends an increase to $4,694,093, which would allow for approximately 

30 staff. 
418 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

The Wildlife Society (TWS) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on 

the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. TWS was founded in 1937 and is a nonprofit scientific 

and educational association representing more than 9,000 professional wildlife biologists and managers, dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science 

and education. Our mission is to represent and serve wildlife professionals—the scientists, technicians, and practitioners actively working to study, manage, and conserve native and desired non-native wildlife and their habitats worldwide. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the primary program supporting 

implementation of comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies, known as State 

Wildlife Action Plans, and it is the only Federal program that supports States in 

preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. Each State creates plans which detail conservation actions including land protection, invasive species management, research and survey work, and more; these actions create or sustain thousands of jobs 

that preserve lands important to all sorts of wildlife enthusiasts. Funding assistance 

for these State wildlife agencies is therefore one of the highest-priority needs for 

wildlife in order to prevent further declines in at-risk wildlife populations in every 

State. We recommend that $100 million be appropriated for State Wildlife Grants 

in fiscal year 2011. We also ask that Congress support a reduction in the non-Federal match requirement from 50 percent to 30 percent, relieving some of the onus 

of providing adequate matching funding from severely cashed-strapped States. 

The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) is a diverse coalition 

of 22 wildlife, sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations representing more 

than 14 million members and supporters. A comprehensive analysis by CARE determined that our National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) needs $900 million in annual operations to properly administer its nearly 150 million acres, educational programs, habitat restoration projects, and much more. Many years of stagnant budgets have increased the operations and maintenance backlog, and forced plans for a 

dramatic 20 percent downsizing of the workforce. NWRS visitors often show up to 

find visitor centers closed, hiking trails in disrepair, and habitat restoration programs eliminated. Invasive plant species are taking over, requiring $25 million per 

year to treat just one-third of its acreage, and illegal activities such as poaching are 

on the rise, requiring an additional 209 officers ($31.4 million) to meet law enforcement needs. We request that you provide $578 million in fiscal year 2011 for the 

operations and maintenance of the NWRS. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative, nonregulatory, 

incentive-based program that has shown unprecedented success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other migratory bird populations. This program has remained 

drastically underfunded, despite its great demonstrated effectiveness. We recommend a $10 million increase, to $52.6 million in fiscal year 2011 so that act may 

reach the goal of full funding of $75 million by fiscal year 2012. 

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) provides a broadspectrum approach to bird conservation. TWS recommends that Congress fund the 

NMBCA at its full authorization of $6.5 million in fiscal year 2011. 

TWS supports adequate funding levels for all subactivities within the Endangered 

Species Program. Endangered species recovery efforts can ultimately lead to 

delisting actions that result in significant benefits to species through State management efforts. Currently, all subactivities are understaffed while the costs for management of listed species continue to rapidly escalate. We recommend that Congress 

match the President’s request for the Endangered Species Program and provide 

$181.33 million in funding in fiscal year 2011. 

The voluntary Partners for Fish and Wildlife Programs provides financial and 

technical assistance to landowners to restore degraded habitat on their property. 

With more than two-thirds of our Nation’s lands held as private property, and up 

to 90 percent of some habitats lost, private lands play a key role in preserving our 

ecosystem. We urge Congress to provide $60 million in support of the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program in order to allow landowners to help contribute to land 

and wildlife preservation. 

Through its international programs, FWS works multilaterally with many partners and countries in the implementation of international treaties, conventions, and 

projects for the conservation of wildlife species and their habitats. International 

trade, import, and transportation of wildlife species can have a huge impact on 

America’s security, economy, and environment and careful regulation and implementation of international policies is an important task. We ask Congress to support 
419 

FWS in protecting our economy, our environment, and our national security by providing a necessary $22 million in support of FWS International Affairs. 

Finally, we ask Congress to provide additional funding to fight White Nose Syndrome (WNS) in bats. The current loss of bats from WNS is one of the most precipitous wildlife declines in the past century in North America, and will likely have significant ecological and economic consequences throughout the United States. Expert 

scientists have recommended that $45 million will be needed over the next 5 years 

to study and combat WNS, however last year Congress only appropriated $1.9 million for WNS in the Recovery of Listed Species Program. In order to meet the growing urgency to fight this disease, TWS asks you to provide an additional $5 million 

for fighting WNS in fiscal year 2011. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

The diverse habitats managed by BLM support more than 3,000 species of wildlife, more than 300 federally proposed or listed species, and more than 1,300 sensitive plant species. However, the BLM has only 1 biologist per 591,000 acres of 

land and estimated costs for recovery of threatened and endangered species on BLM 

lands are $300 million annually over the next 5 years. In addition, the Wildlife and 

Fisheries Management (WFM) and the Threatened and Endangered Species Management (TESM) programs have been forced to pay for the compliance activities of 

BLM’s energy, grazing, and other nonwildlife related programs, eroding their ability 

to conduct proactive species and habitat conservation activities and efforts to recover listed species. This diversion of funding must be stopped, or additional funding 

provided to both programs to make up for the deficiency. Therefore, given the significant underfunding of the BLM’s wildlife programs, combined with the tremendous expansion of energy development across the BLM landscape, an increase to 

$65.4 million for the BLM Wildlife and Fisheries Management Program is warranted. This will allow BLM to maintain and restore wildlife and habitat by monitoring habitat conditions, conducting inventories of wildlife resources, and developing cooperative management plans. 

Increased funding is also needed for the Threatened and Endangered Species 

Management Program to meet its responsibilities in endangered species recovery 

plans. BLM’s March 2001 Report to Congress called for a doubling of the current 

Threatened and Endangered Species budget to $48 million and an additional 70 

staff positions over 5 years, however, this goal has yet to be met. In view of this, 

we strongly encourage Congress to increase overall funding for the BLM Endangered Species Program to $33 million in fiscal year 2011. 

Finally, TWS applauds the positive action that is being taken to solve the problems associated with wild horse and burro management, and supports Secretary 

Salazar’s $75.9 million request for this issue. However, given that horses and burros 

have been maintained above the appropriate level for many years, we believe that 

additional funding should be requested to correct the habitat damage that has occurred due to overpopulation of these animals. We recommend that an additional 

$3 million be provided ($78.9 million total) in fiscal year 2011 to remediate habitat 

degradation from wild horses and burros. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

The basic, objective, interdisciplinary scientific research that is supported by the 

USGS is necessary for understanding the complex environmental issues facing our 

Nation today. This science will play an essential role in the decisionmaking processes of wildlife, land, and other natural resource managers as we adapt to climate 

change, and it will help protect our water supply, preserve endangered species, and 

strengthen our national defense. More investment is needed to strengthen USGS 

partnerships, improve monitoring, produce high-quality geospatial data, and deliver 

the best science to address critical environmental and societal challenges. TWS supports funding of at least $1.334 billion for USGS in fiscal year 2011. 

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) are a jointly funded 

Federal/State partnership that provides the funding for personnel and establishment of the units at a university. In fiscal year 2001, Congress fully funded the 

CFWRUs, allowing unit productivity to rise to record levels. Since then, budgetary 

shortfalls have caused an erosion of available fiscal resources, resulting in a current 

staffing vacancy of nearly one quarter of the professional workforce. In order to fill 

current scientist vacancies, restore seriously eroded operational funds for each 

CFWRU, and enhance national program coordination, the fiscal year 2011 budget 

for the CFWRUs should be increased to $22.5 million. This would restore necessary 

capacity in the CFWRU Program and allow it to meet the Nation’s research and 

training needs. Also, the CFWRUs are crucial to successfully addressing the natural 

resource management challenges posed by climate change, energy development, 
420 

invasive species, infectious diseases, and fire. We also ask that you establish a competitive matching fund program within existing CFWRU legislative authority that 

would make available $20 million annually in new funds beyond base operational 

costs, starting with a $5 million appropriation in fiscal year 2011. 

TWS appreciates the funding for the National Climate Change and Wildlife 

Science Center in last year’s omnibus, and the fiscal year 2010 increase to $11 million for the Center. This center will play a pivotal role in addressing the impacts 

of climate change on fish and wildlife. In order for this role to be fully realized, 

funding must increase. TWS recommends that Congress fully fund the President’s 

request of $23 million in fiscal year 2011. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

Our national forests and grasslands are essential to the conservation of our Nation’s wildlife and habitat, and are home to about 425 threatened and endangered, 

and another 3,250 at-risk species. Many programs within the USFS are essential 

to protecting these species and require careful consideration during the appropriations process. In fiscal year 2011, the USFS is proposing to combine several programs and their budgets, including vegetation and watershed management, wildlife 

and fisheries habitat management, and forest products into a single integrated resource restoration activity budget. we are concerned with this merging of resources 

because it makes accountability to stakeholders and Congress difficult. However, 

with these reservations noted, we urge Congress to support the request of $693.722 

million for the Integrated Resource Restoration Program in fiscal year 2011. 

Integral to management of our natural resources is a deep understanding of the 

biological and geological forces that shape the land and its wildlife and plant communities. The research being done by the USFS works at the forefront of science 

to improve the health of our Nation’s forests and grasslands and will play a key role 

in developing strategies for mitigating the effects of climate change. Research is the 

basis for sound policy decisions and sustained and increasing funding is needed. We 

urge Congress to fund the President’s request of $312 million for forest and rangelands so we can continue to support this high-quality research. 

Last August, Secretary Vilsack announced his desire to develop national forest 

planning regulations that are new, meaningful, and climate-smart. Along with this 

need for new regulations, there is also a tremendous backlog of forest plans that 

require revision; therefore, an increase in funding for land management within the 

USFS is urgently needed. Based upon funding estimates for sustaining current 

plans, as well as additional funds for planning new regulations, we ask Congress 

to provide $80 million for land management in fiscal year 2011. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UPPER PENINSULA PUBLIC ACCESS COALITION

Dear Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of the Upper Peninsula Public Access Coalition (UPPAC), I appreciate the opportunity to present this 

testimony in support of acquiring land at the Ottawa and Hiawatha National Forests in Michigan. Over the past 4 years we have worked towards protecting these 

properties and now, our dream can become a reality. An appropriation of $4.8 million is needed in fiscal year 2011 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 

order for the Forest Service to acquire three tracts totaling 3,454 acres. This project 

was recognized in the President’s Budget as a Forest Service priority at an amount 

of $1.3 million. However, the full $4.8 million is needed to acquire these critical 

properties. 

UPPAC is a totally volunteer organization comprised of concerned citizens dedicated to the protection and preservation of the region’s environmental quality and 

way of life. The common thread that connects us all is our appreciation for the aesthetic beauty of undisturbed shorelines as well as our use, enjoyment and deep concern for the lakes, streams, rivers, and woodlands of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. 

With its pristine rivers, winding streams, and vast wilderness areas, Michigan’s 

Upper Peninsula shapes the rugged character of the upper Great Lakes region. Ensuring the lasting protection of this region’s diverse ecosystems, preserving sensitive 

wildlife habitat, and securing lasting recreational opportunities are important conservation objectives identified by the U.S. Forest Service that help address the goals 

of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, established by Presidential Executive 

order in February 2009. 

The Great Lakes, Great Lands—Upper Peninsula conservation project proposed 

for funding in fiscal year 2011 would greatly advance these objectives by incorporating more than 3,500 acres of private land in the Upper Peninsula into the Ottawa and Hiawatha national forests. In collaboration with regional landowners and 
421 

nonprofit partners, the forests are working to protect wetland ecosystems, conserve 

open space, and expand public access in the Upper Peninsula—all while promoting 

sustainable forest management of the region’s timber resources. 

Acquisition of these properties will keep a significant portion of the Upper Peninsula’s pristine landscape intact, which in turn supports efforts to address the threat 

of global warming, as forested landscapes play an increasingly important role in sequestering carbon. Successful implementation of this landscape-scale project will 

help ensure the integrity of the wilderness experience and the protection of a truly 

unique natural resource area in the Upper Peninsula. 

Ottawa National Forest—Prickett Lake Phase II 

Prickett Lake, located within the Kenton Ranger District of the Ottawa National 

Forest, was the highest-ranked fiscal year 2010 acquisition priority for the Eastern 

Region of the Forest Service and received partial funding through the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations cycle that will allow 

for a portion of the property to be protected. 

Upstream and downstream of Prickett Lake are designated sections of the Wild 

and Scenic Sturgeon River, which flows directly into Lake Superior. The Prickett 

Lake property is immediately adjacent to the iconic Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness and includes a portion of the remarkable North County National Scenic Trail, 

which stretches more than 4,600 miles from New York to North Dakota and is the 

Nation’s longest national scenic trail. 

The wilderness areas surrounding Prickett Lake host a diverse range of wildlife 

habitat for gray wolves, Canada lynx, ruffed grouse, bald eagles, minks, woodcocks, 

foxes, black bears, white-tailed deer, and a variety of fish. Prickett Lake is upstream 

to one of the last remaining productive spawning areas for lake sturgeon in the entire Lake Superior watershed. This area’s pristine water quality helps protect the 

overall health of the Sturgeon River watershed. In fiscal year 2011, $1.3 million is 

needed from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to complete this key priority 

of the Great Lakes, Great Lands—Upper Peninsula initiative. 

Ottawa National Forest—Victoria Lake 

Available for acquisition in the Ottawa NF are the 370-acre Victoria Lake tracts, 

which lie along the south and eastern shores of Victoria Reservoir and the West 

Branch of the Ontonagon River. These tracts are part of an intact forested landscape that stretches for miles both north and south of the reservoir. Acquiring the 

Victoria Lake properties would advance the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by 

protecting the water quality of the West Branch Ontonagon Wild and Scenic River— 

a Congressionally designated recreational wild and scenic river for nearly a third 

of a mile within the project area. Like the Prickett Lake property, the Victoria Lake 

tracts are also traversed by a portion of the North County National Scenic Trail. 

The Victoria Lake properties also provide significant opportunities for the conservation, restoration, and improved management of a number of quality wildlife resource values, including bald eagle and wetland habitat. These parcels would add 

to the connectivity of wildlife habitat already managed as public land in the area. 

The steep, north-facing slopes above the reservoir and river are uncommon in the 

area and provide ideal surroundings for boreal species to persist in the face of 

changing climatic conditions. Should vulnerable species begin to disappear across 

much of this landscape as a result of increasing heat and drought conditions, surviving populations are expected to endure in the moist north-facing coves of these 

parcels. Acquisition of the Victoria Lake parcels will help the Forest Service maintain intact forest landscapes that are resilient to climate changes and contribute to 

ongoing carbon-sequestration efforts. In fiscal year 2011, $1 million is needed to permanently protect the lands around Victoria Lake. 

Hiawatha National Forest—Hiawatha Watershed Health Project Phase I 

The Hiawatha Watershed Health Project is a landscape-scale conservation project 

focusing on the restoration and maintenance of watersheds that serve the central 

and eastern portions of the Upper Peninsula. As part of the Hiawatha Watershed 

Health project, the Hiawatha National Forest proposes to begin the acquisition of 

important resource lands from Plum Creek Timber Company, an effort that when 

completed will significantly consolidate Federal ownership and help ensure the protection and conservation of three separate watersheds that drain into the northern 

Great Lakes. The conservation of these watersheds and extensive wetland areas 

would help support the objectives of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 

Consolidation of Federal lands associated with the Hiawatha Watershed Health 

Project would also enhance recreational opportunities and protect habitat for a number of species facing extinction. Acquisition of several parcels near the Bay de Noc 

to Grand Island Trail would improve management and protection of the visual and 
422 

scenic qualities of this popular hiking trail, which is listed on the State Register of 

Historic Places. The tracts offer secluded older forest habitat that favors the recovery of the endangered Eastern gray wolf, the threatened Canadian lynx, and other 

sensitive species, including the northern goshawk and the red-shouldered hawk. Acquisition of these parcels would preclude further subdivision of the land and the 

conversion to alternative uses, such as rural residential development. The impact 

of conversion on natural resources and public access would likely be significant if 

these lands are subdivided and sold to multiple landowners. An appropriation of 

$2,500,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2011 for the 

purchase of 2,500 acres of these important resource lands will protect critical watershed areas in the Upper Peninsula and support the objectives of the Great Lakes 

Restoration Initiative. 

The Great Lakes, Great Lands—Upper Peninsula project represents a substantial 

step toward achieving landscape-scale conservation that will provide significant watershed protection, safeguard substantial wildlife habitat, and address the threat of 

climate change. A total appropriation of $4,800,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund is needed in fiscal year 2011 to achieve this extraordinary conservation goal. 

In closing, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation’s premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and 

public lands and at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across 

the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking water and 

watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these reasons, the President has included meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2011 budget, and I 

support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near 

future. Recognizing the many demands this committee faces, I also want to thank 

the committee for its recent effort to restore much-needed funding to this depleted 

program. This wise investment in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one 

that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. 

I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Michigan, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

For 41 years, United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has provided postsecondary 

career and technical education, job training, and family services to some of the most 

impoverished Indian students from throughout the Nation. Unemployment among 

the Great Plains tribes, where 75 percent of our students are from, typically run 

at about 75 percent. Nearly half who are employed are living under the poverty line 

(2005 BIA Labor Force Report). We are governed by the five tribes located wholly 

or in part in North Dakota; we are not part of the North Dakota State college system and do not have a tax base or State-appropriated funds on which to rely. We 

have consistently had excellent retention and placement rates and are a fully accredited institution. Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funds represent about half 

of our operating budget and provide for our core instructional programs. These 

funds are authorized under title V of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Act. 

The requests of the UTTC Board for the fiscal year 2011 BIE/BIA budget are: 

—$6.4 million in BIE funding for UTTC for our Indian Self-Determination Act 

contract, which is $2 million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This 

is our base funding. 

—$4.375 million toward phase I of a planned Northern Plains Indian Police Academy located at UTTC. 

—$3 million for phase II of our Science and Technology Building. 

—$3 million for student housing on our south campus to accommodate an increasing student population and also for anticipated needs related to a law enforcement academy. 

—$23 million increase over the budget request for Administrative Cost Grants for 

BIE-funded elementary and secondary schools for a total of $69 million; this is 

not funding for our college, but rather for tribally operated elementary and secondary schools. 

Base Funding.—UTTC administers its BIE funding under an Indian Self-Determination Act agreement, and has done so 33 years. Funds requested above the fiscal 
423 

year 2010 level are needed to: (1) maintain 100-year-old education buildings and 50- 

year-old housing stock for students; (2) upgrade technology capabilities; (3) provide 

adequate salaries for faculty and staff (who have not received a cost of living increase this year and who are in the bottom quartile of salary for comparable positions elsewhere); and (4) fund program and curriculum improvements, including at 

least three 4-year degree programs. 

Acquisition of additional base funding is critical as UTTC has more than tripled 

its number of students within the past 6 years, but actual base funding for educational services, including Carl Perkins Act funds has increased only 25 percent in 

that period (from approximately $6 million to $8 million). Our BIE funding provides 

a base level of support allowing the college to compete for discretionary contracts 

and grants leading to additional resources annually for the college’s programs and 

support services. 

Indian Police Academy.—We have been working toward the establishment of a police training academy on our campus. We have done this with the encouragement 

of our congressional delegation and tribes, especially those in the Northern Plains. 

To that end we signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2008 with the BIA and 

the American Indian Higher Education Consortium to provide supplemental in-service training to BIA and tribal police officers as maybe agreed upon by the BIA. In 

fiscal year 2010, $250,000 was appropriated to the BIA and designated as special 

initiative of the Indian Police Academy in New Mexico to work with UTTC on law 

enforcement training matters. That is a good first step but we need to move to establishment of a full-fledged police training academy for BIA and tribal police in the 

Northern Plains. The only Indian police academy now is in Artesia, New Mexico 

which, while doing excellent work, can train only 3 classes of 50 persons annually. 

There is an attrition rate of 47 percent, thus graduating on average 80 officers each 

year. Of those graduates, one-half will leave law enforcement as a career or move 

to an agency outside of Indian Country. The BIA estimates that tribal police officers 

are staffed at only 58 percent of need. Our specific request for $4.375 million is for phase I of the police academy facility, 

which will include the basic building for instruction of 35,000 sq. ft., enough to train 

up to 165 law enforcement officers per year. We have entered into discussions with 

Federal, local, and State officials to ensure the facility and the training we offer will 

meet all requisite standards, and to coordinate what part of the facility should be 

placed at UTTC and which parts may be placed elsewhere, in order to share the 

cost. 

UTTC testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on March 18, 2010, 

regarding law enforcement training, recruitment, and retention needs in Indian 

country. We will make available to you our testimony from that hearing. 

Math and Technology Building.—UTTC provides education for more than 1,000 

students in 100-year-old former military buildings (Fort Abraham Lincoln), along 

with one 33-year old ‘‘skills center’’ which is inadequate for modern technology and 

science instruction. We have completed phase I of the building and now look to complete phase 2. We have raised $5 million, including $1 million in private funding, 

$3 million from the Department of Education and $1 million in borrowed funds, and 

anticipate an additional $1 million from the Department of Education title III funds. 

The total project cost is expected to be around $12 million. Our current facility lacks 

laboratories with proper ventilation and other technologies which are standard in 

science education. We lack a modern auditorium/lecture hall with features such as 

computer Internet access and electrical outlets and a library with appropriate computer stations. Our present library has been cited by the accrediting agency as being 

inadequate. 

Student Housing.—We are constantly in need of more student housing, including 

family housing. We want to educate more students but lack of housing has at times 

limited the admission of new students. With the expected completion of a new 

science and math building on our South Campus on land acquired with a private 

grant, we urgently need housing for up to 150 students, many of whom have families. New housing on the south campus could also accommodate those persons being 

trained in our Northern Plains Police Academy. 

While UTTC has constructed three housing facilities using a variety of sources in 

the past 20 years, approximately 50 percent of students are housed in the 100-yearold buildings of the old Fort Abraham Lincoln, as well as in duplexes and single 

family dwellings that were donated to UTTC by the Federal Government along with 

the land and Fort buildings in 1973. These buildings require major rehabilitation. 

New buildings for housing are actually cheaper than trying to rehabilitate the old 

buildings that now house students. 

Administrative Costs Grants for Elementary/Secondary Schools.—As noted above, 

we recommend a $23 million increase over the administration’s request for ACGs 
424 

for BIE-funded, tribally operated elementary and secondary schools. We have such 

a school on our campus—the Theodore Jamerson Elementary School. While Congress has, thankfully, recently increased funding for BIA and IHS Contract Support 

Costs for tribal governments, it has not done so for the tribally controlled BIE-funded elementary and secondary schools. The equivalent to CSC for these schools is 

ACGs. 

Below are some important things we would like you to know about our UTTC: 

UTTC Performance Indicators.—UTTC has: 

—An annual 80–90 percent retention rate. 

—A placement rate of 94 percent (job placement and going on to 4-year institutions). 

—A projected return on Federal investment of 20-to-1 (2005 study comparing the 

projected earnings generated more than a 28-year period of UTTC Associate of 

Applied Science and Bachelor degree graduates of June 2005 with the cost of 

educating them). 

—The Highest Level of Accreditation.—The North Central Association of Colleges 

and Schools has accredited UTTC again in 2001 for the longest period of time 

allowable—10 years or until 2011—and with no stipulations. We are also 1 of 

only 2 tribal colleges accredited to offer accredited on-line (Internet based) associate degrees. 

—More than 20 percent of graduates go on to 4-year or advanced degree institutions. 

Our Students.—Our students are from Indian reservations from throughout the 

Nation, with a significant portion of them being from the Great Plains area. Our 

students have had to make a real effort to attend college; they come from impoverished backgrounds or broken families. They may be overcoming extremely difficult 

personal circumstances as single parents. They often lack the resources, both culturally and financially, to go to other mainstream institutions. Through a variety 

of sources, including funds from the BIE, UTTC provides a set of family and culturally based campus services, including: an elementary school for the children of 

students, housing, day care, a health clinic, a wellness center, several on-campus job 

programs, student government, counseling, services relating to drug and alcohol 

abuse and job placement programs. We are currently serving 168 students in our 

elementary school and 169 youngsters in our child development centers. 

UTTC course offerings and partnerships with other educational institutions. We 

offer accredited vocational/technical programs that lead to 17 2-year degrees (Associate of Applied Science and 11 1-year certificates, as well as a 4-year degree in elementary education in cooperation with Sinte Gleska University in South Dakota. 

We intend to expand our 4-year degree programs. While full information may be 

found on our Web site (www.uttc.edu), among our course offerings are: 

Licensed Practical Nursing.—This program results in great demand for our graduates; students are able to transfer their UTTC credits to the North Dakota higher 

educational system to pursue a 4-year nursing degree. 

Medical Transcription and Coding Certificate Program.—This program provides 

training in transcribing medical records into properly coded digital documents. It is 

offered through the UTTC’s Exact Med Training program and is supported by Department of Labor funds. 

Tribal Environmental Science.—This program is supported by a National Science 

Foundation Tribal College and Universities Program grant. This 5-year project allows students to obtain a 2-year AAS degree in Tribal Environmental Science. 

Community Health/Injury Prevention/Public Health.—Through our Community 

Health/Injury Prevention Program we are addressing the injury death rate among 

Indians, which is 2.8 times that of the U.S. population. This program has in the 

past been supported by the IHS, and is the only degree-granting Injury Prevention 

program in the nation. Given the overwhelming health needs of Native Americans, 

we continue to seek resources for training of public health professionals. 

Online Education.—Our online education courses provide increased opportunities 

for education by providing Web-based courses to American Indians at remote sites 

as well as to students on our campus. These courses provide needed scheduling 

flexibility, especially for students with young children. They allow students to access 

quality, tribally focused education without leaving home or present employment. We 

offer online fully accredited degree programs in the areas of Early Childhood Education, Community Health/Injury Prevention, Health Information Technology, Nutrition and Food Service and Elementary Education. 

Criminal Justice.—Our criminal justice program leads many students to a career 

in law enforcement, and as noted elsewhere in this testimony, we are working toward establishment of a police training academy at UTTC. 
425 

Computer Information Technology.—This program is at maximum student capacity because of limitations on resources for computer instruction. In order to keep up 

with student demand and the latest technology, we need more classrooms, equipment and instructors. We provide all of the Microsoft Systems certifications that 

translate into higher income earning potential for graduates. 

Nutrition and Food Services.—We help meet the challenge of fighting diabetes 

and other health problems in Indian country through education and research. As a 

1994 Tribal Land Grant institution, we offer a Nutrition and Food Services AAS degree in order to increase the number of Indians with expertise in nutrition and dietetics. There are few Indian professionals in the country with training in these 

areas. We have also established a Diabetes Education Center that assists local tribal communities, our students and staff to decrease the prevalence of diabetes by providing food guides, educational programs, training and materials. 

Our BIE and Perkins funds provide for nearly all of our core postsecondary educational programs. Very little of the other funds we receive may be used for core 

career and technical educational programs; they are competitive, often one-time supplemental funds which help us provide the services our students need to be successful. We cannot continue operating without BIE funds. Thank you for your consideration of our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of The Village 

of Wellington, Florida, I am pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our fiscal year 2011 request of $1.5 million for Wellington’s Water and 

Wastewater Utilities Systems Expansion and Improvement Project. This vital 

project is a major component of the Village’s overall environmental infrastructure 

program that also includes a Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Mitigation 

Program. 

PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since its incorporation, Wellington has been a leader in environmental initiatives. 

Following in the footsteps of its landmark approach for compliance with the 1994 

Everglades Forever Act (EFA), which established water quality goals for the restoration and preservation of the Everglades Protection Area, Wellington forged a partnership with Federal, State, and regional agencies in its effort to restore and preserve the environment while providing responsive, high-quality services to its residents. To that end, we are seeking funding to supplement our current funding commitments for construction and improvements of 4.75 MGD, $23 million wastewater 

treatment plant providing treatment capacity to support our economic development 

efforts, 100 percent reuse minimizing water resource impacts/energy use and 100 

percent environmentally friendly Class AA bio-solids as well as construction of 3.6 

MGD, $9 million water treatment plant providing treatment capacity to support job 

growth, ultra-efficient treatment processes to minimize energy use and ensure compliance with water quality standards. 

Specifically, Wellington is seeking $1.5 million in Federal funding to help support 

its flagship project to improve and repair the aging water and wastewater systems 

to meet Federal regulatory requirements and public safety levels of service. Two 

hundred twenty-five new jobs will be created as a result. The four key projects undertaken by the Village of Wellington, almost totally at local taxpayers’ expense, is 

$35.8 million. They include: 

—Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project.—This is a $22 million project 

to install new technology for treatment of waste effluent for wastewater utility 

operations. Additional treatment and reuse capacity and provisions for future 

bio-solids processing are required to meet increases in population and regulatory requirements. 

—Water Treatment Plant.—This is a $9.6 million project to replace out-of-date and 

inefficient water systems and expand the reverse osmosis system to provide 

more effective systems. Currently this project has been deferred due to lack of 

funding. This is a critical component in our overall responsible environmental 

stewardship as it provides us the ability to utilize the Floridian Aquifer as a 

water supply source in lieu of the surficial aquifer system currently utilized. 

—Reuse Transmission Lines.—This is a $2.8 million project to install reuse transmission and distribution piping throughout major corridors of Wellington. 

—Storage and Re-pump Renewal and Replacement.—This is a $1.4 million project 

to repair, replace, and renew existing storage and re-pump facilities throughout 
426 

Wellington. Repairs are needed to provide a reliable source of potable water 

service and fire protection service. 

Prior to embarking on our ambitious infrastructure project, we have invested $20 

million public funds in conjunction with the Acme Basin B Discharge project as part 

of 1 of 55 projects that comprise the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

(CERP). The Basin B drainage area is part of the Acme Improvement District, 

which was created by the state of Florida in 1953 to provide drainage for agricultural land in central Palm Beach County. During the 50 years since its inception, 

land uses within the improvement district have changed dramatically. The Acme 

Improvement District now serves the Village of Wellington and more than 60,000 

residents. Basin B consists of 8,680 acres of low-density development located in the 

southern half of the Improvement District. The western boundary of Basin B abuts 

the Loxahatchee Refuge. 

Wellington, Florida has 60,000 residents and is a unique mixture of urban, rural, 

equine, and agricultural land uses each having varying impacts on our storm water 

quality. Through regulations controlling animal waste, fertilizer use and application 

and specialized development standards, Wellington has demonstrated its commitment to protecting and improving our water resources. 

Since 1999, Wellington has played a leadership role in the development and implementation of storm water quality improvements. To date, Wellington has invested more than $20 million and has partnered with regional, State and Federal 

agencies toward the mutual goal of improving water quality in south Florida and, 

ultimately, in the Everglades. Some of the projects include a complete re-plumbing 

of its storm water canal system which eliminated discharges to portions of the Everglades. In addition, a 320-acre preserve was designed and constructed to store and 

treat stormwater runoffs prior to leaving Wellington. Wellington is also the first 

community in south Florida to adopt and enforce comprehensive Best Managements 

Practices (BMPs) to reduce nutrient concentrations. By 2006, Wellington met the 

south Florida mandate of phosphorus discharge of 50 ppb into the Everglades. 

While Wellington has labored for more than a decade developing and implementing its comprehensive stormwater projects and programs, others have stood by 

and watched with great interest. As we now look to the new rules being promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designed to create ‘‘numeric 

water quality standards’’ applicable throughout Florida, Wellington has proactively 

and independently proposed new BMP regulations and operational protocols designed to further reduce nutrients in our storm water systems. 

For Wellington to maintain its leadership role, we are also undertaking a $2.2 

million program to refine further our Best Management Program and continue Wellington’s commitment to environmental protection, including preservation of our 

water resources. 

The Best Management Practices and Mitigation Program is a $2.2 million project 

that will develop new Best Management Practices (BMP Phase II) designed to further enhance flood attenuation, improve water quality and provide additional storage of surface water. The project’s goal is to further reduce nutrient concentrations 

and other pollutants that potentially may enter the regional storm water systems. 

This goal is consistent with and complimentary to, other State and Federal efforts 

to improve water quality in south Florida and the Florida Everglades. 

Wellington’s efforts have been recognized as innovative and effective. Our experience can serve as a benchmark for others. 

FUNDING NEEDS

For fiscal year 2011, Wellington, Florida is seeking $1.5 million from the EPA 

through the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for its Water and Wastewater Utilities System Expansion and Improvement Project. 

On behalf of the Village Council and the citizens of Wellington, Florida, thank you 

for your consideration of our request. 
427 

LETTER FROM THE WESTERN INTERSTATE ENERGY BOARD

MARCH 17, 2010. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN FEINSTEIN AND SENATOR ALEXANDER: On behalf of the coal mine 

reclamation agencies in the States of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and 

Wyoming, we are writing to convey our concerns with the administration’s proposed 

15 percent ($11 million) reduction in State regulatory grants in fiscal year 2011 authorized under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (issued by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement). More than one-half of the Nation’s coal is mined in our States. 

In fiscal year 2010, Congress approved an additional $5.8 million increase for 

State title V grants over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, for a total of $71.3 million. Congressional action helped avert serious problems in the funding of Western 

State regulatory programs as outlined in a report we prepared in November 2006, 

‘‘An Impending Crisis for Coal Supplies’’ (http://www.westgov.org/wieb/reclamation/ 

2006/12-01-06finalrpt.pdf). Congressional action was essential to restoring the Federal share of State regulatory programs and reversing a 12-year period during 

which OSM costs were adjusted for inflation but State regulatory grants were not. 

The administration’s proposed fiscal year 2011 budget threatens to undo the 

progress made by Congress. The administration’s proposal to cut State regulatory 

grants—a proposal that is based on the unsupported assumption that State permit 

fees can be quickly raised to fill the budget hole—is completely unrealistic. The most 

likely outcome of the administration’s proposal is serious erosion of State program 

capabilities as positions go unfilled, personnel are laid off, and needed equipment 

purchases are deferred. As State program capabilities erode, so do our abilities to 

orderly review and enforce coal mine permits and to protect the public from any potential health and environmental impacts of coal mining. 

We appreciate the support Congress has provided State regulatory programs 

through title V grants and the funding of critical OSM training and technical assistance programs. We urge you to block the administration’s proposals that would undercut effective regulatory of coal mining by the States and maintain the constructive course Congress has been on in the last several years. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS C. LARSON, 

Executive Director. 

LETTER FROM THE WYOMING STATE ENGINEER’S OFFICE

MARCH 15, 2010. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, 

Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for Funding of $5,900,000 in fiscal year 2011 within the Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Account Management Program for 

implementing Colorado River Salinity Control Program measures; Requesting 

the Specific Designation of $1,500,000 be spent on identified salinity control and 

salinity control-related projects and studies. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN FEINSTEIN AND RANKING MEMBER ALEXANDER: This letter is sent 

in support of fiscal year 2011 funding for the BLM for activities directly benefiting 

the Colorado River Salinity Control Program. The activities needed to control salts 

reaching the Colorado River system from lands managed by the BLM fall within 

that agency’s Land Resources Subactivity—Soil Water and Air Management Program. We request $5,900,000 be directed to enhancing Colorado River water quality 

and to engage in land management activities that will accomplish salt loading reduction in the Colorado River Basin. 
428 

Wyoming is a member State of the seven State Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Forum, established in 1973 to coordinate with the Federal Government to 

assure maintenance of basin-wide Water Quality Standards for Salinity that have 

been in place for more than three decades. The Forum is composed of gubernatorial 

representatives who interact with the involved Federal agencies on the joint Federal/State efforts to control the salinity of the Colorado River. The Forum annually 

makes funding recommendations, including the amount believed necessary to be expended by the Bureau of Land Management for its Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Program. Overall, the combined efforts of the Basin States, the Bureau of 

Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Agriculture 

have resulted in one of the Nation’s most successful nonpoint source control programs. 

The basin-wide water quality standards for salinity consist of numeric water quality criteria established and maintained at three Lower Colorado River points (Below 

Hoover Dam, Below Parker Dam and At Imperial Dam) and a plan of implementation describing the Program’s components, including specific salinity control projects 

to remove salt from the River system. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the water 

quality standards for salinity are reviewed at least once each three years. At those 

intervals, the plan of implementation is jointly revised by the States and involved 

Federal agencies, including representatives of the Bureau of Land Management, to 

ensure that the planned actions are sufficient to maintain continuing compliance 

with the basin-wide Water Quality Standards for Salinity’s numeric criteria. 

Successful implementation of land management practices by the Bureau of Land 

Management to control soil erosion and the resultant salt contributions to the Colorado River system is essential to the continued success of the Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Program. The BLM’s fiscal year 2010 Budget Justification document reports that the agency continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of 

Agriculture and report salt-retaining measures in furtherance of implementing the 

plan of implementation. As noted in the testimony of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (as submitted by Jack A. Barnett, the Forum’s Executive Director), the Forum’s member States, including the State of Wyoming, believe that 

fiscal year 2011 Soil, Water and Air Management Program funds should be used, 

in part, to continue efforts that will directly reduce salt contributions from BLMmanaged lands within the Colorado River Basin, consistent with BLM’s fiscal year 

2011 Budget Justification document. At its recent October 2009 meeting, the Forum, 

in consultation with BLM officials, recommended that the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management should expend $5,900,000 in fiscal year 2011 for salinity control. Accordingly, we request that the BLM be directed to expend from Soil, Water and Air 

Management Program funds not less than $5,900,000 for activities to reduce salt 

loading from BLM-managed lands in the Colorado River Basin in fiscal year 2011. 

As one of the five principal Soil, Water and Air Program priorities identified by 

the BLM, projects directly accomplishing Colorado River salinity loading reductions 

should be funded. In the past, the BLM has used Soil, Water and Air Program funding for specific salinity control project proposals submitted to BLM’s salinity control 

coordinator by BLM staff in the seven Colorado River Basin States. Through this 

competitive proposal consideration process, funds have been awarded to those 

projects having the greatest merit (as measured by their salt loading reduction and 

ability to quantify the salinity reduction that would be accomplished). The Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Forum’s testimony to this subcommittee requests designation of $1,500,000 for this purpose. As Wyoming’s Forum members, we wish to 

advise that the State of Wyoming concurs in that request. 

Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah, Colorado and 

Wyoming, the collaborative efforts of the collective State/Federal agencies and organizations working through the auspices of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Forum have selected several watersheds where very cost-effective salinity control efforts can be implemented without additional delay or study. In keeping with the 

Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-effectiveness of salinity control, the 

State of Wyoming joins with the Forum in requesting that the Congress appropriate 

and the administration allocate adequate funds to support the BLM’s portion of the 

Colorado River Salinity Control Program as described in the adopted Plan of Implementation. 

The State of Wyoming appreciates the subcommittee’s funding support of the Bureau of Land Management’s statutorial responsibility to participate in the basin 

wide Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We continue to believe 
429 

this important basin-wide water quality improvement program merits funding and 

support by your subcommittee. 

Respectfully submitted, 

PATRICK T. TYRRELL, 

Wyoming State Engineer, Member, 

Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Forum. 

DAN S. BUDD, 

Commissioner, Interstate Stream 

Member, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. 

(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Prepared Statement of the ............. 149 

Alabama Rivers Alliance, et al., Prepared Statement of the ............................... 174 

Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee: 

Questions Submitted by................................................................................. 43, 103 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 111 

American: 

Association: 

Of Petroleum Geologists, Prepared Statement of the ............................ 143 

On Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Prepared Statement 

of the ....................................................................................................... 142 

Bird Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the ............................................... 147 

Forest: 

And Paper Association, Prepared Statement of the ............................... 158 

Foundation, Letter From the .................................................................... 155 

Hiking Society, Prepared Statement of the .................................................... 196 

Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the .............. 162 

Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the ......................... 160 

Lung Association, Prepared Statement of the ................................................ 165 

Orchestras, Prepared Statement of the .......................................................... 302 

Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 173 

Rivers, Prepared Statement of the .................................................................. 196 

Society of: 

Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the .................................................... 180 

Civil Engineers, Prepared Statement of the ........................................... 183 

Mechanical Engineers, Prepared Statement of the ................................ 188 

Sportfishing Association, Prepared Statement of the .................................... 177 

Americans for the Arts, Prepared Statement of the ............................................. 152 

Amigos de la Sevilleta, Prepared Statement of the .............................................. 151 

Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 196 

Appalachian: 

Mountain Club, Prepared Statement of the ................................................... 168 

Trail Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the .............................................. 193 

APS Four Corners Power Plant, Prepared Statement of the ............................... 196 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, Prepared Statement of the ............................................................................................................ 191 

Association of: 

American Universities, Prepared Statement of the ....................................... 144 

Public and Land-Grant Universities, Prepared Statement of the ................ 171 

Research Libraries, Prepared Statement of the ............................................. 176 

State Drinking Water Administrators, Prepared Statement of the ............. 185 

Aurora Water, Prepared Statement of ................................................................... 196 

Bat Conservation International, Prepared Statement of ..................................... 203 

Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah, Questions Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 50 

Bird Conservation: 

Alliance, Prepared Statement of the ............................................................... 199 

Funding Coalition, Prepared Statement of the .............................................. 201 

Black Mesa Community School, Prepared Statement of the ............................... 207 

Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia, Questions Submitted by .............................................................................................................. 36, 96 
Page

ii 

California: 

Forest Pest Council, Letter From the ............................................................. 155 

Industry and Government Coalition, Prepared Statement of the ................ 220 

Center for Biological Diversity, Prepared Statement of the ................................ 196 

Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the ............. 196 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Prepared Statement of the ................................... 196 

Children’s Environmental Health Network, Prepared Statement of the ............ 211 

Chippewa Flowage Area Property Owners Association, Prepared Statement 

of the ..................................................................................................................... 216

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 222 

Chugach Regional Resources Commission, Prepared Statement of the .............. 231 

Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Prepared Statement of the ................ 210 

City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation, Bureau of Forestry, 

Letter From the .................................................................................................... 155 

Civil War Preservation Trust, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 237 

Coalition for Healthier Schools, Prepared Statement of the ................................ 218 

Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi: 

Question Submitted by .................................................................................. 50, 139 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 112 

Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator From Maine, Questions Submitted 

by......................................................................................................................... 51, 106 

Colorado: 

River: 

Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the ................... 226 

Board of California, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 224 

Commission of Nevada, Letter From the ................................................ 228 

River Energy Distributers Association, Prepared Statement of the ..... 196 

Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of the ...................... 196 

Springs Utilitites, Prepared Statement of ...................................................... 196 

Water Congress, Prepared Statement of the .................................................. 196 

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement of the ...... 228 

Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, Prepared Statement of the ...... 208 

Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the .............................. 180 

Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association, Prepared Statement of the .......... 236 

Dance/USA, Prepared Statement of the ................................................................ 244 

Davey Institute, Letter From the ........................................................................... 155 

Defenders of Wildlife, Prepared Statements of the .......................................... 196, 241 

Denver Water, Prepared Statement of ................................................................... 196 

Deschutes Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Prepared Statement of the ................... 240 

Dolores Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the ....................... 196 

Doris Day Animal League, Prepared Statement of the ........................................ 280 

Earthjustice, Prepared Statement of ...................................................................... 196 

1854 Treaty Authority, Prepared Statement of the .............................................. 141 

Emissions Control Technology Association, Prepared Statement of the ............. 248 

Energy Minerals Reclamation Committee, Prepared Statement of the .............. 251 

Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government, Prepared Statement of the ..................... 251 

Environment America, Prepared Statement of ..................................................... 196 

Environmental: 

Defense Fund, Prepared Statement of the ..................................................... 196 

Council of the States, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 246 

Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California: 

Opening Statements of ............................................................................. 1, 53, 109 

Questions Submitted by.......................................................................... 35, 90, 126 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Prepared Statement of the ..... 252 

Friends of: 

Back Bay, Prepared Statement of the ............................................................ 256 

Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of the ............... 257 

Congaree Swamp, Prepared Statement of the ............................................... 258 

Virgin Islands National Park, Prepared Statement of the ........................... 261 

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of the .......... 263 

The: 

Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement 

of the ....................................................................................................... 255 

Columbia Gorge, Prepared Statement of the .......................................... 260 

Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Inc., Prepared Statement of 

the ........................................................................................................... 264 
Page

iii 

Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 271 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Prepared Statement of the ............. 265 

Grand Valley Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the ................... 196 

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared Statement of 

the .......................................................................................................................... 266 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Prepared Statement of the ................................. 274 

Green Mountain Club, Prepared Statement of the ............................................... 269 

Hayes, David J., Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 53 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 68 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 67 

Healing Our Waters®—Great Lakes Coalition, Prepared Statement of ............ 275 

Hoopa: 

Tribal Police Department, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 282 

Valley Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ........................................................ 284 

Humane Society: 

Legislative Fund, Prepared Statement of the ................................................ 280 

Of the United States, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 280 

Ice Age Floods Institute, Prepared Statement of the ........................................... 286 

Idaho Conservation League, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 288 

InterTribal Bison Cooperative, Prepared Statement of the ................................. 294 

International: 

Center for Technology Assessment, Prepared Statement of the .................. 196 

Maple Syrup Institute, Letter From the ......................................................... 155 

Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of the ................ 289 

Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the ............................ 296 

Jackson, Hon. Lisa P., Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ......... 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 6 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 4 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 298 

Jicarilla Apache Nation, Prepared Statement of the ............................................ 196 

Johnson, Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Questions Submitted by ....... 135 

Keep Valley Forge Safe, Prepared Statement of the ............................................ 301 

Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Question Submitted by ..... 135 

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Prepared Statement of the ............................................................................................................ 305 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition, Prepared Statement of the ...... 315 

Lands Council, Prepared Statement of the ........................................................... 196 

League of Conservation Voters, Prepared Statement of the ................................ 196 

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 307 

Ludlow’s Island Resort, Prepared Statement of .................................................... 313 

Lummi Indian Business Council, Prepared Statement of the ............................. 310 

Marine: 

Conservation Biology Institute, Prepared Statement of the ......................... 196 

Fish Conservation Network, Prepared Statement of the .............................. 196 

Maumelle Water Excellence Project, Prepared Statement of the ........................ 321 

McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Questions Submitted by ............................................................................................................... 139 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Letter From the ............... 319 

Mother Lode Chapter, Sierra Club, Prepared Statement of the .......................... 317 

Mulch & Soil Council, Letter From the ................................................................. 155 

National: 

Association of: 

Abandoned Mine Land Programs, Prepared Statement of the .............. 322 

Clean Air Agencies, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 324 

Forest Service Retirees: 

Letter From the .................................................................................. 327 

Prepared Statement of the ................................................................ 331 

School Nurses, Prepared Statement of the ............................................. 334 

State: 

Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of the ................................... 330 

Foresters, Letter From the ................................................................ 155 

Audubon Society, Prepared Statement of the ................................................ 196 
Page

iv 

National—Continued 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Prepared Statement 

of the .............................................................................................................. 336 

Cooperators’ Coalition, Prepared Statement of the ....................................... 334 

Environmental Services Center, Prepared Statement of the ........................ 338 

Estuarine Research Reserve Association, Prepared Statement of the ......... 196 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the ........................... 365 

Humanities Alliance, Prepared Statement of the .......................................... 341 

Mining Association, Prepared Statement of the ............................................ 350 

Plant Board, Letter From the .......................................................................... 155 

Recreation and Park Association, Prepared Statement of the ...................... 355 

Tribal Environmental Council, Prepared Statement of the .......................... 359 

Trust for Historic Preservation, Prepared Statement of the ........................ 362 

Wildlife: 

Federation, Prepared Statements of the ............................................. 196, 363 

Refuge Association, Prepared Statement of the ...................................... 368 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Prepared Statement of the ........................ 196 

Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the ................................................. 410 

Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Question Submitted by .... 43 

New: 

Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Prepared Statement of the ......... 344 

Jersey Audubon Society, Prepared Statement of the .................................... 349 

Mexico: 

Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of the ................. 352 

Wildlife Federation, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 353 

York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Letter From 

the .................................................................................................................. 155 

North: 

American Maple Syrup Council, Inc., Letter From the ................................. 155 

Shore Sanitary District, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 358 

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the .... 196 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the ................ 346 

Ocean Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the ................................................... 196 

Oceana, Prepared Statement of .............................................................................. 196 

OPERA America, Prepared Statement of .............................................................. 372 

Orchard Mesa Irrigation District, Prepared Statement of the ............................ 196 

Orleans Audubon Society, Inc., Prepared Statement of the ................................. 370 

Pelican Island Preservation Society, Prepared Statement of the ........................ 381 

Performing Arts Alliance, Prepared Statement of the .......................................... 376 

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Letter From the ................................. 155 

Pew Environment Group, Prepared Statement of the .......................................... 196 

PNM Resources, Inc., Prepared Statement of the ................................................. 196 

Pocono Heritage Land Trust, Prepared Statement of the .................................... 380 

Preservation Action, Prepared Statement of ......................................................... 374 

Public: 

Lands Foundation, Prepared Statement of the .............................................. 382 

Trust Environmental Legal Institute of Florida, Inc., Prepared Statement 

of the .............................................................................................................. 383 

Purdue University, Department of Entomology, Letter From the ...................... 155 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Prepared Statement of the ........................................ 385 

Quinault Indian Nation, Prepared Statement of the ............................................ 388 

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 196 

Riverkeeper, Prepared Statement of ...................................................................... 196 

Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., Prepared Statement of the ........................... 393 

Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island, Statement of ................. 16 

Rocky Mountain: 

Bird Observatory, Prepared Statement of the ............................................... 390 

Climate Organization, Prepared Statement of the ........................................ 391 
Page

v 

Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of the 

Interior: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 59 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 53 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 56 

San Juan Water Commission, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 196 

Sawtooth Society, Prepared Statement of the ....................................................... 404 

Sierra: 

Club, Prepared Statement of the .................................................................... 196 

Foothills Audubon Society, Prepared Statement of the ................................ 395 

Skokomish Tribe of Washington State, Prepared Statement of the .................... 405 

Society of American Florists, Letter From the ...................................................... 155 

Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the ............................... 180 

Southern: 

Environmental Law Center, Prepared Statement of the .............................. 196 

Utah Wilderness Alliance, Prepared Statement of the ................................. 196 

Ute Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ................................................ 196 

Squaxin Island Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ................................................ 397 

St.: 

Marks Refuge Association, Inc., Prepared Statement of ............................... 400 

Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of the ..................... 408 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ...................................... 401 

States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming, Prepared Statement of the ..... 400 

Suzanne Roy, Prepared Statement of .................................................................... 401 

10 Tanker Air Carrier, LLC, Prepared Statement of ........................................... 414 

Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana, Questions Submitted 

by....................................................................................................................... 100, 136 

The: 

Mountaineers, Letter From ............................................................................. 409 

Nature Conservancy, Letter From .................................................................. 155 

And Western Resources Advocates, Prepared Statement of the ........... 196 

Wilderness Society, Prepared Statements of ............................................. 147, 214 

Tidwell, Tom, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture: 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 109 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 113 

Town of Ophir, Colorado, Prepared Statement of the .......................................... 413 

Tri County Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the ................. 196 

Trout Unlimited, Prepared Statement of the ........................................................ 415 

Uncomahgre Valley Waters Users Association, Prepared Statement of the ...... 196 

Union of Concerned Scientists, Letter From the .................................................. 155 

United Tribes Technical College, Prepared Statement of the .............................. 424 

Upper Peninsula Public Access Coalition, Prepared Statement of the ............... 422 

Utah Water Uses Association, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 196 

Wellington, Florida, Prepared Statement of the ................................................... 427 

Western Interstate Energy Board, Prepared Statement of the ........................... 429 

Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of the ......................................................... 420 

Wyoming: 

State Engineer’s Office, Prepared Statement of the ...................................... 429 

Water Association, Prepared Statement of the .............................................. 196 

(vii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

Page 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 126 

Airtankers ............................................................................................................ 130, 139 

Biomass Utilization............................................................................................. 127, 130 

Black Hills National Forest .................................................................................... 135 

Collaboration ............................................................................................................ 136 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act .................................................. 128 

Energy ...................................................................................................................... 134 

Corridor Siting .................................................................................................. 124 

Planning ............................................................................................................ 138 

Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act ......... 129 

Fire ............................................................................................................................ 137 

Firefighter Retention ............................................................................................... 132 

Hazardous Fuels ...................................................................................................... 129 

Integrated Resource Restoration........................................................................ 126, 127 

Line Item—Accountability ............................................................................... 119 

Invasive Species ....................................................................................................... 125 

Lake Tahoe Basin—Biomass Infrastructure ......................................................... 119 

Fire Hazard From Slash Piles ......................................................................... 117 

Land Acquisition ...................................................................................................... 135 

Night-time Flying .................................................................................................... 131 

Planning Rule .......................................................................................................... 138 

Quincy Library Group......................................................................................... 114, 128 

Renewable Energy Development on National Forest Systems Lands ................. 117 

Road Budget ............................................................................................................. 137 

Station Fire .............................................................................................................. 131 

Stewardship Contracting .................................................................................... 121, 127 

Sunrise Powerlink ............................................................................................... 121, 122 

Timber: 

Sales and Stewardship Contracting ................................................................ 114 

Supply ................................................................................................................ 126 

Travel Management ................................................................................................. 139 

Wind Energy Development on National Forest System Lands ........................... 115 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Abandoned Mines .................................................................................................... 76 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 90 

Applications for Permits to Drill Fees ................................................................... 84 

Atlantic: 

Office .................................................................................................................. 82 

Wind Energy Potential ..................................................................................... 81 

Budget ............................................................................................................... 54, 57, 60 

California Water ...................................................................................................... 54 

Categorical Exclusions ............................................................................................ 94 

Centennial Initiative for the National Park Service (NPS) ................................. 104 

Clean Energy Future ............................................................................................... 68 

Climate Change Adaptation .................................................................................... 62 

Coastal Restoration ................................................................................................. 81 
Page

viii 

Cooperative Watershed Management Act/Wolf Kill Bill ...................................... 102 

Department of the Interior Mission ....................................................................... 57 

Economic: 

Diversification ................................................................................................... 99 

Impacts .............................................................................................................. 57 

Empowering: 

Native American Communities ....................................................................... 59 

Tribal Nations ................................................................................................... 63 

Energy ...................................................................................................................... 71

And Climate Change ........................................................................................ 57 

Development: 

Impacts ................................................................................................ 72 

In California Deserts ......................................................................... 71 

Federal Permitting .................................................................................................. 77 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ............................................................................ 101 

Full Funding for LWCF .......................................................................................... 78 

Funding for Great Smoky Mountains National Park ........................................... 104 

Hydro Power ............................................................................................................. 95 

Information Technology and Travel Reductions ................................................... 57 

Lake Memphremagog .............................................................................................. 79 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)................................................... 102, 103 

Legislative and Administrative Proposals ............................................................. 65 

Management Effectiveness ..................................................................................... 64 

Military Land ........................................................................................................... 94 

Missouri River Breaks ............................................................................................. 75 

Monument Memo ..................................................................................................... 75 

Moving Forward ....................................................................................................... 69 

Natchez Trace Parkway .......................................................................................... 80 

New Energy Frontier ............................................................................................... 61 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) .................... 96 

Oil and Gas .............................................................................................................. 83 

Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 68 

Overview of the 2011 Budget .................................................................................. 61 

Permitting on Private Land ................................................................................... 87, 92 

Red Willow Creek Dam ........................................................................................... 86 

Renewable Energy.......................................................................................... 73, 74, 101 

Pilot Offices ....................................................................................................... 76 

Projects .............................................................................................................. 90 

Rural Water ............................................................................................................. 102 

Sam Hamilton .......................................................................................................... 81 

Director, FWS ................................................................................................... 66 

Siting ........................................................................................................................ 73 

Of Renewable Projects on Federal Lands ....................................................... 105 

Solar Development ................................................................................................... 88 

Permitting ......................................................................................................... 72 

Solar Studies ............................................................................................................ 89 

The First Year .......................................................................................................... 60 

Transmission ............................................................................................................ 94 

Treasured Landscapes ............................................................................................ 58, 63 

And the Crown .................................................................................................. 100 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) .............................................................................. 98 

University of Nebraska and USGS Collaboration ................................................. 87 

Water ........................................................................................................................ 58 

Watersmart .............................................................................................................. 62 

White-nose Bat Syndrome ....................................................................................... 79 

Yellowtail Dam ........................................................................................................ 100 

Youth in Natural Resources ................................................................................... 58, 62 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 34 

Assuring the Safety of Chemicals .......................................................................... 7 

Bisphenol-A (BPA) ................................................................................................... 36 

Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships .................................................... 9 

Carbon ...................................................................................................................... 14

Climate Protection Program ................................................................................... 49 

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)—Infrastructure in Omaha ............................. 43 

Clark Fork River ...................................................................................................... 28 
Page

ix 

Clean: 

Air ...................................................................................................................... 24 

Act: 

Ambient Ozone Standards ................................................................. 24 

Ethanhol Blends ................................................................................. 14 

Regulations ......................................................................................... 10 

Water and Drinking Water Reduction ............................................................ 17 

Cleaning up our Communities ................................................................................ 8 

Coal Ash ................................................................................................................... 12 

Department of Energy (DOE) Small Refinery Study ............................................ 50 

Determining Clean-up Activities Planned for Libby ............................................. 26 

Economic Diversification ......................................................................................... 36 

Endangerment Finding ........................................................................................... 18 

Ethanol Blends ......................................................................................................... 15 

Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice ...................................................................................................... 9 

Extent and Form of Impacts ................................................................................... 40 

Great Lakes Funds .................................................................................................. 22 

Greenhouse: ..............................................................................................................

Gas (GHG) Regulation ..................................................................................... 35 

Gases—Market-based System ......................................................................... 33 

Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water ........................................................... 23 

Improving Air Quality ............................................................................................. 7 

Inorganic Arsenic Impacts on Drinking Water ..................................................... 50 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Assessment ..................................... 15 

Long Creek Watershed ............................................................................................ 51 

Libby: 

Full-time, On-site Risk Assessor ..................................................................... 28 

Using Epidemiological Data ............................................................................ 27 

Maintaining a Strong Science Foundation ............................................................ 10 

Mercury .................................................................................................................... 52 

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) ........................................................................ 43 

Perchlorate ............................................................................................................... 36 

Pesticide Registration Fees ..................................................................................... 48 

Protecting America’s Waters ................................................................................... 8 

Public Health Issues ................................................................................................ 37 

Regulation: 

Compliance, Mitigation .................................................................................... 42 

Versus Legislation ............................................................................................ 31 

Regulatory Approach ............................................................................................... 31 

Selenium Pollution .................................................................................................. 39 

Small Source Regulations ....................................................................................... 30 

Sound Science—Asbestos ........................................................................................ 26 

State Grants ............................................................................................................. 35 

Stationary Source Emitters .................................................................................... 29 

Superfund Site: 

Libby, Montana ................................................................................................. 25 

Omaha Lead Site .............................................................................................. 15 

Tailoring Rule .......................................................................................................... 11 

Taking Action on Climate Change ......................................................................... 7 

Village Safe Water Program ................................................................................... 32 

Water Quality: 

Funding and Enforcement ............................................................................... 20 

Standards .......................................................................................................... 19 

Æ