50–481 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–180 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 2010 

JUNE 23, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. DICKS of Washington, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2996] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, 

and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2010. The bill provides regular annual appropriations for the Department of the Interior (except the Bureau of Reclamation and the 

Central Utah Project), the Environmental Protection Agency, and 

for other related agencies, including the Forest Service, the Indian 

Health Service, the Smithsonian Institution, and the National 

Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. 

CONTENTS 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Title I—Department of the Interior: 

Bureau of Land Management ............................................................ 2 12 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................... 8 23 

National Park Service ......................................................................... 15 38 

United States Geological Survey ....................................................... 19 51 

Minerals Management Service .......................................................... 22 57 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ................. 25 61 

Bureau of Indian Affairs .................................................................... 26 64 

Office of the Secretary ........................................................................ 35 72 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Insular Affairs ..................................................................................... 36 73 

Office of the Solicitor .......................................................................... 39 78 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 39 78 

Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians ......................... 39 78 

Department-wide Programs ............................................................... 41 79 

Wildland Fire Management ............................................................... 41 79 

General Provisions, Department of the Interior ............................... 47 84 

Title II—Environmental Protection Agency: 

Science and Technology ...................................................................... 56 96 

Environmental Programs and Management ..................................... 56 100 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 57 106 

Buildings and Facilities ...................................................................... 57 107 

Hazardous Substance Superfund ....................................................... 57 107 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program ................................. 58 109 

Oil Spill Response ............................................................................... 59 110 

State and Tribal Assistance Grants .................................................. 59 110 

Administrative Provisions .................................................................. 64 118 

Title III—Related Agencies: 

Forest Service, USDA ......................................................................... 67 119 

Forest Service, Wildland Fire Management ..................................... 72 126 

Indian Health Service, DHHS ........................................................... 82 140 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ..................... 90 146 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ......................... 90 146 

Other Related Agencies: 

Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 

Quality .............................................................................................. 91 147 

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board ........................... 92 148 

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation ................................... 93 148 

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 

Development .................................................................................... 94 148 

Smithsonian Institution ..................................................................... 94 148 

National Gallery of Art ....................................................................... 96 153 

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts ............................ 98 155 

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ........................ 98 156 

National Endowment for the Arts ..................................................... 99 157 

National Endowment for the Humanities ......................................... 99 159 

Commission of Fine Arts .................................................................... 101 161 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ....................................... 102 161 

National Capital Planning Commission ............................................ 102 162 

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum .................................... 102 162 

Presidio Trust ...................................................................................... 103 163 

Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission ................................. 103 163 

Title IV—General Provisions: 103 164 

DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY RECOMMENDED IN BILL BY TITLE 

Activity Budget estimates, 

fiscal year 2010 

Committee bill, fiscal 

year 2010 

Committee bill compared with budget 

estimates 

Title I, Department of the Interior: New Budget (obligational) 

authority ............................................................................... $10,980,248,000 $10,998,217,000 $17,969,000 

Title II, Environmental Protection Agency: New Budget 

(obligational) authority ......................................................... $10,486,000,000 $10,462,962,000 ¥$23,038,000 

Title III, related agencies: New Budget (obligational) authority .......................................................................................... $10,855,945,000 $11,104,821,000 +$248,876,000 

Grand total, New Budget (obligational) authority .................... $32,325,193,000 $32,300,000 -$25,193,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
3 

HONORING STEWARDSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES

The primary responsibility of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies is to provide adequate resources 

to meet Federal stewardship obligations and to help protect the environment. These obligations span a wide range of needs. Among 

them are fulfilling our moral and treaty obligations to Native 

American communities, protecting the natural and historic heritage 

of the country, and preserving the biodiversity of the flora and 

fauna of the American landscape. These duties also include providing the resources to ensure that our air and water are clean and 

safe, and that the energy and other natural resources on public 

lands entrusted to the American people are utilized to meet their 

needs in an environmentally responsible way. Fortunately, the 

funding proposed by the President recognizes the importance of 

these responsibilities. The 2010 request was more than $6.5 billion 

above the prior year request. The majority of this increase went to 

clean and safe drinking water infrastructure, restoration of the 

Great Lakes, climate change, wildfire suppression and Native 

American health and law enforcement. The Committee recommendation sustains most of these long overdue increases. 

These significant increases are in addition to the funds provided 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 

2009. For the agencies and programs funded through this bill, that 

Act included $10.95 billion, which represented a significant boost 

for many programs above the amount appropriated annually. 

ARRA included $6 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water 

State Revolving Funds (SRF), which provide investment for more 

than 2,300 infrastructure projects nationwide. The ARRA also included more than $2 billion for the Department of the Interior, 

most of which funded long delayed construction projects and deferred maintenance. The Forest Service received over $1.1 billion 

for infrastructure and wildfire prevention, to help reduce the deferred maintenance backlog and the impacts of future wildfires. 

A summary of the significant issues addressed by the Committee 

in this bill and accompanying report follows. 

NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS

In past years, the Committee has restored cuts and provided significant increases to programs that directly impact the health, safety and well-being of American Indians and Alaska Natives. This 

year, the Committee is pleased that the Administration has provided historic increases to these programs, particularly to the Indian Health Service. The President’s fiscal year 2010 budget requests more than $600 million in increases for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, which the Committee 

has supported. 

The Committee remains concerned about the cultural, social and 

health-related impacts in Indian Country from domestic violence 

and substance abuse. Numerous Tribal leaders have testified before 

the Committee illustrating the problems in these areas and delineating the underlying problem of the lack of sufficient law enforcement to target these crimes. The Committee held an oversight 

hearing to discuss specific law enforcement needs and jurisdictional 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
4 

challenges that diminish Tribes’ abilities to enforce laws and prosecute crimes. 

While the President’s budget includes funds for these services, 

the Committee has provided additional resources to the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service to protect Native 

Americans and to assist and treat victims of crime and addiction. 

Within the BIA, the Committee has provided the requested increases for public safety and justice, as well as direction on methods to improve law enforcement and justice processes and increased 

collaboration with the Department of Justice. Additional direction 

on this issue is included in the report accompanying the Commerce, 

Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010. 

The Committee has also provided an increase to the domestic violence and sexual assault prevention initiative within the Indian 

Health Service. This will enable the IHS to expand its existing programs and provide victim assistance in more communities. 

The Committee is concerned that the various Federal funding 

sources and grant programs for Native American programs are not 

well coordinated. For example, in the area of Tribal law enforcement, there are numerous competitive grant programs and direct 

funding sources which create a patchwork of funding opportunities 

that Tribes must navigate. The result is an ad hoc system where 

a particular Tribe might receive a grant to build a detention center 

but no funds to staff the facility. The Tribes might receive funds 

to purchase police vehicles but no funding to maintain them. There 

are similar examples of this issue in health care, housing, education, and other areas. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with other Federal Departments and agencies to streamline and coordinate grant 

programs and funding opportunities for Native American programs. 

PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF OUR GREAT WATER BODIES

The United States has made significant strides in addressing 

water pollution. Our rivers no longer burn. More than 290 million 

Americans rely on the safety of tap water provided by public water 

systems that are subject to national drinking water standards. In 

fiscal year 2008, 92 percent of the U.S. population was served by 

community water systems with drinking water that met all applicable health-based drinking water standards. We swim and fish in 

rivers and lakes cleaner than those used by recent generations. But 

the task before us is still great. The reports from the Environmental Protection Agency are sobering. 

Up to 30 percent of streams have high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and excess sedimentation. More than 50 percent of the nation’s lakes have fish exceeding the health-based tissue concentrations for mercury. Of particular concern to the Committee is the 

pressure placed on our critical coastal resources, which provide ecological, economic, cultural and aesthetic benefits and services. To 

begin to address this concern, the Committee has continued to fund 

an initiative begun two fiscal years ago to protect our great water 

bodies along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and around the Great 

Lakes. 

In this bill, the Committee has provided more than $660,000,000 

to protect specific geographic bodies of water, including the request 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
5 

of $475,000,000 to restore the Great Lakes. The Committee includes these funds because our coastal areas are the most developed areas in the United States. This narrow fringe of land—only 

17 percent of the total conterminous U.S. land area—is home to 

more than 53 percent of the nation’s population. Between 1980 and 

2003, the coastal population increased by 33 million people, causing 

increased density and pressure on coastal resources. Pollution in 

these water bodies threatens our environment, public health and 

the economy. For instance, the Gulf of Mexico, whose coastal areas 

contain half the wetlands in the U.S., accounted for over 40 percent 

of all U.S. marine recreational fishing catch in 2006. But more 

than 30 years after the passage of the Clean Water Act, in 2008 

the Gulf hypoxic zone was the second largest on record—larger 

than the State of Massachusetts. 

The Chesapeake Bay watershed, which covers 64,000 square 

miles, is growing in population by 170,000 people each year. Agriculture, wastewater treatment plants, and development are enormous threats to this ecosystem, which provides more than onethird of the nation’s blue crab catch. The Great Lakes, whose watershed covers over 200,000 square miles, represent the largest 

freshwater system on earth, containing 84 percent of North America’s fresh water. But the threats here are great, as runoff, waste 

from cities, and discharge from industrial sites are retained in 

these water bodies which have small outflow rates. Progress is 

complicated by the need to coordinate more than 140 different federal programs across two countries. In addition, between 2000 and 

2020 the Puget Sound region will increase by 1.7 million people, 

putting more and more pressure on the hatcheries that have produced Pacific salmon for nearly 130 years and increasing the 

stormwater problem that is already very serious. 

For these reasons, the Committee recommendation provides the 

largest increase ever to support continued efforts, in the face of 

growing pressures, to protect and restore our treasured ‘‘Great 

Water Bodies.’’ The bill includes $475,000,000 for the Great Lakes, 

including funds to implement the Great Lakes Legacy Act; 

$28,000,000 for the National Estuaries Grant Program, which will 

provide $1,000,000 for each of the 28 National Estuaries named in 

law; and, $148,000,000 to protect and restore numerous water bodies from Long Island Sound to Puget Sound, from Lake Champlain 

to Lake Pontchartrain. 

In addition to these programs which directly benefit specific 

water bodies, the Committee has provided $3.9 billion for clean and 

safe drinking water infrastructure, an increase of $2.2 billion above 

the 2009 enacted level. These funds, which will provide more than 

1,470 low interest loans to communities across America, will build 

projects to help American communities ensure that the water they 

use to fish, swim and drink is clean and safe. The bill language allows the state SRFs to use subsidies, such as negative interest 

loans, principal forgiveness or grants, in order to ensure that many 

rural, small and/or disadvantaged communities have access to the 

funds provided through this bill. In a few short months, through 

the 2009 Appropriations Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the amounts recommended in this bill, this Committee has made the largest annual investment in clean water in 

recent American history. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
6 

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE AND ADAPTATION

The Committee and the Administration have invested significant 

resources to enhance the body of scientific knowledge of climate 

change and understand what steps agencies, land managers, and 

the Nation should take to begin adapting to a changing world. The 

Committee bill builds on efforts established in previous years, and 

on the substantial body of work done by scientists and managers 

supported by this Act. The Committee is encouraged by the steps 

the Administration is taking as reflected by their budget requests, 

especially at the Department of the Interior and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. The Committee also understands that it is essential to invest in fundamental and applied science and those applications that help prepare for changes to our natural and humanbuilt environments. Accordingly, this bill focuses on support to 

science, especially at the U.S. Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Smithsonian Institution and the 

Forest Service research branch. Significant funding is also included 

for applied science and adaptation at the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management. The Committee feels strongly that the Administration and the Congress must be accountable for real coordination and clear planning. 

A General Provision, Section 424, has been included to require 

the President to submit a report to the Appropriations Committees 

no later than 120 days after the fiscal year 2011 budget is submitted describing in detail Federal obligations and ependitures for 

climate change programs and activities in fiscal years 2008, 2009 

and 2010. 

Environmental protection 

The Committee continues to support EPA’s many efforts to address climate change. Funding for its voluntary climate change programs, such as Energy Star and SmartWay, are continued through 

this bill. This Committee has long supported, and often increased 

above the request, the Agency’s Clean Automotive Technology Program, which develops cost-effective advanced clean and low greenhouse gas emitting engines and hybrid technologies. It was this 

Committee which first directed the Agency to develop the Greenhouse Gas Registry, which will result in the collection of accurate 

and comprehensive emissions data to better inform public policy. 

Last year in response to a request that ignored the Agency’s responsibilities under the Energy Independence and Security Act, the 

Committee provided the funds needed for the Agency to begin the 

renewable fuels regulations. Initiated by this Committee in fiscal 

year 2009, grants now are available to local governments to develop and implement their own climate change initiatives. This bill 

supports and enhances all of these programs and also provides the 

increases needed for EPA to better manage these programs. 

Public lands and wildlife conservation 

Last year the Committee directed the Secretary of the Interior, 

with the assistance of the USGS National Climate Change and 

Wildlife Science Center and a science advisory board, to initiate development of a national strategy to assist fish, wildlife, plants, and 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
7 

associated ecological processes in becoming more resilient, adapting 

to, and surviving the impacts of climate change. The Committee is 

encouraged by early steps the Administration is taking, but it is 

imperative that efforts move forward in a coordinated and strategic 

fashion among all parties. It is essential that this effort include appropriate parties throughout the Federal government and that it 

include consultation with State agencies, Territories, Tribes, scientists, and stakeholders, and include notice to the public and opportunity for comment. 

The Committee is particularly concerned that funding has been 

requested by a number of agencies for large-scale planning efforts 

in response to climate change. As the Departments of Agriculture 

and Interior proceed in developing a climate change strategy and 

delineating regional or landscape boundaries for fish and wildlife 

conservation, they must ensure that there is integration, coordination, and public accountability to ensure efficiency and avoid duplication. These efforts must be coordinated with State and Tribal 

natural resource conservation agencies and the State Wildlife Action Plans and integrated with existing conservation programs such 

as joint ventures, habitat conservation plans, forest plans, and 

other conservation efforts. The Committee looks forward to receiving a timeline and a blueprint for the completion of the ongoing national strategic planning effort, as well as regular updates as 

progress is made. 

The Committee is also very concerned that the request, particularly for the Department of the Interior, included many new offices 

and organizational structures for agencies to respond to climate 

change. Contrary to the request to expand offices and organizational structure, implementation of landscape scale planning in response to climate change offers an opportunity to consolidate 

science, management and support service offices. The Committee 

directs the Department to provide recommendations for implementing regional-landscape approaches and consolidating support 

services within 180 days of enactment of this Act. Information on 

the initial investments needed to achieve these goals, the impacts 

on organizations, personnel and potential cost efficiencies should be 

included in this report. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

The recent increases in the length and severity of wildfire seasons have been accompanied by exponential increases in the cost 

of wildland fire suppression. The Committee has invested considerable time and resources on the issue of wildland fire management 

in the United States which was the focus of multiple hearings for 

fiscal year 2010. Expert testimony clearly indicates that weather 

conditions are more severe, wildfire behavior is more intense, and 

even the most advanced methods of fire suppression sometimes 

have little ability to slow or stop fire spread. A decade ago there 

were rarely more than 5 million acres burned in a year, and total 

suppression costs averaged $200 million. In recent fire seasons 6 to 

8 million acres burn a year with Federal suppression costs over $2 

billion in a single year. 

These extreme costs are driven by a few mega-fires, which utilize 

enormous amounts of personnel, aircraft, and equipment. Drought 

conditions, low fuel moistures, and/or high winds allow these fires 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
8 

to continue to grow, exhibiting extreme fire behavior for weeks at 

a time. Before the 1990’s, it was unheard of to spend more than 

$10 million to fight a single fire. Now, in a single year, 30 to 40 

individual events of that magnitude occur. The Committee understands that adequate emergency funding for wildfire suppression is 

important, but it is even more important to spend funds wisely on 

activities which can protect communities and natural resources 

from the impacts of extreme fires. 

The Committee has directed large funding increases for wildfire 

suppression and for activities that are known to reduce wildfire 

danger. The Committee believes, based on expert testimony and 

scientific analyses, that strategic fuel reduction, such as thinning 

and prescribed fire, will reduce the opportunities for extreme fire 

behavior and increase opportunities for successful fire suppression. 

Communities across the nation have implemented, and many more 

are working on, Community Wildfire Protection Plans designed to 

protect features local citizens deem worthy, such as infrastructure, 

housing, municipal watersheds, and wildlife habitat. The State Assessment and Resource Strategy plans required under the 2008 

Farm Bill will provide comprehensive analysis of the forest-related 

conditions, trends, threats, and opportunities within each State. 

The bill provides a total of $3.66 billion for all the wildland fire 

management accounts and the new suppression contingency accounts within the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. The total funding for all wildfire suppression accounts is 

$1,855,302,000, a 40 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 

funding level. This includes $357,000,000 for the new wildfire suppression contingency reserve accounts requested by the Administration. The bill provides $1,804,766,000 for the non-suppression 

accounts, including $983,452,000 for preparedness and 

$611,175,000 for hazardous fuels reduction. This latter value is 

$80,036,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$90,801,000 above the request, a 17.5 percent increase over the request. The bill also increases State fire assistance by $37,000,000 

to a total of $80,000,000 within the wildland fire account, which 

will greatly enhance the Federal/State wildfire partnership. These 

large investments, coupled with the $500,000,000 provided in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for similar activities, 

will help to reduce the extent of future wildfires and potential damage to communities and the environment. 

LAND ACQUISITION

The Committee believes that land acquisition is a vital tool in 

conserving wildlife and habitat, providing cultural, historic and 

recreationally valuable areas, producing vital commodities such as 

timber, oil, gas, and minerals, and preserving open space for future 

generations. The Committee also believes that third-party involvement in land acquisition from local, regional, and national land 

trusts has been critical in preserving these lands for future generations and maintaining resilient natural systems in light of climate 

change. The Committee does, however, have concerns about the 

current processes in place for Federal land acquisition and has outlined these concerns below. 

National Land Acquisition Strategies and Priority Setting.—The 

Committee is concerned that the agencies are not following, and in 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
9 

some cases do not have a national strategy or strategic goals for 

land acquisition to guide their efforts. Further, given the reality of 

climate change and the need to adapt and mitigate its effects, the 

potential for changing habitats, coastal inundation, and shifts in 

species ranges should be important factors in acquiring lands in 

the future. 

The Committee directs the Federal land management agencies in 

the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture 

to define national strategies and goals for acquiring land and how 

current and future acquisitions compliment these goals and the 

mission of each agency. This should include the current processes 

and systems for nominating and setting priorities at the State, regional and national level and how these priorities contribute to national goals and the underlying mission of each agency. The agencies should integrate the acquisition strategies into their ongoing 

efforts to implement landscape-level conservation and climate 

change adaptation and mitigation. The Departments should report 

to the Committee on progress in developing land acquisition strategies within 120 days of enactment of this Act. 

The Committee is concerned that the Forest Service’s budget request did not compliment the Department of the Interior’s request 

and did not reflect a unified policy and interest in Federal land acquisition. In fact, the Federal land acquisition activity was reduced 

by almost half, and the request provided no funding for inholdings 

and wilderness protection. The Committee feels strongly that if the 

Administration proposes initiatives and policy changes for the Nation’s Federal public lands, the Forest Service must be included in 

these initiatives. 

Inholdings.—The Committee is aware that there is an increasing 

threat of development of parcels within the boundaries of our public lands, national wildlife refuges, national parks and national forests. The Committee directs the agencies to use inholdings funding 

to acquire high priority lands that are immediately threatened by 

development and are partially or entirely bordered by land currently owned by the Federal government. The agencies should report to the Committees on the lands acquired by these funds as 

part of their annual budget submissions. 

Land Acquisition Appraisals.—Consistent with the recommendations of GAO and the OIG at the time, in 2003 the Secretary of the 

Interior consolidated the appraisal functions of the three Departmental land management agencies. Both GAO and the OIG have 

since documented that this improved the objectivity and quality of 

appraisals. Nevertheless, numerous problems exist that are an unacceptable barrier to communications, collaboration, and acquisition of lands for protection of our public lands, national wildlife refuges and national parks. Among the issues that appear to be causing this are loss of realty expertise in the bureaus, undue delays 

in the contracting of appraisals, and hesitancy to share information 

on the status of the appraisals with landowners. These issues have 

resulted in lost opportunities of key acquisitions, strained partnerships with non-profit land organizations, and reduced public faith 

in the federal government’s commitment to land protection. The 

Committee directs the Department to revisit the appraisal services 

consolidation, to reconsider alternative organizational proposals, 

and to streamline the process so that appraisals, and ultimately, 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
10 

acquisitions, are completed in a timely manner while following all 

applicable guidelines and regulations. The Committee directs the 

Department to report back to the Committee no later than 90 days 

after enactment of this Act on its progress in improving the appraisal process. 

Land Exchanges.—The Committee is concerned that the land exchange process among the Federal land management agencies, particularly in the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service needs improvement. A forthcoming Government Accountability 

Office report (GAO–09–611) following up on problems identified in 

the past audits of the land exchange programs contains a number 

of significant findings and recommendations that the agencies 

should seriously consider. The Committee directs the Secretary of 

the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure that decisions regarding land exchanges are fully documented and carefully 

reviewed by national, or in the case of Forest Service, regional review teams with adequate oversight from agency headquarters officials. Further, the agencies should clearly define third-party 

facilitators and consistently apply disclosure policies to them. The 

agencies should ensure that land exchange staffs are adequately 

trained before handling exchanges and should track the costs of 

processing individual land exchanges. The agencies should address 

GAO’s other recommendations including clarifying the retention 

policy for key exchange documents, improving BLM’s management 

of ledgers to track value imbalances in multiphase exchanges, and 

developing a national land tenure strategy. 

TERMINATIONS, REDUCTIONS AND OTHER SAVINGS

In order to invest in the critical priorities identified in this bill, 

and in order to contribute to the Nation’s future prosperity, the 

Committee has proposed a number of program terminations, reductions, and other savings from the fiscal year 2009 level totaling 

over $320 million. In addition, over $300 million in program terminations, reductions, and other savings from the budget request are 

recommended. These adjustments, no matter their size, are important to setting the right priorities within the spending allocation, 

for controlling the deficit, and creating a government that is as efficient as it is effective. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The following reprogramming guidelines apply to funding provided in the accompanying Act providing appropriations for the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. These 

guidelines are substantively the same as those promulgated for fiscal year 2009, with minor technical updates. The Committee expects that these guidelines will be strictly adhered to by the agencies. 

1. Definitions.—(a) The term ‘‘reprogramming,’’ as defined in 

these procedures, is the administrative process for reallocating 

funds from one budget activity to another after an appropriations 

bill has been enacted into law. For purposes of these guidelines the 

term ‘‘budget activity’’, sometimes referred to by the agencies as 

‘‘budget line-item’’ or ‘‘program area,’’ means any program for 

which a specific appropriation level is specified in Committee reports including reports of a Committee of Conference. For construcVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
11 

tion and land acquisition accounts, a reprogramming constitutes 

the reallocation of all funds, including unobligated balances, from 

one construction or land acquisition project, which is individually 

identified in the justification or Committee report, to another such 

project. Beyond these specific requirements, a reprogramming also 

is defined as a budget change which represents any significant departure from the program described in the agency’s budget justifications. 

2. General Guidelines for Reprogramming.—(a) A reprogramming 

should be made only when an unforeseen situation arises; and then 

only if postponement of the project or the activity until the next appropriation year would result in actual loss or damage. 

(b) Except under the most urgent situations, reprogramming 

should not be employed to initiate new programs or increase allocations specifically denied or limited by Congress, or to decrease allocations specifically increased by the Congress. 

(c) Reprogramming proposals submitted to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations for approval shall be considered approved 30 calendar days after receipt if the Committees have posed 

no objection. However, agencies will be expected to extend the approval deadline if specifically requested by either Committee. 

3. Criteria and Exceptions.—A reprogramming must be submitted to the Committees in writing prior to implementation if it 

exceeds $1,000,000 annually or results in an increase or decrease 

of more than 10 percent annually in affected programs, with the 

following exceptions: 

(a) With regard to the Tribal priority allocations activity of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, there is no restriction on reprogrammings 

among these programs. However, the Bureau shall report on all 

reprogrammings made during a given fiscal year no later than 60 

days after the end of the fiscal year. 

(b) With regard to the Environmental Protection Agency, State 

and Tribal Assistance Grants account, the Committee does not require reprogramming requests associated with States and Tribes 

Partnership Grants. 

(c) With regard to Department of the Interior or U.S. Forest 

Service construction projects, the threshold is $2,000,000 or 25 percent per project, except those reallocations that will result in a 

project cancellation or deferral must be submitted including 

projects funded in supplemental appropriations. 

4. Report Language.—Any limitation, directive, or earmarking 

contained in either the House or Senate report which is not contradicted by the other report nor specifically denied in the conference 

report shall be considered as having been approved by both Houses 

of Congress for purposes of these reprogramming guidelines. 

5. Assessments.—Increased assessments for centralized services 

or other purposes or new transfers of funds to contingency or reserve accounts which have not been described in the budget should 

be treated as reprogrammings if the amounts assessed or transferred exceed the thresholds. 

6. Land Acquisitions and Forest Legacy.—(a) Lands shall not be 

acquired for more than the approved appraised value (as addressed 

in section 301(3) of Public Law 91–646) except for condemnations 

and declarations of taking, unless such acquisitions are submitted 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
12 

to the Committees for approval in compliance with these procedures. 

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to tracts with an appraised value of $1,000,000 or less. 

7. Land Exchanges.—Land exchanges, wherein the estimated 

value of the Federal lands to be exchanged is greater than 

$2,000,000, shall not be consummated until the Committees have 

had a 30-day period in which to examine the proposed exchange, 

and the Committee shall be provided advance notification of exchanges valued between $500,000 and $2,000,000. 

8. Sequestrations or Across-the-Board Reductions.—The definition 

of the term ‘‘budget activity’’ established by paragraph 1(a) of these 

instructions shall also be the definition of the level at which any 

general, across-the-board or sequestration related reductions mandated by law are to be applied to activities funded in any Interior, 

Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for the 

multiple use management, protection, and development of a full 

range of natural resources, including minerals, timber, rangeland, 

fish and wildlife habitat, and wilderness on about 258 million acres 

of the Nation’s public lands and for management of 700 million additional acres of Federally-owned subsurface mineral rights. The 

Bureau is the second largest supplier of public outdoor recreation 

in the Western United States. The Bureau’s National Landscape 

Conservation System includes about 29 million acres of national 

monuments, conservation areas, wild and scenic rivers, national 

scenic and historic trails, and other areas that have received special recognition and protection through congressional or presidential conservation designations. 

The Committee recommendations for all BLM accounts are based 

on changes to the President’s budget request. Unless otherwise 

stated, the Committee approves the items in the budget justification and supporting materials from the Bureau. The amounts recommended by the Committee for each Bureau of Land Management appropriation account, compared with the budget estimates 

by activity, are shown in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
13 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 02 HR180.001
14 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 03 HR180.002
15 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 04 HR180.003
16 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 05 HR180.004
17 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 06 HR180.005
18 

MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RESOURCES

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $890,194,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 975,351,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 950,496,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +60,302,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥24,855,000 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $950,496,000 for management of 

lands and resources, $60,302,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $24,855,000 below the budget request. The amounts 

recommended by the Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity and subactivity are shown in the table at the beginning of the Bureau of Land Management entry. 

The Committee recognizes several new initiatives in this request. 

The recommendation fully funds the renewable energy portion of 

the New Energy Frontier initiative and provides steady funding for 

the fossil energy programs. The Committee also fully funds the Climate Impacts initiative as discussed below. The Committee recommendation also fully funds the bureau’s component of the 21st 

Century Youth Conservation Corps initiative with a $5,000,000 increase. 

Land Resources.—The Committee recommends $241,192,000 for 

land resources, $39,995,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level and $7,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee recommendation fully funds the climate impacts request of 

$15,000,000 and understands that about half of this will be utilized 

on National Landscape Conservation System lands. The Committee 

supports this effort, and expects that it will be implemented following further scientific evaluations and management planning. 

The Bureau should work closely with the U.S. Geological Survey, 

other Interior bureaus, the Forest Service, and State and local 

partners on this climate impact effort and provide the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations a report concerning the 

plans for use of these funds within 120 days of enactment. This coordination is discussed further in the front of this report. 

Within the funds provided for range management, the Committee designates $1,000,000 to help reduce the backlog in grazing 

permits. The Committee recognizes that the increasing numbers of 

permits expiring, increased costs for processing, and litigation, 

have resulted in a significant backlog and workload in processing 

permits. This funding should be targeted to those areas where litigation is causing significant delays. 

The recommendation includes $2,500,000 in the soil, water and 

air activity for the new youth initiative: these funds may be used 

in other activities if it enhances the new initiative. The Committee 

recommendation provides $60,486,000 for wild horse and burro 

management, $19,873,000 above the fiscal year 2009 level and 

$7,000,000 below the budget request. 

Wildlife and Fisheries.—The Committee recommends $50,232,000 

for wildlife and fisheries, $1,743,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $1,145,000 above the request. The increase above 

the request includes restoring $145,000 for the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation and $500,000 increases for both the wildlife 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
19 

base program and the plant conservation program within wildlife 

management. 

Threatened and Endangered Species.—The Committee recommends $22,112,000 for threatened and endangered species as requested, $399,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The 

Committee encourages the Bureau to increase its efforts toward recovery of listed plant and animal species and take conservation action on Bureau-managed lands and waters for at-risk species and 

ecosystems so the need for listing is prevented. 

Recreation Management.—The Committee recommends 

$67,692,000 for recreation management as requested, $3,954,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee recommendation fully funds the new youth initiative. These funds 

may be used in other activities if it enhances the new initiative. 

The recommendation maintains funding for the various national 

scenic and historic trails. 

The Committee encourages the BLM to comply with the provisions of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act and allow landowner, lessee and inholder access to their 

property within the boundary of the Steens Mountain Cooperative 

Management and Protection Area. Unless funding is provided for 

land acquisition or exchanges, landowners should be afforded full 

access to their property. 

Energy and Minerals.—The Committee recommends $89,689,000 

for energy and minerals, $9,724,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $21,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommended program level for oil, gas, and coal 

permitting and leasing and management activities, including the 

Application for a Permit to Drill (APD) fee and the off-budget, pilot 

offices permit processing fund, provides for all activities supported 

in the Administration request. 

The Committee recommendation includes the increased APD fee 

requested by the Administration, which yields $9,100,000 more 

than in fiscal year 2009. This cost recovery APD fee increases from 

$4,000 to $6,500 per permit, which is closer to the actual cost of 

issuing a permit. 

The Committee recommendation does not include the Administration request to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to stop the 

use of $21,000,000 in mandatory funds for the pilot oil and gas permitting offices. The Administration request had assumed a loss of 

this off-budget $21,000,000. The request made up for this reduction 

with an increase of $11,900,000 in discretionary funds in oil and 

gas management and the increased $9,100,000 from the APD fee. 

The Committee recommendation does not include the requested 

$11,900,000 increase. In addition, the Committee has decreased oil 

and gas management discretionary funds by $9,100,000, which is 

covered by the APD fee increase. When these discretionary, mandatory, and APD cost recovery receipts are considered, the overall 

Committee recommendation for oil and gas activities is the same 

as the budget request. The recommendation fully funds the request 

for a $2,500,000 increase for enhanced audit and compliance as 

part of the New Energy Frontier initiative. 

Realty and Ownership Management.—The Committee recommends $97,232,000 for realty and ownership management as requested, $17,167,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
20 

The recommendation includes the entire request of $16,100,000 

to increase BLM activities in support of the renewable energy initiative. The Committee expects that these funds will be used by a 

variety of BLM programs in support of this effort. The Committee 

is concerned that a rapid expansion of renewable energy projects 

should be done with care. The BLM should look for opportunities 

to mitigate potential adverse habitat impacts through the conservation and protection of native habitat and mitigation and rehabilitation with appropriate native plant materials. The BLM should provide the Committee a summary plan within 120 days that describes the policy, administrative and management-level actions 

that will be taken during the evaluation and approval processes for 

renewable energy development on Federal lands to ensure: (1) that 

biological resources are assessed at appropriate scales; (2) and to 

ensure that fish, wildlife, and plant populations are sustained over 

the long-term through proper project location, mitigation, operational standards, and monitoring. 

Resource Protection and Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $94,077,000 for resource protection and maintenance as 

requested, $1,526,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The 

Committee is concerned about the Bureau of Land Management decision to stop trash collection services in the Imperial Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area, CA and expects BLM to restore trash pick-up 

services. 

Transportation and Facilities Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $73,155,000 for transportation and facilities maintenance 

as requested, $702,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Land and Resource Information Systems.—The Committee recommends $16,754,000 for land and resource information systems as 

requested, $173,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Mining Law Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$36,696,000 for mining law administration as requested, 

$2,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. Offsetting fees 

are equal to the amount made available to support this activity. 

Workforce and Organizational Support.—The Committee recommends $158,060,000 for workforce and organizational support as 

requested, $3,166,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Challenge Cost Share.—The Committee recommends $9,500,000 

for the Bureau’s challenge cost share program, the same as the fiscal year 2009 enacted funding level and the budget request. 

National Monuments and National Conservation Areas.—The 

Committee recommends $30,801,000 for National Monuments and 

National Conservation areas, $2,605,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level and $2,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes that the National Landscape Conservation System 

(NLCS) was recently authorized in Public Law 111–11. It comprises about 29 million acres, as much land as either the national 

park system or national wildlife refuge system manage in the lower 

48 States. The Committee is encouraged by the BLM management 

of this new system of special public lands and accordingly has increased the base funding by $2,000,000. The Committee notes that 

additional funding for the NLCS is provided in other activities, 

such as wilderness, transportation, and the Oregon and California 

Grant Lands account. In addition, about half of the funds added for 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
21 

the new climate change initiative within the soil, air, and water 

management activity will be utilized on the NLCS lands. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $6,590,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 6,590,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 6,590,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

*Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $6,590,000 for construction, the 

same as both the 2009 enacted level and the budget request. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $14,775,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 25,029,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 26,529,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +11,754,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +1,500,000 

The Committee recommends $26,529,000 for land acquisition, 

$11,754,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$1,500,000 above the request. 

The distribution of the funding is as follows: 

State Project Committee 

recommendation 

CA .................... California Wilderness ...................................................................................................... $500,000 

CA .................... King Range National Conservation Area ........................................................................ 2,000,000 

CA .................... Lacks Creek ACEC ........................................................................................................... 750,000 

CA .................... Santa Rosa and San Jacinto National Monument ......................................................... 500,000 

CA .................... Upper Sacramento River ACEC ....................................................................................... 2,800,000 

MT .................... Blackfoot River SRMA ..................................................................................................... 4,500,000 

MT .................... Meeteetse Spires ACEC ................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

NM ................... La Cienega ACEC/El Camino Real de Tierra Andentro NHT ........................................... 3,000,000 

NM ................... Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat Preservation ACEC ........................................................ 1,500,000 

OR .................... Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument ............................................................................ 1,000,000 

OR .................... Sandy River/Oregon NHT ................................................................................................. 2,100,000 

WY .................... Craig Thomas Little Mountain SMA ................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Sub-total ................................................................................................................ 22,150,000 

Emergencies and hardships & inholdings ..................................................................... 2,500,000 

Acquisition management ................................................................................................ 1,879,000

Total ....................................................................................................................... 26,529,000 

The Committee has included language on land acquisition in the 

front section of this report. 

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $109,949,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 111,557,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 111,557,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +1,608,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $111,557,000 for the Oregon and 

California grant lands as requested, $1,608,000 above the 2009 enacted level. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
22 

FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND RECOVERY FUND

(REVOLVING FUND, SPECIAL ACCOUNT)

The Committee includes bill language, as in the past, allowing 

funds made available in the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery 

Fund to be used for various forestry purposes including planning, 

preparing, implementing and monitoring salvage timber sales and 

forest ecosystem restoration activities. This fund includes the Federal share of receipts derived from treatments funded by this account and deposited into this fund. The recommended bill language 

extends this authority through fiscal year 2015. 

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation of not 

less than $10,000,000 to be derived from public lands receipts and 

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act lands grazing receipts. Receipts 

are used for construction, purchase, and maintenance of range improvements, such as seeding, fence construction, weed control, 

water development, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, and 

planning and design of these projects. 

SERVICE CHARGES, DEPOSITS, AND FORFEITURES

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation estimated to be $31,255,000 for service charges, deposits, and forfeitures as requested, a decrease of $2,566,000 from the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. The Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeitures 

appropriation is offset with fees collected under specified sections 

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and other 

Acts to pay for reasonable administrative and other costs in connection with rights-of-way applications from the private sector, 

miscellaneous cost-recoverable realty cases, timber contract expenses, repair of damaged lands, the adopt-a-horse program, and 

the provision of copies of official public land documents. 

MISCELLANEOUS TRUST FUNDS

The Committee recommends an indefinite appropriation estimated to be $20,130,000, the same as the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level and the budget request, for miscellaneous trust funds. The 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides for the 

receipt and expenditure of moneys received as donations or gifts 

(section 307). Funds in this trust fund are derived from the administrative and survey costs paid by applicants for conveyance of 

omitted lands (lands fraudulently or erroneously omitted from 

original cadastral surveys), from advances for other types of surveys requested by individuals, and from contributions made by 

users of Federal rangelands. Amounts received from the sale of 

Alaska town lots are also available for expenses of sale and maintenance of town sites. Revenue from unsurveyed lands, and surveys 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
23 

of omitted lands, administrative costs of conveyance, and gifts and 

donations must be appropriated before it can be used. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes the administrative provisions as requested. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, 

protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of people. The Service has responsibility for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, certain marine 

mammals, and land under Service control. 

The Service manages more than 150 million acres across the 

United States, encompassing a 550-unit National Wildlife Refuge 

System, additional wildlife and wetlands areas, and 70 National 

fish hatcheries. A network of law enforcement agents and port inspectors enforce Federal laws for the protection of fish and wildlife. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Appropriation enacted, 2009* .................... $1,140,962,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ............................... 1,218,206,000 

Recommended, 2010 ................................... 1,248,756,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 ............................ +107,794,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................ +30,550,000 

*Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
24 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 07 HR180.006
25 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 08 HR180.007
26 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 09 HR180.008
27 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 010 HR180.009
28 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 011 HR180.010
29 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 012 HR180.011
30 

Ecological Services.—The Committee recommends $295,127,000 

for ecological services, $18,857,000 above the fiscal year 2009 level 

and $4,050,000 above the budget request. 

Changes from the request include increases of $1,000,000 for the 

candidate conservation program, $500,000 for the listing program, 

$1,200,000 for the coastal program, $500,000 for whooping crane 

breeding facilities in Louisiana in the recovery program, $350,000 

for Stellers and spectacled sea eider recovery in Alaska, and 

$500,000 for stream bank restoration in Georgia in the partners 

program. 

The Committee directs the Service to review the processes by 

which it reviews and determines the status of species. The Service 

should ensure the orderly and timely listing of any species warranting the protection of the Endangered Species Act while minimizing the use of the petition process. The Committee is concerned 

about the known backlog of candidate species that warrant listing 

proposals but for which that action has been precluded, in some 

cases for many years, by lack of sufficient resources. The Committee directs the Service to report on this issue, within 90 days 

of enactment. This report should identify mechanisms to coordinate 

efficiently and effectively with State fish and wildlife agencies, Indian Tribes, universities, and private organizations to identify species deserving protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

Within the funding provided for candidate conservation, $500,000 

is provided for sage grouse conservation efforts in Idaho. 

The Committee supports the funding included in the request for 

aplomado falcon and California condor recovery. The Service is encouraged to continue to support these ongoing, successful recovery 

efforts. 

The Committee is concerned about increased mortality of bats in 

the northeastern United States from white nose syndrome and encourages the Service to work with the USGS to research the cause 

and extent of the problem and develop a mitigation plan. 

The Committee encourages the Service to work with the High 

Desert Partnership in Oregon on developing and implementing 

landscape-level conservation strategies. 

The Committee urges the Service to work with the Upper Susquehanna Coalition to help restore wetland habitat and improve 

water quality in the Upper Susquehanna River headwaters. 

National Wildlife Refuge System.—The Committee recommends 

$503,279,000 for the National Wildlife Refuge System, $40,420,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 level and $20,000,000 above the budget 

request. 

Changes from the request include increases of $16,000,000 for 

refuge wildlife and habitat management, $1,000,000 for volunteer 

programs in the visitor services program, $2,000,000 for refuge law 

enforcement, $1,000,000 for conservation planning, $2,000,000 for 

annual maintenance and a decrease of $2,000,000 from deferred 

maintenance. 

The increased funding for wildlife and habitat should be used in 

conjunction with the refuge’s workforce planning efforts to fill essential vacancies nationwide. The Service is directed to report to 

the Committee on the planned allocation of refuge system funding 

increases within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
31 

The Committee believes that the Service should adequately document, protect, and manage significant cultural resources on its 

lands. The 150 million acre refuge system contains numerous cultural resources that can be found nowhere else. An example of this 

is the ancient Chamorro cave art that must be protected at Guam 

National Wildlife Refuge. The Committee urges the Service to expand its work to document and protect the numerous cultural resources on its lands. 

The Committee remains concerned about the situation on the 

Southwestern Border and encourages the Service to direct a portion 

of the increase for refuge law enforcement to the Southwest. 

The Committee is supportive of the new Marine National Monument designations within the refuge system. However, the Committee is concerned that the Service is not dedicating sufficient resources to the management of the new areas. Further, the Committee understands that there are two recent shipwrecks within 

the monument that are jeopardizing delicate coral reefs in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. The Service 

should work with its partners to remove these ships before the 

damage to the coral reefs is irreversible. 

The Committee supports the enhancement of public access to the 

Hanford Reach National Monument and encourages the Service to 

employ cooperative agreements with local governments and organizations, and the use of private voluntary labor, to carry out projects 

and programs to improve public access to the Monument. 

Migratory Bird Management, Law Enforcement, and International Conservation.—The Committee recommends $133,593,000 

for migratory bird management, law enforcement, and international conservation, $6,876,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $3,500,000 above the budget request. 

Changes to the request include increases of $500,000 for migratory bird management, $1,000,000 for law enforcement and 

$2,000,000 for international affairs. 

The increase for migratory birds is for the urban treaty program. 

The Committee is aware that there is a backlog of communities 

that have expressed interest in the program and encourages the 

Service to continue to support this program as a part of their youth 

in the outdoors initiative. 

The increase provided for law enforcement is for additional special agents to combat the growing trade in illegal wildlife. The 

number of special agents is alarmingly low, despite the fact that 

the trade in illegal wildlife and wildlife parts shows no signs of decreasing. 

Within the increase for international affairs, $2,000,000 is for the 

Wildlife Without Borders program. 

The Committee is aware of the impacts of the Chytrid disease on 

amphibian species worldwide. Amphibian species are disappearing 

at over 200 times their historic rate, and if left unchecked, up to 

30 percent of these species could be extinct within two to three decades. The Committee urges the Service to work with the international conservation community to establish conservation and captive breeding programs to conserve the most imperiled of these species. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
32 

Fisheries.—The Committee recommends $144,195,000 for fisheries, $12,364,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$3,500,000 above the budget request. 

The changes to the request include increases of $1,000,000 for 

the mass marking of fish in the Great Lakes, $1,000,000 to conduct 

scientific review of the Klamath, North Coast, and Central Valley 

hatchery operations in California, $1,300,000 for the establishment 

of a fisheries resource office in West Virginia to focus on aquatic 

species restoration and management in the Appalachian Highlands 

region, and $200,000 for sea otter and Steller sea lion conservation 

in Alaska. 

The Service is directed to continue managing snakehead fish and 

determining the cause of cancer in bullhead catfish in the Potomac 

and South River watersheds. 

The Committee has increased funding for sea otters in Alaska 

and directs the Service to continue its ongoing conservation efforts 

for the southern sea otter. The Service is directed to report to the 

Committee on its conservation efforts and the funding distribution 

for both northern and southern sea otter conservation within 60 

days of enactment of this Act. 

Climate Change Adaptive Science Capacity.—The Committee recommends $20,000,000, as requested for the new climate change 

adaptive science capacity activity. 

The Committee agrees with the concept set forward in the request on the need for applied science and landscape level conservation as climate changes. The Committee has included further language and direction on this issue in the front of this report. 

General Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$153,562,000 for general administration, $10,277,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $500,000 below the budget request. 

The changes to the request include increases of $500,000 for the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and a decrease of 

$1,000,000 from the National Conservation Training Center. 

The Committee notes that the Service designated the California/ 

Nevada office as a separate region and acknowledges the reasons 

for doing so. However, the Committee feels that, given increasing 

overhead costs, rental costs and rising fuel costs for field stations, 

the Service should be taking steps to reduce the overall number of 

offices and streamline the activities associated with these offices to 

the maximum extent possible. 

The Service has successfully achieved a model for cross servicing 

administrative functions between regional offices with the addition 

of the California/Nevada region, which relies on the support functions provided by the Northwest region. The Committee directs the 

Service to provide a report with options for reducing the number 

of administrative offices and consolidating support services within 

180 days of enactment of this Act. Information on the initial investments needed to achieve these goals, the impacts on personnel and 

potential cost efficiencies should be included in this report. 

The Committee is also concerned about the continuity of Service 

programs and services among the regions. Program delivery, internet content, management differences, and organizational structures 

should be standardized so that regional boundaries are seamless 

and services are consistently delivered to the public. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
33 

Within the funding provided for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, $1,500,000 is provided for competitive endangered species grants. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and urges the Secretary to continue ongoing Departmental efforts to work with stakeholders. 

Bill Language.—The Committee includes bill language, as in previous years, limiting funding for the endangered species listing program. A total of $20,603,000 is for listing, of which $10,632,000 is 

for critical habitat designation. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $35,587,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 29,791,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 21,139,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥14,448,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥8,652,000 

*Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $21,139,000 for construction, 

$14,448,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$8,652,000 below the budget request. 

The distribution of the funding is as follows: 

State Station Recommendation 

AZ .......... Willow Beach NFH—Water treatment facilities ....................................................................... $482,000 

GU .......... Guam NWR—Invasive species fencing .................................................................................... 866,000 

IN ........... Big Oaks NWR—Old Timbers Dam .......................................................................................... 100,000 

MN ......... Fergus Falls WMD—Stang Lake Dam ...................................................................................... 175,000 

OK .......... Wichita Mountains WR—Lake Rush Dam ................................................................................ 4,100,000 

PA .......... Allegheny NFH—Fish production and electrical systems ........................................................ 1,500,000 

WA .......... Turnbull NWR—Lower Pine Lake Dam ..................................................................................... 250,000 

WA .......... Quinault NFH—Electric fish barriers ....................................................................................... 1,000,000 

WY .......... Jackson NFH—Water supply line .............................................................................................. 1,650,000 

Sub-Total .......................................................................................................................... 10,123,000 

Dam safety program and inspections ...................................................................................... 1,115,000 

Bridge safety program and inspections ................................................................................... 740,000

Core engineering services ......................................................................................................... 5,294,000 

Seismic safety program ............................................................................................................ 120,000 

Environmental compliance management .................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Waste prevention, recycling, and EMS ..................................................................................... 100,000 

Administrative cost allocation methodology ............................................................................. 2,456,000 

Fixed cost and related changes ............................................................................................... 191,000 

Total construction ............................................................................................................ 21,139,000 

The Committee is aware that the Refuge System is building or 

replacing visitor centers with funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Committee is also aware 

that the Refuge System was previously working to update its priority list for visitor centers. The Service should be cautious in developing new priorities and base the location of these proposed visitor centers on a logical, national methodology. The Committee believes that refuge visitor centers are appropriate in limited locations provided they are modest facilities that quickly orient the 

public to the refuge and encourage them to get out on the landscape rather than linger in large buildings that are expensive to 

maintain. Additionally, the Committee applauds the Service for its 

development of a visitor center planning tool, but feels that scoping 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
34 

must be based on realistic visitation estimates, account for proximity to large populated areas, and focus on getting the visiting 

public, including school groups, onto the land to experience wildlife 

and nature first-hand. 

The Committee urges the Service to act expeditiously in completing the previously funded planning and design of the Cahaba 

River NWR visitor center, AL. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $42,455,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 65,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 67,250,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +24,795,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +2,250,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $67,250,000 for 

land acquisition, $24,795,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level and $2,250,000 above the budget request. 

The distribution of the funding is as follows: 

State Project Committee 

recommendation 

AK ........................... Alaska Maritime NWR ............................................................................................... $300,000 

AK ........................... Togiak NWR ............................................................................................................... 500,000 

AK ........................... Yukon Delta NWR ...................................................................................................... 500,000 

AL ........................... Bon Secour NWR ....................................................................................................... 500,000 

AZ ........................... Leslie Canyon NWR ................................................................................................... 500,000 

CA .......................... San Joaquin River NWR ............................................................................................ 2,000,000 

CA .......................... Grasslands WMA ....................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

DE .......................... Prime Hook NWR ....................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

FL ........................... St. Marks NWR .......................................................................................................... 500,000 

FL ........................... Crystal River NWR ..................................................................................................... 500,000 

GA .......................... Bond Swamp NWR .................................................................................................... 1,200,000 

HI ........................... James Campbell NWR ............................................................................................... 500,000 

IA ............................ Upper Mississippi River NW&FR ............................................................................... 1,500,000 

IA/MN ..................... Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR ................................................................................ 500,000 

IL ............................ Cypress Creek NWR ................................................................................................... 500,000 

IN ........................... Patoka River NWR ..................................................................................................... 1,150,000 

LA ........................... Red River NWR .......................................................................................................... 500,000 

LA ........................... Upper Ouachita NWR ................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

MA/NH/VT/CT .......... Silvio O. Conte NW&FR ............................................................................................. 2,250,000 

MD .......................... Blackwater NWR ........................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

ME .......................... Rachel Carson NWR .................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

MO .......................... Big Muddy NF&WR .................................................................................................... 300,000 

MS .......................... Panther Swamp NWR ................................................................................................ 500,000 

MT .......................... Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area ................................................................. 3,750,000 

MT .......................... Red Rock Lakes NWR ................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Multi ....................... Highlands Conservation ............................................................................................ 2,000,000 

ND .......................... North Dakota WMA .................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

ND/SD ..................... Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA .................................................................................. 1,000,000 

NJ ........................... Edwin B. Forsythe NWR ............................................................................................. 1,100,000 

NJ ........................... Cape May NWR .......................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

NJ ........................... Great Swamp NWR .................................................................................................... 750,000 

NM .......................... Sevilleta NWR ............................................................................................................ 500,000 

OR .......................... Nestucca Bay NWR .................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

PA ........................... Cherry Valley NWR ..................................................................................................... 500,000 

SC .......................... Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin NWR ........................................................................... 500,000 

SC .......................... Waccamaw NWR ........................................................................................................ 600,000 

TN ........................... Chickasaw NWR ........................................................................................................ 500,000 

TX ........................... Laguna Atascosa NWR .............................................................................................. 500,000 

TX ........................... Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR .................................................................................. 1,000,000 

TX ........................... San Bernard NWR ..................................................................................................... 2,500,000 

TX ........................... Balcones Canyonlands NWR ..................................................................................... 1,000,000 

UT ........................... Bear River MBR ......................................................................................................... 500,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
35 

State Project Committee 

recommendation 

VA ........................... Back Bay NWR .......................................................................................................... 545,000 

VA ........................... Great Dismal Swamp NWR ....................................................................................... 500,000 

VA ........................... James River NWR ...................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

VA ........................... Rappahannock River NWR ........................................................................................ 500,000 

WA .......................... Nisqually NWR ........................................................................................................... 500,000 

WA .......................... Willapa Bay NWR ...................................................................................................... 750,000 

Sub-total .......................................................................................................... 47,695,000 

Inholdings, emergencies and hardships ................................................................... 5,000,000 

Exchanges ................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Acquisition management .......................................................................................... 10,555,000 

Administrative cost allocation methodology ............................................................. 2,000,000 

Total ................................................................................................................. 67,250,000 

The Committee has included language on land acquisition in the 

front section of this report. 

COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund provides grants to States and territories for endangered species recovery actions on non-Federal lands and provides funds for non-Federal land acquisition to facilitate habitat protection. Individual 

States and territories provide 25 percent of grant project costs. 

Cost sharing is reduced to 10 percent when two or more States or 

territories are involved in a project. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $75,501,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 100,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 100,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +24,499,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the cooperative endangered species conservation fund, as requested, $24,499,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Within the funding provided for this program, $34,307,000 is derived from the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, and 

$65,693,000 is derived from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. The request proposed to fund the entire amount from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUND

This program makes payments in lieu of taxes based on their fair 

market value, to counties in which Service lands are located. Payments to counties are estimated to be $22,726,000 in fiscal year 

2010, with $14,100,000 derived from this appropriation and 

$8,626,000 from the net refuge receipts estimated to be collected in 

fiscal year 2009. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $14,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 14,100,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 14,100,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
36 

The Committee recommends $14,100,000 for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund, the same as the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and the budget request. 

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Fund, leverages partner contributions for 

wetlands conservation. Projects to date have been in 50 States, 13 

Canadian provinces, 25 Mexican states, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to this appropriation, the Service receives funding from fines for violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; interest earned on tax receipts in the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration account from taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, pistols, and revolvers, and from the Sport Fish Restoration 

account from taxes on fishing tackle and equipment, electric trolling motors and fish finders, and certain marine gasoline taxes. By 

law, sport fish restoration receipts are used for coastal wetlands in 

States bordering the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, States bordering 

the Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the freely associated 

States in the Pacific, and American Samoa. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $42,647,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 52,647,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 52,647,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $52,647,000 for the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Fund, as requested, $10,000,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000 authorizes grants for the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in 

the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean, with 75 percent of the amounts available to be expended on projects outside 

the U.S. There is a three to one matching requirement under this 

program. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $4,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 4,750,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 5,250,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +500,000 

The Committee recommends $5,250,000 for the neotropical mi- gratory bird conservation program, $500,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and the budget request. 

MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

This account combines funding for programs under the former rewards and operations (African elephant) account, the former rhinoceros and tiger conservation account, the Asian elephant conservation program, and the great ape conservation program. The 

African Elephant Act of 1988 established a fund for assisting nations and organizations involved with conservation of African eleVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
37 

phants. The Service provides grants to African Nations and to 

qualified organizations and individuals to protect and manage critical populations of these elephants. The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 authorized programs to enhance compliance 

with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 

(CITES) and U.S. or foreign laws prohibiting the taking or trade 

of rhinoceros, tigers, or their habitat. The Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 authorized a grant program, similar to the 

African elephant program, to enable cooperators from regional and 

range country agencies and organizations to address Asian elephant conservation problems. The world’s surviving populations of 

wild Asian elephants are found in 13 south and southeastern Asian 

countries. The Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 authorized 

grants to foreign governments, the CITES secretariat, and non-governmental organizations for the conservation of great apes. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 11,500,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +1,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +1,500,000 

The Committee recommends $11,500,000 for the multinational 

species conservation fund, $1,500,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the budget request. 

The funding levels are as follows: $3,000,000 for rhinoceros and 

tiger conservation, $1,750,000 for marine turtle conservation, and 

$2,250,000 each for African elephant conservation, Asian elephant 

conservation, and great ape conservation. 

The Committee is aware that the International Crane Conservation Act and the Rare Cats and Canids Act are in the process of 

being authorized. The Committee encourages the Administration to 

include funding for these important conservation programs in their 

next budget submission. 

STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

The State and Tribal wildlife grants program provides funds for 

States to implement their comprehensive wildlife conservation 

plans for species of greatest conservation need. States are required 

to provide at least a 25 percent cost share for grants that implement the State Wildlife Action Plans. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $75,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 115,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 115,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +40,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $115,000,000 for State and Tribal 

wildlife grants, as requested, $40,000,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. Within the amount provided, $7,000,000 is for 

competitively awarded grants to Indian Tribes. 

The Committee has agreed to the requested funding increase in 

this account, however, the Committee has not allowed the full 

amount to be used for updating the State Wildlife Action Plans to 

incorporate climate change adaptation and mitigation. The Committee is aware that some States have previously incorporated cliVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
38 

mate change concepts into their plans and that the remaining 

States will do so as a part of their required periodic updates. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Service to provide at least 

half of the requested funding increase for on-the-ground conservation projects in addition to updating the State Wildlife Action 

Plans. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has included bill language that 

changes the State funding match requirements for this program 

from 50 percent to 25 percent. 

FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 28,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 0 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥28,000,000 

The Committee has not included the requested increase for the 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration youth program. The Committee 

supports the youth in the outdoors initiative, but has concerns with 

the implementation of this particular component. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The mission of the National Park Service is to preserve 

unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the 

national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration 

of this and future generations. Established in 1916, the National 

Park Service has stewardship responsibilities for the protection and 

preservation of the heritage resources of the national park system. 

The system, consisting of 391 separate and distinct units, is recognized globally as a leader in park management and resource 

preservation. The national park system represents much of the finest the Nation has to offer in terms of scenery, historical and archeological relics, and cultural heritage. Through its varied sites, 

the National Park Service attempts to explain America’s history, 

interpret its culture, preserve examples of its natural ecosystems, 

and provide recreational and educational opportunities for U.S. citizens and visitors from all over the world. In addition, the National 

Park Service provides support to Tribal, local, and State governments to preserve culturally significant, ecologically important, and 

public recreational lands. 

The National Park Service will be 100 years old in 2016 and the 

Service has embarked on an historic ten-year effort to enhance the 

national parks leading up to this historic celebration. The Committee continues to support this effort and the $2,260,684,000 recommended will provide the resources to continue to prepare the 

system for a second century of conservation, environmental stewardship and recreation benefiting millions of visitors from throughout the world. Included in the recommendation is a $100,000,000 

increase above the 2009 enacted level, not including fixed costs increases, for the operations of the National Parks and $25,000,000 

for the Parks Partnership, as requested. 

Table of Allocations by Activity.—The following table describes 

funding by activity for all accounts of the National Park Service. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
39 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 013 HR180.012
40 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 014 HR180.013
41 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 015 HR180.014
42 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 016 HR180.015
43 

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $2,131,529,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 2,266,016,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,260,684,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +129,155,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥5,332,000 

*Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $2,260,684,000 for Operation of the 

National Park Service (NPS), $129,155,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and $5,332,000 below the budget request. This 

account funds the day-to-day operations of individual park units as 

well as regional and headquarters support operations of the NPS. 

Resource Stewardship.—The Committee recommends the following changes to the request: 

Enhance Ocean and Coastal Resource Stewardship: The Committee recommends $1,250,000 for this new program, $1,250,000 

below the budget request. The request includes ten new FTE positions. The Committee questions the need for such a large personnel 

increase. 

Visitor Services.—The Committee recommends the following 

change to the request: 

Advance Interpretive Renaissance Plan: The Committee recommends $500,000, $875,000 below the budget request. The Committee supports the Web Learning proposal; however, the Committee does not find that the $875,000 request to Support Accountability in Interpretation and Education has been satisfactorily justified in the budget request. 

Youth Partnerships Program.—The Committee recommends 

$7,822,000, as requested, $5,000,000 over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee supports the National Park Service 

component of the Secretary’s 21st Century Youth Conservation Initiative to provide high school and college aged youth internships 

and mentoring programs within the National Park System. In particular, the Committee supports the effort to place emphasis on recruiting candidates from socially and economically diverse backgrounds. 

Facility Maintenance and Operations.—The Committee recommends the following changes to the request: 

Facility Management Software System (FMSS): The Committee 

recommends $4,388,000 for the Facility Management Software System, $968,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$1,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee does not believe the increase has been satisfactorily justified in the budget request. 

Storm Preparedness.—The Committee has not provided the request of $2,207,000 to expand emergency storm damage preparedness. These funds were requested in anticipation of emergency repairs to restore park operations due to severe storms. The Committee traditionally funds such emergency activities through supplemental requests. 

Additional Guidelines.—The following additional directions and 

guidance are provided with respect to funding provided under this 

account: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
44 

Climate Change Initiative: The Committee recommends 

$10,000,000, as requested. There was no funding for the new climate change initiative in fiscal year 2009. Several bureaus within 

the Department of the Interior have requested funding for separate 

climate change offices and activities. The National Park Service 

has an important stewardship role which will be impacted by climate change. However, the Committee is concerned about duplication of effort and the lack of an apparent department-wide plan to 

ensure integrated assessments, tool development, planning and resource management activities. In particular, the Committee questions the need for a separate climate change office within the National Park Service. The Committee has included further language 

and direction on this issue in the front of this report. 

National Mall Concerts.—The Committee directs the National 

Park Service to continue making financial contributions towards 

the summer concerts series staged on the Capitol Grounds. Within 

the amounts approved for park support, the Service shall increase 

funding for this program by $350,000 over the level provided in fiscal year 2009. 

Cultural Resource Stewardship.—In October 2008, the National 

Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) issued a report entitled 

‘‘Saving Our History: A Review of National Park Cultural Resource 

Programs.’’ This report made several recommendations to improve 

the Park Service’s stewardship of cultural resources, including: new 

performance measures, park superintendent accountability, museum management, funding and staffing. Nearly two-thirds of the 

391 national park units were created because of their historic and 

cultural resources. The NAPA report indicated that in 1995 cultural resource staffing and natural resource staffing were roughly 

the same. However, since that time, staffing for cultural resources 

has decreased by 27 percent, while staffing for natural resources 

has increased by 31 percent. The Committee urges the Director to 

review the NAPA findings and prepare a report for this Committee 

within 90 days of enactment of this Act on how future budgets will 

address the recommendations in the NAPA report. 

Brown v. Board of Education Foundation.—The Committee has 

included the request for this site within the Operations of the National Park Service. 

Regional Reorganizations.—The Committee has recently become 

aware of a planned reorganization of the Northeast Regional Office 

of the Park Service. Prior to finalizing its plan, the Service is directed to report to the Committee on its plan for managing the current programs administered by the Boston Regional Office and how 

the Service proposes to change the staffing plan for that office. 

Recreation Fees.—The Committee is aware of the consistent problem the Service has in obligating recreational fee revenues. The 

carryover of fee revenues has averaged over $270,000,000 in the 

last 3 years with 70 percent of this amount attributable to the collecting parks. Given the Service’s large backlogs in several of its 

programs, it is clear that change is needed to address this problem. 

Existing authority provides sufficient flexibility to address this 

problem by reducing the allocation of fee revenues to the largest 

collecting parks from 80 percent to 60 percent, thereby allowing the 

difference to be directed to priority projects that are ready for obligation in other parks. The Committee directs that NPS immeVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
45 

diately begin allocating no more than 60 percent to the parks that 

carryover $4,000,000 or more from the previous fiscal year in unobligated balances. The Service may return some or all of the 20 percent difference, if the park area can demonstrate an immediate 

need to retain and obligate a project or projects that rank high on 

the Service’s priority list. 

If by taking this action the Service is unable to show significant 

improvement in the obligation rate and use of fee revenues, the 

Committee will take further steps. The Committee further directs 

that the Service use these funds to meet nonrecurring servicewide 

priority needs that contribute to reduction in maintenance backlogs, enhanced visitor services and improved resource management 

and preservation. 

Sesquicentennial Civil War Planning.—The Sesquicentennial of 

the Civil War will provide a unique opportunity for the National 

Park Service to present itself to millions of Americans and foreign 

tourists. The Committee encourages the National Park Service, in 

collaboration with the Civil War Preservation Trust and other organizations, to update the content of its website and the information 

available at its Civil War Parks and to employ modern technology 

and adaptive and interactive media to present this information to 

the public. 

PARK PARTNERSHIP PROJECT GRANTS

Park Partnership Project Grants is a matching grant program, 

which allows the Park Service to fund merit-based signature 

projects and programs throughout the park system. It allows the 

Park Service to leverage, from non-federal sources, no less than 50 

percent of the total cost of each project in the form of donated cash, 

assets, or a pledge of donation guaranteed by an irrevocable letter 

of credit. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 25,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 25,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +25,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the new Park Partnership Project Grants, as requested in the budget. No funds were 

provided for this program in fiscal year 2009. This program was developed to help celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of the National Park System. The Committee believes that projects and programs funded through this account should be worthy of that milestone. Therefore, the Committee urges the Director to fund signature projects and programs consistent with the original stated intent of the program. In addition, the Committee directs the Service 

to provide a report within 90 days of enactment of this Act, listing 

the projects selected, the criteria used for the selections and the 

funds allotted to each project from both Federal and non-federal 

sources. The report should also include a schedule for completion 

of each project. 

The Committee understands that approximately $10,000,000 

worth of projects were selected prior to the enactment of the fiscal 

year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The Committee directs the 

Service to include in the above-referenced report an explanation of 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
46 

how these projects will be funded and if the funds provided through 

this bill will be used to cover those projects. 

NATIONAL RECREATION AND PRESERVATION

The National Recreation and Preservation account provides for 

outdoor recreation planning, preservation of cultural and national 

heritage resources, technical assistance to Federal, State and local 

agencies, and administration of Historic Preservation Fund grants. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $59,684,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 53,908,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 59,386,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥298,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +5,478,000 

The Committee recommends $59,386,000 for National Recreation 

and Preservation, $298,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $5,478,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommends the following changes to the request. 

Heritage Areas Partnership Program.—The Committee recommends $17,814,000 for the Heritage Areas Partnership Program, 

$2,112,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $2,078,000 

above the budget request. These funds finance grants to local nonprofit groups in support of historical and cultural recognition, preservation and tourism activities. The Committee has recommended 

this increase to allow funding for the expanded number of heritage 

partnerships authorized by Congress in the Omnibus Public Lands 

Act of 2009. The number of authorized partnerships has increased 

during the last two years from 27 to 49, including 9 new areas authorized in March 2009. The Committee recommendation will provide at least $150,000 to the new areas without approved plans. 

The Park Service is directed to allocate funding to the heritage 

areas based on competitive criteria, following the general approach 

used in 2008. The Committee continues to direct the NPS to develop new guidelines for this program that include self-sufficiency 

plans for all heritage areas within a reasonable period of time. 

Statutory or Contract Aid.—The Committee recommends 

$1,900,000 for Statutory or Contract Aid, $3,700,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The President did not request funding 

for this program. These funds are to be allocated as follows: 

Angel Island Immigration Center (CA)—$1,000,000 

Star Spangled Banner National Historic Trail —$500,000 

Chesapeake Bay Gateways—$400,000 

Japanese American Confinement Sites.—The Committee continues to recognize the importance of preserving these sites, and 

the stories of those affected by the actions of the Federal government. Because of the importance of these areas to current and future generations, the Committee has included the following efforts 

across several Park Service accounts. The Committee has included 

$2,500,000, which is $1,500,000 above the request, for the Japanese 

American Site Grants program. The Committee has also included 

$350,000 in land acquisition, as requested, to acquire 17 acres at 

the Minidoka National Historic Site in Idaho. Additionally, the 

Committee has included new bill language in Title I, General Provisions, that will expand the acquisition boundary of the Minidoka 

National Historic Site in Idaho and the Heart Mountain site in WyVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
47 

oming. This language will allow the National Park Service to purchase additional lands from willing sellers in future years. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

The Historic Preservation Fund allows the State historic preservation offices to perform a variety of functions. These include State 

management and administration of existing grant obligations; review and advice on Federal projects and actions; determinations 

and nominations to the National Register; Tax Act certifications; 

and technical preservation services. The States also review properties to develop data for planning use. Funding in this account 

also supports direct grants to qualifying organizations for individual preservation projects and for activities in support of heritage 

tourism and local historic preservation. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 * ........................................................... $69,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 77,675,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 90,675,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +21,175,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +13,000,000 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $90,675,000 for historic preservation programs, $21,175,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $13,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommends the following changes to the request. 

Preserve America.—The Committee recommends $6,175,000 for 

the Preserve America program, $3,000,000 above the budget request. This program was not funded in fiscal year 2009. The Preserve America program provides small grants to local communities 

in support of heritage tourism, education and historic preservation 

planning activities. 

Save America’s Treasures.—The Committee recommends 

$30,000,000 for the Save America’s Treasures program, 

$10,000,000 above fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $10,000,000 

above the budget request. These funds are used to make small, 

one-time grants for specific local historic preservation projects to 

preserve a building or artifact which might otherwise be lost to future generations. All projects require a 50 percent match. The bill 

provides $5,310,000 for the following specific projects with the remainder to be awarded based on the national competition conducted by the Park Service: 

State Project Amount 

AL ..................................................... Historic Fort Payne Coal and Iron Building Rehabilitation ...................... $150,000 

AL ..................................................... Historic Montevallo Main Hall Renovation ............................................... $150,000 

AL ..................................................... Swayne Hall Historic Restoration and Renovation ................................... $100,000 

CT ..................................................... Harriet Beecher Stowe Center Preservation .............................................. $150,000 

CT ..................................................... Sterling Opera House Renovation ............................................................. $150,000 

CO .................................................... Shenandoah-Dives Mill National Historic Landmark ................................ $150,000 

ID ...................................................... Historic Old Pen Site Stabilization Project ............................................... $150,000 

IL ...................................................... Repairs to Historic Chicago Landmark .................................................... $50,000 

KY ..................................................... Judge Joseph Holt House Historic Restoration ......................................... $150,000 

MA .................................................... Hancock Shaker Village Restoration ......................................................... $150,000 

MA .................................................... Stockbridge Mission House Renovation .................................................... $117,000 

MD .................................................... Harmony Hall Restoration ......................................................................... $100,000 

MN .................................................... CSPS Sokol Hall ........................................................................................ $150,000 

MN .................................................... Restoration of Historic Coe Mansion ........................................................ $150,000 

MT .................................................... City of Bozeman Main Street Historic District Restoration ..................... $150,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
48 

State Project Amount 

NC .................................................... Bellamy Mansion Slave Quarters .............................................................. $100,000 

NJ ..................................................... Georgian Court Mansion Restoration ........................................................ $200,000 

NJ ..................................................... South Orange Village Hall Restoration ..................................................... $150,000 

NY ..................................................... Historic Owego Municipal Building Rehabilitation ................................... $150,000 

NY ..................................................... Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Restoration ............................................. $150,000 

NY ..................................................... Tarrytown Music Hall Restoration ............................................................. $150,000 

NY ..................................................... Village Park Historic Preservation ............................................................ $150,000 

PA ..................................................... Hatborough Union Library Restoration ..................................................... $38,000 

PA ..................................................... Saylor Cement Kilns Historic Preservation ............................................... $200,000 

PR ..................................................... San Juan North Portal Restoration ........................................................... $150,000 

SC ..................................................... Chesterfield Courthouse Restoration ........................................................ $150,000 

SC ..................................................... Cypress Historic Meeting Compound ........................................................ $200,000 

SC ..................................................... Modjeska Simkins Home Restoration ....................................................... $150,000 

TN ..................................................... Blount Mansion Historic Restoration ........................................................ $200,000 

UT ..................................................... Historic Fisher Mansion Restoration Project ............................................ $150,000 

VA ..................................................... Belgian Building Preservation .................................................................. $150,000 

VA ..................................................... Chesterfield County Historic Preservation ................................................ $150,000 

VA ..................................................... Fort Ward Park Preservation ..................................................................... $75,000 

WA .................................................... Schooner Adventuress Restoration ........................................................... $180,000 

WI ..................................................... Bayfield Historic Courthouse Restoration ................................................. $150,000 

WV .................................................... Claymont Court Historic Site Restoration ................................................. $150,000 

WV .................................................... Cottrill’s Opera House Restoration ........................................................... $150,000 

Additional Guidance.—The following additional directions and 

guidance are provided with respect to funding provided under this 

account: 

State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices.—The Committee 

supports the long standing efforts of the State and Tribal Historic 

Preservation Offices to identify and protect irreplaceable historic 

and archeological resources. The Committee is pleased to provide 

the requested increase of $5,000,000 for these important programs 

and encourages the Service to seek additional future increases. 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Grants.— 

The Committee remains strongly supportive of HBCU historic preservation activities. The ARRA provided $15,000,000 to support 

these projects. However, there continues to be significant carryover 

balances in this program. The Committee looks forward to providing additional funding once the carryover balances have been reduced. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2009 * ........................................................... $233,158,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 205,991,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 214,691,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥17,830,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +8,700,000 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $214,691,000 for construction, 

$17,830,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$8,700,000 above the budget request. These amounts fund major 

repairs and new construction for assets throughout the NPS. The 

Committee notes that the requested reduction to this account is in 

part due to reduced expenditures on the Modified Waters projects 

in the Everglades and in light of commitments made with the 

ARRA funds. The Committee expects the Service to continue to 

make progress on the Modified Waters project in 2010 with the 

funds provided in prior years and carried over into 2010. The ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
49 

mittee has approved the amount requested by the President and 

adds funds for the following projects: 

State Project Committee recommendation 

AZ .......... Saguaro National Park Trail Improvements .............................................................................. $398,000 

CA .......... Joshua Tree National Park Visitor Center ................................................................................. 300,000 

DC .......... African American War Memorial ............................................................................................... 220,000 

FL ........... Everglades modified waters delivery system ............................................................................ 4,200,000 

FL ........... Castillo de San Marcos National Monument restoration ......................................................... 500,000 

IN ........... Indiana Dunes restore Good Fellow Lodge ............................................................................... 1,000,000 

MI ........... Keweenaw Park Union building ................................................................................................ 1,380,000 

NJ ........... Sandy Hook Repair Historic Gun Battery .................................................................................. 800,000 

NY .......... Fire Island Land Trust Historic Restoration ............................................................................. 250,000 

OH .......... Cuyahoga Valley National Park Site and Structure rehabilitation program ............................ 500,000 

OK .......... Chickasaw National Recreation Area visitor center ................................................................. 500,000 

OR .......... Crater Lake visitor education center ........................................................................................ 350,000 

PA .......... Valley Forge Rehabilitate welcome center ................................................................................ 325,000 

TN .......... Moccasin Bend National Archeological District ........................................................................ 500,000 

UT .......... Timpanogos Cave Visitor Center ............................................................................................... 1,600,000 

VA .......... Fort Hunt NCO Quarters restoration ......................................................................................... 250,000 

WI ........... Ice Age National Scenic Trail ................................................................................................... 265,000 

WI ........... Apostle Islands to continue lighthouse restoration initiative .................................................. 2,000,000 

Use of prior year balances ....................................................................................................... ¥6,500,000 

Subtotal ............................................................................................................................ 15,338,000 

Total ............................................................................................................................. 8,838,000 

Bill Language.—Authorized Special Resource Studies.—The Committee has included bill language to direct the National Park Service to complete a special resource study along the route of the Mississippi River in the counties contiguous to the river from its headwaters in the State of Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico. 

The following additional directions and guidance are provided 

with respect to funding provided under this account: 

Use of Prior Year Balances: The Committee recommends a 

$6,500,000 redirection using prior year balances. As noted earlier, 

the Park Service has significant balances in recreation fee revenue. 

That revenue should be used to address priority visitor-related 

projects. 

Everglades Restoration.—The Committee recommends $8,400,000 

for the Modified Waters project. This includes the NPS request of 

$4,200,000 and an additional $4,200,000 for the Corps of Engineers, which was requested by the President in the Corps’ budget. 

Continued funding for the Modified Waters project would allow for 

continuous work on the Tamiami Trail Bridge and road modifications as a first step to restore water flow to the park. 

Since the early 1990’s this Committee has invested more than 

$1.3 billion for programs and projects to restore the Everglades, including lands for habitat conservation; water quality and water 

quantity improvement; restoration of more natural water flows; removal of invasive exotics and development of sound science. This 

large investment reflects the fact that the restoration of the Everglades is the largest environmental restoration project in the 

United States. Although much has been accomplished through the 

work of the Department, other Federal agencies and the State of 

Florida, much remains to be done to achieve restoration. It is critical that the bridging of the Tamiami Trail be completed at the earliest possible date so that flows can be restored between Everglades 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
50 

National Park and the State-managed Water Conservation Areas. 

The Committee agrees with the recent assessment of the National 

Academy of Sciences, which observed that unless restoration 

projects are completed soon, we may lose the opportunity to restore 

and preserve this unique and world class resource. The Committee 

urges the Department to continue its important work with its partners to focus on those projects with the greatest restoration benefits. 

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.—The Committee 

has included $500,000 for preliminary planning and design of the 

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument Restoration Project 

with the understanding that construction will not commence until 

fee simple title of the affected property is conveyed to the Federal 

government by the City of St. Augustine, FL and the State of Florida. 

Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park: The Committee 

directs that $500,000 shall be made available to undertake the 

preparation of the Paterson Great Falls NHP general management 

plan. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

RESCISSION

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. ¥$30,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... ¥30,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... ¥30,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends the rescission of $30,000,000 in the 

annual contract authority provided by 16 U.S.C. 46l–10a. This authority has not been used in years, and there are no plans to use 

it in fiscal year 2010. The Committee does not agree with the Administration’s proposal to permanently cancel the authority. 

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $64,190,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 98,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 103,222,000 

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +39,032,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +5,222,000 

The Committee recommends $103,222,000 for land acquisition, $39,032,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$5,222,000 above the budget request. 

The distribution of the funding is as follows: 

State Project Committee 

recommendation 

AR .......... Ft. Smith National Historic Site ................................................................................................ $362,000 

AZ .......... Petrified Forest National Park ................................................................................................... 4,575,000 

CA .......... Golden Gate National Recreation Area ..................................................................................... 5,000,000 

GA .......... Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area ........................................................................ 3,100,000 

ID ........... Minidoka National Historic Site ................................................................................................ 350,000 

KY .......... Cumberland Gap National Historic Park .................................................................................. 500,000 

MO ......... Harry S. Truman National Historic Site .................................................................................... 1,300,000 

MS .......... Natchez National Historic Park ................................................................................................. 264,000 

Multi ...... Civil War Battlefield Grants ...................................................................................................... 9,000,000 

NC .......... Guilford Courthouse National Military Park .............................................................................. 880,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
51 

State Project Committee 

recommendation 

NM ......... Petroglygh National Monument ................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

SC .......... Congaree National Park ............................................................................................................ 1,320,000 

TX ........... Big Thicket National Preserve ................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

TX ........... Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Park ............................................................................. 3,120,000 

VA/NC ..... Blue Ridge Parkway .................................................................................................................. 1,703,000 

VA .......... Fredricksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields NMP ....................................................... 200,000 

VA .......... Prince William Forest Park ........................................................................................................ 425,000 

VI ........... Virgin Islands National Park ..................................................................................................... 4,500,000 

WA .......... Mt. Ranier National Park .......................................................................................................... 2,150,000 

WA .......... Olympic National Park .............................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

WA .......... San Juan Island National Historic Park ................................................................................... 6,000,000 

WI ........... Ice Age National Scenic Trail ................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Sub-total .......................................................................................................................... 55,749,000 

Emergencies and hardships ..................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Acquisition management .......................................................................................................... 9,473,000 

Inholdings .................................................................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Total, Federal Acquisitions ............................................................................................... 73,222,000 

State assistance program ......................................................................................................... 27,200,000 

Administrative expenses ........................................................................................................... 2,800,000 

Total, State assistance program ..................................................................................... 30,000,000 

Total, Land acquisition program ..................................................................................... 103,222,000

The Committee has included language on land acquisition in the 

front section of this report. 

Bill Language.—The bill includes new authority for the National 

Park Service to transfer funds to the Federal Highway Administration, without limitation. The Park Service should present its plans 

for transfers that will take place in 2010 within 60 days of enactment of this Act and a report on transfers that were executed during fiscal year 2010 within 60 days after the end of the fiscal year. 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) was established by 

an act of Congress on March 3, 1879 to provide a permanent Federal agency to conduct up-to-date systematic and scientific ‘‘classification of the public lands, and examination of the geological structure, mineral resources, and products of the National domain.’’ The 

USGS is the Federal government’s largest earth-science research 

agency and the primary source of data on the Nation’s surface and 

ground water resources. Its activities include conducting detailed 

assessments of the energy and mineral potential of the Nation’s 

land and State offshore areas; investigating and issuing warnings 

of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other geologic 

and hydrologic hazards; research on the geologic structure of the 

Nation; studies of the geologic features, structure, processes, and 

history of other planets of our solar system; topographic surveys of 

the Nation and preparation of topographic and thematic maps and 

related cartographic products; development and production of digital cartographic data bases and products; collection on a routine 

basis of data on the quantity, quality, and use of surface and 

ground water; research in hydraulics and hydrology; the coordination of all Federal water data acquisition; the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support the sound manageVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:35 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
52 

ment and conservation of our Nation’s biological resources; and the 

application of remotely sensed data to the development of new cartographic, geologic, and hydrologic research techniques for natural 

resources planning and management, surveys, investigations, and 

research. 

The Committee recommendations for the USGS are based on 

changes to the President’s budget request. Unless otherwise stated, 

the Committee approves the items in the budget justification and 

supporting materials from the Survey. The amounts recommended 

by the Committee compared with the budget estimates by activity 

are shown in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
53 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 021 HR180.016
54 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 022 HR180.017
55 

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $1,043,803,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 1,097,844,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,105,744,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +61,941,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +7,900,000 

*Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $1,105,744,000 for surveys, inves- tigations, and research, $61,941,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $7,900,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes that it has fully funded the requested funding increase 

of $3,000,000 for the New Energy Frontier initiative on alternative 

energy research in several budget activities and the request for 

$2,000,000 for the Survey’s component of the 21st Century Youth 

Conservation Corps initiative. The Committee bill also fully funds 

the requested increase of $22,000,000 for climate change science as 

discussed below. 

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing.—The 

Committee recommends $145,590,000 for geographic research and 

remote sensing, $3,458,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $1,650,000 above the budget request. The recommendation accepts the Survey’s request to move the National Geospatial Program from the Enterprise Information activity to this activity. The 

Committee has added $1,650,000 above the request to fully support 

an ongoing commitment for the USGS to run the Civil Applications 

Committee (CAC) and associated supporting requirements. The 

Committee expects that the USGS will continue to chair the Civil 

Applications Committee, which they coordinate with 12 member 

and 6 associate member agencies; the CAC provides Federal civil 

agency access totechnology and information. Bill language has been 

added to clarify that the CAC total program level is $2,000,000. 

Funds provided by this Act for the Civil Applications Committee 

shall not be used for law enforcement purposes. The recommendation fully funds the budget request of $40,200,000 for the Landsat 

Data Continuity Mission and the ongoing Landsat 5/7 program. 

The Committee encourages the Survey to maintain the funding 

for the Chesapeake Bay geographic analysis and monitoring effort 

at the fiscal year 2008 level. 

The Committee is aware that the Survey entered into a cooperative agreement in 2002 for an innovative partnership whereby 

North Carolina would provide State-derived elevation data in the 

form of a new digital State map to the National Mapping program. 

The State has provided all of the data to USGS, and the map provided by North Carolina is available on the USGS website. The 

Committee understands that the terms of the cooperative agreement may not have been fulfilled. The Committee urges the USGS 

to work with the State of North Carolina on this matter. 

Geologic Hazards, Resources and Processes.—The Committee recommends $248,231,000 for geologic hazards, resources, and processes, $6,089,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$1,250,000 above the budget request. The Committee has added 

$1,000,000 above the request in the earthquake hazards subactivity 

for critically needed LIDAR and other seismological studies of 

areas with high earthquake risk and community danger. The recVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:35 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
56 

ommendation also adds $250,000 for the Global Seismographic Network. The Committee remains encouraged by the ongoing multihazards initiative and encourages the Survey to continue to build 

on this useful effort. 

The Committee notes that is has fully funded the request for 

$4,000,000 for urgently needed extended continental shelf mapping 

to support a U.S. claim to additional continental shelf area, such 

as in the Arctic Ocean. 

Water Resources Investigations.—The Committee recommends 

$229,661,000 for water resources investigations, $8,297,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $1,780,000 above the budget 

request. The Committee has funded the requested increase of 

$5,000,000 for the National Streamflow information program. The 

Water Resources Research Act programs are fully funded at the request of $6,500,000. Changes to the request include $300,000 for 

the South Arkansas Sparta aquifer recovery study, $200,000 for the 

Hood Canal dissolved oxygen study, WA, $280,000 for the McHenry 

County groundwater protection program, IL and $1,000,000 for the 

ongoing US-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act study. 

Biological Research.—The Committee recommends $202,494,000 

for biological research, $17,164,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $3,220,000 above the budget request. The Committee has included the requested increases of $5,000,000 for the 

new climate change science support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service effort, $4,200,000 to expand research on the changing Arctic ecosystems, and $2,000,000 for the cooperative research units. 

The Committee recommendation includes a $2,000,000 increase 

within biological information management and delivery for support 

to coordinators of the national network of State conservation data 

agencies. The recommendation also includes $220,000 for the Silvio 

O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Lab, MA, ongoing basic and 

applied research for the improved management of habitat for endangered fish species, fish passage, natural resources, and ultimately the economy and environment of the Connecticut River watershed and Long Island Sound. The Committee has added 

$1,000,000 to continue scientific support to the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds restoration effort, CA. 

The Committee remains concerned about the destructive fish disease, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, and encourages the Survey to 

pursue research on this issue. The Committee is also concerned 

about the impacts of the Chytrid disease on amphibian species 

worldwide and encourages the Survey to work with the international conservation community on this issue. In addition, the 

Committee remains concerned about increased mortality of bats in 

the northeastern United States from white nose syndrome and encourages the USGS to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

research the cause and extent of the problem and develop a mitigation plan. 

Enterprise Information.—The Committee recommends 

$45,969,000 for enterprise information as requested, $3,315,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The recommendation includes the $2,000,000 for the USGS portion of the 21st Century 

Youth Conservation Corps initiative. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
57 

Science Support.—The Committee recommends $69,225,000 for 

science support as requested, $1,795,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level. 

Facilities.—The Committee recommends $106,397,000 for facilities as requested, $4,274,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level. 

Global Climate Change Research Program.— The Committee recommends $58,177,000 for the global climate change research program as requested, $17,549,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level. The recommendation fully funds the requested program increases above fiscal year 2009 of $5,000,000 for the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, $7,000,000 for various 

carbon sequestration scientific activities, and $5,000,000 for other 

climate change science. The Committee’s direction on coordinating 

climate change activities and completing the plan directed in fiscal 

year 2009 are in the front of this report. 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) is responsible for collecting, distributing, accounting and auditing revenues from mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands. In fiscal year 2009, MMS 

expects to collect and distribute about $15.6 billion from active 

Federal and Indian leases. The MMS also manages the offshore energy and mineral resources on the Nation’s outer continental shelf 

(OCS). To date, the OCS program has been focused primarily on oil 

and gas leasing. Over the past several years, MMS has been exploring the possible development of other marine mineral resources, especially sand and gravel. With the passage of the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990, MMS assumed increased responsibility for oil 

spill research, including the promotion of increased oil spill response capabilities, and for oil spill financial responsibility certifications of offshore platforms and pipelines. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, MMS has new responsibilities over Federal offshore 

renewable energy and related uses of America’s offshore public 

lands. Fiscal year 2007 marked the start of the Coastal Impact Assistance Program; it will provide $1 billion in mandatory funding 

over 4 years from offshore oil and gas receipts to coastal States 

(primarily Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) and counties for environmental restoration and other important civic projects. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
58 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 024 here hr180.018
59 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 025 here hr180.019
60 

ROYALTY AND OFFSHORE MINERALS MANAGEMENT

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $157,373,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 174,317,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 174,317,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 ........................................................................ +16,944,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 .................................................................... 0 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $174,317,000 for 

royalty and offshore minerals management, as requested, 

$16,944,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee recommends use of $166,730,000 in receipts and cost recovery fees, which agrees with the Administration request to increase 

use of receipts by $10,000,000 and collect new inspection fees totaling $10,000,000. 

The Committee has provided the requested increase for renewable energy in the Minerals Management Service. The Committee 

urges the Administration to proceed in this effort with sufficient 

planning and public input. The Service should continue to develop 

a comprehensive alternative energy assessment on the Outer Continental Shelf that delineates those areas that they would propose 

be available for offshore alternative energy production, policies for 

collecting fees and royalties, siting and operational standards, reclamation standards, environmental protections needed, and the 

staff and resources needed to administer a comprehensive alternative energy program. 

The Committee notes over the last several years there have been 

expanded areas available for oil and gas leasing in the Beaufort 

and Chukchi Seas, and approved exploration plans involving seismic testing and exploratory drilling in these waters. These waters 

currently host a rich diversity of wildlife and fish resources, and 

are critical to the survival of the subsistence culture of the Inupiat 

people of Arctic Alaska. To ensure sound science-based planning 

and decision-making with regard to these important resources, a 

comprehensive assessment of the health, biodiversity, and functioning of Arctic marine and coastal ecosystems, including the impacts of industrial activities and of climate change, is needed. As 

a first step in conducting such a comprehensive assessment, the 

Committee believes that there should be a scientific gap analysis 

conducted by an independent entity, such as the National Research 

Council, to assess existing scientific information and identify additional information necessary to ensure adequate environmental review of proposed industrial activities in the region. This assessment should also include recommendations for obtaining the identified needed scientific information. 

The Committee supports the Administration’s efforts to secure a 

balanced energy portfolio that carefully weighs what is in the best 

interest of our energy-dependent nation with what is in the best interest of our natural environment. Future coordinated efforts to 

pursue additional oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS) must include the opportunity to apply advanced technologies, be based on the best available science, and take into account the potential environmental impacts of such potential development. Therefore, the Committee directs the MMS, pursuant to 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to conduct a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to evaluate poVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
61 

tential significant environmental effects of multiple geological and 

geophysical activities on the Atlantic OCS. Earlier this year, the 

MMS issued its Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare such a PEIS and 

subsequently accepted public comments on the NOI. The Committee believes it is not only appropriate and timely for the MMS 

to move forward with the PEIS, it is also consistent with the Department’s stated desire to fill in information gaps relating to resource potential in the OCS. 

OIL SPILL RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $6,303,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 6,303,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 6,303,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 ........................................................................ 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 .................................................................... 0 

The Committee recommends $6,303,000 for oil spill research, the 

same as the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the budget request. 

This funding is derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, to 

conduct oil spill research and financial responsibility and inspection activities associated with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Public 

Law 101–380. 

Administrative provisions.—The Committee recommendation continues language from the fiscal year 2009 enacted bill on a legislative matter which deducts 2 percent of State royalties to help cover 

Federal administrative costs, resulting in a $49,000,000 scoring 

credit for the bill. 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSMRE), through its regulation and technology account, regulates 

surface coal mining operations to ensure that the environment is 

reclaimed once mining is completed. The OSMRE accomplishes this 

mission by providing grants to those States that maintain their 

own regulatory and reclamation programs and by conducting oversight of State programs. Further, the OSMRE administers the regulatory programs in the States that do not have their own programs and on Federal and Tribal lands. Through its Abandoned 

Mine Land (AML) reclamation program, the OSMRE provides 

funding for environmental restoration at abandoned coal mines 

based on fees collected from current coal production operations. In 

their un-reclaimed condition these abandoned sites endanger public 

health and safety, and prevent the beneficial use of land and water 

resources. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

amendments of 2006 dramatically changed the manner in which 

AML funds are distributed. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee for each Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement appropriation account, compared with the budget estimates by activity, are shown 

in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
62 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 026 here hr180.020
63 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 027 here hr180.021
64 

REGULATION AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $120,256,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 127,280,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 127,280,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 ........................................................................ +7,024,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 .................................................................... 0 

The Committee recommends $127,280,000 for regulation and 

technology, as requested, $7,024,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $44,446,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 32,088,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 32,088,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 ........................................................................ ¥12,358,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 .................................................................... 0 

The Committee recommends $32,088,000 for the Abandoned 

Mine Reclamation Fund, as requested, $12,358,000 below the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level. 

The fiscal year 2009 enacted bill provided funding for the State 

emergency grants as a one-time bridge for States to utilize their 

mandatory funding for this purpose. This year, the Committee recommendation follows the Administration’s request to eliminate the 

funding for these grants. The Committee understands that there 

are still unobligated funds from previous years for these emergency 

grants that will further assist the States in transitioning to mandatory funding. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

The Bureau of Indian Affairs was founded in 1824 to establish 

a government-to-government relationship and trust responsibility 

that results from treaties with Native groups. The Bureau delivers 

services to over 1.7 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

In addition, the Bureau provides education programs to Native 

Americans through the operation of 169 schools, and 14 dormitories. The Bureau administers more than 56 million acres of 

land held in trust status. Over 10 million of these acres belong to 

individuals and 46 million acres are held in trust for Tribes. 

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $2,128,630,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 2,278,809,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,300,099,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 ........................................................................ +171,469,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 .................................................................... +21,290,000 

*Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
65 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 028 here hr180.022
66 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 029 here hr180.023
67 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 030 here hr180.024
68 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 031 here hr180.025
69 

Tribal Government.—The Committee recommends $422,862,000 

for Tribal Government activities, $20,331,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and $6,290,000 above the budget request. The 

increase to the request is for contract support costs. 

Human Services.—The Committee recommends $136,996,000 for 

human services, as requested, $452,000 below the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level. 

The Committee notes that additional funding was provided for 

Native American housing programs in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Committee is concerned about the 

coordination of Federal housing programs for Native Americans 

and Alaska Natives. The Committee directs the Department of the 

Interior to work with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each Department 

and coordinate the delivery of housing programs to ensure maximum benefit and avoid duplicative efforts. 

Trust—Natural Resources Management.—The Committee recommends $174,768,000 for natural resources management, 

$27,058,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$14,000,000 above the budget request. Changes to the request include increases of $2,000,000 for fish, wildlife, and parks and $12,000,000 for rights protection. 

The Committee believes that the natural resource programs 

within the Bureau of Indian Affairs have been chronically underfunded. The Committee has provided additional resources in the 

rights protection program and hatcheries program to allow Tribes 

to respond to changing climates and conserve natural resources. 

The Bureau should use the increase provided for rights protection 

to continue ongoing programs carried out by Tribes and Tribal organizations that conserve native fisheries, manage Tribal wetlands, 

and conserve and manage natural resources. The increase provided 

for fish, wildlife, and parks is for fish hatchery operations. 

Trust—Real Estate Services.—The Committee recommends 

$152,493,000 for real estate services and oversight, as requested, 

$2,406,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Education.—The Committee recommends $796,300,000 for education, as requested, $80,147,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Changes to the request include an increase of $2,000,000 for student transportation and a decrease of $2,000,000 for post secondary 

programs. The Committee has agreed to the request to provide 

$50,000,000 to forward-fund the Tribal colleges and universities. 

The Committee understands that this is one-time funding that will 

be distributed to other Bureau programs in the next fiscal year. 

The Committee understands that the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma’s Jones Academy is one of the highest ranked schools in the 

State of Oklahoma. The Committee previously urged the Bureau to 

work to reinstate the academy in the Bureau school system. The 

Bureau has advised the Committee, however, that there could be 

substantial costs incurred if all academic programs or schools terminated by Federal action during the termination era were reinstated into the system. The Committee directs the Bureau to study 

and report to the Committee within 180 days after the enactment 

of this Act on the impacts of allowing reinstatement of termination 

era academic programs or schools that were removed from the BuVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
70 

reau school system between 1951 and 1972. The report should delineate the number of schools or academic programs at schools 

funded by the Federal government terminated during this era, 

whether those schools were terminated with the agreement or consent of the Tribal governing body (as then constituted), the financial impact of constructing a facility with Tribal resources and 

without Federal construction funds, and the increased costs to the 

Bureau if these schools were added to the system. 

Public Safety and Justice.—The Committee recommends 

$303,855,000 for public safety and justice, as requested, 

$33,070,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

For the past two years, the Committee has provided a substantial increase for law enforcement programs in Indian Country to 

begin to address the epidemic levels of sexual and domestic violence, substance abuse, and related criminal problems. The Committee applauds the Administration for requesting additional funds 

to continue to address this issue. The Committee directs the Department to do the following: • Conduct meaningful and timely consultation with Tribal leaders and Tribal justice officials in the development of regulatory 

policies and other actions that affect public safety and justice in Indian Country. • Participate, along with the Department of Justice, Tribal, and 

State officials in an interagency working group to clarify and resolve the law enforcement jurisdictional challenges that have hindered criminal investigations and prosecutions in Indian country, 

and to identify challenges and needs related to Tribal justice systems, including needs associated with secure law enforcement information sharing systems. The working group shall develop recommendations on how to streamline Federal, State and Tribal response to criminal investigations and prosecutions and shall submit a report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this 

Act. Among the goals established for the working group shall be 

the development of protocols to ensure that Federal law enforcement agencies that decline to initiate an investigation or that terminate an investigation of an alleged violation of Federal law in Indian country without referral for prosecution submit to the appropriate Tribal official a report describing the rationale for terminating the investigation; the type of crime alleged; the status of the 

alleged perpetrator; and the status of the victim. These protocols 

should also ensure that United States Attorneys coordinate with 

Tribal prosecutors sufficiently well in advance of prosecution deadlines mandated by the statute of limitations to permit Tribal prosecutors to pursue cases, as appropriate. The working group should 

also review and define the responsibilities of Assistant United 

States Attorneys serving as Tribal Liaisons in order to better coordinate the prosecution of crimes on reservations. 

• Coordinate with the Department of Justice to develop a priority list for detention facility construction, targeting Tribal areas 

with the greatest need, and work with Justice to incorporate the 

priority system into the ranking criteria for detention center 

grants. 

• Work with the Department of Justice to develop a voluntary 

annual training program for Tribal court officials and judges to 

promote improvements in Tribal judicial systems. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
71 

• Engage the services of the Office of Inspector General to ensure funds are spent wisely, goals and objectives for performance 

are established, and program results are measured. This evaluation 

should be used to refine the allocation of fiscal and human resources to have the greatest impact on reducing crime. 

Community and Economic Development.—The Committee recommends $44,910,000 for community and economic development, 

$1,321,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $1,000,000 

above the request. 

The Committee has provided an increase of $1,000,000 for the 

community development program. These funds should be used for 

job training programs that promote training and apprenticeship opportunities for Native Americans in the carpentry, electrical, 

plumbing, ironworking, welding, and other construction trades. 

Executive Direction and Administration Services.—The Committee recommends $267,915,000, as requested, $7,588,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $217,688,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 200,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 200,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥17,688,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

*Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

Education.—The Committee recommends $112,994,000 for education construction, as requested, $15,843,000 below the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. 

Public Safety and Justice.—The Committee recommends 

$39,407,000 for public safety and justice construction, as requested, 

$8,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

The Committee is pleased that the Administration retained funding added in fiscal year 2009 for detention center construction. The 

Committee urges the Bureau to work closely with the Department 

of Justice on a comprehensive detention center program that complements their detention center grant program. Additionally, the 

Bureau should construct justice centers where practicable, that integrate Tribal law enforcement facilities, Tribal court facilities and 

detention centers in the same location. 

Resources Management.—The Committee recommends 

$38,385,000 for resources management construction, as requested 

$1,921,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

General Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$2,064,000 for general administration, $4,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

Construction Management.—The Committee recommends 

$7,150,000 for construction management, as requested, $64,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
72 

INDIAN LAND AND WATER CLAIM SETTLEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS

PAYMENTS TO INDIANS

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $21,627,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 47,380,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 47,380,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +25,753,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $47,380,000 for Indian land and 

water claim settlements and miscellaneous payments to Indians, as 

requested, $25,753,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $8,186,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 8,215,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 8,215,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +29,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

*Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $8,215,000 for the Indian guaran- teed loan program account, as requested, $29,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level. 

INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION ACCOUNT

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 3,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 3,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Indian Land Consolidation account, as requested, $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. This program was previously administered in 

the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $107,156,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 118,836,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 118,836,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +11,680,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $118,836,000 for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Secretary, as requested, $11,680,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee has included language regarding appraisal services in the front of this report. 

The Committee understands that the relationship between the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of 

the Interior concerning the law enforcement activities on the 

Southwest border has improved. The DHS has worked closely with 

the Federal land managers on fence construction, daily patrol and 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
73 

interdiction activities, and the siting of surveillance and radio 

equipment. However, the public lands along the Southwest border 

contain some of the most environmentally diverse and sensitive 

habitats in the United States and must be protected and enhanced 

for future generations. To further protect the environment and improve the situation on the Southwest border, the Committee encourages the Department to work with the DHS to do the following: 

• Partner with the DHS to provide training for border patrol 

agents in the Southwest on the mission and management of Federal public lands that are adjacent to the Southwest border. The 

Department should also provide training on basic environmental 

stewardship and natural resource management principles that 

would benefit border patrol agents in their daily patrol and interdiction activities on environmentally sensitive public lands. 

• Work with the DHS to begin section 7 endangered species consultation on the daily operational, patrol and interdiction activities 

of the border patrol. 

• Work with the public lands managers and the Tohono 

O’Odham Nation to develop a plan for removing the massive 

amounts of trash left behind by undocumented immigrants. The 

Department should work with DHS to establish a trash removal 

fund that could be accessed by public land managers and the 

Tohono O’Odham Nation to remove trash in the highest priority environmentally sensitive areas. 

• Work to improve radio dispatch and interoperability for Federal law enforcement officers that patrol public lands in the Southwest, including ensuring that there are dispatch services available 

twenty-four hours a day. 

INSULAR AFFAIRS

ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) was established on August 4, 

1995, through Secretarial Order No. 3191, which also abolished the 

former Office of Territorial and International Affairs. The OIA has 

important responsibilities to help the United States government 

fulfill its responsibilities to the four U.S. territories of Guam, 

American Samoa (AS), U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and also the 

three freely associated States: the Federated States of Micronesia 

(FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Republic of Palau. The permanent and trust fund payments to the territories and the compact nations provide substantial financial resources to these governments. During fiscal year 2004 new financial arrangements for the Compacts of Free Association with the 

FSM and the RMI were implemented; this also included mandatory 

payments for certain activities previously provided in discretionary 

appropriations as well as Compact impact payments of $30,000,000 

per year split among Guam, CNMI, AS, and Hawaii. During fiscal 

year 2009 permanent funding of $359,477,000 will be made available to these governments in addition to the discretionary funding 

discussed below. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
74 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $78,665,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 81,077,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 83,995,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +5,330,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +2,918,000 

The amounts recommended by the Committee for the Office of 

Insular Affairs appropriations accounts compared with the budget 

estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
75 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 032 here hr180.026
76 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 033 here hr180.027
77 

The Committee recommends $83,995,000 for assistance to territories, $5,330,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$2,918,000 above the budget request. 

Territorial Assistance.—The Committee recommends $33,523,000 

for territorial assistance, $5,330,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $2,918,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommendation has discontinued specific funding for the 

Insular management controls subactivity but has transferred the 

funding to the technical assistance subactivity. The Office of Insular Affairs is encouraged to continue the management controls effort using technical assistance funding as appropriate. The recommendation fully funds the requested increase of $2,000,000 to 

begin to respond to the tremendous need for infrastructure in 

Guam as the military build-up proceeds. The recommendation includes a $900,000 increase for critically needed wastewater system 

repairs and improvements in the U.S. Virgin Islands as mandated 

by consent decree. The Committee has also added $2,018,000 to the 

technical assistance subactivity for high priority projects and 

$369,000 for the brown tree snake control and research effort, 

which is vital to protect islands throughout the Pacific. 

The Committee supports the Administration proposal to reestablish the position of Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs; however 

the funding of this office should not come out of the limited resources of the Office of Insular Affairs. The new officer should be 

funded in a manner similar to the other Interior Department assistant secretaries. 

American Samoa.—The Committee recommends $22,752,000 for 

American Samoa operations as requested, the same as the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level. 

Northern Mariana Islands/Covenant Grants.—The Committee 

recommends $27,720,000 for CNMI covenant grants as requested, 

the same as the budget request. 

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $5,318,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 5,318,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 5,318,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $5,318,000 for the Compact of Free 

Association as requested, the same as the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION, INSULAR AFFAIRS

The Committee recommendation includes bill language under 

this heading which is similar to language requested under both the 

Assistance to Territories and the Compact of Free Association accounts. This language will allow the Interior Department to transfer certain funds designated for Guam to the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, when requested by the Governor of Guam, as a subsidy for direct or guaranteed rural development loans to Guam for 

construction and repair projects. During the next ten years, the 

military will be moving major facilities and personnel to Guam, 

which will result in tremendous impacts on the island’s infrastrucVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
78 

ture. This language, which does not supplant any existing USDA 

authority, will help the government of Guam respond to this unprecedented change. 

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $62,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 65,076,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 65,076,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +3,026,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $65,076,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Solicitor, as requested, $3,026,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $45,953,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 48,590,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 48,590,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +2,637,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

*Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $48,590,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General, as requested, $2,637,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS

FEDERAL TRUST PROGRAMS

The Office of Special Trustee for American Indians was established by the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform 

Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–412). The Special Trustee is charged 

with general oversight of Indian trust asset reform efforts Department-wide to ensure proper and efficient discharge of the Secretary’s trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and individual Indians. The Office of the Special Trustee was created to ensure that 

the Department of the Interior establishes appropriate policies and 

procedures, develops necessary systems, and takes affirmative actions to reform the management of Indian trust funds. In carrying 

out the management and oversight of the Indian trust funds, the 

Secretary has a responsibility to ensure that trust accounts are 

properly maintained, invested and reported in accordance with the 

American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, 

Congressional action, and other applicable laws. 

The Special Trustee for American Indians also has responsibility 

for the related financial trust functions including deposit, investment, and disbursement of trust funds. The Department has responsibility for what may be the largest land trust in the world. 

Indian trust lands today encompass approximately 56 million acres 

of land—over 10 million acres belonging to individual Indians and 

nearly 46 million acres owned by Indian Tribes. On these lands, 

the Interior Department manages over 100,000 leases for indiVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
79 

vidual Indians and Tribes. Leasing, use permits, sale revenues, and 

investment income of over $460 million per year are collected into 

over 378,000 individual Indian money accounts, and almost $506 

million per year is collected into approximately 1,800 Tribal accounts. In addition, the trust manages approximately $2.9 billion 

in Tribal funds and $444 million in individual Indian funds. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $181,648,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 185,984,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 185,984,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +4,336,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $185,984,000 for Federal Trust programs, as requested, $4,336,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level. 

Indian Tribes routinely experience lengthy delays in obtaining 

appraisals from the Department for transactions involving the conveyance of Indian trust lands. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for requesting appraisals and the Office of the Special 

Trustee is responsible for procuring the appraisals. Appraisals are 

required for Indian Tribes and individual Indians to sell, acquire 

or exchange interests in trust land. Delays in obtaining appraisals 

also delay these transactions, which negatively impacts Tribal 

economies. The Committee encourages the Office of the Special 

Trustee and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to reevaluate how appraisals are requested and prepared for Indian trust lands and provide recommendations to the Committee on how these delays can 

be minimized. 

Bill Language.—As in previous fiscal years, the Committee has 

included bill language under the Office of Special Trustee that limits the amount of funding available for historical accounting to 

$56,536,000. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE PROGRAMS

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

The Bureau’s wildland fire management account supports fire activities for all Departmental bureaus, including the Bureau of Land 

Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Before fiscal year 2009 

this account was within the Bureau of Land Management appropriation. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $859,453,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 899,780,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 932,780,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +73,327,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +33,000,000 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $932,780,000 for wildland fire management at the Department of the Interior, $73,327,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 non-emergency enacted level and $33,000,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
80 

above the budget request. A total of $34,606,000 of this increase is 

for suppression activities. This discussion does not include the additional $75,000,000 provided for the emergency wildfire suppression contingency reserve fund. Additional discussion of wildfire 

issues is included in the front of this report. The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the budget estimates 

by activity are shown in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
81 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 034 here hr180.028
82 

Wildfire Preparedness.—The Committee recommends 

$290,452,000 for wildfire preparedness, $8,685,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level and $5,000,000 above the budget request. 

The increase is provided for fixed cost changes. The Committee believes that the Department and the Forest Service must work together, along with States and other partners, to maintain sufficient 

readiness with the preparedness program. The Committee expects 

that the Department will do its utmost to maintain wildfire suppression capability at least at the same levels as in fiscal years 

2008 and 2009. The Department should immediately notify the 

Committees on Appropriations if it appears that funding shortfalls 

may limit needed firefighting capacity. 

Wildfire Suppression Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$369,797,000 for fire suppression operations as requested, 

$34,606,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee recommendation fully meets the 10–year average expenditure on emergency and discretionary funded suppression actions 

which actually occurred, adjusted up for inflation. The Committee 

encourages the Administration and the Congress to provide better 

advance budgetary planning during the summer wildfire season so 

extra emergency resources can be provided if required. 

The Committee remains concerned about the high costs of large 

fire incidents. The Department of the Interior, along with the Forest Service, should ensure that cost containment is an important 

priority when suppressing wildland fires. Therefore, the Committee 

directs the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service to 

continue reports required previously and to examine, using independent panels, any individual wildfire incident which results in 

expenses greater than $10,000,000. 

Other Wildland Fire Management Operations.—The Committee 

recommends $272,531,000 for other national fire plan wildland fire 

operations, $30,036,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $28,000,000 above the request. The Committee recommends increasing the hazardous fuels reduction program by $28,000,000 

over the request. Other subactivities are funded at the requested 

levels. 

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... $75,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 75,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +75,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for the newly created 

wildland fire suppression contingency reserve fund as requested. 

The Committee notes that the recommended bill also has increased 

base funding for suppression activities by $34,606,000 to a total of 

$369,797,000 for fire suppression operations at the Interior Department, as requested, an increase of 10 percent. The combined wildfire suppression funding for the Interior Department is 

$444,797,000, a 44 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 base 

appropriation. The Committee also notes that H.R. 2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, includes another $50,000,000 

for Interior Department emergency wildfire suppression activities. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
83 

As requested by the Administration, the amounts in this fund 

may only be transferred if the President has issued a finding that 

the amounts are necessary for emergency fire suppression. 

The Committee notes that its recommendation also includes another $1,128,505,000 for the USDA Forest Service as base suppression funding and an additional $282,000,000 for a similar contingency account. Thus, the Committee recommendation for both wildfire suppression accounts in both departments is $1,855,302,000, 

which is a 40 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 non-emergency level. 

The Committee notes that the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act) passed the House in 

March 2009. That Act authorizes a supplemental funding source for 

catastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression activities on Department of the Interior and National Forest System lands. If the 

FLAME Act is authorized, the Committee will work with the Administration and others to make this new wildfire suppression contingency fund compatible with the new FLAME Act funding procedures. 

CENTRAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $10,148,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 10,175,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 10,175,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +27,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $10,175,000 for the central hazardous materials fund as requested, $27,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. 

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION

NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $6,338,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 6,462,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 6,462,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +124,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $6,462,000 for the natural resource 

damage assessment fund, as requested, $124,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $73,435,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 85,823,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 85,823,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +12,388,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $85,823,000 for the working capital 

fund, the requested level, and $12,338,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. The Committee has also provided the Administrative provision, as requested, governing acquisition of certain aircraft. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
84 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sections 101 and 102 provide for emergency transfer authority 

with the approval of the Secretary, as requested. 

Section 103 provides for the use of appropriations for certain 

services. 

Section 104 permits the transfer of funds between the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. 

Section 105 continues a provision permitting the redistribution of 

Tribal priority allocation and Tribal base funds to alleviate funding 

inequities. 

Section 106 continues a provision permitting the conveyance of 

the Twin Cities Research Center of the former Bureau of Mines for 

the benefit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Section 107 continues a provision allowing the Secretary to pay 

private attorney fees for employees and former employees in connection with Cobell v. Salazar. 

Section 108 continues a provision dealing with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s responsibilities for mass marking of salmonid 

stocks. 

Section 109 continues a provision authorizing the Secretary of 

the Interior to acquire lands in support of transportation of visitors 

to Ellis, Governors, and Liberty Islands, NJ and NY. 

Section 110 extends through 2013 a provision in the previous Interior and Environment Appropriations Act that allows the Minerals Management Service to accept contributions to complete environmental documents prior to energy exploration and production. 

Section 111 continues a provision permitting the Secretary to 

enter into cooperative agreements with certain parties. This language allows cooperative agreements with governments and nonprofit partners to be awarded non-competitively. 

Section 112 continues a provision allowing certain funds provided 

for land acquisition at the Ice Age National Scenic Trail to be 

granted to a State, a local government, or any other land management entity. 

Section 113 provides the Department of the Interior with civil 

and criminal penalty authority for revenue collection of solid minerals, geothermal, and offshore alternative energy activities. This 

authority would correct existing deficiencies in sections 109 and 

110 of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act 

(FOGRMA). 

Section 114 provides the Department of the Interior with authority, as requested, allowing the Minerals Management Service to 

charge outer continental shelf oil and gas operators a fee for the 

required MMS inspections. 

Section 115 provides the Department of the Interior with authority to fund land acquisition at the San Juan Islands National Historic Park. 

Section 116 provides for an expansion of the Minidoka National 

Historic Site, ID. 

TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated nine programs 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
85 

from five different agencies and departments. Major EPA programs 

include air and water quality, drinking water, hazardous waste, research, pesticides, radiation, toxic substances, enforcement and 

compliance assurance, pollution prevention, oil spills, Superfund, 

Brownfields, and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program. 

In addition, EPA provides Federal assistance for wastewater treatment, sewer overflow control, drinking water facilities, other water 

infrastructure projects, and diesel emission reduction projects. The 

Agency is responsible for conducting research and development, establishing environmental standards through the use of risk assessment and cost-benefit, monitoring pollution conditions, seeking 

compliance through enforcement actions, managing audits and investigations, and providing technical assistance and grant support 

to States and Tribes, which are delegated authority for much of the 

program implementation. Under existing statutory authority, the 

Agency contributes to specific homeland security efforts and may 

participate in international environmental activities. 

Among the statutes for which the Environmental Protection 

Agency has sole or significant oversight responsibilities are: 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. 

Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended. 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as 

amended. 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

Public Health Service Act (Title XIV), as amended. 

Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended. 

Clean Air Act, as amended. 

Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended. 

Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002. 

Bioterrorism Act of 2002. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. 

Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization 

Act of 2002 (amending CERCLA). 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. 

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended. 

Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990. 

Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003. 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

For fiscal year 2010, the Committee recommends $10,569,962,000 

for the Environmental Protection Agency, $2,934,288,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $83,962,000 above the budget request. The Committee is pleased to see that the request sustains 

many of the important increases it added to the Agency’s budget 

in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. The amounts recommended by the 

Committee are changes to the request. Comparison to the budget 

request and 2009 enacted levels are shown by account, program 

area and selected activity in the following table. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
86 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 035 here hr180.029
87 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 036 here hr180.030
88 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 037 here hr180.031
89 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 038 here hr180.032
90 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 039 here hr180.033
91 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 040 here hr180.034
92 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 041 here hr180.035
93 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 042 here hr180.036
94 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 043 here hr180.037
95 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 044 here hr180.038
96 

Reprogrammings.—The Agency is held to the bill-wide reprogramming limitation of $1,000,000. This limitation will be applied to each program area in every account at the levels provided 

in the detailed table above. This will allow the Agency the flexibility to reprogram funds within a set program area. However, 

where the Committee has cited funding levels for certain programprojects or activities within a program area, the reprogramming 

limitation continues to apply to those funding levels. The other 

guidelines laid out in the ‘‘Reprogramming Guidelines’’ section of 

the Committee’s Report continue to be in effect. 

Congressional Budget Justification.—The Committee directs the 

Agency to include in future Justifications the following items: (1) 

a comprehensive index of programs and activities within the program-projects; (2) the requested bill language, with changes highlighted, at the beginning of each account section; and, (3) a justification for every program/project, including those proposed for 

elimination. 

Workforce Planning.—The Committee notes that EPA has not 

systematically sought to align changes in workload with its staff allocations. The Government Accountability Office reported to the 

Committee that ‘‘. . . in preparing requests for funding and staffing, EPA makes incremental adjustments, largely based on an antiquated workforce planning system that does not reflect a bottomup review of the nature or distribution of the current workload.’’ 

Given the work facing the Agency over the next few years, the 

Committee believes it is imperative that the Agency improve its 

funding and staffing models. The Committee directs the Agency to 

identify the factors that derive the national and regional workload 

and develop more realistic allocation systems for deploying staff 

with the requisite skills and capabilities to areas of the country 

where they are most needed to address the highest-priority needs. 

The Agency is also directed to provide quarterly updates on its 

progress in meeting this directive. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The Science and Technology (S&T) account funds all Environmental Protection Agency research (including Superfund research 

activities paid with funds moved into this account from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account). This account includes programs carried out through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with other Federal agencies, States, universities, and private 

business, as well as in-house research. It also funds personnel compensation and benefits, travel, supplies and operating expenses, including rent, utilities and security, for all Agency research. Research addresses a wide range of environmental and health concerns across all environmental media and encompasses both longterm basic and near-term applied research to provide the scientific 

knowledge and technologies necessary for preventing, regulating, 

and abating pollution, and to anticipate emerging environmental 

issues. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
97 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $790,051,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 842,349,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 849,649,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +59,598,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +7,300,000 

The Committee recommends $849,649,000 for science and technology, $59,598,000 above the fiscal 2009 enacted level and 

$7,300,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommends 

that $26,834,000, as requested by the President, be paid to this account from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account for ongoing research activities consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980, as amended. The changes to the request, as recommended by 

the Committee, appear in the table at the beginning of this title. 

The Committee provides the following additional detail by program 

area. 

Air Toxics and Quality.—The Committee recommends 

$122,256,000 as requested, $17,124,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level. Within this amount, the Committee has provided the 

requested levels for the CASTNET program ($3,951,000) and the 

TIME–LTM program ($720,000), which has moved from the Research: Human Health and Ecosystems program into this program. 

The Committee supports the Agency’s work on the renewable fuels 

standard, and has provided the request of $21,327,000. The Committee directs that at least $10,300,000 be available for lab capacity and upgrades and $5,000,000 for implementation and compliance of the rule. 

Climate Protection Program.—The Committee recommends 

$20,575,000 for the Clean Automotive Technology and Fuel Cell 

and Hydrogen programs, $3,747,000 above the 2009 enacted level 

and $1,600,000 above the request. The Committee continues to support this important program and looks forward to the hydraulic hybrid technology achieving initial commercialization in 2010. 

Homeland Security.—The Committee recommends $66,332,000 

for Homeland Security, $2,614,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $5,000,000 below the request. Within this amount, 

the Committee provides $18,726,000 for the Water Security Initiative, which is a 25 percent increase above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Research: Clean Air.—The Committee recommends $104,073,000 

as requested, $5,646,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

This includes the requested level of $20,909,000 for Global Change 

Research. The Committee supports the Agency’s efforts to expand 

its projections on the effects of climate change on air and water 

quality and how it will affect attainment of air and water quality 

standards nation-wide. The Committee expects the Agency to use 

a portion of these funds to evaluate alternative strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Research: Clean Water.—The Committee recommends 

$110,363,000 as requested, $4,199,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level. The Committee directs the Agency to use the majority of the increase above the prior year to expand research on green 

(water) infrastructure, including assessment and development of 

scientifically rigorous tools and models for use by EPA and State 

water programs. Because 20 percent of the State Revolving Funds 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
98 

provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

and in this bill are targeted to green infrastructure, it is important 

that the Agency develop technical information to help quantify the 

environmental benefits of various types of green infrastructure and 

their contribution towards compliance with environmental standards. 

Research: Priorities.—The Committee recommends $5,700,000 to 

support a select number of programs, which provide significant national or regional benefits, and provides funding for the following 

grants: 

Water Environment Research Foundation, $2,000,000; 

Water Research Foundation, $1,700,000; 

Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research, 

$1,000,000; and, 

Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, $1,000,000. 

Research: Human Health and Ecosystems.—The Committee recommends $250,381,000, which is $20,978,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and $5,000,000 above the budget request. Within the total provided, the Committee directs that at least 

$11,422,000 be for Endocrine Disruptor Research. The Committee 

also has included an additional $2,000,000 to fund four new centers 

of excellence for children’s environmental health. These funds will 

allow the Agency to fully fund its request for proposals at approximately $500,000 a year, rather than the lower amount planned. Because many children spend more than 40 hours a week in child 

care, the Committee urges that one of the four centers focus on 

child care settings. The Committee directs the Agency to use the 

remaining $3,000,000 increase to accelerate research on the effects 

on children from environmental chemicals and toxins. 

The Committee heard testimony this year concerning the need to 

more fully consider impacts to children when developing environmental policy and setting public health standards. Every day, children are exposed to a mix of chemicals, most of which have not 

been tested specifically for effects on children’s still developing systems. Because children are more vulnerable than adults to toxic 

chemicals, the Committee believes it is important to address this 

issue and commends the Agency for its initiative to monitor air 

toxics around schools. The Committee directs the Agency to continue its efforts to protect children from environmental hazards, 

such as expanding its knowledge of children’s exposure in child 

care and school settings and the impact of these exposures on children’s health and development. 

The Committee notes that it also has provided the requested 

level for the Human Health Risk Assessments program, which includes a $5,783,000 and 10 FTE increase above the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level for the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 

Health Assessments. The Committee directs the Agency to use a 

portion of these funds to expedite its risk assessment for trichloroethylene (TCE). The Committee expects that the increase, coupled 

with the revised IRIS process announced by the Administrator on 

May 21, 2009, will allow the Agency to expedite these long delayed 

reviews. The Committee supports the new process which it believes 

will increase transparency and reduce delays in finalizing assessments. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
99 

Additional Guidance.—The Committee has included the following 

additional guidance with respect to funding provided under this account. 

Science to Achieve Results (STAR) across the Science and Technology Account.—The Committee notes that EPA research is a critical part of the Agency’s mission. This includes the work of EPA 

scientists and engineers complemented by university based researchers. The budget request includes a 4 percent increase in the 

STAR program. This is a competitively awarded, independently 

peer reviewed grants program designed to ensure that the Agency 

is able to engage the best researchers outside EPA in a number of 

scientific and engineering disciplines. The Committee expects the 

request for this program to increase each year until the program 

is restored to its historic levels. 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) Study.—The Committee 

continues to believe it is important that the Agency study human 

health effects and ecosystem impacts from exposure to polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons through parking lot seal-coatings. The Committee directs the Agency to report on its efforts to the Committee. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Study.—The Committee is 

aware of concerns about the public health impacts of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) frequently used in window caulking 

in schools, public housing, hospitals, and other public buildings 

from the 1940s to 1977. The Committee urges the Agency to investigate the potential adverse health and environmental impacts of 

PCBs, with a special focus on school populations, and to recommend testing protocols and remediation techniques to mitigate 

these effects. 

Contaminants in Water Supply.—The Committee recognizes the 

potential harm to human health and the environment caused by 

Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) in our nation’s water 

supply. CECs include endocrine disrupting compounds, additives to 

personal care products, and industrial contaminants. Though there 

have been hundreds of studies on CECs over the past decade, the 

scientific community still lacks an understanding of the level of 

CECs in our environment and their impacts on human health and 

ecosystems. Years of research have resulted in piecemeal efforts, focused on a subset of compounds or a single effect in one location. 

The Committee encourages the Agency to develop a plan that synthesizes this body of research and applies a systems approach to 

this problem. 

Air Quality Research.—The Committee encourages EPA to establish a competitively awarded, national research facility that would 

be made available for use by U.S. industry, universities, other national laboratories, State and local governments, and the scientific 

community in general and would help address many of the issues 

relating to particulate matter, ozone, and atmospheric transformations, and their modeling, and monitoring. The Committee 

notes the need for additional air quality research such as that conducted at the University of California, Riverside in its second generation atmospheric chamber. 

Hydraulic Fracturing.—The Committee is concerned about the 

risks posed to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing. The Committee questions whether past reviews by the Agency relied on 

independent sources of information and the best available science. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
100 

The Committee urges EPA to review the risks that hydraulic fracturing poses to drinking water supplies, using the best available 

science, as well as independent sources of information. 

Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center.—The 

Committee notes the valuable work of the Mickey Leland National 

Urban Air Toxics Research Center (the NUATRC), authorized by 

Congress in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Title III, Sect. 

112(p)). Since incorporating in 1991, the NUATRC has sponsored 

scientific research and development that has furthered the understanding of the human health effects caused by exposure to air 

toxics. The Committee is concerned that, despite the Center being 

fully authorized by Congress, the Administration has not included 

funding for the NUATRC in the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Given the concern of the human health threat of 

air toxics, the record of contribution by the Center, and the need 

for additional scientific understanding to appropriately address air 

toxics, the Committee urges the Administration to fully evaluate 

including funding for the NUATRC in future year budget requests. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

The Environmental Programs and Management account encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, enforcement, and 

compliance activities, and personnel compensation, benefits, travel, 

and expenses for all programs of the Agency except Science and 

Technology, Hazardous Substance Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, Oil Spill Response, and the Office of Inspector General. 

Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities include setting 

environmental standards, issuing permits, monitoring emissions 

and ambient conditions and providing technical and legal assistance toward enforcement, compliance, and oversight. In most cases, 

the States are directly responsible for actual operation of the various environmental programs, and the Agency’s activities include 

oversight and assistance. 

In addition to program costs, this account funds administrative 

costs associated with the operating programs of the Agency, including support for executive direction, policy oversight, resources management, general office and building services for program operations, and direct implementation of Agency environmental programs for headquarters, the ten EPA regional offices, and all nonresearch field operations. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $2,392,079,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 2,940,564,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 3,022,054,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +629,975,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +81,490,000 

The Committee recommends $3,022,054,000 for environmental 

programs and management, $629,975,000 above the 2009 enacted 

level and $81,490,000 above the budget request. The changes to the 

request, as recommended by the Committee, appear in the table at 

the beginning of this title. The Committee provides the following 

additional detail by program area: 

Air Toxics and Quality.—Within the amount provided, the Committee directs the Agency to spend not less than the request for the 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
101 

Sunwise program. The Committee also has provided the request for 

the air toxics monitoring at schools program. 

Brownfields.—The Committee recommends $24,579,000 for this 

program, $1,622,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$675,000 below the budget request. Within this amount, the Committee provides $1,246,000 for the Smart Growth program. The 

Committee has provided funds for five additional FTEs, rather 

than the requested 10, to manage recent increases in this grant 

program. 

Climate Protection.—The Committee recommends $111,634,000 

as requested for this program, $17,363,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. From within the new total, the Committee directs the following program amounts: (1) $50,748,000 for the Energy Star program; (2) $17,005,000 for continued development and 

operation of the Greenhouse Gas Registry; and (3) $4,582,000 for 

the Methane-to-Markets program. 

Enforcement.—The Committee recommends $223,943,000 as requested, $14,786,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. From 

within this amount, the Committee directs no less than $7,203,000 

for Environmental Justice programs. 

Environmental Protection/Priorities.—The Committee recommends $16,950,000 above the request. The Committee continues 

to support a select number of programs, which provide significant 

national or regional benefits, and provides funding for the following 

grants: National Rural Water Association, $13,000,000; 

Rural Community Assistance Program, $2,500,000; 

Water Systems Council, Wellcare, $700,000; and, 

National Biosolids Partnership, $750,000. 

Geographic Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$628,941,000 for these programs, which is $532,982,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $77,811,000 above the budget request. This amount provides the request for the Community Action 

for a Renewed Environment Program and the Geographic Program: 

Other activities. The Committee, again this year, has provided increases to programs that support restoration and protection of our 

nation’s most important water bodies. Protection of these resources 

has been a priority for the Committee, which is pleased that the 

President’s Budget recognizes this initiative by requesting significant increases. These funds, coupled with increases provided elsewhere for the National Estuaries Program, continue the Committee’s commitment to protect one of our nation’s most important natural resources, water. The Committee has included bill language 

specifying the amount available for the programs funded in this 

area. From within the amount provided, the Committee directs the 

following allocation: 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.—$475,000,000 for the new 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative as requested. Included in this 

amount is funding for the Agency’s Great Lakes National Program 

Office and its work to implement the Great Lakes Legacy Act. 

The Committee fully supports the Administration’s efforts to restore the Great Lakes and has included the President’s request of 

$475,000,000 for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to fund an 

interagency restoration effort, led by the Environmental Protection 

Agency. The Committee expects EPA to use these funds to impleVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
102 

ment portions of the Great Lakes Collaboration Strategy. Once 

final funding allocations are made, EPA is directed to report those 

decisions to the Committee and to notify the Committee of any subsequent changes during the period these funds are available for obligation. 

The Committee directs EPA to use funds provided to implement 

the Great Lakes Legacy Act to support the Great Lakes National 

Program Office and supplement and expand programs beyond those 

undertaken in the prior fiscal years. Because the Administration’s 

initiative proposes EPA as the lead agency, with all funding flowing through EPA, the request includes over $130,000,000 for agencies not usually funded through the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The Committee, therefore, directs 

the EPA to work with other Federal agencies to ensure that funds 

transferred through interagency agreements are used to increase 

each Agency’s level of effort by supplementing and expanding existing programs. Additionally, of the funds provided, the Committee 

directs that a substantial portion be provided for restoration activities conducted by non-federal partners. The Committee directs EPA 

and the other Federal agencies to exercise maximum flexibility in 

determining non-federal match requirements in recognition of the 

exceptional economic circumstances and the significant ongoing investments made by non-federal partners. 

The Committee directs EPA to work with other Federal agencies, 

Great Lakes area governors, mayors, Tribal leaders, regional organizations and other stakeholders to establish a process to provide 

advice, guidance and recommendations and that will assist EPA in 

fiscal year 2011 and future years. To meet this directive, EPA 

should: 

(1) Develop a comprehensive, multi-year restoration action 

plan that will lead to the restoration of the Great Lakes; 

(2) Engage an independent, scientific panel or panels to review the scientific credibility of the restoration plan; 

(3) Assure that the Great Lakes restoration initiative’s goals, 

objectives and targets are aligned with those of the Great 

Lakes States, local and Tribal governments; 

(4) Make annual decisions on restoration priorities, activities, projects and funding levels; and, 

(5) Establish a mechanism for monitoring and reporting on 

progress. 

As mentioned above, the Committee directs EPA to develop a 

comprehensive restoration action plan using the 2005 Collaboration 

Strategy as its base. This plan should help to inform funding decisions in fiscal year 2011 and the outyears and should include the 

following: 

(1) An explanation of the process established by EPA to collaborate with States and non-federal partners to guide implementation of the restoration initiative; 

(2) Targets and measurable objectives that the Great Lakes 

Restoration Initiative expects to achieve over the next five fiscal years beginning in fiscal year 2010; 

(3) A description of the process that the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative will use to track and measure progress, including an explanation of the means by which EPA will use 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
103 

scientific research to target restoration priorities and adapt 

and modify activities in fiscal years 2011; 

(4) A description of the funding provided by the Committee 

to EPA and other Federal agencies to support Great Lakes restoration activities, including information comparing funding 

and programs supported from one year to the next (e.g. in fiscal year 2009 to programs in fiscal year 2010); and 

(5) A description of efforts to coordinate restoration activities 

in the U.S. with those of the Canadian and provincial governments. 

Chesapeake Bay.—$50,000,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Committee has provided an increase of $14,861,000 above the 

budget request. From within this amount, the Committee has fully 

funded the $17,511,000 request for the Agency’s program office and 

provides at least $8,000,000 to nutrient and sediment removal 

grants and $2,000,000 for small watershed grants. The Committee 

recommends this funding level to improve and accelerate the performance of Federal and State programs to protect the Chesapeake 

Bay. EPA’s most recent monitoring data concluded that the Chesapeake Bay watershed is attaining only 21 percent of its water quality goals, and that its largest challenge remains controlling polluted runoff from urban, suburban and agricultural lands. The 

Committee is encouraged by Executive Order 13508 and supports 

its direction to EPA to fully utilize its authorities under the Clean 

Water Act to protect and restore water quality and the commitment to increase enforcement and compliance activities in the watershed. 

The Committee directs that the increase be used to strengthen 

the regulatory and accountability programs for controlling pollution 

from urban, suburban and agricultural lands. This direction is consistent with the recent findings of the EPA Inspector General and 

the Government Accountability Office. The Committee further directs the Agency to re-examine its existing Chesapeake Bay grant 

programs to assess how best to increase the States’ capacity to 

strengthen their regulatory and accountability programs administered under the Clean Water Act. After the Agency conducts this 

re-examination, a portion of the increase should be provided to the 

States. Finally, in light of this increase, the Agency is directed to 

provide the Committee with a detailed report within 30 days of enactment of this act on its anticipated spending for the 2010 fiscal 

year. 

Puget Sound.—$50,000,000 for implementation of the Puget 

Sound Action Agenda. The Agency is directed to provide a grant of 

$4,000,000 to the Puget Sound Ecosystem Research Initiative at 

the University of Washington’s College of the Environment to conduct, coordinate, and disseminate scientific research to inform policy decisions necessary to carry out the Action Agenda. The remaining funds should be used for the Agency’s intramural costs, cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, contracts and competitive grants, including a competitive grant for a State entity to manage implementation of the Action Agenda. Prior to announcing any 

requests for proposals for competitive grants, the Committee expects the Agency to coordinate with the State on priorities for funding requests for proposals, except where the State is expected to 

compete for said grant. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
104 

Long Island Sound.—$15,000,000 for implementation of the Long 

Island Sound Restoration Act and the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act. The Agency is directed to report to the Committee the 

methodology it uses to distribute the funds between the two Acts. 

San Francisco Bay program.—$15,000,000 to continue competitive grants to State and local governments and partner organizations to implement projects that improve water quality and restore 

Bay watersheds. 

Gulf of Mexico program.—$10,000,000. 

Lake Champlain program.—$5,000,000. 

Lake Pontchartrain restoration program.—$3,000,000. 

Information Exchange/Outreach.—The Committee recommends 

$131,472,000, which is $5,129,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $353,000 below the request. From within this 

amount, the Committee directs: 

$10,038,000 for the Environmental Education Program. The 

Agency is directed to apply the funding formula authorized in 

the National Environmental Education Act. 

$16,860,000 for the Exchange Network. 

$50,480,000 for Congressional, Intergovernmental and External Activities. 

$7,015,000 for Children and Other Sensitive Populations. The Committee has provided an increase of $500,000 above the 

request for the Agency to begin to create and disseminate guidelines mandated in the Healthy High Performance Schools Act of 

2007 (Title V of the Energy Independence and Security Act). These 

guidelines for siting school facilities and environmental health programs for schools will help to ensure that our children are protected from environmental hazards. 

IT/Data Management/Security.—The Committee recommends 

$104,320,000, $5,295,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $5,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee directs 

that none of the reduction be taken from the amount requested to 

restore and maintain the Agency’s library system. 

Legal/Science/Regulatory/Economic Review.—The Committee 

recommends $123,788,000 for these programs, $5,665,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $4,443,000 below the budget 

request. The Committee has not provided funds to continue the 

Performance Track Program and awaits the Agency’s review of this 

and other programs that rely on voluntary compliance. The Committee commends the Administrator for her decision to pause the 

Performance Track Program to look for opportunities to improve it. 

The Committee firmly believes programs which promote voluntary 

compliance with the law are valuable, but should augment and not 

replace the regulatory framework. The Committee has provided the 

requested level of $3,900,000 for the portion of the Smart Growth 

Program funded under this program area. In addition, the Committee has provided $19,215,000 for the Regulatory/Economic Management and Analysis Program, a reduction of $3,188,000 from the 

request and $2,486,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Operations and Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$501,895,000 for Operations and Administration, $22,698,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $10,000,000 below the 

budget request. The Committee directs the reduction to be allocated as follows: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
105 

¥$5,000,000 from rent and utility savings; 

¥$5,000,000 from the Financial System Modernization 

Project (FSMP). 

Although the Committee’s detailed table shows the first reduction to the rent request, the Agency may use utility and security 

savings to achieve a portion of the reduction. 

Water: Ecosystems.—The Committee recommends $61,503,000 for 

this program, which is $12,407,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $11,200,000 above the request, without the Great 

Lakes Legacy Act. Funds for the Great Lakes Legacy Act have been 

moved to Geographic Programs. From within the amount provided, 

the Committee directs $28,000,000 to the National Estuary Program grant, authorized by section 320 of the Clean Water Act. The 

Committee directs that each national estuary receive a minimum 

of $1,000,000. This increase is an important component of the Committee’s efforts to restore and protect our nation’s Great Water 

Bodies. 

Water Quality Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$221,836,000 for this program, $11,019,000 above the 2009 enacted 

level and $2,000,000 below the request. The reduction was taken 

to the Surface Water Protection program. 

Additional Guidance.—The Committee has included the following 

additional guidance with respect to funding provided under this account. 

Water Sense Partnership Program.—The Committee supports the 

Agency’s program in partnership with manufacturers, retailers and 

distributors, water utilities, and others. The Committee recognizes 

that water efficiency is one method, although not the only method, 

to deal with our nation’s aging water infrastructure and water supply problems. The Water Sense program seeks to protect the future 

of our nation’s water supply by promoting water efficiency and enhancing the market for water-efficient products, programs, and 

practices. The Committee encourages the Agency to expand the 

Water Sense label and encourages the Agency to continue developing water efficiency and performance criteria for additional products. 

Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.—The Committee continues to 

have a strong interest in EPA’s efforts to assess the impact of endocrine disrupting chemicals on the environment and on human 

health. In reviewing the progress EPA has made to date, the Committee now directs EPA to: 

(1) Create a database of the initial pesticide chemicals to be 

screened in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), 

made available on EPA’s Website. The database should be updated 

to include the date a test order is issued and to whom, the due date 

for completing and submitting the data, the recipient’s response to 

the order, including requests for extensions if any, and the results 

of Tier I screening or Tier II testing for each chemical listed. 

(2) Develop and publish criteria for evaluating the results of Tier 

I screening and determining whether a chemical should undergo 

Tier II analysis within one year of enactment. The process should 

allow for public input. 

(3) Publish within one year of enactment a second list of no less 

than 100 chemicals for screening that includes drinking water contaminants, such as halogenated organic chemicals, dioxins, flame 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
106 

retardants (PBDEs, PCBs, PFCs), plastics (BPA), pharmaceuticals 

and personal care products, and issue 25 orders per year for the 

testing of these chemicals. This process also should allow for public 

input. 

(4) Engage in a timely re-evaluation of the battery of screening, 

replacing outdated ones with updated, more efficient screens that 

have been validated (for example, a recombinant receptor assay to 

replace the cytosolic receptor assay for estrogen receptor binding). 

The Committee also encourages EPA to investigate assays to include in future screening protocols that expand screening beyond 

estrogen, androgen or thyroid disruption to include other hormones 

that are important for metabolism and weight regulation (e.g., insulin and the adrenal corticosteroids). 

NORM and TENORM.—The Committee recognizes the potential 

danger in the wastes that result from uranium mining commonly 

known as NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials) or 

TENORM (Technically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive 

Materials). The Committee urges the Agency to monitor these potentially harmful waste levels at new uranium mining sites, specifically those new uranium mining sites to be located in South Texas 

along the border with Mexico. 

Western Lake Erie Basin Partnership.—The Committee is encouraged that the Agency has begun to engage more collaboratively 

with the Western Lake Erie Basin Partnership. The Committee 

recognizes the work of the Western Lake Erie Basin Partnership 

as informative to broader basin restoration activities and encourages EPA to continue to collaborate with the dozens of partners involved in this regional effort. 

Colony Collapse Disorder.—Colony Collapse Disorder is the latest 

manifestation of pollinator decline in the United States. During the 

winters of 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 more than 35 percent of managed honey bee populations disappeared, threatening $15 billion 

worth of agriculture that is pollinated by commercial beekeeping 

operations. Although the cause is unknown, pesticides have been 

linked to bee deaths in the past and are suspected to contribute to 

the latest decline. The Committee strongly urges the Agency to incorporate an assessment of the impacts on pollinators into the ecological assessment and registration or re-registration determination 

for each pesticide. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, 

and investigation products and advisory services to improve the 

performance and integrity of EPA programs and operations. The 

Inspector General (IG) will continue to perform the function of IG 

for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. This account funds personnel compensation and benefits, travel, and expenses (excluding rent, utilities, and security costs) for the Office 

of Inspector General. In addition to the funds provided under this 

heading, this account receives funds from the Hazardous Substance 

Superfund account and from the Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigations Board. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
107 

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $44,791,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 44,791,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 44,791,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $44,791,000 for the Office of Inspector General as requested and the amount provided for fiscal year 

2009. In addition, the Committee has provided the requested 

amounts to be transferred to this account from the Hazardous Substance Superfund ($9,975,000) account and from the Chemical 

Safety and Hazards Investigations Board (the Board) Account 

($150,000). 

The Committee has again included authorization for the EPA IG 

to serve as the IG for the Board. To ensure a continued IG presence 

at the Board, the Committee has provided $150,000 to be transferred from the Board’s appropriation account to this account. The 

funds are to be used for positions and extramural costs associated 

with the IG’s work as the Inspector General of the Board. The 

Committee expects the IG to use these funds to expand the scope 

of work beyond what the OIG has produced in recent years and directs it to continue with the issues identified in the recent work by 

the Government Accountability Office. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

The Buildings and Facilities account provides for the design and 

construction of EPA-owned facilities as well as for the repair, extension, alteration, and improvement of facilities used by the Agency. The funds are used to correct unsafe conditions, protect health 

and safety of employees and Agency visitors, and prevent deterioration of structures and equipment. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $35,001,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 37,001,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 35,001,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥2,000,000 

The Committee recommends $35,001,000, as provided in the previous year and $2,000,000 below the budget request. 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) program was 

established in 1980 by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to clean-up emergency 

hazardous materials, spills, and dangerous, uncontrolled, and/or 

abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) expanded the program substantially in 

1986, authorizing approximately $8,500,000,000 in revenues over 

five years. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act extended the program’s authorization through 1994 for 

$5,100,000,000 with taxing authority through calendar year 1995. 

The Superfund program is operated by EPA subject to annual appropriations from a dedicated trust fund and from general reveVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
108 

nues. Enforcement activities are used to identify and induce parties 

responsible for hazardous waste problems to undertake clean-up 

actions and pay for EPA oversight of those actions. In addition, responsible parties have been required to cover the cost of fund-financed removal and remedial actions undertaken at spills and 

waste sites by Federal and State agencies. Funds are paid from 

this account to the Office of Inspector General and Science and 

Technology accounts for Superfund related activities. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $1,285,024,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 1,308,541,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,306,541,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +21,517,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥2,000,000 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $1,306,541,000 for the Hazardous 

Substance Superfund, $21,517,000 above the 2009 enacted level 

and $2,000,000 below the budget request. The changes to the request, as recommended by the Committee, appear in the table at 

the beginning of this title. The Committee provides the following 

additional detail by program area. 

Operations and Administration.—The Committee recommends 

$137,923,000, $3,280,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $2,000,000 below the budget request. The budget request assumes a slight reduction in FTEs for this account and therefore the 

Committee has not approved the total increase requested for 

human resources management. 

Superfund Cleanup.—The Committee has provided $856,412,000 as requested, $9,054,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

The majority of this increase will go to Emergency Response and 

Removal. The request for the Superfund Remedial program remains the same as the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee is concerned that the Agency estimates it will complete construction at only 22 sites on the National Priority List. This is two 

less than the estimate of completions in fiscal year 2009. With the 

proposed reinstatement of the Superfund tax, the Committee expects future budget requests will include funding sufficient to increase the number of annual ‘‘construction completes’’ in this program. 

Bill Language.—Bill language is included to pay $26,834,000 

from this account to the Science and Technology Account, and 

$9,975,000 to the Office of Inspector General Account, as requested. 

Additional Guidance.—The Committee has included the following 

additional guidance with respect to funding provided under this account. 

Superfund Special Accounts.—The Inspector General has previously reported that EPA had large amounts of Superfund money 

in special accounts that EPA could potentially transfer to the 

Superfund Trust Fund. In a March 2009 report ‘‘Improved Management of Superfund Special Accounts Will Make More Funds Available for Clean-ups’’, the OIG found their earlier recommendations 

to better manage Superfund resources remained unimplemented, 

hindering EPA’s ability to maximize the use of these much needed 

resources. Given the increasing costs of Superfund site clean ups, 

and in light of current budget constraints, the Committee believes 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
109 

it is imperative that the Agency make transparency and funds 

management a priority by reviewing, reclassifying, transferring, 

and publicly reporting on special account funds. The Agency is directed to include in its annual budget justification a plan for using 

these funds expeditiously. 

Superfund Alternative Sites.—The Committee continues to direct 

the Agency to report annually, by region, on the sites using the 

Superfund Alternative Approach Agreements, including intramural 

and extramural costs. The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2009 

over 75 percent of the funds attributed to the alternative approach 

were used by only two EPA regions. The Committee continues to 

question why these two regions rely so heavily on the alternative 

approach and urges the Administrator to review this program. 

Brookfield Avenue Landfill.—The Committee encourages the 

EPA to reevaluate the inclusion of the Brookfield Avenue Landfill 

in Staten Island, New York on the EPA’s National Priority List as 

a Superfund Site. The EPA should collect and utilize new data to 

make this determination, including a comprehensive examination 

of the potential for new exposure pathways via ground water migration and/or the volatilization of organic compounds at the 

Brookfield Landfill and surrounding areas. 

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND PROGRAM

Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, authorized the 

establishment of a response program for clean up of releases from 

leaking underground storage tanks. Owners and operators of facilities with underground tanks must demonstrate financial responsibility and bear initial responsibility for clean-up. The Federal trust 

fund is funded through the imposition of a motor fuel tax of onetenth of a cent per gallon. 

In addition to State resources, the Leaking Underground Storage 

Tank (LUST) Trust Fund provides funding to clean-up sites, enforces necessary corrective actions and recovers costs expended 

from the Fund for clean-up activities. The underground storage 

tank response program is designed to operate primarily through cooperative agreements with States. Funds are also used for grants 

to non-State entities, including Indian Tribes, under Section 8001 

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 expanded the authorized activities of the Fund to include the underground storage tank program. In 2006, Congress 

amended section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code to authorize 

expenditures from the trust fund for prevention and inspection activities. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $112,577,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 113,101,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 113,101,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +524,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $113,101,000 as requested for the 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund Program, 

$524,000 above the 2009 enacted level. The changes to the request, 

as recommended by the Committee, appear in the table at the beVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
110 

ginning of this title. The Committee provides the following additional detail by program area: 

EPA estimates that there are approximately 630,000 active underground storage tanks subject to regulation that require inspection. From that universe there have been over 474,000 releases requiring corrective actions, of which 109,000 have yet to be completed. In fiscal year 2007 alone, there were over 7,500 new releases reported. Despite the increased appropriation in 2009 and 

the ARRA funding, the budget estimates that the end of year balance in the LUST Trust Fund will continue to grow, increasing by 

more than $200,000,000 from 2009 to 2010. In light of the number 

of new releases each year, the Committee urges the Administrator 

to determine if the States can use additional funding in future 

years. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has included the proposed bill 

language which authorizes, for one year, the Administrator to use 

the LUST Trust Fund for Tribal grants to develop and implement 

underground storage tank programs. 

OIL SPILL RESPONSE

This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, provides 

funds to prepare for and prevent releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable waterways. In addition, EPA is reimbursed for incident specific response costs through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund managed by the United States Coast Guard. 

EPA is responsible for directing all clean-up and removal activities posing a threat to public health and the environment; conducting site inspections; providing a means to achieve clean-up activities by private parties; reviewing containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency plans; pursuing cost recovery of 

fund-financed clean-ups; and conducting research of oil clean-up 

techniques. Funds for this appropriation are provided through the 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund which is composed of fees and collections made through provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the 

Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act, the 

Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

Amendments of 1978, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

as amended. Pursuant to law, the Trust Fund is managed by the 

United States Coast Guard. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $17,687,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 18,379,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 18,379,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +692,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $18,379,000 as requested for oil spill response, $692,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

The State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account provides 

grant funds for programs operated primarily by State, local, Tribal 

and other governmental partners. The account includes two broad 

types of funds: (1) Infrastructure Assistance, which is used primarily by local governments for projects supporting environmental 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
111 

protection; and, (2) Categorical Grants, which assist State and 

Tribal governments and other environmental partners with the operation of environmental programs. 

In the STAG account, EPA provides funding for infrastructure 

projects through two State Revolving Funds (Clean Water and 

Drinking Water), geographic specific projects in Alaskan Native 

Villages and on the United States-Mexico Border, Brownfield revitalization projects, diesel emission reduction grants and other targeted infrastructure projects. 

The State Revolving Funds (SRFs) provide Federal financial assistance to protect the Nation’s water resources. The Clean Water 

SRF helps eliminate municipal discharge of untreated or inadequately treated pollutants and thereby helps maintain or restore 

the country’s water to a swimmable and/or fishable quality. The 

Clean Water SRF provides resources for municipal, inter-municipal, State, and interstate agencies and Tribal governments to plan, 

design, and construct wastewater facilities and other projects, including non-point source, estuary, stormwater, and sewer overflow 

projects. The Safe Drinking Water SRF finances improvements to 

community water systems so that they can achieve compliance with 

the mandates of the Safe Drinking Water Act and continue to protect public health. 

The major Federal environmental statutes include provisions 

that allow the Federal government, through EPA, to delegate to the 

States and Tribes the day-to-day management of environmental 

programs. The Federal statutes were designed to recognize the 

States as partners and co-regulators, allowing the States to issue 

and enforce permits, carry out inspections and monitoring, and collecting data. To assist the States in this task, the statutes also authorized EPA to provide grants to the States and Tribes. These 

grants, which cover every major aspect of environmental protection, 

include those programs authorized by sections 319 and 106 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (for non-point 

source pollution and the water quality permits programs), sections 

105 and 103 of the Clean Air Act (for State and Local air quality 

management programs), section 128 of CERCLA (for the 

brownfields program management), section 1443(a) of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (for public water system supervision), and section 3011 of RCRA (for hazardous waste financial assistance). 

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $2,968,464,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 5,191,274,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 5,215,446,000 

Comparison:.

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +2,246,982,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +24,172,000 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $5,215,446,000 for the State and 

Tribal Assistance account, $2,246,982,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and $24,172,000 above the budget request. The 

changes to the request, as recommended by the Committee, appear 

in the table at the beginning of this title. The Committee provides 

the following additional detail by program area: 

Infrastructure Assistance.—For the infrastructure assistance por- tion of this account, the Committee recommends $4,100,000,000, 

which is $2,226,391,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
112 

and $20,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee recognizes the growing need to not only build new, but also repair and 

replace existing, water and wastewater infrastructure. Over the 

course of recent months, through the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill and the ARRA, the Committee has provided more than 

$7.5 billion for water and wastewater infrastructure through the 

State Revolving Funds (SRFs). This is the largest amount of water 

and wastewater infrastructure assistance ever provided by the Federal government in a single year to protect public health and the 

environment. Added to the amounts recommended here, the Committee will have provided or recommended over $11 billion for environmental infrastructure, resulting in over 4,400 projects in communities all across this nation, in every State, each Territory and 

many Tribal nations. In this bill, the Committee has recommended $2,307,000,000 for 

the Clean Water SRF and $1,443,000,000 for the Drinking Water 

SRF. These are principally loan programs. The Committee has 

found that many small, rural and/or disadvantaged communities do 

not have the resources to borrow from the SRFs with the responsibility to pay back 100 percent of the loan plus interest. As the 

Committee did with the ARRA funds, it has included bill language 

to allow the States to provide additional forms of subsidy to those 

communities which cannot afford even the below market rates provided by an SRF loan. These subsidies, which can be in the form 

of negative interest loans, principal forgiveness or grants, will 

apply to 30 percent of the funds appropriated for the Drinking 

Water SRF and to 30 percent of the Clean Water SRF funds that 

exceed $1 billion. This bill language is included in the Administrative Provisions. 

In addition, the Committee has continued language first carried 

in the ARRA, and requested by the President, to allow States to 

use up to 20 percent of each of their SRF grants for projects that 

are considered green infrastructure and those that provide water 

and/or energy efficiencies. The Committee has revised the language 

to clarify that the percentage applies to both SRFs and each State. 

The Committee continues to believe that decentralized, green infrastructure projects are an important component in the efforts to improve and restore our waters. The Committee commends the Agency’s efforts to ensure that no State will require a waiver from the 

20 percent goal in the ARRA and encourages the Agency to continue these efforts with the funds provided through this Act. 

For other infrastructure programs in this account, the Committee 

recommends: (1) an allocation of $160,000,000 for grants to local 

communities for water and sewer infrastructure; (2) $100,000,000 

for Brownfields infrastructure projects; (3) $10,000,000 for the 

Alaska Native Villages Grant program; (4) $20,000,000 for the 

U.S.-Mexican Border program; and (5) $60,000,000 for the Diesel 

Emissions Reduction Grant Program. 

U.S.-Mexico Border.—From within the amount provided for the 

Mexican Border program, $2,500,000 is directed to the El Paso and 

Brownsville projects funded in prior years. The Committee notes 

that the significant increases in the Clean Water State Revolving 

fund provided in this bill and through the ARRA, coupled with the 

authority to award those funds with additional forms of subsidy, 

provide an expanded funding source for the important infrastrucVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
113 

ture projects along the border, and encourages EPA and the State 

of Texas to consider using those resources to accelerate projects 

along the border. The Committee directs the Agency to continue its 

new process to ensure funds are liquidated quickly. Although improvements have been made, the balances in this program remain 

high. Once the Agency has fully implemented the changes, the 

Committee will consider those balances when it next makes funding decisions. 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Grants.—The Committee continues 

to support the Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program, which 

received $300,000,000 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These funds are expected to result in approximately 

160 grants and leverage over $300,000,000. Because this program 

is only a few years old and has received a significant boost through 

the ARRA, the Committee directs the Agency to report within 90 

days of enactment on the number and types of project applications 

it has received for the 2009 and ARRA national competitions and 

how the states are spending their share of the grant funds. 

STAG Infrastructure Grant Priorities.—The bill provides $160,000,000 for drinking water, wastewater, storm water infrastructure and other water quality protection projects including the 

following: 

State Project Amount 

1. AL ............................................ East Alabama Water Sewer and Fire Protection District for wastewater 

system planning.

$275,000 

2. AL ............................................ The City of Enterprise for the Enterprise Southeast lagoon upgrade 

project.

500,000 

3. AL ............................................ The City of Sulligent for a water well and storage tank project ............ 500,000 

4. AL ............................................ Washington County Commission for the Washington County sanitary 

sewer extension.

500,000 

5. AR ............................................ Cabot Waterworks for wastewater improvements .................................... 500,000 

6. AR ............................................ The City of Fayetteville for Elkins Outfall Sewer Line sewer replacement.500,000 

7. AZ ............................................ The Pascua Yacqui Tribe for the master drainage plan ......................... 1,000,000 

8. AZ ............................................ The Town of Chino Valley for water and wastewater infrastructure ....... 500,000 

9. AZ ............................................ The Town of Miami for sewer collection system upgrades ..................... 220,000 

10. CA ............................................ Big Bear Department of Water and Power for Big Bear Lake water system infrastructure improvements.500,000 

11. CA ............................................ Carlsbad for Vista-Carlsbad joint wastewater project ............................ 500,000 

12. CA ............................................ City of Galt for Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades .......................... 500,000 

13. CA ............................................ Helix Water District for the El Monte Valley groundwater recharge 

project.

500,000 

14. CA ............................................ Monterey County Water Resources Agency for the Lower Carmel River 

and Lagoon Floodplain restoration and enhancement project.

500,000 

15. CA ............................................ Palmdale Water District for water main replacement ............................. 500,000 

16. CA ............................................ South Montebello Irrigation District for water system infrastructure improvements.550,000 

17. CA ............................................ South Pasadena for Wilson Reservoir replacement ................................. 300,000 

18. CA ............................................ The City of Arcadia for the Arcadia and Sierra Madre joint water infrastructure project.500,000 

19. CA ............................................ The City of Bell for Sewer Infrastructure Modernization ......................... 675,000 

20. CA ............................................ The City of Calimesa for storm drain improvements .............................. 500,000 

21. CA ............................................ The City of Cathedral City for South City Improvement District groundwater protection.500,000 

22. CA ............................................ The City of Ceres for East Service Road sanitary sewer extension ........ 500,000 

23. CA ............................................ The City of Culver City for storm water improvements ........................... 500,000 

24. CA ............................................ The City of Los Angeles for the Elysian Park water recycling project .... 500,000 

25. CA ............................................ The City of Ridgecrest for wastewater treatment facility infrastructure 400,000 

26. CA ............................................ The City of San Jose for the San Jose Redevelopment Area sewer main 

rehabilitation.

300,000 

27. CA ............................................ The City of San Juan Capistrano for ground water recovery plant expansion and regional distribution facility.500,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
114 

State Project Amount 

28. CA ............................................ The City of Temple City for storm drain installation .............................. 200,000 

29. CA ............................................ The City of Vallejo for Mare Island sanitary sewer and storm drain improvements.750,000 

30. CA ............................................ Western Municipal Water District for Arlington Desalter 

Biodenitrification.

500,000 

31. CT ............................................ The Mattabasset District for wastewater treatment facility upgrades ... 500,000 

32. CT ............................................ The Town of Prospect for drinking water infrastructure ......................... 495,000 

33. FL ............................................ City of West Palm Beach for water infrastructure improvements .......... 500,000

34. FL ............................................ Jacksonville Water and Sewer Expansion Authority for septic tank replacement.500,000 

35. FL ............................................ Santa Rosa County for Navarre Beach water clarifier ............................ 220,000 

36. FL ............................................ South Seminole and North Orange County Wastewater Transmission 

Authority for wastewater infrastructure improvements.

500,000 

37. FL ............................................ The City of Clearwater for wastewater treatment facility improvements 500,000 

38. FL ............................................ The City of Homestead for water utility upgrades .................................. 500,000 

39. FL ............................................ The City of Opa-Locka Public Works Division for wastewater infrastructure improvements.500,000 

40. FL ............................................ The City of Quincy for inflow and infiltration improvements .................. 440,000 

41. FL ............................................ The City of Sunrise for a water reclamation system ............................... 1,000,000 

42. GA ............................................ Fort Valley Utility Commission for wastewater reclamation facility ........ 500,000 

43. GA ............................................ Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District for multiple water 

and wastewater system improvements.

500,000 

44. GA ............................................ The City of Atlanta for sewer system infrastructure improvements ....... 500,000

45. GA ............................................ The City of Crawfordville for the sewer rehabilitation ............................ 500,000 

46. GA ............................................ The City of Kingsland for water and sewer infrastructure ...................... 500,000 

47. GU ........................................... Guam Waterworks Authority for Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements.600,000 

48. IA ............................................. The City of Garner for wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements.500,000 

49. ID ............................................. The City of Buhl for wastewater treatment infrastructure ...................... 500,000 

50. IL ............................................. Naperville Heritage Society, Naperville, for stormwater management at 

Naper Settlement.

500,000 

51. IL ............................................. Sharpsburg and Neighboring Area Water System for infrastructure ....... 500,000

52. IL ............................................. The Village of Buckner for a water storage tank .................................... 352,000 

53. IL ............................................. The Village of Carol Stream for Tubeway Drive storm water lift station 

rehabilitation.

192,000 

54. IL ............................................. The Village of Hopedale for wastewater treatment facility upgrades ..... 180,000 

55. IL ............................................. The Village of Johnsburg for wastewater treatment infrastructure ........ 500,000 

56. IL ............................................. The Village of Park Forest for sanitary sewer infrastructure .................. 500,000 

57. IL ............................................. Will County for Ridgewood water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.550,000 

58. IN ............................................. Clinton County Government for the Eastside Regional stormwater improvements.500,000 

59. IN ............................................. The City of Portage for water infrastructure improvements .................... 800,000 

60. IN ............................................. Wadesville-Blairsville Regional Sewer District for the sanitary sewer 

system project.

500,000 

61. KS ............................................ The City of DeSoto for water treatment infrastructure improvements at 

the Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant.

500,000 

62. KS ............................................ The City of Rose Hill for the Berlin Drainage Project ............................. 500,000 

63. KY ............................................ Franklin County Fiscal Court for the Farmdale Area wastewater treatment plant.900,000 

64. KY ............................................ Owensboro-Daviess County Regional Water Resource Agency for the Locust Hills Subdivision sewer installation project.220,000 

65. KY ............................................ Perry County Sanitation District No. 1 for wastewater treatment infrastructure.500,000 

66. KY ............................................ The City of Paris for combined utilities water plan improvements ........ 500,000 

67. KY ............................................ The City of Tompkinsville for a water treatment plant backwash lagoon project.189,000 

68. KY ............................................ The City of Wurtland for the Wurtland/Greenup/Lloyd regional sewer 

project.

500,000 

69. LA ............................................ St. Tammany Parish for Bayou Chinchuba Regional water retention ..... 500,000 

70. LA ............................................ The City of Monroe for a wastewater treatment system ......................... 500,000 

71. MA ........................................... City of Gloucester for Essex Avenue Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade.500,000 

72. MA ........................................... Pioneer Valley Planning Commission for the Connecticut River CSO ..... 750,000 

73. MA ........................................... The Cities of Fall River and New Bedford and the Towns of Acushnet, 

Mansfield, Norton, and Foxboro for Bristol County CSO upgrades.

750,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
115 

State Project Amount 

74. MA ........................................... The City of Malden for citywide lead water service replacement ........... 500,000 

75. MD ........................................... Maryland Department of the Environment for Salisbury cast iron distribution pipe.500,000 

76. MD ........................................... The City of Rockville for sanitary sewer rehabilitation ............................ 750,000 

77. MD ........................................... The Town of Chesapeake Beach for WWTP Enhanced Nutrient Removal 

Upgrade and Expansion.

700,000 

78. ME ........................................... The Town of Machias for sewer system upgrades .................................. 500,000 

79. MI ............................................ Lansing Board of Water & Light for Lansing energy efficient drinking 

water system.

500,000 

80. MI ............................................ Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner for the Oakland 

Macomb Interceptor.

500,000 

81. MI ............................................ The City of Detroit DEGC for East Riverfront wastewater infrastructure 500,000

82. MI ............................................ The City of Grand Rapids for Eastside CSO separation .......................... 500,000 

83. MI ............................................ Wayne County for the Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration Project 500,000 

84. MN ........................................... Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commission for wastewater facilities improvements.1,000,000 

85. MN ........................................... South Bend Township for water and sewer infrastructure ...................... 500,000 

86. MN ........................................... The City of Maple Plain for water treatment facility infrastructure ....... 500,000 

87. MO ........................................... McDonald County for wastewater infrastructure improvements .............. 244,000

88. MO ........................................... The City of East Prairie for stormwater and sewer infrastructure .......... 200,000 

89. MO ........................................... The City of Saint Joseph for stormwater and wastewater infrastructure 500,000 

90. MS ........................................... Black Bayou Water Association for drinking water improvements .......... 250,000 

91. MT ........................................... Em-Kayan County Water and Sewer District for infrastructure improvements.290,000 

92. NC ........................................... City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department for the Dempsey E. Benton 

Water Treatment Plant Backwash Waste Facility.

500,000 

93. NC ........................................... McDowell County for water system improvements .................................. 500,000 

94. NC ........................................... Town of Cary Public Works and Utilities Department for Western Wake 

regional wastewater management facility.

1,000,000 

95. NE ............................................ The City of Omaha for CSO controls ........................................................ 500,000 

96. NJ ............................................ Monmouth County for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.500,000 

97. NJ ............................................ Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission for a Combined Sewage Overflow 

Project.

750,000 

98. NJ ............................................ The Borough of Califon for Railroad Ave./Main St. stormwater improvements.500,000 

99. NJ ............................................ The Borough of Fort Lee for CSO abatement upgrades .......................... 500,000 

100. NJ ............................................ The Borough of Hopatcong for drinking water infrastructure improvements.500,000 

101. NM ........................................... The Pueblo of San Felipe for wastewater infrastructure ......................... 400,000 

102. NV ............................................ Lyon County Utilities for wastewater infrastructure improvements at 

Mound House.

500,000 

103. NY ............................................ Gowanus Canal Conservancy for Gowanus Canal water quality improvement.300,000 

104. NY ............................................ Onondaga County for storm water infrastructure improvements ............ 400,000 

105. NY ............................................ Rockland Co. Sewer District No. 1 for Ramapo wastewater treatment .. 500,000 

106. NY ............................................ The City of Glen Cove for water and stormwater infrastructure improvements.500,000 

107. NY ............................................ The City of New York, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation for Bronx River stormwater management.550,000 

108. NY ............................................ The City of Rochester for the Highland Reservoir ................................... 600,000 

109. NY ............................................ The City of White Plains for a drinking water transmission line ........... 500,000 

110. NY ............................................ The Town of Pendleton for the replacement of grinder pumps .............. 500,000 

111. NY ............................................ The Town of Urbana for water and wastewater infrastructure ............... 500,000 

112. NY ............................................ The Village of Saugerties for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.800,000 

113. NY ............................................ Westchester Joint Water Works for water main rehabilitation ................ 517,000 

114. OH ........................................... Butler County Commissioners for the Ross Township sewer project ...... 500,000 

115. OH ........................................... Ottawa County for the Ottawa County sanitary sewer project ................ 500,000 

116. OH ........................................... Muskingum County Commissioners for Maysville sewer improvements .. 500,000 

117. OH ........................................... The City of Ashland for a waterline replacement project ....................... 500,000 

118. OH ........................................... The City of Stow for sanitary sewer system infrastructure ..................... 500,000 

119. OH ........................................... The City of Vandalia for airport access road water and sewer extensions.500,000 

120. OH ........................................... The City of Worthington for sanitary sewer improvements ..................... 500,000 

121. OH ........................................... The Village of Dillonvale for water meter replacement ........................... 100,000 

122. OH ........................................... The Village of Tiro for a water distribution system ................................ 500,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
116 

State Project Amount 

123. OH ........................................... Trumbull County Commissioners for wastewater infrastructure improvements.300,000 

124. OK ............................................ Lawton Ft. Sill Chamber of Commerce for Lawton Industrial Park Expansion for Water and Sewer Line Extensions.

500,000 

125. PA ............................................ Findlay Township Municipal Authority for water and sewer upgrades .... 500,000 

126. PA ............................................ Haines Aaronsburg Municipal Authority for water line interconnection .. 250,000

127. PA ............................................ Hegins-Hubley Authority for facility improvements .................................. 68,000 

128. PA ............................................ Lehigh County Authority for the Vera Cruz wastewater collection system.500,000 

129. PA ............................................ Municipal Authority of the City of Lower Burrell for Wildlife Lodge Road 

sanitary sewer extension.

800,000 

130. PA ............................................ Northampton, Bucks County Municipal Authority for wastewater infrastructure improvements.

500,000 

131. PA ............................................ The City of Reading for wastewater infrastructure improvements at 

Fritz’s Island.

500,000 

132. PA ............................................ Thornbury Township for Cheyney University/Thornbury Township wastewater treatment facility improvements.250,000 

133. PA ............................................ Tri-County Joint Municipal Authority for water treatment infrastructure 393,000 

134. PA ............................................ York City Sewer Authority for headworks facility infrastructure .............. 160,000 

135. RI ............................................. The City of Newport for UV disinfection system improvements .............. 500,000 

136. SC ............................................ The City of Rock Hill for the Phase II Hagins-Fewell Neighborhood Infrastructure Improvement Project.600,000 

137. SC ............................................ The Town of Coward for drinking water and wastewater improvements 500,000 

138. TN ............................................ Campbell County Government for Campbell County waterline improvements.500,000 

139. TN ............................................ Springville Utility District of Henry County for drinking water system 

improvements.

500,000 

140. TN ............................................ The City of Harrogate for wastewater system improvements .................. 500,000 

141. TX ............................................ The City of Andrews for Andrews arsenic filtration pilot project ............ 400,000 

142. TX ............................................ The City of Austin for Austin Sanitary Sewer Overflow Prevention ......... 500,000 

143. TX ............................................ The City of Baytown for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.500,000 

144. TX ............................................ The City of Crystal City for water infrastructure improvements ............. 500,000 

145. TX ............................................ The City of Gainesville for the water treatment plant expansion project 500,000 

146. TX ............................................ The City of Joshua for the Joshua drainage project in Johnson County 1,000,000

147. TX ............................................ The City of La Vernia for drinking water infrastructure .......................... 500,000 

148. TX ............................................ The City of Petersburg for elevated water tank replacement ................. 439,000 

149. TX ............................................ The City of Temple for industrial park wastewater line and interceptor 500,000 

150. UT ............................................ Weber County for the Weber County storm water master plan ............... 500,000 

151. VA ............................................ Halifax County Service Authority for Maple Avenue wastewater plant 

upgrades.

500,000 

152. VA ............................................ The City of Alexandria for a water reuse project .................................... 500,000 

153. VA ............................................ The City of Alexandria, Arlington County for Four Mile Run infrastructure improvements.500,000 

154. VA ............................................ The City of Falls Church for storm water infrastructure ......................... 500,000 

155. WA ........................................... Jefferson County Department of Community Development for the Port 

Hadlock wastewater system.

500,000 

156. WA ........................................... The City of Buckley for emergency intertie booster station .................... 333,000 

157. WA ........................................... The City of Lacey for regional reclaimed water project .......................... 500,000 

158. WA ........................................... The City of Rock Island for wastewater system infrastructure ............... 500,000 

159. WA ........................................... The City of Seattle for the Magnuson Park Wetlands project ................. 500,000 

160. WA ........................................... The City of South Bend for the Willapa Regional wastewater facilities 

project.

500,000 

161. WA ........................................... The City of Tacoma for the Tacoma downtown sustainable storm 

drainage system.

1,148,000 

162. WA ........................................... West Sound Utility District for the Port Orchard reclaimed water distribution system.165,000 

163. WI ............................................ The City of Abbotsford for water treatment infrastructure ..................... 1,000,000 

164. WI ............................................ The City of Park Falls for sewer infrastructure ....................................... 550,000 

165. WI ............................................ The Village of Athens for wastewater treatment facility upgrades ........ 1,000,000 

166. WI ............................................ The Village of Stetsonville for a public drinking water system .............. 1,000,000 

167. WV ........................................... The Town of Rowlesburg for drinking water infrastructure improvements.

500,000 

Categorical Grants to Environmental Partners.—For categorical 

grants to EPA’s environmental partners, the Committee recommends $1,115,446,000, $20,591,000 above the fiscal year 2009 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
117 

enacted level and $4,172,000 above the budget request. The Committee supports the requested increases for the Section 102 Water 

Grants, the Public Water Supervision Grants, and the State and 

Local Air Quality grants. From within the amount provided, the 

Committee directs the following changes to the request: 

¥$3,000,000 from the Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance grant program, which will provide a $2,000,000 increase 

above the fiscal year 2009 level; 

¥$1,000,000 from the Lead grant, which will provide the fiscal year 2009 level; 

¥$1,828,000 from the Sector grants; and, 

+$10,000,000 to restore the Climate Change Grants to local 

and Tribal governments. 

Climate Change Grants for Local and Tribal Communities.—The 

bill includes $10,000,000 for the Office of Air and Radiation to continue a competitive grant program to assist local and Tribal communities in establishing and implementing integrated climate 

change initiatives. The goals of the program are to (1) assist local 

and Tribal governments in developing plans and implementing 

projects that provide cost-effective, continuing, and documentable 

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; (2) to demonstrate 

replicable models of sustainable community action; and (3) to 

transfer these models nationwide through peer exchange, information sharing, and other means to build a network of ‘‘communities 

of practice.’’ 

The Climate Change Grants complement existing Agency climate 

programs and provide a climate focus to other planning and implementation activities. In addition, the Committee considers this program to be unique in that it targets a specialized, critical audience 

(local and Tribal governments) specifically for greenhouse gas reductions in the context of broad climate change management. Rather than isolating components of climate change mitigation, the program encourages comprehensive, multi-media approaches that combine planning and project implementation with public education 

and outreach. This allows local and Tribal governments to tailor 

approaches to their specific needs and priorities, encourages innovative solutions, and avoids redundant efforts. 

The Agency is directed to continue to follow the specific guidelines contained in the explanatory statement accompanying the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, including the requirement that grantees provide a 50 percent match and that Tribes receive five percent of the funds. The Agency is directed to report 

within 180 days of enactment of this Act on its progress in implementing this grant program, including a summary of the projects 

funded, estimates of greenhouse gases reduced and other quantifiable co-benefits, and suggestions for future implementation of the 

program. 

Bill Language.—The Committee recommendation retains the following language from prior years: (1) State administrative costs of 

the Clean Water State Revolving Fund; (2) conditions for the Alaska Native Villages Grant program; (3) special project grants, with 

a 45 percent match requirement; (4) Colonias Enforcement; (5) the 

language which provides STAG account funds for a small portion 

of the underground storage tank program; and, (6) authority for the 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
118 

Administrator to award grants to local governments for climate 

change projects. 

The Committee has accepted the following new bill language proposed by the President: (1) increases to the Tribal and territorial 

set-asides from the SRFs; and, (2) language to allow States to use 

the SRFs for green infrastructure and water and energy efficiency 

projects, with slight technical changes. New language has been included in the Administrative Provisions to provide for additional 

subsidies for communities that cannot afford a conventional SRF 

loan. The Committee has not included the following language proposed by the President: (1) a requirement that a State match funds 

provided for the particulate matter monitoring network; and, (2) a 

limitation that funds provided for water quality monitoring be used 

for state participation in national statistical surveys. 

Additional Guidance.—The Committee has included the following 

additional guidance with respect to funding provided under this account: 

Brownfields Technical Assistance Centers.—The Committee supports the Agency’s use of regional technical assistance centers. The 

Agency is directed to continue this program at the fiscal year 2009 

level of $1,800,000. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee recommendation continues the language, carried 

in prior years, concerning Tribal Cooperative Authority and the collection and obligation of pesticides fees. The Committee has accepted the President’s proposal to expand the Agency’s transfer and 

interagency agreement authority for the purposes of implementing 

the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative only. 

The Committee has accepted the President’s proposal to rescind 

prior year funds, but has increased the rescission to $142,000,000, 

which is $132,000,000 more than the request. The Committee has 

taken this action in light of a recent IG report, which indicates that 

the Agency has an unusually high unliquidated balance from appropriations made prior to fiscal year 2009. Should the Agency 

identify any of those funds not from the STAG account as eligible 

for this rescission prior to the Conference Committee on this bill, 

the Committee will consider expanding the accounts from which 

this rescission can be taken. The Bill Language prohibits the Agency from taking the rescission against amounts designated by Congress as emergency. The Committee has amended the proposed language on Title 42 authority to extend the authority through 2015. 

The Committee also has included two provisions relating to subsidies and green infrastructure projects from within the funds provided for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving 

Funds. Bill language has been included to provide specific wage 

rate requirements for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State 

Revolving Funds. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
119 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

The U.S. Forest Service manages 193 million acres of public 

lands, including lands in 44 States and Puerto Rico, and cooperates 

with States, other Federal agencies, Tribes and others to sustain 

the Nation’s forests and grasslands. The Forest Service administers 

a wide variety of programs, including forest and rangeland research, State and private forestry assistance, wildfire suppression 

and fuels reduction, cooperative forest health programs, an International program and human resource programs. The National 

Forest System (NFS) includes 155 national forests, 20 national 

grasslands, 20 national recreation areas, a national tallgrass prairie, 6 national monuments, and 6 land utilization projects. The 

NFS is managed for multiple use, including timber production, 

recreation, wilderness, minerals, grazing, fish and wildlife habitat 

management, and soil and water conservation. The Forest Service 

celebrated its centennial in 2005. 

The Committee recommendations for all Forest Service accounts 

are based on changes to the President’s budget request. Unless otherwise stated, the Committee approves the items in the budget justification and supporting materials from the Service. 

The Committee encourages the Forest Service to accelerate 

longleaf pine forest restoration efforts using funds made available 

within the National Forest System, forest and rangeland research, 

wildland fire management and State and private forestry accounts. 

The Committee expects the Forest Service to work with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and other partners as appropriate towards realizing the range-wide conservation plan for longleaf pine and objectives under the Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning 

and Sustainability. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee for each Forest 

Service appropriation account, compared with the budget estimates 

by activity, are shown in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
120 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 047 here HR180.039
121 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 048 here HR180.040
122 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 049 here HR180.041
123 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 050 here HR180.042
124 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 051 here HR180.043
125 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 052 here HR180.044
126 

FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

Forest and rangeland research and development sponsors basic 

and applied scientific research. This research provides both credible 

and relevant knowledge about forests and rangelands and new 

technologies that can be used to sustain the health, productivity, 

and diversity of private and public lands to meet the needs of 

present and future generations. Research is conducted across the 

U.S. through six research stations, the Forest Products Laboratory, 

and the International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico, 

as well as cooperative research efforts with many of the Nation’s 

universities. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $296,380,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 300,612,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 308,612,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +12,232,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +8,000,000 

The Committee recommends $308,612,000 for forest and range- land research, $12,232,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $8,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendation includes increases of $3,000,000 to cover previously unfunded fixed 

costs and $5,000,000 for global climate change research. The Committee expects the Forest Service aspen free air CO2 enrichment 

experiment to continue to be operational to provide answers to critical questions about the impacts of greenhouse gases and climate 

change on forests, air quality standards and human health. 

The Committee recognizes that Forest Service research conducts 

leading-edge science that helps address the impacts of climate 

change on trees, forests and forest ecosystems through adaptation 

and mitigation actions. The Committee expects the Service to closely coordinate with the U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal 

science providers to develop a cohesive strategy towards evolving 

climate change science needs, including implementing the adaptation strategy for assessing ecosystem carbon sequestration required 

by section 712 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007. Future budget justifications should clearly delineate Forest 

Service research efforts in climate change science, and how they 

link with and compliment other Federal efforts. 

The Committee congratulates the Forest Service on the centennial of the network of experimental forests. The Service is encouraged to continue supporting and expanding this network and utilize this tremendous resource for coordinated studies and monitoring of important issues, such as climate change research and 

carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation. The Committee notes 

that May 18, 2010 will be the 30th anniversary of the destructive 

blast of Mt. St. Helens. The Forest Service is encouraged to continue its exceptional efforts to track ecological response to this catastrophic event and support scientific studies of this milestone. 

The Forest Service should treat the funding for the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program as a budget line item. Funding for 

FIA under this heading is $61,939,000 as requested. The Committee notes that an additional $5,035,000 for the FIA program is 

provided within the State and private forestry appropriation under 

the forest resource information and analysis budget line item. The 

two FIA program components thus receive a total of $66,974,000. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
127 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

Through cooperative programs with State and local governments, 

non-industrial private forest landowners, forest industry and conservation organizations, the Forest Service supports the protection 

and management of the nearly 500 million acres of non-Federal forests in the country. Technical and financial assistance is offered to 

improve wildland fire management and protect communities from 

wildfire; control insects and disease; improve management of private forests; conserve environmentally important forests; and enhance stewardship of urban and rural forests. The Forest Service 

provides special expertise and disease suppression for all Federal 

and Tribal lands, as well as cooperative assistance with the States 

for State and private lands. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $265,861,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 306,111,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 307,486,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +41,625,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +1,375,000 

The Committee recommends $307,486,000 for State and private forestry (S&PF), $41,625,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level and $1,375,000 above the budget request. The Committee is 

encouraged by the S&PF redesign effort; a component of redesign, 

the national competition, has successfully demonstrated project 

prioritization and program innovation as documented in the 2009 

Redesign Report Card. To facilitate further implementation of the 

redesign effort, the Committee exempts the Redesign National 

Competition from the normal reprogramming guidelines. In lieu, 

the Committee expects to receive a report annually as part of the 

budget justification on the program adjustments made to appropriately fund the competitive projects. 

Forest Health Management.—The Committee recommends 

$107,105,000 for forest health management, an increase of 

$6,703,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $6,000,000 

above the request. The funding increase is for high priority forest 

health efforts. The Committee notes that increased funding has 

also been provided for forest health management under the 

wildland fire management account. The forest health program 

should continue to stress strategic funding allocations, and should 

continue the slow-the-spread, suppression and eradication efforts 

for gypsy moth and bark beetle work in the West. The Service 

should also expand efforts on the hemlock wooly adelgid in the 

East. 

The Committee has provided a $2,000,000 increase above the request for cooperative lands forest health management; this increase 

should be used to assist in restoring urban areas and communities 

through identifying and replanting trees infested and killed by the 

emerald ash borer. 

The Committee encourages the Service to use existing State and 

private forestry authorities to assist in restoring urban and community forests through identifying and replanting trees infested 

and killed by the emerald ash borer. The Service should use base 

program funding to continue important technology development 

and scientific monitoring of the emerald ash borer situation and report to the Committee by December 31, 2009 on the emerald ash 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
128 

borer program and the overall scientific, monitoring, technology development and urban and rural response to clean-up and restore 

damaged areas. The Committee directs the Administration and the 

USDA to use existing emergency authorities to release USDA funds 

to assist impacted communities with responding to this emergency, 

just as they have during previous pest and agricultural emergencies. 

Cooperative Fire Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$46,147,000 for cooperative fire protection, $5,147,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $4,000,000 above the request. 

The increase above the request is intended to help States prepare 

the State-wide Assessment and Resource Strategy plans and associated activities required by the Farm Bill and the S&PF redesign 

approach. These efforts have the potential to significantly change 

the way cooperative programs are delivered, resulting in a more 

strategic approach to landscape scale planning and delivery of program and projects. As State and Federal agencies respond to 

emerging carbon markets and respond to climate change, these 

State-level forest plans can serve as essential parts of landscape 

and regional adaptation efforts. Nearly 500,000,000 acres of the 

United States is private or State forestland with major impacts on 

regional and global carbon cycling, depending on how they are 

managed in the future. 

Forest Stewardship.—The Committee recommends $31,639,000 

for forest stewardship, $4,639,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $3,270,000 above the budget request. The base 

Chesapeake Bay program should be increased $1,000,000 above the 

requested level. The other increase above the request should be 

used for priority work and to offset previously unfunded fixed costs 

at the Forest Service and States. 

Forest Legacy Program.—The Committee recommends a total 

funding level of $79,715,000 for the forest legacy program, which 

includes the use of $3,500,000 of prior-year unobligated balances 

for a total appropriated level of $76,215,000. This appropriated 

level is $26,770,000 above the fiscal year 2009 level and 

$14,845,000 below the budget request. The Service is directed to 

follow its nationally ranked priority list for funding projects. 

Urban and Community Forestry.—The Committee recommends 

$30,777,000 for urban and community forestry, $1,236,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $1,450,000 above the budget 

request. The funding increase includes $150,000 to support the Baltimore, MD, urban forestry watershed demonstration cooperative 

project, $300,000 to support the Menomonee Valley partners urban 

forestry project in Milwaukee, WI, and $1,000,000 to continue the 

Seattle-Tacoma regional urban forestry restoration effort, WA. 

The Committee encourages the Forest Service to work with the 

Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Committee, key partner 

organizations such as the Sustainable Urban Forestry Coalition, 

and other Federal agencies to ensure the importance of sustaining 

the natural urban environment. The Committee expects the Forest 

Service to focus funding allocations on efforts in large urban areas 

and on various efforts to enhance green infrastructure, including 

strategic selection of several projects of national and regional significance. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
129 

Forest Resource Information and Analysis.—The Committee recommends $5,035,000 for forest resource information and analysis 

as requested, an increase of $35,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

International Forestry.—The Committee recommends $10,568,000 

for International Forestry, $2,068,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level and $1,500,000 above the budget request. The Committee recognizes the Forest Service International Program for its 

successful projects in the areas of migratory species habitat, 

invasive species control, illegal logging interventions and analysis 

of carbon market models, all of which directly benefit the United 

States. Further, the program’s work on preventing international 

deforestation and grassland destruction represent important, early 

action by the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from forest 

destruction and degradation. Activities related to deforestation are 

responsible for more than 20 percent of all global greenhouse gas 

emissions annually. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

Within the National Forest System (NFS), which covers 193 million acres, there are 61 Congressionally designated areas, including 

21 national recreation areas, and 7 national scenic areas. The NFS 

hosted over 179 million visits in 2008. The NFS includes over 

153,000 miles of trails and roughly 17,700 recreation sites, including approximately 5,200 campgrounds and 37 major visitor centers. 

Wilderness areas cover 36 million acres, which account for approximately 60 percent of the wilderness in the contiguous 48 States. 

The NFS includes a substantial amount of the Nation’s softwood 

inventory. In fiscal year 2008 over 205,000 acres of national forest 

vegetation was managed through timber sale activities, which produced nearly 2.5 billion board feet of timber volume. The Forest 

Service also has major habitat management responsibilities for 

more than 3,000 species of wildlife and fish, and 10,000 plant species and provides important habitat and open space for over 422 

threatened or endangered species. Half of the Nation’s big game 

and coldwater fish habitat, including salmon and steelhead, is located on NFS lands and waters. In addition, in the 11 western 

States, where the water supply is sometimes critically short, over 

50 percent of domestic water is provided from NFS lands. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $1,509,805,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 1,506,564,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,564,801,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +54,996,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +58,237,000 

The Committee recommends $1,564,801,000 for the national forest system, $54,996,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $58,237,000 above the budget request. A total of $35,237,000 

has been added to cover fixed cost increases. Unless otherwise specified, the increases above the request by budget activity are for 

fixed costs. In addition, an increase of $7,500,000 is recommended 

for climate change adaptation efforts. This funding includes 

$2,500,000 for both the wildlife and fisheries habitat management 

and vegetation and watershed management activities, $1,500,000 

for the inventory and monitoring activity and $1,000,000 for the 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
130 

land management planning activity. The Forest Service is expected 

to work closely with the Interior Department, especially the BLM 

and the U.S. Geological Survey, on climate change impact activities. Further direction on interagency coordination is in the front 

of this report. The requested rescission of $10,000,000 of prior year 

funding is not included. 

Land Management Planning.—The Committee recommends 

$47,317,000 for land management planning, $1,516,000 below the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $1,799,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee encourages the Service to review the National 

Forest Management Act planning process, including the adequacy 

of the 2008 planning rule. The Committee encourages appropriate 

policy, which will ensure strong protection for fish and wildlife, 

proper scientific analysis, and opportunities for well-informed public involvement in planning conducted pursuant to the National 

Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy 

Act. The Committee encourages the Service to conduct this review 

before proposing or finalizing revised forest plans under the 2008 

forest planning rule. 

Inventory and Monitoring.—The Committee recommends 

$173,810,000 for inventory and monitoring, $6,230,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $5,115,000 above the budget request. 

Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness.—The Committee recommends $292,599,000 for recreation, heritage and wilderness, 

$14,964,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$12,482,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$5,000,000 for the Forest Service to enhance its efforts with youth 

and conservation. The funding is provided under this program; 

however, the Service may allocate these funds to other programs 

or transfer funds to other accounts if this would lead to a more effective and efficient youth program. The Committee expects the 

Forest Service to work closely with the Interior Department and 

partners on this youth effort and report back to the Committee 

within 90 days of enactment on the Service’s plans for this funding 

increase. The remainder of the increase above the request is for 

fixed costs. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management.—The Committee recommends $148,557,000 for wildlife and fish habitat management, 

an increase of $9,172,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $7,086,000 above the budget request. 

Grazing Management.—The Committee recommends $50,714,000 

for grazing management, $714,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $765,000 above the budget request. 

Forest Products.—The Committee recommends $336,722,000 for 

forest products, an increase of $4,056,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and $7,763,000 above the budget request. 

The Forest Service is encouraged to consider all contract methods 

for implementing sustainable biomass energy projects proposed on 

the Mark Twain National Forest, MO, including stewardship contracting authority provided under Section 323 of Public Law 108– 

7, utilizing available agency funding. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
131 

Vegetation and Watershed Management.—The Committee recommends $189,135,000 for vegetation and watershed management, 

an increase of $8,698,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $6,849,000 above the budget request. 

Minerals and Geology Management.—The Committee recommends $87,830,000 for minerals and geology management, an 

increase of $2,360,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$1,180,000 above the budget request. 

Land Ownership Management.—The Committee recommends 

$96,841,000 for land ownership management, $3,542,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $2,469,000 above the budget request. 

Law Enforcement Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$137,776,000 for law enforcement operations, $2,276,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $2,729,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes that this fully funds the budget request, which includes, among many other ongoing activities, 

$500,000 for methamphetamine prevention efforts on the Mark 

Twain National Forest, MO, and $900,000 to continue law enforcement operations on the Daniel Boone National Forest, KY. 

Bill Language.—The recommendation includes bill language which allows up to $10,000,000 to be transferred to other Forest 

Service accounts if it enhances the efficiency or effectiveness of 

Federal activities. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $482,393,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 556,962,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 542,637,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +60,244,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥14,325,000 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $542,637,000 for capital improvement and maintenance, $60,244,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $14,325,000 below the budget request. The recommendation continues the previous legislative language which 

brings the roads and trails fund activities onto the discretionary 

budget, netting an $18,000,000 scoring credit. The Committee remains interested in the travel management planning process. It is 

vital for the Service to look at the entire road system on a National 

Forest and determine those roads that are unneeded or which may 

be harming the environment. The Committee also feels that the implementation of the travel management plans needs to be userfriendly. The designation of open and closed roads and trails needs 

to be easily understood by the public. 

Facilities Maintenance.—The Committee recommends 

$86,134,000 for facilities maintenance as requested. The Committee 

continues the requested bill language in the administrative provisions allowing program assessments for maintenance of facilities. 

The Committee notes that the Forest Service intends to generate 

additional funds for maintenance and construction of facilities 

through the use of the funds generated by selling surplus administrative sites under the Federal Land and Facility Conveyance Act 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
132 

(FLFCA). The budget justification indicates that there is a backlog 

of deferred maintenance for buildings of $711,925,000, so a variety 

of approaches will be needed to deal with this issue. The Committee expects to get regular, detailed updates on the FLFCA and 

continued detailed tables in the annual budget justification. 

Facilities Capital Improvement.—The Committee recommends 

$45,081,000 for facilities capital improvement, $10,521,000 below 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $475,000 above the budget 

request. The increase is for the Ratcliff Lake Recreation Area and 

Campground, Davy Crockett National Forest, TX. 

Road Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $166,885,000 

for road maintenance as requested, $4,385,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. 

Road Capital Improvement.—The Committee recommends 

$68,115,000 for road capital improvement as requested, $1,790,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee expects 

that the Forest Service will not build new roads unless they are absolutely needed for resource or service purposes. 

Trail Maintenance and Capital Improvement.—The Committee 

recommends $85,281,000 for trail maintenance and capital improvement, $4,266,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$3,200,000 above the budget request. The increase for trail maintenance is for fixed costs. The increase in trail capital improvement 

is for trail construction, maintenance, and improvement in the 

Sawtooth National Recreation Area, ID, of which $500,000 is for 

trail improvements; $500,000 is for maintenance of existing motorized trails and areas; and $200,000 is for the improvement of two 

existing trails to provide primitive wheelchair access at Murdock 

Creek and Phyllis Lake. 

The Committee recommendation retains previous base funding 

for maintenance, construction, and operation of the network of national scenic and historic trails but encourages additional funding 

for required work of the newly authorized national trails. Future 

budget justifications should continue to provide specific trail operation, maintenance and construction funding and accomplishment 

data for the national scenic and historic trails. The Service should 

provide full time administrators and prepare the required comprehensive management plans for the newly authorized national 

trails. The Committee notes that the budget request, which is fully 

funded, includes $2,000,000 for the Pacific Crest National Trail and 

$1,500,000 for the Florida National Scenic Trail and funding for 

other national trails as described in the budget justification. 

Deferred Maintenance.—The Committee recommends $9,141,000 

for deferred maintenance as requested, an increase of $41,000 over 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee notes that the 

budget justification indicates a deferred maintenance backlog of 

$5,145,142,000. The Service should continue to update this information in its future budget requests. The Committee also notes 

that the American Recovery and Reimbursement Act of 2009 

(ARRA) provided $650,000,000 for Forest Service capital improvement and maintenance and associated habitat improvement 

projects. The Committee expects that the ongoing reporting by the 

Forest Service as required by the ARRA will include information on 

the progress the Service is making at reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
133 

Legacy Road and Trail Remediation.—The Committee recommendation merges the budget requests for both the legacy road 

and trail remediation program and the new Administration initiative, protecting national forests. The new protecting national forests initiative has not been clearly explained by the Forest Service, 

but it shares the same goals and purpose as the proven legacy road 

and trail remediation program, which is to reduce deferred maintenance and protect watersheds and habitats by repairing infrastructure. The Committee recommendation provides $100,000,000 for 

the legacy road and trail remediation program. This includes the 

$50,000,000 requested for the program and the additional 

$50,000,000 requested for the protecting national forests initiative. 

Thus the legacy road and trail program recommended funding level 

is $50,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$50,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendation does 

not provide separate funding for the new protecting national forests 

initiative, but the Committee recommendation accomplishes the 

same goals of that initiative. 

The Committee notes that the legacy road and trail remediation 

program protects American rivers, streams, endangered fish, and 

community water systems by repairing the environmental damage 

caused by the vast legacy road system developed by the Forest 

Service, which served the needs of the Forest Service over the 

years. The Forest Service has responsibility for 6,400 bridges, 

378,000 miles of roads and thousands of miles of unofficial roadways. The Forest Service has not met its stewardship responsibilities to care for these roads, which would prevent harm to the 

downstream water needs of the States and communities and the 

aquatic life our Nation cherishes. The Service’s own statistics indicate that there is a $3,530,000,000 backlog in deferred maintenance for roads and bridges and another $280,000,000 deferred 

maintenance backlog for trails. In addition, there are thousands of 

stream crossings that are barriers to the movement of Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) listed fish, making it difficult for these species 

to fully interact with habitats, including the relatively pristine, 

upper watersheds which are often the prime strongholds for listed 

fish species. Several large, regional watershed restoration efforts 

are spending hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars on 

downstream management and regulatory requirements. However, 

restoration that leads to recovery as defined by the ESA cannot 

occur absent the Forest Service meeting its obligations in upstream 

areas. The Forest Service should use this funding in a strategic effort to decommission and fix roads and trails in environmentally 

sensitive areas. It should focus on those areas where Forest Service 

roads may be contributing to water quality problems in streams 

and water bodies which support threatened, endangered or sensitive species. The Service should utilize public input to help select 

projects, report back to the Committee within 120 days of enactment on the selected projects, and display its selection process and 

implementation activities on the agency’s web site. 

Bill Language.—The recommendation includes the following bill 

language: (1) allows funds to be used for road decommissioning; (2) 

encourages expedited decommissioning of unauthorized roads in response to threats to public safety, water quality, or natural resources; (3) transfers funds from the road and trail fund into the 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
134 

Treasury, netting an $18,000,000 scoring credit to this account; and 

(4) allows up to $10,000,000 to be transferred to other Forest Service accounts if it enhances the efficiency or effectiveness of Federal 

activities. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $49,775,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 28,684,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 36,782,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥12,993,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +8,098,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,782,000 for 

land acquisition, $12,993,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level and $8,098,000 above the budget request. 

The distribution of the funding is as follows: 

State Project Committee 

recommendation 

CA ....................... Angeles NF—Bighorn Mine .......................................................................................... $1,000,000 

CA ....................... Angeles NF—Shoemaker Canyon ................................................................................. 500,000 

CA ....................... Los Padres NF—Big Sur Ecosystem ............................................................................ 1,000,000 

CA ....................... Tahoe NF—Sierra Nevada Inholdings ......................................................................... 1,000,000 

CA ....................... San Bernardino NF—Garner Ranch ............................................................................ 500,000 

CA ....................... Six Rivers NF—Agnew Tract ........................................................................................ 1,000,000 

FL ........................ Florida National Scenic Trail ....................................................................................... 500,000 

FL ........................ Osceola NF—Pinhook Swamp Wildlife Corridor .......................................................... 500,000 

GA ....................... Chattahoochee-Oconee NF ........................................................................................... 1,000,000 

ID ........................ Sawtooth NRA—Piva Parcel ........................................................................................ 400,000 

IN ........................ Hoosier NF .................................................................................................................... 250,000 

MI ........................ Ottawa NF—Great Lakes/Great Lands ........................................................................ 1,500,000 

MN ....................... Chippewa/Superior NFs—Minnesota Wilderness ......................................................... 750,000 

MO ....................... Mark Twain NF—Missouri Ozarks ............................................................................... 500,000 

MT ....................... Helena NF—Blackfoot Challenge ................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Multi .................... Multiple NFs—Greater Yellowstone Area ..................................................................... 1,000,000 

NC ....................... Pisgah NF—Catawba Falls ......................................................................................... 713,000 

NC ....................... Uhwarrie NF—Uhwarrie Trail ....................................................................................... 500,000 

NH ....................... White Mountain NF ....................................................................................................... 434,000 

NM ....................... Gila NF—Bear Creek Ranch ........................................................................................ 1,000,000 

OR ....................... Wallowa-Whitman NF—Hells Canyon National Recreation Area ................................ 1,500,000 

PA ........................ Allegheny NF ................................................................................................................. 500,000 

SD ....................... Black Hills NF—Lady C Ranch ................................................................................... 1,000,000 

TN ........................ Cherokee NF—Rocky Fork ............................................................................................ 3,000,000 

UT ........................ Wasatch-Cache NF—High Uintas ............................................................................... 1,500,000 

VT ........................ Green Mtn. NF .............................................................................................................. 250,000 

WA ....................... Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie/Wenatchee NFs—Cascade Ecosystems .................................. 1,000,000 

WI ........................ Chequamegon-Nicolet NF—Wisconsin Wild Waterways .............................................. 1,000,000 

WV ....................... Monongahela NF—Dolly Sods Conservation Area ....................................................... 1,000,000 

WV ....................... Monongahela NF—Cummings Tract ............................................................................ 985,000 

Sub-total ............................................................................................................. 26,782,000 

Acquisition management ............................................................................................. 7,000,000 

Cash equalization ........................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Critical inholdings/wilderness protection .................................................................... 2,000,000 

Total .................................................................................................................... $36,782,000 

The Committee is concerned that the Forest Service budget request for land acquisition was entirely at odds with the Department of the Interior’s request for Federal land acquisition. In fact, 

the Federal land acquisition activity was reduced by almost half, 

and the request provided no funding for inholdings and wilderness 

protection. The Forest Service is a major manager of conservation 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
135 

lands in the United States, especially in the contiguous 48 States, 

with many sensitive inholdings and vital protection opportunities. 

Despite a healthy request for the forest legacy program, it is inappropriate for this agency to be excluded from a major policy initiative, like funding for acquisition of sensitive Federal lands. The 

Committee has included additional discussion of land acquisition 

for all agencies covered by this bill in the front section of this report. 

ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS SPECIAL ACTS

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $1,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 1,050,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,050,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $1,050,000 for acquisition of lands 

for National forests, special acts, as requested. 

ACQUISITION OF LANDS TO COMPLETE LAND EXCHANGES

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $250,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 250,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 250,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $250,000, as requested, for acquisition of lands to complete land exchanges under the Act of December 4, 1967 (16 U.S.C. 484a). Under the Act, deposits made by public school districts or public school authorities to provide for cash 

equalization of certain land exchanges can be appropriated to acquire similar lands suitable for national forest system purposes in 

the same State as the national forest lands conveyed in the exchanges. 

RANGE BETTERMENT FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $3,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 3,600,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 3,600,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $3,600,000, as requested, for the 

range betterment fund, to be derived from grazing receipts from 

the National Forests (Public Law 94–579, as amended) and to be 

used for range rehabilitation, protection, and improvements including seeding, reseeding, fence construction, weed control, water development, and fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in 16 western States. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
136 

GIFTS, DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS FOR FOREST AND RANGELAND

RESEARCH

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $50,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 50,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 50,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $50,000, as requested, for gifts, donations and bequests for forest and rangeland research. Authority 

for the program is contained in Public Law 95–307 (16 U.S.C. 1643, 

section 4(b)). Amounts appropriated and not needed for current operations may be invested in public debt securities. Both the principal and earnings from the receipts are available to the Forest 

Service. 

MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL FOREST LANDS FOR SUBSISTENCE USES

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 2,582,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,582,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... ¥2,418,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $2,582,000 for the management of 

national forest lands for subsistence uses in Alaska as requested, 

$2,418,000 below the enacted level. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $2,131,630,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 2,238,147,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,370,288,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +238,658,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +132,141,000 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $2,370,288,000 for wildland fire 

management, $238,658,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $132,141,000 above the budget request. This increase above 

the enacted level includes an increase of $134,558,000 for wildfire 

suppression operations. The non-suppression parts of the recommended budget are provided $1,241,783,000, $104,100,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Wildfire Preparedness.—The Committee recommends 

$693,000,000 for wildfire preparedness, an increase of $18,000,000 

above both the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the request. The 

increase is to offset fixed cost shortfalls. The Committee believes 

that the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service must 

work together, along with State and other partners, to maintain 

sufficient readiness with the preparedness program. 

The Committee directs the Forest Service to maintain the levels 

of readiness needed for public safety that were established in fiscal 

year 2008. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Forest Service to 

analyze current readiness levels to determine whether maintaining 

preparedness resources in the field at a level not less than that established in fiscal year 2008 will, based on the best information 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
137 

available, result in lower overall firefighting costs. If the Forest 

Service makes such a determination, the Committee directs the 

Forest Service to adjust the levels for preparedness and suppression funding accordingly and report on these adjustments to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Secretary of 

Agriculture should advise the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations in writing prior to the decision. 

The Committee understands the Forest Service has undergone a 

thorough examination of its aging air tanker fleet and has prepared an analytical report for review by the Administration. Recognizing the critical need to plan for future aerial fire suppression 

needs, the Committee directs the Forest Service to provide a copy 

of its report, including an estimate of replacement costs, within 30 

days of enactment of this Act. 

Wildfire Suppression Operations.—The Committee recommends 

$1,128,505,000 for fire suppression operations as requested, 

$134,558,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, an increase 

of 14 percent. The Committee recommendation fully meets the 10- 

year average expenditure on all emergency and discretionary funded suppression actions, adjusted up for inflation. The Committee 

notes that the inclusion of $282,000,000 in additional funds within 

the wildland fire suppression contingency reserve fund should provide all the funding needed for wildfire suppression. Bill language 

included in administrative provisions provides authority for the 

Forest Service to transfer non-wildfire funds for emergency wildfire 

suppression once all the funds in this account and the new contingency account will be obligated within 30 days and following Secretarial notification of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 5 days before such a transfer occurs. The Committee encourages the Administration and the Congress to provide 

better advance budgetary planning during the summer wildfire 

season so extra emergency resources can be provided if required. 

The Committee remains concerned about the high costs of large 

fire incidents. The Department of the Interior, along with the Forest Service, should ensure that cost containment is an important 

priority when suppressing wildland fires. Therefore, the Committee 

directs the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service to 

continue reports required previously and to examine, using independent panels, any individual wildfire incident which results in 

expenses greater than $10,000,000. 

Hazardous Fuels.—The Committee recommends $378,086,000 for 

hazardous fuels reduction work, $50,000,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 level and $62,801,000 above the budget request. This recommended increase should protect many communities and lead to 

reduced wildfire suppression expenses and less damaging wildfires. 

The recommendation includes $5,000,000 for biomass utilization 

grants as requested. 

Rehabilitation.—The Committee recommends $11,600,000 for the 

burned area rehabilitation and restoration program, $100,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $2,600,000 above the 

request. The recommendation includes $100,000 to support urban 

youth conservation corps activities at the San Bernardino NF, CA. 

The Interior Department and the Forest Service should include updates on rehabilitation needs in future budget justifications. The 

Forest Service should continue the native plant materials program 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
138 

funding at $3,000,000 and this program should work together with 

the Bureau of Land Management program. 

Fire Plan Research and Development.—The Committee recommends $23,917,000 for research and development as requested, 

the same as the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Joint Fire Sciences Program.—The Committee recommends 

$8,000,000 for the joint fire science program as requested, the same 

as the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee directs the Interior Department and the Forest Service to work on these research efforts jointly, and stress practical solutions and collaboration with the Nation’s forestry schools and other partners. The 

Committee notes that an additional $6,000,000 for this program is 

provided within the Department of the Interior wildland fire management appropriation to continue joint departmental service of 

this effort. 

Forest Health Management, Federal Lands and Co-op Lands.— 

The Committee recommends $37,180,000 for the forest health portion of the national fire plan, $10,000,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and $15,750,000 above the request. The increased funding should be used strategically to protect Federal and 

cooperative forests and rangelands, leading to more resilient habitats and reduced wildfire danger. 

State Fire Assistance.— The Committee recommends $80,000,000 

for State fire assistance, $25,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $30,000,000 above the request. The program is essential to maintain and enhance the partnership among State foresters, State fire agencies and the Federal wildfire management 

enterprise. The increased funding should be focused on forestry and 

habitat projects which protect communities and reduce wildfire 

danger. 

Volunteer Fire Assistance.—The recommendation includes 

$10,000,000 for volunteer fire assistance, $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $3,000,000 above the request. 

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... $282,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 282,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +282,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $282,000,000 for the new wildland 

fire suppression contingency reserve fund as requested. The Committee notes that the recommendation also increases base funding 

for suppression activities of the Forest Service by $134,558,000 to 

a total of $1,128,505,000 for fire suppression operations, an increase of 14 percent. The combined wildfire suppression funding for 

the Forest Service is $1,410,505,000, a 42 percent increase over the 

fiscal year 2009 base appropriation. 

As requested by the Administration, the amounts in this fund 

may only be transferred if the President has issued a finding that 

the amounts are necessary for emergency fire suppression. The 

Committee recommendation allows the transfer only if the wildland 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
139 

fire management fire suppression funds will be obligated within 30 

days. 

The Committee notes that its recommendation also includes another $369,797,000 for the Interior Department as base suppression funding and an additional $75,000,000 for a similar contingency account. Thus, the Committee recommendation for both wildfire suppression accounts in both departments is $1,855,302,000, 

which is a 40 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 non-emergency level. 

The Committee notes that the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act) passed the House in 

March 2009. That Act authorizes a supplemental funding source for 

catastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression activities on Department of the Interior and National Forest System lands. If the 

FLAME Act is authorized, the Committee will work with the Administration and others to make this new wildfire suppression contingency fund compatible with the new FLAME Act funding procedures. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, FOREST SERVICE

The Committee has continued most administrative provisions included in previous years. The Committee has continued the 

wildland fire transfer authority, allowing use of funds from nonwildfire accounts available to the Forest Service during wildfire 

emergencies when other wildfire emergency funds are not available. However, this year this transfer authority can be used only 

after suppression funds in both the wildland fire management account and the new contingency account will be obligated within 30 

days. The Secretary of Agriculture must notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 5 days before such a 

transfer occurs. The Administration is expected to submit a supplemental request to replenish transferred funds as soon as possible. 

The Committee limits funding for the working capital fund of the Department of Agriculture to the $78,350,000 requested in the 

budget and limits the transfers to the USDA reimbursable programs (Greenbook charges) to the request of $19,825,000. 

The Committee is concerned about the huge costs of agency business process centralization and therefore directs that detailed reports remain a part of the budget justification and that all expenses be carefully evaluated, explained, and transparent to the 

public-at-large. The centralized services include, but are not limited 

to, web-based training, document and financial processing, 

GovTrip, and other on-line systems. The Committee is concerned 

that the centralization may adversely affect the overall effectiveness and morale of Forest Service employees in the field. The Committee believes an independent analysis of these centralized services by the Government Accountability Office, including a comprehensive review of the purchase card program, is necessary to determine whether this program has achieved intended efficiencies 

and cost-savings. 

The Committee continues previous language concerning interactions with foreign countries to clarify that the Forest Service 

International Program has the authority to sign agreements directly with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of State, the Millennium Challenge Corporation and natVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
140 

ural resource institutions around the world to address natural resource issues. 

The Committee continues the authority for transfers to the National Forest Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Each is provided $3,000,000, an increase above the requested level of $1,000,000 for the former and $350,000 for the latter. The Committee notes that it is acceptable for these foundations 

to make grants to Federal recipients, including Forest Service offices. The Committee recommendation does not provide administrative funds for use of the National Forest Foundation. 

The recommendation provides that $5,000,000 is available for 

Youth Conservation Corps and Public Lands Corps projects, in accordance with P.L. 109–154. 

The Committee recommendation continues the bill language from 

previous years allowing for payments to counties within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area as authorized by Public Law 

99–663. 

The Committee has also included bill language which extends 

the existing authority for the use of funds for the purpose of expenses associated with primary and secondary schooling for dependents of agency personnel stationed in Puerto Rico. This must 

be at a cost not in excess of those authorized by the Department 

of Defense for the same area, if public schools available in the locality are unable to provide adequately for the education of dependents. An extension was requested by the Administration. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

The provision of Federal health services to Indians is based on 

a special relationship between Indian Tribes and the U.S. Government first set forth in the 1830’s by the U.S. Supreme Court under 

Chief Justice John Marshall. Numerous treaties, statutes, constitutional provisions, and international law have reconfirmed this relationship. Principal among these is the Snyder Act of 1921, which 

provides the basic authority for most Indian health services provided by the Federal Government to American Indians and Alaska 

Natives. The Indian Health Service (IHS) provides direct health 

care services in 31 hospitals, 61 health centers, 2 school health centers, and 30 health stations. Tribes and Tribal groups, through contracts and compacts with the IHS, operate 14 hospitals, 227 health 

centers, 13 school health centers, and 102 health stations (including 166 Alaska Native village clinics). The IHS, Tribes, and Tribal 

groups also operate 11 regional youth substance abuse treatment 

centers and 2,370 units of staff quarters. 

The Committee is pleased that this Administration has provided 

historic increases for Native American health care programs. These 

increases reflect Committee concerns from previous years and will 

do much to address shortfalls associated with past budget requests 

that neglected to provide for pay cost increases, medical inflation, 

and growing population needs. The Committee has supported these 

increases and looks forward to working with this Administration to 

focus on the health care needs of Native Americans. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget estimates by activity are shown in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
141 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 054 hr180.045
142 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 055 hr180.046
143 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 056 hr180.069
144 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $3,190,956,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 3,639,868,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 3,657,618,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +466,662,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +17,750,000 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $3,657,618,000 for Indian Health 

Services, $466,662,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$17,750,000 above the budget request. Changes to the budget request are detailed below: 

Domestic Violence.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to 

continue the initiative to address domestic violence and sexual assault, $2,500,000 over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$2,500,000 above the budget request. The Committee is pleased 

that the Administration also recognizes the significance of this 

problem and has included funding for this initiative in its request. 

The Committee remains deeply concerned about the problem of 

domestic violence, particularly violence against women and children in Indian Country, but understands that this problem cannot 

be addressed by the Indian Health Service alone. The Committee 

expects the Service to work with the Department of the Interior 

and the Department of Justice to provide the needed services and 

support to victims. The Service is encouraged to expand its outreach efforts in communities to increase awareness of this problem 

and work with community leaders to find ways to address it at the 

local level. 

Within the amount provided for domestic violence and sexual assault prevention and treatment, the Indian Health Service is directed to implement a nationally coordinated Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner/Sexual Assault Response Team (SAFE/SART) Program to be used to fund IHS and Tribal hospitals through competitive grants to build local SAFE and SART capacity. In addition, the 

Service is directed to expand its national domestic violence grant 

program to address the growing need for increased Federal, Tribal 

and Urban Domestic Violence program services. IHS is also encouraged to evaluate its system-wide sexual assault and domestic violence prevention and response capacity. 

The Committee questions the Department of Health and Human 

Services (DHHS) policy on witness subpoenas and is concerned that 

it may hinder the Indian Health Service mission to promote the 

health and well-being of all Native Americans. It has been reported 

that, in cases of rape or sexual assault, bureaucratic obstacles imposed by DHHS policy prevent many IHS personnel from presenting testimony in these cases. Reportedly, this policy has caused 

cases to be dropped and alleged perpetrators to walk free. The 

Committee finds this unacceptable. The Service and the Department are directed to reevaluate and revise this policy to ensure 

that IHS personnel are able to testify and present evidence in these 

cases and to report to the Committee on their efforts within 90 

days of enactment. 

Dental Health.—The Committee recommends $152,634,000 for 

the dental health program, $10,698,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level and $1,250,000 above the budget request. The ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
145 

mittee is pleased to see progress in reducing the vacancy rate 

among dental professionals but is still concerned about the projected retirement rate of recognized specialty dentists. The increase 

provided is for the Headquarters Division of Oral Health, to be 

used by the Director of the Division of Oral Health with $1,000,000 

to expand the dental residency program and $250,000 to expand 

the summer extern program. 

In addition, the Service is directed to further its dental health efforts by utilizing a portion of the health information technology 

funds provided within Hospitals and Health Clinics to refine and 

expedite the deployment schedule of the electronic dental record 

(EDR). The Service is strongly encouraged to make implementing 

the EDR a priority as it works to fully implement the overall electronic health record system. 

Alcohol and Substance Abuse.—The Committee recommends 

$194,409,000 for the Alcohol and Substance Abuse program as requested, $10,640,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The 

Committee has learned that the Service has not reached any agreement with Tribal leaders on how the funds appropriated for the 

methamphetamine prevention and treatment initiative from previous years can best be distributed. Given the epidemic levels of 

methamphetamine abuse in Indian Country, the Committee believes this program can provide much-needed support to communities that struggle with methamphetamine abuse. The Committee 

directs the Service to report within 60 days of enactment of this 

Act on how this situation will be resolved and how prior year and 

fiscal year 2010 funds will be allocated. 

Indian Health Care Improvement Fund.—The Committee recommends $45,543,000 for the Indian Health Care Improvement 

Fund, $30,543,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the 

same as the budget request. The Service is directed to allocate the 

increased funding for the Fund to bring those units with the highest level of need up to at least 45 percent of need before allocating 

any additional funds to units with needs above 45 percent. 

Urban Indian Health Program.—The Committee recommends 

$43,139,000 for the urban health program, $6,950,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $5,000,000 above the budget request. From within the increase provided, the Service is directed to 

conduct a new needs assessment of the urban Indian health program and the communities it serves. 

Indian Health Professions.—The Committee recommends 

$40,743,000 for Indian health professions, $3,243,000 over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Service is expected to use health professions program funding 

for loan repayment and scholarship programs to encourage increased recruitment and retention of health professionals. 

INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $390,168,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 394,757,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 394,757,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +4,589,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
146 

The Committee recommends $394,757,000 for Indian health facilities as requested, $4,589,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level. 

The Committee remains concerned about the systemic weaknesses in the IHS inventory management system, as identified by 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO). A recently released 

follow-up investigation by the GAO suggests these weaknesses persist. The Committee expects the Service to ensure that the provision of health care services is not adversely affected by these problems and that it is working to strengthen administration and accountability. The Service is directed to evaluate its inventory management system, identify and correct any deficiencies, and provide 

a detailed report to the Committee on its efforts within 30 days of 

enactment of this Act. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

(NIEHS), an agency within the National Institutes of Health, was 

authorized in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and in section 

126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 

1986 to conduct certain research and worker training activities associated with the nation’s Hazardous Substance Superfund program. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $78,074,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 79,212,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 79,212,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +1,138,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $79,212,000 for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences as requested, $1,138,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee supports 

the work of the NIEHS to provide scientific research and worker 

training to address and prevent diseases caused by environmental 

contamination. 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 

an agency of the Public Health Service, was created in section 

104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The ATSDR’s primary mission is to 

conduct surveys and screening programs to determine relationships 

between exposure to toxic substances and illness. Other activities 

include the maintenance and annual update of a list of hazardous 

substances most commonly found at Superfund sites, the preparation of toxicological profiles on each such hazardous substance, consultations on health issues relating to exposure to hazardous or 

toxic substances, and the development and implementation of certain research activities related to ATSDR’s mission. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
147 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $74,039,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 76,792,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 76,792,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +2,753,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $76,792,000 for the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) as requested, $2,753,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

In recent years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) has been charging the ATSDR over 16 percent for administrative expenses. In fiscal year 2009, the Committee placed a 12 

percent limit on these administrative expenses and directed the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review on the 

indirect/administrative costs paid to the CDC. Subsequent to the 

Committee’s direction to the GAO, the CDC announced plans to recommission a study to update the way it determines administrative 

costs. The Committee directs ATSDR to report the results of the 

study as soon as available. The Committee will make a decision on 

whether to impose a cap for fiscal year 2010 based on the results 

of both the CDC study and the GAO review. The Committee continues to support the work of minority health professional schools 

in the ATSDR effort to educate and train within minority and 

medically underserved communities. The Committee urges a greater focus on environmental health education and training to promote environmental health policy and behavioral change in impacted communities. 

OTHER RELATED AGENCIES 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established by 

Congress under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), which provides professional and administrative staff for the Council, was established in the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970. 

The Council on Environmental Policy has statutory responsibility 

under NEPA for environmental oversight of all Federal agencies 

and is to lead interagency decision-making of all environmental 

matters. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $2,703,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 3,159,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 3,159,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +456,000 

Budget Estimate, 2010 ............................................................... 0 

The Committee recommends $3,159,000 for the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality as requested, $456,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
148 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $10,199,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 10,547,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 10,547,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +348,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $10,547,000 for salaries and expenses of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 

(The Board) as requested, $348,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Bill Language.—The Committee continues to carry language, as 

in prior years, authorizing the EPA Inspector General to act as the 

IG for the Board. In addition, the bill includes language to transfer 

$150,000, as requested, from the Board to the EPA’s IG account to 

fund costs associated with the Office of the Inspector General’s duties associated with the Board. 

OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation was established 

by Public Law 93–531 to plan and conduct relocation activities associated with the settlement of a land dispute between the Navajo 

Nation and the Hopi Tribe. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $7,530,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 8,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 8,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +470,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation as requested, 

$470,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE CULTURE AND

ARTS DEVELOPMENT

PAYMENT TO THE INSTITUTE

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $7,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 8,300,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 8,300,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +400,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $8,300,000 for the Institute of 

American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development 

as requested, $400,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Smithsonian Institution is the world’s largest museum and 

research complex, with 19 museums and galleries, 20 libraries, nuVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
149 

merous research centers and the National Zoological Park. Funded 

by both private and Federal sources, the Smithsonian is unique in 

the Federal establishment. Created by an act of Congress in 1846 

to carry out the trust included in James Smithson’s will, it has 

been engaged for more than 150 years in the ‘‘increase and diffusion of knowledge.’’ In 2008, the Smithsonian attracted more than 

25 million visitors to its museums, galleries, and zoological park. 

Additional millions also view Smithsonian traveling exhibitions 

and participate in the annual Folklife Festival on the National 

Mall. As custodian of the National Collections, the Smithsonian is 

responsible for more than 136 million art objects, natural history 

specimens, and artifacts. These scientific and cultural collections 

are a vital resource for global research and conservation efforts. 

The collections are displayed for the education and enjoyment of 

visitors and are available for research by the staff of the Institution 

and by thousands of visiting students, scientists, and historians 

each year. The Committee recommends $774,161,000 for all Smithsonian 

Institution accounts, an increase of $42,761,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 level. In addition, $15,000,000 appropriated for the Legacy Fund in fiscal year 2008 is transferred to the facilities capital 

account for high priority deferred maintenance and revitalization 

projects. The amounts recommended by the Committee for the 

Smithsonian Institution, compared with the budget estimates by 

activity, are shown in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
150 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 058 hr180.047
151 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 059 hr180.048
152 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $593,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 634,161,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 634,161,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +40,761,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $634,161,000 for salaries and expenses as requested, $40,761,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee recognizes that the Smithsonian Institution has implemented many changes to improve governance and 

accountability. The Committee notes that both the GAO and the 

Inspector General have stated that considerable progress has been 

made, but that continued public and Congressional oversight is important. The Committee expects to get regular updates as the governance committee recommendations and new strategic plan continue to be implemented. The Committee recommendation makes 

most funds available until September 30, 2011. The Committee is 

very interested in the Smithsonian’s focus on education and outreach; there is great promise for enhanced contact with more citizens all over the Nation, as well as visitors to the remarkable facilities in Washington, DC, and elsewhere. 

It has come to the Committee’s attention that some Smithsonian 

Institution collections, such as the priceless military uniform collection at the National Museum of American History, may be stored 

in unsatisfactory conditions. Proper care and storage of these collections is paramount. The Committee urges the Smithsonian to 

take the necessary steps to preserve these irreplaceable historical 

collections and ensure that preservation of its collections is made 

a high priority. 

FACILITIES CAPITAL

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $123,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 125,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 140,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +17,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +15,000,000 

* Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $140,000,000 for facilities capital, 

$17,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$15,000,000 above the budget request. The increase above the request should be used for high priority, deferred maintenance and 

revitalization projects. 

The Committee bill does not include funding for the Legacy 

Fund, as requested, a decrease of $15,000,000 below the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level. 

The Committee recommendation fully supports the budget request and provides additional funding to maintain the revitalization program at approximately the same level of effort as in fiscal 

year 2009. The Committee recognizes the GAO reports and other 

independent analyses that document the Smithsonian’s revitalization and deferred maintenance backlog of $2.5 billion. The Committee recommendation fully funds the $20,000,000 requested for 

the design of the new National Museum of African American HisVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
153 

tory and Culture, which will be built next to the Washington 

Monument on the National Mall. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Committee recommendation includes bill language which 

transfers $14,766,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2008 (Public Law 

110–161; 121 Stat. 2140), from the Legacy Fund into the facilities 

capital account so these funds can be utilized by the Smithsonian 

Institution under the same terms and conditions that apply to 

other facilities capital funds. 

NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

The National Gallery of Art is one of the world’s great galleries. 

Its magnificent works of art are displayed for the benefit of millions of visitors from this and other nations. The National Gallery 

of Art serves as an example of a successful cooperative endeavor 

between private individuals and institutions and the Federal Government. The many special exhibitions shown in the Gallery and 

throughout the country bring great art treasures to Washington, 

DC and the Nation. In 1999, the Gallery opened a sculpture garden, which provides an opportunity for the public to have an outdoor, artistic experience in a contemplative setting. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee compared with the 

budget request and 2009 enacted levels are shown by account, program area and selected activity in the following table. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
154 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 060 hr180.049
155 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $105,388,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 108,986,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 110,746,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +5,358,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +1,760,000 

The Committee recommends $110,746,000 for salaries and expenses of the National Gallery of Art, $5,358,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level and $1,760,000 above the request. Within 

the amount provided, the Committee has restored the funds for the 

Gallery’s Special Exhibition program. This successful program, a 

critical part of the Gallery’s educational mission, joins public and 

private sector efforts to bring major works of art from public and 

private collections around the world for the enjoyment of millions 

who visit the Gallery and its web site. The Special Exhibitions program extends the educational mission of the Gallery by contributing to a variety of complementary educational events, including 

adult and student tours and family and teacher workshops. 

Bill Language.—The Committee has included bill language which 

specifies the amount provided for Special Exhibitions. 

REPAIR, RESTORATION AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $17,368,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 56,259,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 56,259,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +38,891,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $56,259,000 as requested, for repair, 

restoration and renovation of buildings at the National Gallery of 

Art, $38,891,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee has included construction funds necessary to repair a systemic structural failure of the anchors which support the National 

Gallery’s East Building exterior marble veneer. A group of Committee members viewed the failure and agree with the Gallery and 

expert engineering consultants that the situation poses a severe 

safety hazard to both visitors and staff of the Gallery. The funds 

provided here are only a portion of the funds the Gallery will need 

to remove, repair and reinstall all 16,200 panels on the face of the 

East Building. 

JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a living 

memorial to the late President Kennedy and is the National Center 

for the Performing Arts. The Center houses nine stages, six of 

which have a total of more than 7,300 seats. The Center consists 

of over 1.5 million square feet of usable floor space with visitation 

averaging 10,000 on a daily basis. The support systems in the 

building, the operation and maintenance of which are funded 

through this account, often operate at capacity 18 hours a day, 

seven days a week, 365 days a year. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
156 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $21,300,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 22,500,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 25,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +3,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +2,500,000 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for operations and 

maintenance, $3,700,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $2,500,000 above the request. The additional funding may be 

used to assist arts organizations with tools to manage challenges 

posed by the economy, such as board governance, budgeting, marketing, technology and other areas pertinent to managing a vital 

performing arts organization in a troubled economy. The Committee must be notified in advance of any funding used for this 

purpose. 

CAPITAL REPAIR AND RESTORATION

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $15,064,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 17,447,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 17,447,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +2,383,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $17,447,000 for capital repair and 

restoration as requested, $2,383,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is a 

unique institution with a special mission to serve as a living memorial to President Woodrow Wilson. The Center performs this mandate through its role as an international institute for advanced 

study as well as a facilitator for discussions among scholars, public 

officials, journalists and business leaders from across the country 

on major long-term issues facing this Nation and the world. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 10,225,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 12,225,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +2,225,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +2,000,000 

The Committee recommends $12,225,000 for salaries and expenses of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 

an increase of $2,225,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $2,000,000 above the request. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
157 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation enacted, 2009* ............................................................ $155,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 161,315,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 170,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +15,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +8,685,000 

*Total does not include funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The Committee recommends $170,000,000 for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), $15,000,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and $8,685,000 above the budget request. The 

Committee has recommended this increase in recognition of the 

high quality of programs initiated by the Endowment over the last 

several years and the broad and bipartisan support it garners. The 

Committee has been especially pleased with the American Masterpieces, Big Read and Operation Homecoming initiatives. Funding 

for the Endowment was reduced by over 40 percent in the mid1990’s, and the $15,000,000 increase recommended for fiscal year 

2010 continues the process of restoring funding to historic levels. 

All programs of the NEA will benefit from this increase. 

Bill language.—The Committee agrees with the request to reinstate four positions on the National Council on the Arts that were 

eliminated in 1996. This increase will enable the National Endowment of the Arts to receive counsel and advice from a more diverse 

body that represents a broader array of arts disciplines and fields. 

The allocation of funding among NEA activities is shown in the 

following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
158 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 061 hr180.050
159 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING MATCHING GRANTS)

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $155,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 161,315,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... * 170,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +15,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +8,685,000 

* Does not include request for National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Grant Program. 

The Committee recommends a total of $170,000,000 for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), $15,000,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $8,685,000 above the budget 

request. The Committee does not agree with the proposal to fund 

the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Grant program 

through the NEH. Instead, the Committee continues administration of the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Grant program through the Commission of Fine Arts, as in prior years. The 

allocation of funding among these activities is shown in the following table: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
160 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 062 hr180.051
161 

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

The Commission of Fine Arts was established in 1910 to meet 

the need for a permanent body to advise the government on matters pertaining to the arts, and particularly, to guide the architectural development of Washington, DC. Over the years the Commission’s scope has been expanded to include advice on areas such as 

plans for parks, public buildings, location of National monuments, 

and development of public squares. As a result, the Commission 

annually reviews approximately 500 projects. In fiscal year 1988 

the Commission was given responsibility for the National Capital 

Arts and Cultural Affairs program. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $2,234,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 2,294,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,294,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +60,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $2,294,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Commission of Fine Arts as requested, an increase of 

$60,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee 

has included bill language requested by the Administration that 

permits the Commission to accept gifts. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $9,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010* ...................................................................... 10,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

* The President requested these funds under the National Endowment for the Humanities. 

The National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs program was established in Public Law 99–190 to support artistic and cultural programs in the Nation’s Capital. The Committee recommends 

$10,000,000 as requested, $500,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee has not accepted the President’s request to transfer administration of this program to the National 

Endowment for the Humanities, nor to fundamentally alter the nature and purpose of the program by eliminating the criteria for 

grant applicants. Bill language has been included in Title IV General Provisions to increase the authorization for this program to 

$10,000,000 and the maximum allowable grant level to $650,000 

per recipient per year. 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Advisory Council 

was reauthorized as part of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 

Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333). The Council’s mandate is to further the National policy of preserving historic and cultural resources for the benefit of present and future generations. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
162 

The Council advises the President and Congress on preservation 

matters and provides consultation on historic properties threatened 

by Federal action. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $5,498,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 5,908,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 5,908,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +410,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $5,908,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, as requested, 

which is an increase of $410,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The National Capital Planning Act of 1952 designated the National Capital Planning Commission as the central planning agency 

for the Federal government in the National Capital Region. The 

three major functions of the Commission are to prepare and adopt 

the Federal elements of the National Capital Comprehensive Plan, 

prepare an annual report on a five-year projection of the Federal 

Capital Improvement Program, and review plans and proposals 

submitted to the Commission. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $8,328,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 8,507,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 8,507,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +179,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 

The Committee recommends $8,507,000 for salaries and expenses 

of the National Capital Planning Commission as requested, an increase of $179,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

In 1980, Congress passed legislation creating a 65 member Holocaust Memorial Council with the mandate to create and oversee a 

living memorial/museum to victims of the Holocaust. The museum 

opened in April 1993. Construction costs for the museum came 

solely from donated funds raised by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial 

Museum Campaign and appropriated funds were used for planning 

and development of programmatic components, overall administrative support, and annual commemorative observances. Since the 

opening of the museum, appropriated funds have been provided to 

pay for the ongoing operating costs of the museum as authorized 

by Public Law 102–529 and Public Law 106–292. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $47,260,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 48,551,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 48,551,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +1,291,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ 0 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
163 

The Committee recommends $48,551,000 for the Holocaust Memorial Museum as requested, an increase of $1,291,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

PRESIDIO TRUST

PRESIDIO TRUST FUND

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $17,450,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 17,230,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 23,200,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +5,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ +5,970,000 

The Committee recommends $23,200,000 for the Presidio Trust 

Fund, an increase of $5,750,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level and $5,970,000 above the budget request. These funds are 

used to support the transition of the Presidio Army base in San 

Francisco to a mixed use, financially independent facility by the 

year 2013, as authorized by Public Law 104–333. Federal appropriations have been provided to the Presidio Trust since 1999 based 

on the self-sufficiency plan required by the basic legislation. Unfortunately, the accumulated effect of multiple years of across-theboard reductions has left the Federal government approximately 

$12,000,000 in arrears on its total commitment under the self-sufficiency plan. The increase recommended by the Committee over the 

President’s request is intended to continue to address this shortfall. 

Within the funds provided, the Committee encourages the Presidio Trust to establish a task force that will meet with the Presidio Board of Directors on matters related to the reuse and revitalization of Fort Scott, particularly taking into account the Presidio 

Trust’s mandate under the Presidio Trust Act. 

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER MEMORIAL COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission was established by Congress in 1999 by Public Law 106–79 for the purpose 

of creating an appropriate, permanent memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Commission has escalated its work over the last two 

years in identifying the location for the Memorial, finalizing a design and developing a fund raising plan. 

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. $2,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... 3,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥1,000,000 

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for salaries and expenses, the same as the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$1,000,000 below the budget request. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
164 

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION

Appropriation enacted, 2009 .............................................................. 0 

Budget estimate, 2010 ....................................................................... $16,000,000 

Recommended, 2010 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Comparison: 

Appropriation, 2009 .................................................................... +10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................................................................ ¥6,000,000 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for capital construction, 

$10,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$6,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee has decreased 

funding because not all of the request can be spent in fiscal year 

2010. The amount provided will begin the first phase of design 

planning for the Memorial. The Commission is encouraged to continue its fundraising efforts and refine its plan to finance a significant amount of construction costs through private funding. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Section 401 continues a provision providing for public availability 

of information on consulting services contracts. 

Section 402 continues a provision prohibiting activities to promote public support or opposition to legislative proposals. 

Section 403 continues a provision providing for annual appropriations unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act. 

Section 404 continues a provision limiting the use of personal 

cooks, chauffeurs or servants. 

Section 405 provides for restrictions on departmental assessments unless approved by the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 406 prohibits the transfer of funds unless provided in 

this or other Acts. 

Section 407 continues a limitation on accepting and processing 

applications for patents and on the patenting of Federal lands; permits processing of grandfathered applications; and permits thirdparty contractors to process grandfathered applications. 

Section 408 continues a provision limiting payments for contract 

support costs in past years to the funds available in law and accompanying report language in those years for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. 

Section 409 continues a provision allowing Forest Service land 

management plans to be more than 15 years old if the Secretary 

of Agriculture is acting in good faith to update such plans. 

Section 410 continues a provision limiting preleasing, leasing, 

and related activities within the boundaries of National Monuments. 

Section 411 includes technical changes to a previous provision 

providing the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to enter into reciprocal agreements with foreign wildfire organizations concerning the tort liability of firefighters. 

Section 412 continues a provision authorizing the Secretary of 

the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to give consideration 

to rural communities, local and non-profit groups, and disadvantaged workers in entering into contracts for hazardous fuels and 

watershed projects. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
165 

Section 413 continues a provision which restricts funding for acquisition of land from being used for declarations of taking or complaints in condemnation. 

Section 414 amends existing law to continue for one year certain 

authorities to renew grazing permits or leases administered by the 

Forest Service or Department of the Interior. This will allow time 

for the agencies to complete the required environmental reviews. 

The Committee recognizes that the increasing numbers of permits 

expiring, increased costs for processing, and litigation, have resulted in a significant backlog and workload in processing permits. 

The Committee remains supportive of these renewals in an effort 

to avoid unnecessary hardship and administrative expense for existing permittees, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest 

Service, and interested members of the public. The Committee has 

provided $1,000,000 for the BLM range management activity to 

help reduce this considerable backlog. Those funds should be targeted to those areas where litigation is causing significant delays. 

Further, the Committee also directs the Secretaries of Interior and 

Agriculture to, within 60 days of enactment of this Act, submit a 

report to the House and Senate Committees making legislative, 

programmatic and resource recommendations necessary to ensure 

that all permits are reviewed and processed in a timely manner. 

Section 415 amends the National Foundation on the Arts and the 

Humanities Act of 1965 to reinstate four positions to the National 

Council on the Arts, and increases the number of members necessary for the National Council on the Arts to constitute a quorum. 

Section 416 increases the authorization for the National Arts and 

Cultural Affairs program to $10,000,000 and the maximum allowable grant level to $650,000 per recipient per year. 

Section 417 extends an existing pilot program for the sale of forest botanical products by the Forest Service through fiscal year 

2014. This program provides a mechanism to fund the environmental analyses and administrative tasks necessary for a successful, small program which provides sustainable harvests of certain 

botanical products, which aids rural communities. 

Section 418 provides that the payment of bonuses for coal leases 

on Federal lands be treated in the same way that the government 

treats oil and gas leases. The Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 

201(a)(1)) and current regulations allow payment for many coal 

leases to be deferred over five years and not paid over one year as 

is the case for all oil and gas leases. The Committee recommendation requires that coal leases will be treated in the same manner 

as oil and gas leases on Federal lands and waters. The coal industry on BLM-managed lands is now a mature industry. The deferral 

provision was originally established to encourage coal mining and 

establishment of new mines. Additional revenue obtained for the 

Federal government during fiscal year 2010 is estimated at 

$207,000,000. The States where the coal is leased will also gain a 

similar amount. 

Section 419 provides that for fiscal year 2010, as requested by 

the Administration, geothermal energy receipts will be directed 

back to the historic formula of 50 percent to the States and 50 percent to the Treasury. 

Section 420 extends a previous successful authority known as the 

Colorado Good Neighbor Act authority for four years. This authorVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:46 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 050481 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR180.XXX HR180

erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
166 

ity allows for the Secretary of Agriculture, via cooperative agreement or contract, to permit the Colorado State Forest Service to 

perform certain watershed restoration and protection services on 

national forest system lands in the State of Colorado where similar 

or complementary watershed restoration and protection services 

are being performed on adjacent State or private lands. The types 

of services include treatment of insect infected trees, reduction of 

hazardous fuels, and other activities to restore or improve watersheds or fish and wildlife habitat across ownership boundaries. 

Section 421 defers an Ultradeepwater oil and gas research and 

development grant directed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Section 422 amends Section 302(a) of the Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C.5 

7142(a)) to allow counties to use their funds to pay the salaries and 

benefits of county employees who supervise persons performing 

mandatory community service on Federal lands. 

Section 423 incorporates the allocation for the projects and purposes as outlined in the table titled ‘‘Congressionally Directed 

Spending’’ in this report. This is in addition to the allocation requirements specified in this report for ‘‘National Park Service— 

Historic Preservation Fund’’ for Save America’s Treasures and ‘‘Environmental Protection Agency—State and Tribal Assistance 

Grants’’ for special project grants for the construction of drinking 

water, wastewater and storm infrastructure and for water quality 

protection. 

Section 424 requires the President to submit a report to the Appropriations committees no later than 120 days after the fiscal year 

2011 budget is submitted to Congress describing in detail all Federal agency obligations and expenditures for climate change programs and activities sin fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010. 

Section 425 prohibits the use of funds made available in this or 

any other Act to implement any rule that requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management 

systems. 

Section 426 provides that no funds in this or prior Acts may be 

used to release detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the 

United States territories of Guam, American Samoa, the United 

States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. It also prohibits 

the use of funds to transfer detainees to these territories until two 

months after the President submits a detailed plan regarding the 

proposed disposition of detainees. Detainees from Guantanamo may 

not be transferred or released to the freely associated States, including the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau unless the President 

submits information about the transfers 30 days prior to such 

transfer. 

Section 427 provides that no funds in this or any other Act may 

be used to promulgate or implement any regulation requiring the 

issuance of permits under title V of the clean Air Act for carbon 

dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions resulting 

from biological processes associated with livestock production. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
167 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT 

Agency Account State Project Amount 

Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition CA Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument $500,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Management AK Stellers and Spectacled Sea Eider Research $350,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Management GA Georgia Streambank Restoration $500,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Management ID Idaho Sage-Grouse Management Plan $500,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Management LA Endangered Whooping Crane Propogation Facility $500,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries AK Sea Otter and Stellar Sea Lion Education and Conservation $200,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries CA Review of the Klamath, North Coast, and Central Valley Hatchery Operations in California $1,000,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries MN Mass Marking of Hatchery Fish $1,000,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries WV West Virginia Fisheries Resource Office $1,300,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition FL Crystal River NWR, Three Sisters Spring $500,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition NJ Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge $750,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition VA Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge $500,000 Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition VA Rappahannock River National Wildlife Refuge, Bowers property $500,000 National Park Service Statutory or Contractual Aid CA Angel Island State Park Immigration Station Hospital Rehabilitation $1,000,000 National Park Service Statutory or Contractual Aid DC Chesapeake Bay Gateways $400,000 National Park Service Statutory or Contractual Aid MD Star Spangled Banner National Historic Trail $500,000 National Park Service Construction AZ Saguaro National Park Trail Improvements $398,000 National Park Service Construction CA Joshua Tree National Park Visitor Center $300,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
168 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

Agency Account State Project Amount 

National Park Service Construction DC African American Civil War Museum, security enhancements $220,000 National Park Service Construction FL Castillo de San Marcos National Monument $500,000 National Park Service Construction IN Restore Good Fellow Lodge, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore $1,000,000 National Park Service Construction MI Keweenaw National Historical Park Union Building $1,380,000 National Park Service Construction NJ Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook Repair of Historic Gun Batteries $800,000 National Park Service Construction NY Fire Island Land Trust Historic Restoration $250,000 National Park Service Construction OH Cuyahoga Valley National Park Site and Structure Rehabilitation Program $500,000 National Park Service Construction OK Chickasaw National Recreation Area Visitor Center $500,000 National Park Service Construction OR Crater Lake Visitor Education Center $350,000 National Park Service Construction PA Valley Forge National Park Visitor Center $325,000 National Park Service Construction TN Moccasin Bend National Archeological District $500,000 National Park Service Construction UT Timpanogos Cave National Monument Visitors Center $1,600,000 National Park Service Construction VA Fort Hunt NCO Quarters Restoration $250,000 National Park Service Construction WI Apostle Islands Lighthouse Restoration $2,000,000 National Park Service Construction WI Ice Age National Scenic Trail $265,000 National Park Service Land Acquisition KY Cumberland Gap NHP, Fern Lake $500,000 National Park Service Land Acquisition NM Petroglyph National Monument $1,000,000 National Park Service Land Acquisition VA Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, Binns property $200,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
169 

National Park Service Land Acquisition WI Ice Age National Scenic Trail $2,000,000 U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research AR South Arkansas Sparta Aquifer Recovery Initiative $300,000 U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research AZ U.S.—Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program $1,000,000 U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research CA South San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project (USGS) $1,000,000 U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research IL McHenry County groundwater and stormwater protection $280,000 U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research MA Conte Anadromous Fish Research Lab $220,000 U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research WA Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen Study $200,000 Insular Affairs Assistance to Territories VI Critical Wastewater System Repairs and Improvements $900,000 Environmental Protection Agency Science & Technology CO Water Research Foundation $1,700,000 Environmental Protection Agency Science & Technology GA Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research $1,000,000 Environmental Protection Agency Science & Technology TX Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) $1,000,000 Environmental Protection Agency Science & Technology VA Water Environment Research Foundation $2,000,000 Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Programs and Management DC Rural Community Assistance Partnership $2,500,000 Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Programs and Management DC Water Systems Council Wellcare Program $700,000 Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Programs and Management OK Rural Water Technical Assistance, National Rural Water Association $13,000,000 Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Programs and Management VA National Biosolids Partnership $750,000 Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Programs and Management WA Puget Sound Ecosystem Research Initiative $4,000,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
170 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

Agency Account State Project Amount 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG—Other TX El Paso/Brownsville water and wastewater infrastructure $2,500,000 US Forest Service State & Private Forestry MD Baltimore Urban Forestry Watershed Demonstration Cooperative Project $150,000 US Forest Service State & Private Forestry WA Regional Urban Forestry Restoration Project $1,000,000 US Forest Service State & Private Forestry WI Menomonee Valley Partners Inc; Urban Forestry Project $300,000 US Forest Service Capital Improvement and Maintenance 

(construction) 

ID Sawtooth National Recreation Area trail construction and maintenance $1,200,000 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and Maintenance 

(construction) 

TX Redesign Ratcliff Lake Recreation Area and Campground $475,000 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition CA Angeles National Forest, Shoemaker Canyon $500,000 US Forest Service Land Acquisition FL Florida National Scenic Trail $500,000 US Forest Service Land Acquisition FL Osceola National Forest, Pinhook Swamp Wildlife Corridor $500,000 US Forest Service Land Acquisition ID Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Piva Parcel $400,000 US Forest Service Land Acquisition NC Pisgah NF, Catawba Falls Access & Trail Acquisition $713,000 US Forest Service Land Acquisition NC Uwharrie National Forest, Uwharrie Trail $500,000 US Forest Service Land Acquisition WV Monongahela National Forest, Cummings Tract $985,000 US Forest Service Land Acquisition WV Monongahela National Forest, Dolly Sods $1,000,000 US Forest Service Wildland Fire Management CA Urban Youth Conservation Corp $100,000 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
171 

BILL-WIDE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII requires each committee report on a 

public bill or joint resolution to contain a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the 

law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation on clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, which states ‘‘No money shall be drawn 

from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by 

Law. . . .’’ 

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

CHANGES IN APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3, rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following Statements are submitted describing the 

effect of provisions in the accompanying bill, which directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. In most instances 

these provisions have been included in prior appropriations Acts. 

The bill includes the following changes in application of existing 

law: 

OVERALL BILL

Providing that certain appropriations remain available until expended or extends the availability of funds beyond the fiscal year 

where programs or projects are continuing but for which legislation 

does not specifically authorize such extended availability. This authority tends to result in savings by preventing the practice of committing funds on low priority projects at the end of the fiscal year 

to avoid losing the funds. 

Limiting, in certain instances, the obligation of funds for particular functions or programs. These limitations include restrictions 

on the obligation of funds for administrative expenses, travel expenses, the use of consultants, and programmatic areas within the 

overall jurisdiction of a particular agency. 

Limiting official entertainment or reception and representation 

expenses for selected agencies in the bill. 

Continuing ongoing activities of those Federal agencies, which require annual authorization or additional legislation, which has not 

been enacted. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
172 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RESOURCES

Providing funds to the Bureau for the management of lands and 

resources. 

Providing funds to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

under certain conditions. 

Permitting the use of fees for processing applications for permit 

to drill. 

Permitting the use of mining fee collections for program operations. 

Permitting the use of fees from communication site rentals. 

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

Authorizing the transfer of certain collections from the Oregon 

and California Land Grants Fund to the Treasury. 

FOREST ECOSYSTEMS HEALTH AND RECOVERY FUND

Permitting the use of salvage timber receipts in the forest ecosystems health and recovery fund through fiscal year 2015. 

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS

Allowing certain funds to be transferred to the Department of the 

Interior for range improvements. 

SERVICE CHARGES, DEPOSITS, AND FORFEITURES

Allowing the use of certain collected funds for certain administrative costs and operation of termination of certain facilities. 

Allowing the use of funds on any damaged public lands. 

Authorizing the Secretary to use monies from forfeitures, compromises or settlements for improvement, protection and rehabilitation of public lands under certain conditions. 

MISCELLANEOUS TRUST FUNDS

Allowing certain contributed funds to be advanced for administrative costs and other activities of the Bureau. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Permitting the payment of rewards for information on violations 

of law on Bureau lands 

Providing for cost-sharing arrangements for printing services. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Providing funding for the Youth Conservation Corps. 

Limiting funding for certain Endangered Species Act listing and 

critical habitat programs. 

Permitting payment for information or rewards in the law enforcement program. 

Designating funds for contaminant analyses. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
173 

LAND ACQUISITION

Providing funding for implementing the Highlands Conservation 

Act of 2004. 

Limiting the use of funds for administrative overhead, planning, 

and other management costs. 

COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

Provides funds for Idaho Salmon and Clearwater River Basins 

Habitat Account pursuant to the Snake River Water Rights Act of 

2004. 

STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

Specifying the State and Tribal wildlife grants distribution formula, the planning and cost-sharing requirements, requiring that 

funds unobligated after two years be reapportioned, and limiting 

administrative costs. 

Providing that no State, Territory, or other jurisdiction shall receive a grant if its conservation plan is disapproved. 

Provides that amount apportioned in 2010 to any State, territory, 

or other jurisdiction that remains unobligated as of September 30, 

2011, shall be reapportioned, together with funds appropriated in 

2012. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Providing for repair of damage to public roads. 

Providing options for the purchase of land not to exceed $1. 

Permitting cost-shared arrangements for printing services. 

Permitting the use of funds for employment-related legal services. 

Permitting the acceptance of donated aircraft. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

Designating funds for Everglades restoration. 

Providing for repair, rehabilitation and maintenance of National 

Park Service Assets. 

PARK PARTNERSHIP PROJECT GRANTS

Designates funds for certain signature cost-share projects and establishes cost-share requirements. 

NATIONAL RECREATION AND PRESERVATION

Providing for expenses not otherwise provided for. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

Providing funds for Save America’s Treasures and Preserve 

America grants programs and provides that funds for Save America’s Treasures Grants shall be allocated in acordance with the 

terms and conditions specified in the explanatory statement. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
174 

CONSTRUCTION

Providing funds for modified water deliveries to Everglades National Park with certain restrictions. 

Providing for a special resource study along the route of the Mississippi River in the counties contiguous to the river from its headwaters in the State of Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Rescinding $30,000,000 in Land and Water Conservation Fund 

contract authority. 

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

Requiring that funding for the program is derived from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund. 

Provides funding for the State assistance program. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Providing for the retention of administrative costs under certain 

Land and Water Conservation Fund programs. 

Allowing certain franchise fees to be available for expenditure 

without further appropriation to extinguish or reduce liability for 

certain possessory interests. 

Allows National Park Service funds to be transferred to the Federal Lands Highway Administration for purposes authorized under 

23 U.S.C. 204 for reasonable administrative support costs. 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Provides funds to classify lands as to their mineral and water resources. 

Funds engineering supervision to power permittees and Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission licensees. 

Funds the administration of the minerals exploration program 

(30 U.S.C. 641) conduct inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and materials processing industries. 

Designates funds for operating expenses of the Civil Applications 

Committee. 

Prohibiting the conduct of new surveys on private property without permission. 

Requiring cost sharing for cooperative topographic mapping and 

water resource data collection activities. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing funds to be used for certain security, contracting, technical services, construction, maintenance, acquisition, and representation expenses. 

Permitting the use of certain contracts, grants, and cooperative 

agreements. 

Recognizing students and recent graduates as Federal employees 

for the purposes of travel and work injury compensation. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
175 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

ROYALTY AND OFFSHORE MINERALS MANAGEMENT

Permitting the use of certain excess receipts from Outer Continental Shelf leasing activities. 

Providing for reasonable expenses related to volunteer beach and 

marine cleanup activities. 

Providing for refunds for overpayments on Indian allottee leases. 

Provides that for the costs of administration of the Coastal Impact Assistance Program MMS may retain up to 4 percent of the 

amounts which are disbursed under section 31(b)(1) of the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act. 

Provides that funds may be used which shall be derived from 

non-refundable inspection fees collected in fiscal year 2010. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Providing for administrative costs from State royalty payments. 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGULATION AND TECHNOLOGY

Permitting, hereafter, the use of monies collected pursuant to assessment of civil penalties to reclaim lands affected by coal mining 

after August 3, 1977. 

Permitting payment to State and Tribal personnel for travel and 

per diem expenses for training. 

ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION FUND

Allowing the use of debt recovery to pay for debt collection. 

Allowing funds to be used for travel expenses of State and Tribal 

personnel while attending certain OSM training. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

Permits the Secretary to transfer title for computer equipment to 

States and Tribes. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

OPERATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS

Limiting funds for welfare assistance payments, except for disaster relief. 

Limiting funds for contract support costs. 

Permitting the use of Tribal priority allocations for general assistance payments to individuals, for contract support costs, and 

school operations costs. 

Providing for an Indian self-determination fund. 

Limiting funds for administrative cost grants under certain circumstances. 

Allowing the transfer of certain forestry funds. 

Allows use of funds to purchase uniforms or other identifying articles of clothing for personnel if it enhances the safety of Bureau 

field employees. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
176 

CONSTRUCTION

Providing for the transfer of Navajo irrigation project funds to 

the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Providing that six percent of Federal Highway Trust Fund contract authority may be used for construction management costs. 

Providing Safety of Dams funds on a nonreimbursable basis. 

Requiring the use of administrative and cost accounting principles for certain school construction projects and exempting such 

projects from certain requirements. 

Requiring conformance with building codes and health and safety 

standards. 

Specifying the procedure for dispute resolution. 

Limiting the control of construction projects when certain time 

frames have not been met. 

Allowing reimbursement of construction costs from the Office of 

Special Trustee. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing contracting for the San Carlos Irrigation Project. 

Limiting the use of funds for certain contracts, grants and cooperative agreements. 

Allowing Tribes to return appropriated funds. 

Prohibiting funding of Alaska schools. 

Limiting the number of schools and the expansion of grade levels 

in individual schools. 

Permitting the use of Indian Student Equalization Program 

funds to offset costs associated with significant enrollment increases. 

Specifying distribution of indirect and administrative costs for 

certain Tribes. 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Permitting payments to former Bureau of Mines workers. 

Allows certain payments authorized for the Payments in Lieu of 

Taxes Program to be retained for administrative expenses. 

Provides that no Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program payment be 

made to otherwise eligible units of local government if the computed amount of the payment is less than $100. 

INSULAR AFFAIRS, ASSISTANCE TO TERRITORIES

Designating funds for various programs and for salaries and expenses of the Office of Insular Affairs and providing until expended 

for the latter. 

Allowing audits of the financial transactions of the Territorial 

and Insular governments by the GAO. 

Providing grant funding under certain terms of the Agreement of 

the Special Representatives on Future United States Financial Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Allowing grants for the Pacific Basin Development Council. 

Allowing a grant to the Close Up foundation. 

Providing for capital infrastructure in various Territories. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
177 

Allowing appropriations for disaster assistance to be used as nonFederal matching funds for hazard mitigation grants. 

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION

Providing grants to Palau, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION, INSULAR AFFAIRS

Allows, at the request of the Governor of Guam, for certain discretionary and mandatory funds to be used to assist securing certain rural electrification loans through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS

FEDERAL TRUST PROGRAMS

Limiting the amount of funding available for the historical accounting of Indian trust fund accounts. 

Allowing transfers to other Department of the Interior accounts. 

Providing no-year funding for certain Indian Self Determination 

Act grants. 

Specifying that the statute of limitations shall not commence on 

any claim resulting from trust funds losses. Exempting quarterly statements for Indian trust accounts $15 or 

less. 

Requiring annual statements and records maintenance for Indian 

trust accounts. 

Limiting use of funds to correct administrative errors in Indian 

trust accounts. 

Permitting the use of recoveries from erroneous payments pursuant to Indian trust accounts. 

Allowing transfer of funds to comply with certain statutory requirements. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE PROGRAMS

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Permitting the repayments of funds transferred from other accounts for firefighting. 

Permitting the use of funds for lodging and subsistence of firefighters. 

Permitting cost-sharing of cooperative agreements with non-federal entities under certain circumstances. 

Permitting the use of grants, contracts and cooperative agreements for hazardous fuels reduction, including cost-sharing and 

local assistance. 

Permitting reimbursement to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service for consultation activities under the Endangered Species Act. 

Providing certain terms for leases of real property with local governments. 

Providing for the transfer of funds between the Department of 

the Interior and the Department of Agriculture for wildland fire 

management. 

Providing funds for support of Federal emergency response actions. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
178 

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND

Allows funds to be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management 

account if suppression funds will be obligated within 30 days and 

if the President issues a finding that the funds are necessary. 

CENTRAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FUND

Amends previous language under this heading to allow the use 

of fines or penalties for appropriate activities. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Allows funds for the financial and business management system 

and information technology improvement. 

Prohibits use of funds to establish reserves in the working capital fund with exceptions. 

Allows assessments for reasonable charges for training services 

at the National Indian Program Center and use of these funds 

under certain conditions. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing the sale of existing aircraft with proceeds used to offset 

the purchase price of replacement aircraft. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Allowing transfer of funds for certain reconstruction of facilities 

in emergency situations. 

Allowing transfer of funds in certain emergency situations if 

other funds provided in other accounts will be exhausted within 30 

days. 

Permitting the Department to use limited funding for certain 

services. 

Permitting the transfer of funds between the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. 

Permitting the redistribution of certain Indian funds with limitations. 

Permitting the conveyance of the Twin Cities Research Center. 

Allowing payment of attorney fees for Federal employees related 

to the Cobell v. Salazar litigation. 

Requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to mark hatchery 

salmon. 

Authorizing the acquisition of lands and leases for Ellis Island. 

Amends previous law to allow donations to be used by the MMS 

for certain environmental studies through fiscal year 2013. 

Providing authority to enter into cooperative agreements under 

certain circumstances. 

Permitting acquisition of lands for the Ice Age National Scenic 

Trail under certain circumstances. 

Providing certain terms of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act shall apply hereafter to certain Department energy 

leases. 

Allows the MMS to collect certain non-refundable inspection fees 

from designated operator facilities. 

Provides the Department of the Interior authority to fund land 

acquisition at the San Juan Islands National Historic Park, WA. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
179 

Provides for an expansion of the Minidoka National Historic Site, 

ID. 

TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Provides for operating expenses in support of research and development. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

Allows purchase of reprints and library memberships in societies 

or associations which issue publications to members only or at a 

price to members lower than to subscribers who are not members. 

Limiting amounts for official representation and reception expenses, providing two-year funding availability for administrative 

costs of Brownfields program, and specifies funding for specific Geographic Programs as specified in the explanatory statement to this 

Act. 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

Allowing distribution of funds to purchase services from other 

agencies under certain circumstances. 

Providing for the transfer of funds within certain agency accounts. 

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM

Providing for grants to Federally-recognized Indian Tribes. 

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Specifies funding for capitalization grants for the Drinking Water 

State Revolving Funds and allows certain amounts for additional 

subsidies. 

Designating cost-share requirements for water and wastewater 

infrastructure improvement projects. 

Limiting use of funds for Alaska Native Villages. 

Makes special project grants for the construction of drinking 

water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure and for water 

quality protection in accordance with the terms and conditions 

specified in the explanatory statement accompanying this Act. 

Designating grants for water quality monitoring. 

Providing for State and Tribal grants for underground storage 

tank leak prevention. 

Providing funding for green infrastructure water projects, local 

government climate change, and environmental information exchange network initiatives grants. 

Providing waivers for certain uses of clean water, State revolving 

funds for State administrative cost and for grants to Federally-recognized Indian Tribes. 

Allows certain Clean Water State Revolving Fund assets to be reserved for grants made under Title II of the Clean Water Act for 

American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and United States Virgin Islands. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
180 

Allows certain funds appropriated for the Drinking Water State 

Revolving Fund programs be reserved by the Administrator for 

grants made under section 1452(j) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Prohibiting the use of funds for jurisdictions that permit development or construction of additional colonia areas. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Allowing awards of grants to Federally-recognized Indian Tribes. 

Authorizing the collection of pesticide registration service fees. 

Extends authorization for appointments under Title 42 U.S.C. 

209. 

Allows transfer of funds from the ‘‘Environmental Programs and 

Management’’ account to the head of any other federal department 

or agency to carry out activities that would support the Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement programs, projects, or activities and provides for certain 

interagency agreements and grants to various entities in support 

of this effort. 

Provides that certain Clean Water State Revolving Fund or 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants for 

projects shall be for projects to address green infrastructure, water 

or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities. 

Provides specific wage rate requirements for the Clean Water 

and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

FOREST SERVICE

FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

Designating funds for the forest inventory and analysis program. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

Deriving forest legacy funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

Allowing 50 percent of the fees collected under the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund Act to remain available until expended. 

Allows transfer of funds to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management for certain wild horse management and 

cadastral survey activities. 

Allows transfer of funds to other Forest Service accounts if it enhances efficiency or effectiveness of activities. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

Allowing capital improvement and maintenance funds to be used 

for road decommissioning. 

Designating funds for special road and trail maintenance and repair and watershed rehabilitation activities. 

Requiring that funds becoming available in fiscal year 2010 for 

the road and trails fund (16 U.S.C. 501) shall be transferred to the 

treasury. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
181 

Allows transfer of funds to other Forest Service accounts if it enhances efficiency or effectiveness of activities. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Deriving funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

RANGE BETTERMENT FUND

Providing that six percent of range betterment funds may be 

used for administrative expenses. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Allowing the use of wildland fire funds to repay advances from 

other accounts. 

Allowing reimbursement of States for certain wildfire emergency 

activities. 

Permitting the use of funds for the joint fire science program. 

Permitting the use of forest and rangeland research funds for fire 

science research. 

Permitting the use of funds for emergency rehabilitation and restoration and hazardous fuels reduction to support emergency response and wildfire suppression. 

Designating funds for hazardous fuels reduction, rehabilitation, 

restoration, and research and permitting competitive research 

grants. 

Designating funds for State fire assistance, volunteer fire assistance and forest health on Federal and State and private lands. 

Allows transfer of funds to other Forest Service accounts if it enhances efficiency or effectiveness of activities. 

Providing for cost-shared cooperative agreements. 

Providing for the use of funds on adjacent, non-Federal lands for 

hazard reduction. 

Providing for the transfer of wildland fire funds between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. 

Providing for the use of hazardous fuels reduction funds to create 

incentives for increased use of biomass on National Forest lands. 

Providing that funds for wildfire suppression shall be assessed 

for indirect costs. 

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND

Allows funds to be transferred to the Wildland Fire Management 

account if suppression funds will be obligated within 30 days and 

the President issues a finding that the funds are necessary. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Permitting the purchase of passenger motor vehicles and proceeds from the sale of aircraft may be used to purchase replacement aircraft. 

Allowing funds for certain employment contracts. 

Allowing funds to be used for purchase and alteration of buildings. 

Allowing for acquisition of certain lands and interests. 

Allowing expenses for certain volunteer activities. 

Providing for the cost of uniforms. 

Providing for debt collections on certain contracts. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
182 

Allowing transfer of funds in certain emergency situations if all 

other funds provided for wildfire suppression will be obligated 

within 30 days and the Secretary notifies the Committees 5 days 

in advance. 

Allowing funds to be used through the Agency for International 

Development for work in foreign countries and to support other forestry activities outside of the United States. 

Prohibiting the transfer of funds under the Department of Agriculture transfer authority under certain conditions. 

Limiting funds to be transferred to the USDA Working Capital 

Fund and reimbursable expenses account. 

Designating funds for the Youth Conservation Corps and Public 

Lands Corps. 

Limiting the use of funds for official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Providing for matching funds for the National Forest Foundation 

and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

Allowing funds to be used for technical assistance for certain 

rural communities. 

Permitting the use of funds for payments to counties in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 

Providing Federal employee status for certain individuals employed under the Older Americans Act of 1965. 

Permitting funding assessments for facilities maintenance, rent, 

utilities, and other support services. 

Allowing limited funds for the Department of Agriculture, General Counsel, for reimbursement of travel costs under certain circumstances. 

Extends an existing provision allowing use of funds for certain 

educational costs in Puerto Rico. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

Providing that Tribal contract and grant funding is deemed obligated at the time of grant or contract award and remains available 

until expended. 

Providing no-year funds for contract medical care including the 

Indian Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund. 

Limits funding for Headquarters operations and information 

technology activities. 

Providing for a minimum funding level for the Urban Indian 

Health program. 

Loan repayment under section 108 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. 

Providing funding and allocation direction for the methamphetamine and domestic violence programs. 

Providing that certain contracts and grants may be performed in 

two fiscal years. 

Providing for use of collections and reporting of collections under 

Title IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. 

Providing no-year funding for scholarship funds. 

Exempting certain Tribal funding from fiscal year constraints. 

Limiting contract support cost spending. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
183 

Providing for the collection of individually identifiable health information relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act by the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Permitting the use of Indian Health Care Improvement Fund 

monies for facilities improvement and providing no-year funding 

availability. 

INDIAN HEALTH FACILITIES

Providing that facilities funds may be used to purchase land, 

modular buildings and trailers. 

Providing for TRANSAM equipment to be purchased from the 

Department of Defense. 

Prohibiting the use of funds for sanitation facilities for new 

homes funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Allowing for the purchase of ambulances. 

Providing for a demolition fund. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Providing for per diem expenses for senior level positions. 

Providing for payments for telephone service in private residences in the field, purchase of motor vehicles, aircraft and reprints. 

Providing for purchase and erection of modular buildings. 

Providing funds for uniforms. 

Allowing funding to be used for attendance at professional meetings. 

Providing that health care may be extended to non-Indians at Indian Health Service facilities, subject to charges, and for the expenditure of collected funds. 

Providing for transfers of funds from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development to the Indian Health Service. 

Prohibiting limitations on certain Federal travel and transportation expenses. 

Permitting the use of funds transferred from the Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

Allowing deobligation and reobligation of funds applied to selfgovernance funding agreements. 

Prohibiting the expenditure of funds to implement new eligibility 

regulations. 

Permitting certain reimbursements for goods and services provided to Tribes. 

Providing that reimbursements for training, technical assistance, 

or services include total costs. 

Prohibiting changing the appropriations structure without approval of the Appropriations Committees. 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

Providing for the conduct of health studies, testing, and monitoring. 

Designating funds for Individual Learning Accounts and providing no-year funding. 

Providing deadlines for health assessments and studies. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
184 

Limiting use of funds for administrative costs. 

Limiting the number of toxicological profiles. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Designating the appointment and duties of the chairman. 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

Limiting the use of funds for per diem expenses and the number 

of senior level positions. 

Providing for the appointment of the EPA, Inspector General to 

serve as Inspector General for the Board. 

Provides that funds shall be paid to the ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’ appropriation of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Defining eligible relocatees. 

Prohibiting movement of any single Navajo or Navajo family unless a new or replacement home is available. 

Limiting relocatees to one new or replacement home. 

Establishing a priority for relocation of Navajos to those certified 

eligible who have selected and received homesites on the Navajo 

reservation or selected a replacement residence off the Navajo reservation. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Limiting certain lease terms. 

Providing for purchase of passenger vehicles and certain rental, 

repair and cleaning of uniforms. 

Designating funds for certain programs including the National 

Museum of African American History and Culture and providing 

no-year funds. 

Designating funds for fellowships and scholarly awards. 

Providing that funds may be used to support American overseas 

research centers. 

Allowing for advance payments to independent contractors performing research services or participating in official Smithsonian 

presentations. 

FACILITIES CAPITAL

Designating funds for maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and 

construction and for consultant services. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Provides that funds provided in fiscal 2008 for the Legacy Fund 

may be transferred to the Facilities Capital account and be utilized 

under the terms and conditions of the latter. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
185 

NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Allowing payment in advance for membership in library, museum, and art associations or societies. 

Providing for restoration and repair of works of art by contract 

under certain circumstances. 

Providing no-year funds for special exhibitions. 

REPAIR, RESTORATION, AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS

Specifies that certain funds shall be available to repair the National Gallery’s East Building facade. 

Permitting the Gallery to perform work by contract under certain 

circumstances. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Provides funds for the support of projects and productions in the 

arts, including arts education and public outreach activities. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Specifies funds to carry out the matching grants program. 

Allowing obligation of National Endowment for the Humanities 

current and prior year funds from gifts, bequests, and devises of 

money for which equal amounts have not previously been appropriated. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION, NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS

AND THE HUMANITIES

Prohibiting the use of funds for grants and contracts which do 

not include the text of 18 U.S.C. 1913. 

Prohibiting the use of appropriated funds and permitting the use 

of non-appropriated funds for reception expenses. 

Allowing the chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts 

to approve small grants under certain circumstances. 

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Permitting the charging and use of fees for its publications. 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Restricting hiring at Executive Level V or higher. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Permitting limited use of funds for certain international hosting 

of official reception and representational expenses. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
186 

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

Designating funds for equipment replacement and for repair, rehabilitation and for exhibition design and production and providing 

no year availability for these funds. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Providing for public availability of information on consulting 

services contracts. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to distribute literature either to promote or oppose legislative proposals on which Congressional action 

is incomplete. 

Specifying that funds are for one year unless provided otherwise. 

Prohibiting the use of funds to provide personal cooks, chauffeurs 

or other personal servants to any office or employee. 

Limiting assessments against programs funded in this bill. 

Limiting transfer of funds. 

Continuing a limitation on accepting and processing applications 

for patents and on the patenting of Federal lands; permitting processing of grandfathered applications; and permitting third-party 

contractors to process grandfathered applications. 

Limiting the use of funds for contract support costs on Indian 

contracts. 

Limiting funds for completing or issuing the five-year program 

under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 

Act. 

Limiting leasing and preleasing activities within National Monuments. 

Providing the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to enter into reciprocal agreements with foreign firefighting organizations concerning the tort liability of firefighters. 

Permitting consideration, when awarding contracts, to local contractors who provide employment and training for dislocated and 

displaced workers in economically disadvantaged rural communities. 

Prevents funding for declarations of taking without Committee 

approval. 

Amends existing law to continue for one year certain authorities 

to renew grazing permits or leases administered by the Forest 

Service or Department of the Interior. 

Amends the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 to reinstate four positions to the National Council 

on the Arts, and increases the number of members necessary for 

the National Council on the Arts to constitute a quorum. 

Increases the authorization for the National Arts and Cultural 

Affairs program to $10,000,000 and the maximum allowable grant 

level to $650,000 per recipient per year. 

Extends an existing pilot program for the sale of forest botanical 

products by the Forest Service through fiscal year 2014. 

Provides that the payment of bonuses for coal leases on Federal 

lands be treated in the same way that the government treats oil 

and gas leases. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
187 

Provides that geothermal energy receipts will be directed back to 

the historic formula of 50 percent to the States and 50 percent to 

the Treasury. 

Extends the Colorado Good Neighbor Act Authority for four 

years, allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to work with the Colorado State Forest Service to perform certain watershed restoration 

and protection services on national forest system lands in the State 

of Colorado. 

Defers an Ultradeepwater oil and gas research and development 

grant. 

Amends the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-determination Act of 2000 to allow counties to use their funds to pay 

salaries of their employees who supervise persons performing mandatory community service on Federal lands. 

Incorporates into law the allocation for the projects and purposes 

as outlined in the table titled ‘‘Congressionally Directed Spending’’ 

in this report. 

Requires the President to submit a report to the Appropriations 

Committees no later than 120 days after the fiscal year 2011 budget is submitted to Congress describing in detail all Federal agency 

obligations and expenditures for climate change programs and activities in fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010. 

Prohibits the use of funds made available in this or any other Act 

to implement any rule that requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems. 

Provides that no funds in this or prior Acts may be used to release detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the United States 

territories of Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. It also prohibits the use of 

funds to transfer detainees to these territories until two months 

after the President submits a detailed plan regarding the proposed 

disposition of detainees. Detainees from Guantanamo may not be 

transferred or released to the freely associated States, including 

the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands, and the Republic of Palau unless the President submits information about the transfers 30 days prior to such transfer. 

Provides that no funds in this or any other Act may be used to 

promulgate or implement any regulation requiring the issuance of 

permits under title V of the Clean Air Act for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions resulting from biological processes associated with livestock production. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW 

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in 

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Last year of authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last 

year of authorization 

Appropriations in this 

bill 

Bureau of Land Management: 

All discretionary programs ............ 2002 Such sums... $1,681,437 $940,996 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
188 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Last year of authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last 

year of authorization 

Appropriations in this 

bill 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: 

Resource Management: 

Endangered Species Act 

Amendments of 1988 ...... 1992 $41,500 35,721 165,157 

Great Lakes Fish & Wildlife 

Restoration Grants .......... 2004 4,000 498 560 

Marine Mammal Protection 

Act Amendments of 1994 1999 10,296 2,008 2,523 

General Administration: 

Great Ape Conservation ....... 2005 5,000 1,381 2,250 

Fisheries Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act .......... 2005 25,000 2,000 4,000 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 2005 5,000 3,944 5,250 

Environmental Protection Agency: 

Hazardous Substance Superfund .. 1994 5,100,000 1,480,853 1,306,541 

State and Tribal Assistance 

Grants: 

Alaska Native Villages ......... 1979 2,000 Not available 10,000 

Clean Water SRF .................. 1992 1,800,000 2,400,000 2,251,813 

Drinking Water SRF .............. 2003 1,000,000 .............................. 1,409,176 

Clean Air Act ........................ 1997 Such sums... 167,230 226,580 

Radon Abatement Act .......... 1991 10,000 9,000 8,074 

Clean Water Act (FWPCA) .... 1991 .............................. .............................. 2,251,813 

BEACH Act ............................ 2005 30,000 9,920 9,900 

Safe Drinking Water Act ...... 2003 115,000 .............................. 1,409,176 

Solid Waste Disposal Act 

(RCRA) ............................. 1988 70,000 71,391 103,346 

Toxic Substances Control Act 1983 1,500 5,100 5,099 

Pollution Prevention Act ....... 1993 8,000 6,800 4,940 

Indian Environmental General Assistance Program 

Act ................................... 1998 Such sums... 38,585 62,875 

Underground Storage Tanks 1988 10,000 14,400 2,500 

USDA Forest Service: 

National Forest Foundation ........... 1997 Such sums... 1,000 3,000 

National Endowment for the Arts .......... 1993 Such sums... 174,460 170,000 

National Endowment for the Humanities 1993 Such sums... 177,403 170,000 

The Committee notes that authorizing legislation for many of 

these programs is in various stages of the legislative process and 

expects these authorizations to be enacted into law later this year. 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

Department and activity 

Amounts recommended for rescission 

Department of the Interior: Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (contract authority) $30,000,000 

Environmental Protection Agency: Prior year accounts 

$142,000,000 

TRANSFERS OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
189 

APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

Account from which transfer is made Amount 000’s Account to which transfer is made Amount 000’s 

Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service.

not specified Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration.

not specified 

Department of the Interior, Operation of 

Indian Programs.

not specified Tribal trust forestry accounts ............... not specified 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs Construction.

not specified Bureau of Reclamation ......................... not specified 

Department of the Interior, Office of the 

Special Trustee for American Indians.

not specified Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and Office of the Secretary accounts.

not specified 

Department of the Interior, Wildland 

Fire Management.

up to $50,000 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wildland Fire Management.up to $50,000 

Department of the Interior, Wildland 

Fire Suppression Contingency Reserve Fund.

75,000 Department of the Interior, Department-wide Programs, Wildland Fire 

Management.

75,000 

Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Substance Superfund.not specified other Federal Agencies .......................... not specified 

Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Substance Superfund.9,975 Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Inspector General.

9,975 

Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Substance Superfund.26,834 Environmental Protection Agency, 

Science and Technology.

26,834 

Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and Management.

up to $475,000 other Federal department or agency ..... up to $475,000 

USDA, Forest Service, National Forest 

System.

up to $10,000 Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management.

up to $10,000 

USDA, Forest Service, National Forest 

System.

up to $10,000 USDA, Forest Service Accounts ............. up to $10,000 

USDA, Forest Service, Capital Improvement & Maintenance.up to $10,000 USDA, Forest Service Accounts ............. up to $10,000 

USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

11,600 USDA, Forest Service, National Forest 

System.

11,600 

USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

23,917 USDA, Forest Service, Forest & Rangeland Research.23,917 

USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

124,180 USDA, Forest Service, State & Private 

Forestry.

124,180 

USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

up to $25,000 USDA, Forest Service Accounts ............. up to $25,000 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wildland Fire Management.up to $50,000 Department of the Interior, Wildland 

Fire Management.

up to $50,000 

USDA Forest Service, Wildland Fire Suppression Contingency Reserve Fund.282,000 USDA, Forest Service, Wildland Fire 

Management.

282,000 

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board.150 Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Inspector General.

150 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 

(Public Law 110–161) 

* * * * * * * 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
190 

DIVISION F—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 

2008 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE PROGRAMS

* * * * * * * 

CENTRAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FUND

For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior and 

any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial action, 

including associated activities, of hazardous waste substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), $9,954,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That hereafter, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 

sums recovered from or paid by a party øin advance of or as reimbursement for remedial action or response activities conducted by 

the Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f) of such Act¿ including any fines or penalties, shall be credited to this account, to 

be available until expended without further appropriation: Provided further, That hereafter such sums recovered from or paid by 

any party are not limited to monetary payments and may include 

stocks, bonds or other personal or real property, which may be retained, liquidated, or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary and 

which shall be credited to this account. 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1987 

(Public Law 99–591) 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

* * * * * * * 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

LEASING AND ROYALTY MANAGEMENT

For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and environmental 

studies, regulation of industry operations, and collection of royalties, as authorized by law; for enforcing laws and regulations applicable to oil, gas, and other minerals leases, permits, licenses and 

operating contracts; and for matching grants or cooperative agreements; including the purchase of not to exceed eight passenger 

motor vehicles for replacement only; $160,697,000, of which not 

less than $44,904,000 shall be available for royalty management 

activities including general administration: Provided, That not less 

than $11,059,000 is to be used for the mineral revenue compliance 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
191 

audit program: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, funds appropriated under this Act shall be available for the payment of interest in accordance with 30 U.S.C. 1721 

(b) and (d): Provided further, That in fiscal year 1987 and thereafter, the Minerals Management Service is authorized to accept 

land, buildings, equipment and other contributions, from public 

and private sources, which shall be available for the purposes provided for in this account, including, øin fiscal years 2008 and 2009 

only¿ in fiscal years 2010 through 2013, contributions of money and 

services to conduct work in support of the orderly exploration and 

development of Outer Continental Shelf resources, including but 

not limited to, preparation of environmental documents such as impact statements and assessments, studies, and related research. 

* * * * * * * 

ACT OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1966 

(Public Law 89–565) 

AN ACT To authorize the establishment of the San Juan Island National Historical 

Park in the State of Washington, and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such 

sums, but not more than ø$5,575,000¿ $13,575,000 for the acquisition of lands and interests therein and for the development of the 

San Juan National Historical Park. 

* * * * * * * 

ACT OF DECEMBER 21, 2006 

(Public Law 109–441) 

An Act To provide for the preservation of the historic confinement sites where 

Japanese Americans were detained during World War II, and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 1. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC CONFINEMENT SITES. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) PROPERTY ACQUISITION.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS.—The property referred to in 

paragraph (2) is the following: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(E) Minidoka, depicted in a map entitled ‘‘Minidoka National Historic Site and Environs - Draft Document’’, dated 

May 27, 2009. The Secretary is authorized to accept a donation of land or interest in land acquired with funds provided under this section, as an addition to the Minidoka 

National Historic Site and administered in accordance 

with section 313(c)(5) of Public Law 110–229. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
192 

(F) Heart Mountain, depicted in Figure 6.3 of the Site 

Document. 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 

(Public Law 109–54) 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

* * * * * * * 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

* * * * * * * 

For fiscal years 2006 through ø2011¿ 2015, the Administrator 

may, after consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, 

employ up to thirty persons at any one time in the Office of Research and Development under the authority provided in 42 U.S.C. 

209. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

* * * * * * * 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, FOREST SERVICE

* * * * * * * 

For each fiscal year through ø2009¿ 2014, funds available to the 

Forest Service in this Act may be used for the purpose of expenses 

associated with primary and secondary schooling for dependents of 

agency personnel stationed in Puerto Rico prior to the date of enactment of this Act, who are subject to transfer and reassignment 

to other locations in the United States, at a cost not in excess of 

those authorized for the Department of Defense for the same area, 

when it is determined by the Chief of the Forest Service that public 

schools available in the locality are unable to provide adequately 

for the education of such dependents. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 6 OF THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE 

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES ACT OF 1965 

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS

SEC. 6. (a) * * * 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
193 

(b) APPOINTMENT AND COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL.—(1) The Council shall be composed of members as follows: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) ø14¿ 18 members appointed by the President, by and 

with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall be selected— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d)(1) The Council shall meet at the call of the Chairperson but 

not less often than twice during each calendar year. øEight¿ Ten 

members of the Council shall constitute a quorum. All policy meetings of the Council shall be open to the public. 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1986 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—RELATED AGENCIES 

* * * * * * * 

OTHER RELATED AGENCIES 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL CAPITAL ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

There is hereby authorized a program to support artistic and cultural programs in the Nation’s Capital to be established under the 

direction of the Commission of Fine Arts. Not to exceed 

ø$7,500,000¿ $10,000,000 annually is authorized to provide grants 

for general operating support to eligible organizations located in 

the District of Columbia whose primary purpose is performing, exhibiting and/or presenting arts. 

* * * * * * * 

Of the funds provided for grants, 70 per centum shall be equally 

distributed among all qualifying organizations and 30 per centum 

shall be distributed based on the size of an organization’s total annual income, exclusive of Federal funds, compared to the combined 

total of the annual income, exclusive of Federal funds, of all eligible 

institutions. No organization shall receive a grant in excess of 

ø$500,000¿ $650,000 in a single year. 

An application process shall be established no later than March 

1, 1986, and initial grants shall be awarded no later than June 1, 

1986. 

* * * * * * * 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
194 

SECTION 339 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 339. PILOT PROGRAM OF CHARGES AND FEES FOR HARVEST

OF FOREST BOTANICAL PRODUCTS. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(h) DURATION OF PILOT PROGRAM.— 

(1) COLLECTION OF FEES.—The Secretary of Agriculture may 

collect fees under the authority of subsection (c) until September 30, ø2009¿ 2014. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 331 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 

(Public Law 106–291) 

SEC. 331. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATIVE WATERSHED RESTORATION AND PROTECTION IN COLORADO. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the Secretary of 

Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements and contracts under this section expires September 30, ø2009¿ 2013, and the term of any cooperative agreement or contract entered into under this section shall not extend 

beyond that date. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 302 OF THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND 

COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000 

SEC. 302. USE. 

(a) AUTHORIZED USES.—A participating county, including any applicable agencies of the participating county, shall use county 

funds, in accordance with this title, only— 

(1) * * * 

(2) to reimburse the participating county for search and rescue and other emergency services, including firefighting, that 

are— 

(A) * * * 

(B) paid for by the participating county; øand¿ 

(3) to develop community wildfire protection plans in coordination with the appropriate Secretary concernedø.¿; and 

(4) to reimburse all or part of the costs incurred by the county to pay the salaries and benefits of county employees who supervise adults or juveniles performing mandatory community 

service on Federal lands. 

* * * * * * * 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
195 

DIRECTED SPENDING BY CONGRESS AND BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

This bill contains $3.4 billion in grant funding awarded solely at 

the discretion of the Administration, and $312 million in funding 

requested by the President for specific projects. In addition to placing a one-year moratorium on earmarks in appropriations bills enacted in 2007 so that new rules could be put in place, the Committee has subsequently taken unprecedented action to increase 

transparency and reduce funding for earmarks. The bill continues 

to further reduce earmarks in 2010, by 20 percent below 2009. In 

this bill since 2006, the total funding earmarked has been reduced 

by 35 percent. This year earmarked funding will equal 1 percent 

of the cost of the bill. It should also be noted that under the policies adopted by the Committee the use of member earmarks awarded to for-profit entities as a functional equivalent of no bid contracts is ended. In cases where the Committee funds an earmark 

designated for a for-profit entity, the Committee includes legislative language requiring the Executive Branch to nonetheless issue 

a request for proposal that gives other entities an opportunity to 

apply and requires the agency to evaluate all bids received and 

make a decision based on merit. This gives the original designee 

an opportunity to be brought to the attention of the agency, but 

with the possibility that an alternative entity may be selected. 

2006 2008 2009 2010 Committee 

$ in millions # $ in millions # $ in millions # $ in millions 

$674 555 $404 543 $434 272 $156 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY 

DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

The following table is submitted in compliance with clause 9 of 

rule XXI, and lists the congressional earmarks (as defined in paragraph (e) of clause 9) contained in the bill or in this report. Neither 

the bill nor the report contain any limited tax benefits or limited 

tariff benefits as defined in paragraphs (f) or (g) of clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
196 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Bureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management Bridgeport Access Trail $176,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management Browning Ranch House Preservation $124,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management California Radio Fencing and Grounding Improvement $537,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management Campbell Airstrip Safety Fencing $190,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management El Toro Creek Parking Project $1,209,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management Five Mile Pass Recreation Site Facility $362,000 The PresidentBureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management Knolls Facility $381,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management Lemhi River Total Maximum Daily Load 

Road Maintenance Phase IV 

$1,588,000 The President 

Bureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management Partners Point Waterline $110,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management Pelican Lake Recreation Site Reconstruction $697,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management Sawtooth Campground $541,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Construction Bureau of Land Management Sharkey Hot Springs Renovation $287,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management Blackfoot River Special Recreation 

Management Area 

$4,500,000 The President Rehberg 

Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management California Wilderness $500,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
197 

Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument $1,000,000 The President Pelosi Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management Craig Thomas Little Mountain SMA $2,000,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management King Range NCA $2,000,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management La Cienega ACEC/El Camino Real De 

Tierra Adento NHT 

$3,000,000 The President Lujan 

Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management Lacks Creek ACEC $750,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat ACEC $1,500,000 The President Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management Meeteetsee Spires ACEC $1,500,000 The President Rehberg Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management Sandy River / Oregon NHT $2,100,000 The President Blumenauer Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management Upper Sacramento River ACEC $2,800,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Construction Fish and Wildlife Service Allegheny NFH, rehab fish production 

and electrical systems 

$1,500,000 The President 

Fish and Wildlife Service Construction Fish and Wildlife Service Big Oaks NWR, Old Timbers Dam— 

Phase I 

$100,000 The President 

Fish and Wildlife Service Construction Fish and Wildlife Service Fergus Falls WMD, Stang Lake Dam— 

Phase II 

$175,000 The President 

Fish and Wildlife Service Construction Fish and Wildlife Service Guam NWR, invasive species fence 

construction 

$866,000 The President 

Fish and Wildlife Service Construction Fish and Wildlife Service Jackson NFH, replace water supply line $1,650,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Construction Fish and Wildlife Service Quinault NFH, replace electric fish barriers $1,000,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Construction Fish and Wildlife Service Turnbull NWR, Lower Pine Lake Dam— 

Phase II 

$250,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
198 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Fish and Wildlife Service Construction Fish and Wildlife Service Wichita Mountains WR, Lake Rush 

Dam—Phase II 

$4,100,000 The President 

Fish and Wildlife Service Construction Fish and Wildlife Service Willow Beach NFH, water treatment 

(filters/wells) to remove Quagga mussel from water supply 

$482,000 The President 

Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Maritime NWR $300,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Back Bay NWR $545,000 The President Nye Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Balcones Canyonlands NWR $1,000,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Bear River MBR $500,000 The President Bishop (UT) Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Big Muddy NF&WR $300,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Blackwater NWR $2,000,000 The President Kratovil Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Bon Secour NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Bond Swamp NWR $1,200,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Cape May NWR $2,000,000 The President LoBiondo; Sires; 

Rothman (NJ) 

Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Cherry Valley NWR $500,000 The President Kanjorski Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Chickasaw NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Cypress Creek NWR $500,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
199 

Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA $1,000,000 The President Herseth Sandlin Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Edwin B. Forsythe NWR $1,100,000 The President Adler (NJ);

LoBiondo; Sires; Rothman (NJ) 

Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Grasslands WMA $1,000,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service James Campbell NWR $500,000 The President Abercrombie; 

Hirono 

Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service James River NWR $1,000,000 The President Moran (VA); Scott

(VA) 

Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Laguna Atascosa NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Leslie Canyon NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR $1,000,000 The President OrtizFish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Nestucca Bay NWR $1,000,000 The President Schrader Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Nisqually NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service North Dakota WMA $1,000,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Panther Swamp NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Patoka River NWR $1,150,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Prime Hook NWR $1,000,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Rachel Carson NWR $3,000,000 The President Pingree (ME) 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
200 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Red River NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Red Rock Lakes NWR $1,000,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Rocky Mountain Front CA $3,750,000 The President Rehberg Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service San Bernard NWR-Austin’s Woods Unit $2,500,000 The President Paul Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service San Joaquin River NWR $2,000,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Sevilleta NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Silvio O. Conte NWR&FR $2,250,000 The President Hodes; Courtney; 

Murphy (CT); Olver 

Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service St. Marks NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Togiak NWR $500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Upper Mississippi River NW&FR $1,500,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Upper Ouachita NWR $1,000,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Waccamaw NWR $600,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Willapa NWR $750,000 The President Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Fish and Wildlife Service Yukon Delta NWR $500,000 The President National Park Service Construction National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway, Repair Craggy 

Gardens Retaining and Guardwalls 

$2,728,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
201 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service Chiricahua, Replace Failing Sewer Systems $2,410,000 The President National Park Service Construction National Park Service Delaware Water Gap NRA, demolish 

and remove hazardous structures 

$2,234,000 The President 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service Delaware Water Gap NRA, rehabilitate 

Childs Park 

$3,048,000 The President 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service Fort Pulaski, replace Cockspur Lighthouse revetment $1,577,000 The President National Park Service Construction National Park Service George Rogers Clark NHP, restore and 

rehabilitate historic Wabash River floodwall 

$3,600,000 The President 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service Glacier NP, safety improvements at 

Many Glacier Hotel 

$8,507,000 The President 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service Grand Canyon, employee housing $16,890,000 The President National Park Service Construction National Park Service Grand Teton NP, construct critical 

housing 

$13,174,000 The President 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service Harry S. Truman NHS, Rehabilitate interior grounds of Historic Noland 

House and Install interpretive exhibits 

$1,018,000 The President 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service Katmai, replace failing infrastructure 

at Brooks Camp 

$6,741,000 The President 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service Mesa Verde curation center $11,675,000 The President National Park Service Construction National Park Service Mesa Verde Visitor Information Center $10,500,000 The President Salazar National Park Service Construction National Park Service National Capital Region, Preserve and 

protect Meridian Hill Park 

$3,844,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
202 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service National Capital Region, Theodore Roosevelt rehabilitation site $1,706,000 The President National Park Service Construction National Park Service Olympic National Park, restore Elwha 

River ecosystem and fisheries 

$20,000,000 The President 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service Point Reyes, restore critical dune habitat $2,803,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Big Thicket National Preserve $5,000,000 The President Brady (TX) National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway $1,703,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Chattahoochee River National Rec. Area $3,100,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Congaree NP $1,320,000 The President Clyburn National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Ft. Smith NHS $362,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Golden Gate NRA $5,000,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Guilford Courthouse NMP $880,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Harry S. Truman NHS $1,300,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Minidoka NHS Japanese Internment $350,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Mt. Ranier $2,150,000 The President Reichert; 

McDermott 

National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Natchez NHP $264,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
203 

National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Olympic NP $3,000,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Palo Alto Battlefield National Park $3,120,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Petrified Forest National Park $4,575,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Prince William Forest Park $425,000 The President National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service San Juan Island NHP $6,000,000 The President Larsen (WA) National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service Virgin Islands National Park $4,500,000 The President Christensen US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Angeles NF, Pyramid Lake Rehabilitation $1,069,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Arapaho/Roosevelt NF, Pawnee Campground/Picnic Area, Phase 1 $1,240,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Arapaho/Roosevelt NF, Shadow Mountain Village Exterior Bldg Rehabilitation $668,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Bighorn NF, South Fork Campground 

Rehabilitation 

$490,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Cherokee NF, Tellico River Corridor 

Recreation Rehabilitation, Phase 3 

$330,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Chippewa NF, Walker Administrative 

Site Phase 1 

$1,000,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Chugach NF, Porcupine Creek Campground Reconstruction $1,911,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
204 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Cibola NF, Magdalena Ranger Station, 

Phase 1 

$1,568,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Custer NF, Camp Crook Water System $564,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Deschutes NF, Allingham Guard Station 

Water System Phase 2 

$250,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Dixie NF, Pine Valley Recreation Area 

Reconstruction, Phase 3 

$450,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service FPL, Freight Elevator Replacement $785,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Francis Marion NF, Burrells Ford Campground Rehabilitation $355,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Francis Marion NF, Ranger District Office Phase 2 $1,080,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service George Washington/Jefferson NF, Elizabeth Furnace Water/ Sanitation Rehabilitation $265,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
205 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Gifford Pinchot NF, Johnston Ridge Observatory Deferred Maintenance $410,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Grand Mesa/Uncompahgre/Gunnison 

NF, Lottis Creek Recreation Area Rehabilitation 

$1,312,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Hiawatha NF, Clear Lake Environmental 

Education Center 

$480,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service ID Panhandle NF, Outlet Campground 

Phase 1 

$760,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service ID Panhandle NF,Nursery Roof Replacement $450,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service IITF, Sabana Woodshop Renovation $519,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Inyo NF, Ancient Bristlecone Pine Visitor Center $2,105,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Kaibab NF, Kaibab Lake Campground $818,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Klamath NF, Oak Knoll Work Center $1,028,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Lassen NF, Merrill Campground Phase 

3 

$1,115,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
206 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Lewis & Clark NF, Interpretive Center 

Health and Safety Improvements 

$386,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Malheur NF, Prairie City Offices & 

Warehouse 

$1,800,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Meadow Ponds Dam Rehabilitation $400,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Medicine Bow/Routt NF,Walden Bunkhouse $1,080,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument $1,195,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service NRS, Grand Rapids Lab Renovation $379,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service NRS, Parsons Lab Renovation $254,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service NRS, Silas Little Experiment Forest Remodel $253,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
207 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service NRS, St. Paul Elevator and Roof Replacement $475,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Ottawa NF, Watersmeet Administrative 

Site Phase 3 

$2,000,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Ozark-St. Francis NF, Pleasant Hill 

Ranger District Office Addition & Renovation 

$1,500,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Payette NF, Seasonal Housing $2,130,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service PNW, Juneau Lab Collocation Phase 1 $4,980,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Prescott NF, Lynx Southshore Recreation Area $450,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service PSW, Hawaii Research Field Stations— 

Phase 2 

$660,000 The President Abercrombie; 

Hirono 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Regional Office, Aerial Fire Depot Roofing $381,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service RMRS, Bozeman Research Complex $906,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service RMRS, Ft. Collins Prospect Renovation 

Planning & Design 

$370,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
208 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service RMRS,Tenderfoot Creek, Experimental 

Forest Administrative Site 

$495,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Salmon-Challis NF, Central Idaho Fire 

Aviation Center 

$2,400,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service San Dimas, Energy Conservation and 

Renewable Generation 

$400,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Siuslaw/Corvallis Collocation—East 

Wing Replacement 

$4,100,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Six Rivers NF, Smith River National 

Recreation Area Warehouse 

$996,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service SRS, Wood Products Insect Laboratory $1,000,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service SRS,Oxford HVAC Replacement $432,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Stanislaus NF, Long Barn Barracks $1,126,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
209 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Tongass NF, Thorne Bay Quads Phase 

2 and 3 

$906,000 The President 

US Forest Service Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance (construction) 

US Forest Service Tonto NF, Needle Rock Campground, 

Phase 1 

$668,000 The President 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Allegheny NF $500,000 The President US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Angeles NF—Bighorn Mine $1,000,000 The President US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Black Hills NF—Lady C Ranch $1,000,000 The President Herseth Sandlin US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Chattahoochee-Oconee NF $1,000,000 The President Marshall US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Chequamegon-Nicolet NF—Wisconsin 

Wild Waterways 

$1,000,000 The President 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Cherokee NF—Rocky Fork $3,000,000 The President Price (NC) US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Chippewa/Superior NF—Minnesota Wilderness $750,000 The President Oberstar US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Gila NF—Bear Creek Ranch $1,000,000 The President US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Green Mountain NF $250,000 The President US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Helena NF—Blackfoot Challenge $1,000,000 The President Rehberg US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Hoosier NF $250,000 The President US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Los Padres NF—Big Sur Ecosystem $1,000,000 The President Farr US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Mark Twain NF—Missouri Ozark $500,000 The President US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie/Wenatchee 

NFs—Cascade Ecosystems 

$1,000,000 The President 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
210 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Presidentially Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount 

Requester(s) 

Administration House 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Multiple—Greater Yellowstone Area $1,000,000 The President Rehberg US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Multiple—Sierra Nevada Checkerboard $1,000,000 The President US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Ottawa NF—Great Lakes/Great Lands $1,500,000 The President Stupak US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service San Bernardino NF—Garner Home 

Ranch 

$500,000 The President 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Six Rivers NF—Agnew Tract $1,000,000 The President US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Wallowa-Whitman NF—Imnaha River 

Canyon, Hells Canyon 

$1,500,000 The President 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service Wasatch-Cache NF—High Uintas $1,500,000 The President US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service White Mountain NF $434,000 The President 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument $500,000 Bono Mack Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Management Alaska Sealife Center, Seward, AK Stellers and Spectacled Sea Eider Research $350,000 Young (AK) Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Management Georgia Soil and Water Conservation 

Commission, Athens, GA 

Georgia Streambank Restoration $500,000 Johnson (GA); Scott (GA); Marshall 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
211 

Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Management Idaho Governor, Boise, ID Idaho Sage-Grouse Management Plan $500,000 Simpson Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Management Audubon Institute, New Orleans, LA Endangered Whooping Crane 

Propogation Facility 

$500,000 Cao 

Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion 

Commission, Old Harbor, AK 

Sea Otter and Stellar Sea Lion Education and Conservation $200,000 Young (AK) 

Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries University of California, Davis, Davis, 

CA 

Review of the Klamath, North Coast, 

and Central Valley Hatchery Operations in California 

$1,000,000 Thompson (CA) 

Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries USFWS, Fort Snelling, MN Mass Marking of Hatchery Fish $1,000,000 Dingell Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC West Virginia Fisheries Resource Office $1,300,000 Mollohan Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition The Conservation Fund, Tallahassee, FL Crystal River NWR, Three Sisters Spring $500,000 Brown-Waite, Ginny Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, 

Basking Ridge, NJ 

Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge $750,000 Frelinghuysen; Sires; Rothman (NJ) 

Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition The Conservation Fund, Chesapeake, 

VA 

Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife 

Refuge 

$500,000 Forbes 

Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Rappahanock River National Wildlife 

Refuge, Warsaw, VA 

Rappahannock River National Wildlife 

Refuge, Bowers property 

$500,000 Wittman; Moran (VA) 

National Park Service Statutory or Contractual Aid Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation, San Francisco, CA Angel Island State Park Immigration Station Hospital Rehabilitation $1,000,000 Pelosi; Woolsey National Park Service Statutory or Contractual Aid National Park Service, Washington, DC Chesapeake Bay Gateways $400,000 Sarbanes; Moran (VA); Cummings; 

Hoyer; Kratovil 

National Park Service Statutory or Contractual Aid Maryland Department of Business and 

Economic Development, Baltimore, MD 

Star Spangled Banner National Historic 

Trail 

$500,000 Ruppersberger; Sarbanes; 

Cummings 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
212 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures City of Fort Payne, Fort Payne, AL Historic Fort Payne Coal and Iron 

Building Rehabilitation 

$150,000 Aderholt 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures University of Montevallo, Montevallo, AL Historic Montevallo Main Hall Renovation $150,000 Bachus; Aderholt National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Talladega College, Talladega, AL Swayne Hall Historic Restoration and 

Renovation 

$100,000 Rogers (AL) 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Harriet Beecher Stowe Center, Hartford, 

CT 

Harriet Beecher Stowe Center Preservation $150,000 Larson (CT) 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures City of Derby, Derby, CT Sterling Opera House Renovation $150,000 DeLauro National Park Service Save America’s Treasures San Juan County Historical Society, 

Silverton, CO 

Shenandoah-Dives Mill National Historic Landmark $150,000 Salazar 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures National Park Service, National Capital 

Parks—East, Washington, DC 

Harmony Hall Restoration $100,000 Hoyer 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Idaho State Historical Society, Boise, ID Historic Old Pen Site Stabilization 

Project 

$150,000 Simpson 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures First Baptist Congregational Church, 

Chicago, IL 

Repairs to Historic Chicago Landmark $50,000 Davis (IL) 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Breckinridge County Fiscal Court, 

Hardinsburg, KY 

Judge Joseph Holt House Historic Restoration $150,000 Guthrie 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Hancock Shaker Village, Hancock, MA Hancock Shaker Village Restoration $150,000 Olver National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Trustees of Reservations, Stockbridge, 

MA 

Stockbridge Mission House Renovation $117,000 Olver 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
213 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures CSPS Sokol Hall, Saint Paul, MN CSPS Sokol Hall $150,000 McCollum National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Community Action of Minneapolis, Minneapolis, MN Restoration of Historic Coe Mansion $150,000 Ellison National Park Service Save America’s Treasures City of Bozeman, Bozeman, MT City of Bozeman Main Street Historic 

District Restoration 

$150,000 Rehberg 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Bellamy Mansion, Wilmington, NC Bellamy Mansion Slave Quarters $100,000 McIntyreNational Park Service Save America’s Treasures Georgian Court University, Lakewood, 

NJ 

Georgian Court Mansion Restoration $200,000 Smith (NJ); Rothman (NJ) 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Township of South Orange Village, 

South Orange, NJ 

South Orange Village Hall Restoration $150,000 Payne; Pascrell 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Village of Owego, Owego, NY Historic Owego Municipal Building Rehabilitation $150,000 Hinchey National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Poughkeepsie, NY Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Res- toration $150,000 Hinchey National Park Service Save America’s Treasures The Friends of the Mozartina Musical 

Arts Conservatory, Tarrytown, NY 

Tarrytown Music Hall Restoration $150,000 Lowey 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Traditional Arts in Upstate New York, 

Canton, NY 

Village Park Historic Preservation $150,000 McHugh 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Union Library Company of Hatborough, 

Hatboro, PA 

Hatborough Union Library Restoration $38,000 Schwartz 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures County of Lehigh, Allentown, PA Saylor Cement Kilns Historic Preservation $200,000 Dent National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Superintendent of the Capitol of Puerto 

Rico, San Juan, PR 

San Juan North Portal Restoration $150,000 Pierluisi 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Town of Chesterfield, Chesterfield, SC Chesterfield Courthouse Restoration $150,000 Spratt 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
214 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures County of Dorchester, St. George, SC Cypress Historic Meeting Compound $200,000 Brown (SC) National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Historic Columbia Foundation, Columbia, SC Modjeska Simkins Home Restoration $150,000 Clyburn National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Blount Mansion Association, Knoxville, 

TN 

Blount Mansion Historic Restoration $200,000 Duncan 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City, UT Historic Fisher Mansion Restoration 

Project 

$150,000 Bishop (UT) 

National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Virginia Union University, Richmond, VA Belgian Building Preservation $150,000 Scott (VA) National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Chesterfield County, Chesterfield, VA Chesterfield County Historic Preservation $150,000 Forbes National Park Service Save America’s Treasures City of Alexandria, Alexandria, VA Fort Ward Park Preservation $75,000 Moran (VA) National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Sound Experience, Port Townsend, WA Schooner Adventuress Restoration $180,000 Dicks National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Bayfield County, Washburn, WI Bayfield Historic Courthouse Restoration $150,000 Obey National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Claymont Society for Continuous Education, Charles Town, WV Claymont Court Historic Site Restora- tion $150,000 Capito National Park Service Save America’s Treasures Alpine Heritage Preservation Inc., 

Thomas, WV 

Cottrill’s Opera House Restoration $150,000 Mollohan 

National Park Service Construction Saguaro National Park, Tucson, AZ Saguaro National Park Trail Improvements $398,000 Giffords National Park Service Construction Joshua Tree National Park, Twentynine 

Palms, CA 

Joshua Tree National Park Visitor Center $300,000 Lewis (CA) 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
215 

National Park Service Construction African American Civil War Museum, 

Washington, DC 

African American Civil War Museum, 

security enhancements 

$220,000 Norton 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service, St Augustine, FL Castillo de San Marcos National Monument $500,000 Mica National Park Service Construction Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, IN Restore Good Fellow Lodge, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore $1,000,000 Visclosky National Park Service Construction Keweenaw National Historic Park, Calumet, MI Keweenaw National Historical Park Union Building $1,380,000 Stupak National Park Service Construction Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook Unit, Fort 

Hancock, NJ 

Gateway NRA, Sandy Hook Repair of 

Historic Gun Batteries 

$800,000 Pallone 

National Park Service Construction Fire Island Land Trust, Cold Spring 

Harbor, NY 

Fire Island Land Trust Historic Restoration $250,000 Israel; Bishop (NY) 

National Park Service Construction Cuyahoga Valley National Park, 

Brecksville, OH 

Cuyahoga Valley National Park Site and 

Structure Rehabilitation Program 

$500,000 LaTourette; Sutton 

National Park Service Construction Chickasaw National Recreation Area, 

Sulphur, OK 

Chickasaw National Recreation Area 

Visitor Center 

$500,000 Cole 

National Park Service Construction Crater Lake National Park, Crater Lake, 

OR 

Crater Lake Visitor Education Center $350,000 Walden; Blumenauer 

National Park Service Construction Valley Forge National Park, King of 

Prussia, PA 

Valley Forge National Park Visitor Center $325,000 Sestak 

National Park Service Construction Moccasin Bend National Archeological 

District, Chattanooga, TN 

Moccasin Bend National Archeological 

District 

$500,000 Wamp 

National Park Service Construction Highland City, Highland, UT Timpanogos Cave National Monument 

Visitors Center 

$1,600,000 Matheson 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service, McLean, VA Fort Hunt NCO Quarters Restoration $250,000 Moran (VA) 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
216 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

National Park Service Construction National Park Service, Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, Bayfield, WI 

Apostle Islands Lighthouse Restoration $2,000,000 Obey 

National Park Service Construction Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI Ice Age National Scenic Trail $265,000 Obey National Park Service Land Acquisition Cumberland Gap National Historic 

Park, Middlesboro, KY 

Cumberland Gap NHP, Fern Lake $500,000 Rogers (KY) 

National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service, Washington, DC Petroglyph National Monument $1,000,000 Heinrich National Park Service Land Acquisition National Park Service, Fredericksburg & 

Spotsylvania County Battlefields National Military Park, Frederiksburg, VA 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, Binns property $200,000 Wittman 

National Park Service Land Acquisition Ice Age Park and Trail Foundation, 

Cross Plains, WI 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail $2,000,000 Baldwin; Obey 

U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research U.S. Geological Survey, AR Water 

Science Center, Little Rock, AR 

South Arkansas Sparta Aquifer Recovery Initiative $300,000 Ross 

U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ U.S.—Mexico Transboundary Aquifer 

Assessment Program 

$1,000,000 Grijalva; Pastor (AZ) 

U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Sacramento, CA South San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project (USGS) $1,000,000 Stark; Lofgren, Zoe; Honda; Pelosi U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research U.S. Geological Survey, Urbana, IL McHenry County groundwater and 

stormwater protection 

$280,000 Manzullo 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
217 

U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research Silvio O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Lab, Turners Falls, MA Conte Anadromous Fish Research Lab $220,000 Olver U.S. Geological Survey Surveys, Investigations & Research USGS Washington Water Science Center, Tacoma, WA Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen Study $200,000 Dicks Insular Affairs Assistance to Territories Government of the VI, St. Croix, VI Critical Wastewater System Repairs 

and Improvements 

$900,000 Christensen 

Environmental Protection Agency Science & Technology Water Research Foundation, Denver, CO Water Research Foundation $1,700,000 Kissell; Rehberg; Moran (VA) Environmental Protection Agency Science & Technology The Consortium for Plant Biotechnology 

Research, Inc., St. Simons Island, GA 

Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research $1,000,000 Towns; Rogers (MI); Rehberg; Stu- pak; Conyers; Price (NC); Abercrombie; Lewis (GA); Rogers 

(KY) 

Environmental Protection Agency Science & Technology University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, 

TX 

Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) $1,000,000 Reyes; Pastor (AZ) 

Environmental Protection Agency Science & Technology Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA Water Environment Research Founda- tion $2,000,000 Price (NC); Moran (VA) Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Programs and Management Rural Community Assistance Partner- ship (RCAP), Washington, DC Rural Community Assistance Partner- ship $2,500,000 Olver; Rogers (KY) Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Programs and Management Water Systems Council, Washington, DC Water Systems Council Wellcare Pro- gram $700,000 Langevin; Latham; Arcuri; Boswell Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Programs and Management National Rural Water Association, Dun- can, OK Rural Water Technical Assistance, Na- tional Rural Water Association $13,000,000 Etheridge; Jones; Kennedy Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Programs and Management Water Environment Federation, Alexan- dria, VA National Biosolids Partnership $750,000 Moran (VA) Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Programs and Management University of Washington, Seattle, WA Puget Sound Ecosystem Research Ini- tiative $4,000,000 Smith (WA); McDermott; Dicks; Baird Environmental Protection Agency STAG—Other Brownsville, El Paso, TX El Paso/Brownsville water and wastewater infrastructure $2,500,000 Reyes; Ortiz 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
218 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project East Alabama Water Sewer and Fire Protection District, Valley, AL East Alabama Water Sewer and Fire Protection District for wastewater 

system planning 

$275,000 Rogers (AL) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Enterprise, Enterprise, AL The City of Enterprise for the Enter- prise Southeast lagoon upgrade 

project 

$500,000 Bright 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Sulligent, Sulligent, AL The City of Sulligent for a water well and storage tank project $500,000 Aderholt Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Washington County Commission, Chatom, AL Washington County Commission for the Washington County sanitary sewer 

extension 

$500,000 Bonner 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Cabot Waterworks, Cabot, AR Cabot Waterworks for wastewater im- provements $500,000 Berry Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville, AR The City of Fayetteville for Elkins Out- fall Sewer Line sewer replacement $500,000 Boozman Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project The Pascua Yacqui Tribe, Tucson, AZ The Pascua Yacqui Tribe for the mas- ter drainage plan $1,000,000 Pastor (AZ); Grijalva Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Town of Chino Valley, Chino Valley, AZ The Town of Chino Valley for water and wastewater infrastructure $500,000 Kirkpatrick (AZ) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Town of Miami, Miami, AZ The Town of Miami for sewer collection system upgrades $220,000 Pastor (AZ) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Big Bear Department of Water and Power, Big Bear Lake, CA Big Bear Department of Water and Power for Big Bear Lake water system infrastructure improvements $500,000 Lewis (CA) 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
219 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Carlsbad, Carlsbad, CA Carlsbad for Vista-Carlsbad joint wastewater project $500,000 Bilbray Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Galt, Galt, CA City of Galt for Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades $500,000 Lungren, Dan Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Helix Water District, La Mesa, CA Helix Water District for the El Monte Valley groundwater recharge project $500,000 Hunter Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Salinas, CA Monterey County Water Resources Agency for the Lower Carmel River 

and Lagoon Floodplain restoration and enhancement project 

$500,000 Farr 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Palmdale Water District, Palmdale, CA Palmdale Water District for water main replacement $500,000 McKeon Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project South Montebello Irrigation District, Montebello, CA South Montebello Irrigation District for water system infrastructure improvements $550,000 Napolitano Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project South Pasadena, South Pasadena, CA South Pasadena for Wilson Reservoir replacement $300,000 Schiff Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Arcadia, Arcadia, CA The City of Arcadia for the Arcadia and Sierra Madre joint water infrastructure project $500,000 Dreier Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Bell, Bell, CA The City of Bell for Sewer Infrastruc- ture Modernization $675,000 Roybal-Allard Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Calimesa, Calimesa, CA The City of Calimesa for storm drain improvements $500,000 Lewis (CA) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Cathedral City, Cathedral City, CA The City of Cathedral City for South City Improvement District groundwater protection $500,000 Bono Mack 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
220 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Ceres, Ceres, CA The City of Ceres for East Service Road sanitary sewer extension $500,000 Cardoza Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Culver City, Culver City, CA The City of Culver City for storm water improvements $500,000 Watson Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA The City of Los Angeles for the Elysian Park water recycling project $500,000 Becerra Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Ridgecrest, Ridgecrest, CA The City of Ridgecrest for wastewater treatment facility infrastructure $400,000 McCarthy (CA) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of San Jose, San Jose, CA The City of San Jose for the San Jose Redevelopment Area sewer main rehabilitation $300,000 Honda; Lofgren, Zoe Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of San Juan Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, CA The City of San Juan Capistrano for ground water recovery plant expansion and regional distribution facility $500,000 Calvert Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Temple City, Temple City, CA The City of Temple City for storm drain installation $200,000 Schiff Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Vallejo, Vallejo, CA The City of Vallejo for Mare Island san- itary sewer and storm drain improvements $750,000 Miller, George Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Western Municipal Water District, Riv- erside, CA Western Municipal Water District for Arlington Desalter Biodenitrification $500,000 Calvert Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project The Mattabasset District, Cromwell, CT The Mattabasset District for waste- water treatment facility upgrades $500,000 Larson (CT) 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
221 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Town of Prospect, Prospect, CT The Town of Prospect for drinking water infrastructure $495,000 DeLauro Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of West Palm Beach, West Palm Beach, FL City of West Palm Beach for water in- frastructure improvements $500,000 Klein (FL); Wexler Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Jacksonville Water and Sewer Expan- sion Authority, Jacksonville, FL Jacksonville Water and Sewer Expan- sion Authority for septic tank replacement $500,000 Crenshaw Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Santa Rosa County, Milton, FL Santa Rosa County for Navarre Beach water clarifier $220,000 Miller (FL) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project South Seminole and North Orange County Wastewater Transmission Authority, Maitland, FL South Seminole and North Orange County Wastewater Transmission Au- thority for wastewater infrastructure 

improvements 

$500,000 Kosmas; Mica 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Clearwater, Clearwater, FL The City of Clearwater for wastewater treatment facility improvements $500,000 Young (FL); Bilirakis Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Homestead, Homestead, FL The City of Homestead for water utility upgrades $500,000 Diaz-Balart, Mario Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Opa-Locka, Public Works Divi- sion, Opa-Locka, FL The City of Opa-Locka Public Works Di- vision for wastewater infrastructure 

improvements 

$500,000 Meek (FL) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Quincy, Quincy, FL The City of Quincy for inflow and infil- tration improvements $440,000 Boyd Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Sunrise, Sunrise, FL The City of Sunrise for a water rec- lamation system $1,000,000 Wasserman Schultz; Hastings (FL) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Fort Valley Utility Commission, Fort Valley, GA Fort Valley Utility Commission for wastewater reclamation facility $500,000 Bishop (GA) 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
222 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Metropolitan North Georgia Water Plan- ning District, Atlanta, GA Metropolitan North Georgia Water Plan- ning District for multiple water and 

wastewater system improvements 

$500,000 Scott (GA); Gingrey (GA); Lewis 

(GA); Deal; Johnson (GA); Kingston 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA The City of Atlanta for sewer system infrastructure improvements $500,000 Lewis (GA); Johnson (GA); Bishop (GA); Barrow; Scott (GA) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Crawfordville, Crawfordville, GA The City of Crawfordville for the sewer rehabilitation $500,000 Barrow Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Kingsland, Kingsland, GA The City of Kingsland for water and sewer infrastructure $500,000 Kingston Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Guam Waterworks Authority, Hagatna, GU Guam Waterworks Authority for Waste- water Infrastructure Improvements $600,000 Bordallo Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Garner, Garner, IA The City of Garner for wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements $500,000 Latham Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Buhl, Buhl, ID The City of Buhl for wastewater treat- ment infrastructure $500,000 Simpson Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Naperville Heritage Society, Naperville, IL Naperville Heritage Society, Naperville, for stormwater management at 

Naper Settlement 

$500,000 Biggert 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Sharpsburg and Neighboring Area Water System, Taylorville, IL Sharpsburg and Neighboring Area Water System for infrastructure $500,000 Shimkus Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Village of Buckner, Buckner, IL The Village of Buckner for a Water Storage Tank $352,000 Costello 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
223 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Village of Carol Stream, Carol Stream, IL The Village of Carol Stream for Tubeway Drive storm water lift station rehabilitation $192,000 Roskam Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Village of Hopedale, Village of Hopedale, IL The Village of Hopedale for wastewater treatment facility upgrades $180,000 Schock Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Village of Johnsburg, Johnsburg, IL The Village of Johnsburg for waste- water treatment infrastructure $500,000 Bean Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Village of Park Forest, Park Forest, IL The Village of Park Forest for sanitary sewer infrastructure $500,000 Jackson (IL) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Will County, Joliet, IL Will County for Ridgewood water and wastewater infrastructure improvements $550,000 Halvorson Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Clinton County Government, Frankfort, IN Clinton County Government for the Eastside Regional stormwater improvements $500,000 Buyer Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Portage, Portage, IN The City of Portage for water infra- structure improvements $800,000 Visclosky Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Wadesville-Blairsville Regional Sewer District, Wadesville, IN Wadesville-Blairsville Regional Sewer District for the sanitary sewer system project $500,000 Ellsworth Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of DeSoto, DeSoto, KS The City of DeSoto for water treatment infrastructure improvements at the 

Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant 

$500,000 Moore (KS) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Rose Hill, Rose Hill, KS The City of Rose Hill for the Berlin Drainage Project $500,000 Tiahrt Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Franklin County Fiscal Court, Frankfort, KY Franklin County Fiscal Court for the Farmdale Area wastewater treatment 

plant 

$900,000 Chandler 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
224 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Owensboro-Daviess County Regional Water Resource Agency, Owensboro, 

KY 

Owensboro-Daviess County Regional 

Water Resource Agency for the Locust Hills Subdivision sewer installation project 

$220,000 Guthrie 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Perry County Sanitation District No. 1, Hazard, KY Perry County Sanitation District No. 1 for wastewater treatment infrastructure $500,000 Rogers (KY) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Paris, Paris, KY The City of Paris for combined utilities water plan improvements $500,000 Chandler Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Tompkinsville, Tompkinsville, KY The City of Tompkinsville for a water treatment plant backwash lagoon 

project 

$189,000 Whitfield 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Wurtland, Wurtland, KY The City of Wurtland for the Wurtland/ Greenup/Lloyd regional sewer project $500,000 Davis (KY) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project St. Tammany Parish, Mandeville, LA St. Tammany Parish for Bayou Chinchuba Regional water retention $500,000 Scalise Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Monroe, Monroe, LA The City of Monroe for a wastewater treatment system $500,000 Alexander Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Gloucester, Gloucester, MA City of Gloucester for Essex Avenue Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade $500,000 Tierney Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, West Springfield, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission for the Connecticut River CSO $750,000 Olver; Neal 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
225 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Cities of Fall River and New Bedford; Towns of Acushnet, Mansfield, Norton, and Foxboro, Fall River, New 

Bedford, Acushnet, Mansfield, Norton, and Foxboro, MA 

The Cities of Fall River and New Bedford and the Towns of Acushnet, 

Mansfield, Norton, and Foxboro for Bristol County CSO upgrades 

$750,000 Frank (MA); McGovern 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Malden, Malden, MA The City of Malden for citywide lead water service replacement $500,000 Markey (MA) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Maryland Department of the Environ- ment, Baltimore, MD Maryland Department of the Environ- ment for Salisbury cast iron distribution pipe $500,000 Kratovil Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project The City of Rockville, Rockville, MD The City of Rockville for sanitary sewer rehabilitation $750,000 Van Hollen Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Town of Chesapeake Beach, Chesa- peake Beach, MD The Town of Chesapeake Beach for WWTP Enhanced Nutrient Removal 

Upgrade and Expansion 

$700,000 Hoyer 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Town of Machias, Machias, ME The Town of Machias for sewer system upgrades $500,000 Michaud Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Lansing Board of Water & Light, Lan- sing, MI Lansing Board of Water & Light for Lansing energy efficient drinking 

water system 

$500,000 Rogers (MI) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Oakland County Water Resources Com- missioner, Waterford, MI Oakland County Water Resources Com- missioner for the Oakland Macomb 

Interceptor 

$500,000 Miller (MI); Levin 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Detroit, DEGC, Detroit, MI The City of Detroit DEGC for East Riverfront wastewater infrastructure $500,000 Kilpatrick (MI) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, MI The City of Grand Rapids for Eastside CSO separation $500,000 Ehlers Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Wayne County, Detroit, MI Wayne County for the Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration Project $500,000 Dingell; Peters 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
226 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commis- sion, Grand Rapids, MN Grand Rapids Public Utilities Commis- sion for wastewater facilities improvements $1,000,000 Oberstar Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project South Bend Township, Mankato, MN South Bend Township for water and sewer infrastructure $500,000 Walz Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project McDonald County, McDonald County, MO McDonald County for wastewater infra- structure $244,000 Blunt Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Maple Plain, Maple Plain, MN The City of Maple Plain for water treat- ment facility infrastructure $500,000 Paulsen Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of East Prairie, East Prairie, MO The City of East Prairie for stormwater and sewer infrastructure $200,000 Emerson Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Saint Joseph, Saint Joseph, MO The City of Saint Joseph for stormwater and wastewater infrastructure $500,000 Graves Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Black Bayou Water Association, Leland, MS Black Bayou Water Association for drinking water improvements $250,000 Thompson (MS) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Em-Kayan County Water and Sewer, Libby, MT Em-Kayan County Water and Sewer District for infrastructure improvements $290,000 Rehberg Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Raleigh, Raleigh, NC City of Raleigh Public Utilities Depart- ment for the Dempsey E. Benton 

Water Treatment Plant Backwash Waste Facility 

$500,000 Miller (NC); Price (NC) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project McDowell County, Marion, NC McDowell County for water system im- provements $500,000 Shuler 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
227 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Town of Cary Public Works and Utilities Department, Cary, NC Town of Cary Public Works and Utilities Department for Western Wake regional wastewater management facility $1,000,000 Price (NC); Miller (NC) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Omaha, Omaha, NE The City of Omaha for CSO controls $500,000 Terry Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Monmouth County, Freehold, NJ Monmouth County for water and waste- water infrastructure improvements $500,000 Holt Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, Newark, NJ Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission for a Combined Sewage Overflow 

Project 

$750,000 Pascrell; Sires; Payne; Rothman 

(NJ) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Borough of Califon, Califon, NJ The Borough of Califon for Railroad Ave./Main St. stormwater improvements $500,000 Lance Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Borough of Fort Lee, Fort Lee, NJ The Borough of Fort Lee for CSO abate- ment upgrades $500,000 Rothman (NJ) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Borough of Hopatcong, Hopatcong, NJ The Borough of Hopatcong for drinking water infrastructure improvements $500,000 Frelinghuysen Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Pueblo of San Felipe, San Felipe, NM The Pueblo of San Felipe for waste- water infrastructure $400,000 Lujan Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Lyon County Utilities, Yerington, NV Lyon County Utilities for wastewater in- frastructure improvements at Mound 

House 

$500,000 Heller 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Gowanus Canal Conservancy, Brooklyn, NY Gowanus Canal Conservancy for Gowanus Canal water quality improvement $300,000 Velazquez Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Onondaga County, Syracuse, NY Onondaga County for storm water in- frastructure improvements $400,000 Maffei 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
228 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Rockland Co Sewer District No. 1, Orangeburg, NY Rockland Co. Sewer District No. 1 for Ramapo wastewater treatment $500,000 Engel Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Glen Cove, Glen Cove, NY The City of Glen Cove for water and stormwater infrastructure improvements $500,000 King (NY) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, New York, NY The City of New York, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation 

for Bronx River stormwater management 

$550,000 Serrano 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Rochester, Rochester, NY The City of Rochester for the Highland Reservoir $600,000 Slaughter Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of White Plains, White Plains, NY The City of White Plains for a drinking water transmission line $500,000 Lowey Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Town of Pendleton, Lockport, NY The Town of Pendleton for the replace- ment of grinder pumps $500,000 Lee (NY) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Town of Urbana, Hammondsport, NY The Town of Urbana for water and wastewater infrastructure $500,000 Massa Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Village of Saugerties, Saugerties, NY The Village of Saugerties for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements $800,000 Hinchey Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Westchester Joint Water Works, Ma- maroneck, NY Westchester Joint Water Works for water main rehabilitation $517,000 Lowey Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Butler County Commissioners, Ham- ilton, OH Butler County Commissioners for the Ross Township sewer project $500,000 Driehaus 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
229 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Muskingum County Commissioners, Zanesville, OH Muskingum County Commissioners for Maysville sewer improvements $500,000 Space Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Ottawa County, Port Clinton, OH Ottawa County for the Ottawa County sanitary sewer project $500,000 Kaptur Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Ashland, Ashland, OH The City of Ashland for a waterline re- placement project $500,000 Boccieri Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Stow, Stow, OH The City of Stow for sanitary sewer system infrastructure $500,000 LaTourette Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Vandalia, Vandalia, OH The City of Vandalia for airport access road water and sewer extensions $500,000 Turner Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Worthington, Worthington, OH The City of Worthington for sanitary sewer improvements $500,000 Kilroy Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Village of Dillonvale, Dillonvale, OH The Village of Dillonvale for water meter replacement $100,000 Wilson (OH) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Village of Tiro, Tiro, OH The Village of Tiro for a water distribu- tion system $500,000 Latta Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Trumbull County Commissioners, War- ren, OH Trumbull County Commissioners for wastewater infrastructure improvements $300,000 Ryan (OH) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Lawton Ft. Sill Chamber of Commerce, Lawton, OK Lawton Ft. Sill Chamber of Commerce for Lawton Industrial Park Expansion 

for Water and Sewer Line Extensions 

$500,000 Cole 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Findlay Township Municipal Authority, Clinton, PA Findlay Township Municipal Authority for water and sewer upgrades $500,000 Murphy, Tim Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Haines Aaronsburg Municipal Authority, Bellefonte, PA Haines Aaronsburg Municipal Authority for water line interconnection $250,000 Thompson (PA) 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
230 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Hegins-Hubley Authority, Valley View, PA Hegins-Hubley Authority for facility im- provements $68,000 Holden Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Lehigh County Authority, Allentown, PA Lehigh County Authority for the Vera Cruz wastewater collection system $500,000 Dent Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Municipal Authority of the City of Lower Burrell, Lower Burrell, PA Municipal Authority of the City of Lower Burrell for Wildlife Lodge Road sanitary sewer extension $800,000 Murtha Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Northampton, Bucks County Municipal Authority, Richboro, PA Northampton, Bucks County Municipal Authority for wastewater infrastructure improvements $500,000 Murphy, Patrick Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Reading, Reading, PA The City of Reading for wastewater in- frastructure improvements at Fritz’s 

Island 

$500,000 Gerlach 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Thornbury Township, Cheyney, PA Thornbury Township for Cheyney Uni- versity/Thornbury Township wastewater treatment facility improvements $250,000 Sestak Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Tri-County Joint Municipal Authority, Fredrickstown, PA Tri-County Joint Municipal Authority for water treatment infrastructure $393,000 Murtha Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project York City Sewer Authority, York, PA York City Sewer Authority for headworks facility infrastructure $160,000 Platts Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Newport, Newport, RI The City of Newport for UV disinfection system improvements $500,000 Kennedy 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
231 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Rock Hill, Rock Hill, SC The City of Rock Hill for the Phase II Hagins-Fewell Neighborhood Infrastructure Improvement Project $600,000 Spratt Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Town of Coward, Coward, SC The Town of Coward for drinking water and wastewater improvements $500,000 Clyburn Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Campbell County Government, Jacks- boro, TN Campbell County Government for Campbell County waterline improvements $500,000 Davis (TN) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Springville Utility District of Henry County, Springville, TN Springville Utility District of Henry County for drinking water system 

improvements 

$500,000 Tanner 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Harrogate, Harrogate, TN The City of Harrogate for wastewater system improvements $500,000 Wamp Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Andrews, Andrews, TX The City of Andrews for Andrews ar- senic filtration pilot project $400,000 Conaway Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Austin, Austin, TX The City of Austin for Austin Sanitary Sewer Overflow Prevention $500,000 Smith (TX) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Baytown, Baytown, TX The City of Baytown for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements $500,000 Poe (TX); Paul Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Crystal City, Crystal City, TX The City of Crystal City for water infra- structure improvements $500,000 Rodriguez Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Gainesville, Gainesville, TX The City of Gainesville for the water treatment plant expansion project $500,000 Burgess Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Joshua, Joshua, TX The City of Joshua for the Joshua drainage project in Johnson County $1,000,000 Edwards (TX) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of La Vernia, La Vernia, TX The City of La Vernia for drinking water infrastructure $500,000 Cuellar 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
232 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Petersburg, Petersburg, TX The City of Petersburg for elevated water tank replacement $439,000 Neugebauer Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Temple, Temple, TX The City of Temple for industrial park wastewater line and interceptor $500,000 Carter Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Weber County, Ogden, UT Weber County for the Weber County storm water master plan $500,000 Bishop (UT) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Halifax County Service Authority, Hali- fax, VA Halifax County Service Authority for Maple Avenue wastewater plant upgrades $500,000 Perriello Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Alexandria, Alexandria, VA The City of Alexandria for a water reuse project $500,000 Moran (VA) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Alexandria, Arlington County, Al- exandria/Arlington, VA The City of Alexandria, Arlington County for Four Mile Run infrastructure improvements $500,000 Moran (VA) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Falls Church, Falls Church, VA The City of Falls Church for storm water infrastructure $500,000 Moran (VA) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Jefferson County Department of Com- munity Development, Pt. Townsend, 

WA 

Jefferson County Department of Community Development for the Port 

Hadlock wastewater system 

$500,000 Dicks 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Buckley, Buckley, WA The City of Buckley for emergency intertie booster station $333,000 Reichert Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Lacey, Lacey, WA The City of Lacey for regional re- claimed water project $500,000 Smith (WA) 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
233 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Rock Island, Rock Island, WA The City of Rock Island for wastewater system infrastructure $500,000 Hastings (WA) Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Seattle, Seattle, WA The City of Seattle for the Magnuson Park Wetlands project $500,000 McDermott Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of South Bend, South Bend, WA The City of South Bend for the Willapa Regional wastewater facilities 

project 

$500,000 Baird 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Tacoma, Tacoma, WA The City of Tacoma for the Tacoma downtown sustainable storm drainage system $1,148,000 Dicks Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project West Sound Utility District, Port Or- chard, WA West Sound Utility District for the Port Orchard reclaimed water distribution 

system 

$165,000 Dicks 

Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Abbotsford, Abbotsford, WI The City of Abbotsford for water treat- ment infrastructure $1,000,000 Obey Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project City of Park Falls, Park Falls, WI The City of Park Falls for sewer infra- structure $550,000 Obey Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Village of Athens, Athens, WI The Village of Athens for wastewater treatment facility upgrades $1,000,000 Obey Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Village of Stetsonville, Stetsonville, WI The Village of Stetsonville for a public drinking water system $1,000,000 Obey Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Town of Rowlesburg, Rowlesburg, WV The Town of Rowlesburg for drinking water infrastructure improvements $500,000 Mollohan US Forest Service State & Private Forestry Park and People Foundation, Baltimore, 

MD 

Baltimore Urban Forestry Watershed 

Demonstration Cooperative Project 

$150,000 Cummings 

US Forest Service State & Private Forestry Cascade Land Conservancy, Seattle, 

WA 

Regional Urban Forestry Restoration 

Project 

$1,000,000 Dicks 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
234 

INTERIOR AND ENVIRONMENT—Continued 

[Congressionally Directed Spending Items] 

Agency Account Recipient Project Amount Requester(s) 

US Forest Service State & Private Forestry Menomonee Valley Partners Inc, Milwaukee, WI Menomonee Valley Partners Inc; Urban Forestry Project $300,000 Moore (WI) US Forest Service Capital Improvement and Maintenance (construction) US Forest Service, Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Ketchum, ID Sawtooth National Recreation Area trail construction and maintenance $1,200,000 Simpson US Forest Service Capital Improvement and Maintenance (construction) Davy Crockett National Forest, Kennard, TX Redesign Ratcliff Lake Recreation Area and Campground $475,000 Barton (TX) US Forest Service Land Acquisition Angeles National Forest, Arcadia, CA Angeles National Forest, Shoemaker 

Canyon 

$500,000 McKeon 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition Florida Trail Association, Gainesville, FL Florida National Scenic Trail $500,000 Young (FL); Diaz-Balart, Lincoln; 

Kosmas; Wexler; Mica; Meek (FL); Klein (FL) 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service, Washington, DC Osceola National Forest, Pinhook 

Swamp Wildlife Corridor 

$500,000 Crenshaw 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service, Sawtooth National 

Recreation Area, Ketchum, ID 

Sawtooth National Recreation Area, 

Piva Parcel 

$400,000 Simpson 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition US Forest Service, Pisgah Forest, NC Pisgah NF, Catawba Falls Access & 

Trail Acquisition 

$713,000 Price (NC); Shuler 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition U.S. Forest Service, Asheville, NC Uwharrie National Forest, Uwharrie 

Trail 

$500,000 Coble 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition Monongahela National Forest, Elkins, 

WV 

Monongahela National Forest, 

Cummings Tract 

$985,000 Rahall 

US Forest Service Land Acquisition U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC Monongahela National Forest, Dolly 

Sods 

$1,000,000 Mollohan; Capito 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
235 

US Forest Service Wildland Fire Management San Bernardino National Forest Association-Urban Youth Conservation 

Corps, San Bernardino, CA 

Urban Youth Conservation Corp $100,000 Baca 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
236 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 067 here hr180.052
237 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 068 here hr180.053
238 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 069 here hr180.054
239 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 070 here hr180.055
240 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 071 here hr180.056
241 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 072 here hr180.057
242 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 073 here hr180.058
243 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 074 here hr180.059
244 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 075 here hr180.060
245 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 076 here hr180.061
246 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 077 here hr180.062
247 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 078 here hr180.063
248 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 079 here hr180.064
249 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 080 here hr180.065
250 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 081 here hr180.066
251 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 082 here hr180.067
252 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 083 here hr180.068
253 

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House 

of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those 

voting for and those voting against, are printed below: 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
254 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 084 HR180.070
255 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 085 HR180.071
256 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 086 HR180.072
257 

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget 

authority contain a statement detailing how the authority compares with the reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for 

the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for 

the fiscal year. This information follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

302 (b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget Authority Outlays Budget Authority Outlays 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with 

Committee allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the First 

Concurrent Resolution for 2010: Subcommittee on Interior, Environment 

and Related Agencies 

General purpose discretionary ...... 32,300 34,300 32,300 1 34,193 

Mandatory ..................................... 442 443 442 443 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR PROJECTION OF OUTLAYS

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, the following 

table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2010 .............................................................................................. 1 20,073 

2011 .............................................................................................. 7,165 

2012 .............................................................................................. 3,060 

2013 .............................................................................................. 1,193 

2014 and future years ................................................................. 845 1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, the financial 

assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions] 

New budget authority ........................................................................ 8,325 

Fiscal year 2009 outlays resulting therefrom .................................. 2,801 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
(258) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF JERRY LEWIS AND MIKE SIMPSON 

We appreciate the reasonable and even-handed manner in which 

Chairman Dicks has conducted the business of the Interior and Environment subcommittee. While we may disagree about the need 

for a 17 percent increase in this year’s subcommittee allocation, our 

work together has been a bipartisan, collaborative effort. We are 

certainly not going to agree on every issue before us, but even 

when we disagree, we continue to work well with Chairman Dicks. 

We’d also like to commend the Chairman for the extraordinary 

oversight activity of our subcommittee this year. Oversight is one 

of this committee’s most important functions and we’ve upheld that 

responsibility by holding 20 committee hearings since the beginning of the year involving over 100 witnesses. We don’t know of 

many subcommittees that can match that record. 

We also want to applaud the Chairman’s decision to provide full 

pay and fixed costs for each of the agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. We remain concerned by the fact that the President’s budget submission for the U.S. Forest Service covered only 

60 percent of pay and fixed costs while the budget request for the 

Department of the Interior included one-hundred percent of pay 

and fixed costs. To date, the Committee has received no explanation or justification from the Administration for this discrepancy. 

We are also pleased by the needed attention this legislation provides to our Native American brothers and sisters. There are many 

unmet needs within Indian Country—in education, health care, law 

enforcement, drug abuse prevention, and other areas—and this bill 

does a great deal to address these issues. 

We agree with Chairman Dicks on many things including our obligation to be good stewards of our environment and public lands 

for future generations. However, we part ways when it comes to 

the need for an allocation as generous as the one Chairman Obey 

has provided for this bill. 

The 302(b) allocation for this bill is $32.3 billion, a $4.7 billion, 

or 17 percent, increase over last year’s enacted level. This increase 

comes on the heels of historic increases in this subcommittee’s 

spending in recent years. 

Interior and Environment subcommittee spending between FY 

2007 and FY 2009—including base bills, emergency supplementals, 

and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—has increased 

by 41 percent—and that’s before this year’s 17 percent increase. 

Chairman Obey is fond of saying, ‘‘Show me a smaller problem 

and I’ll show you a smaller solution.’’ We may not be able to show 

the Chairman a smaller problem, but we can show him an historical bigger problem where the ‘‘solution’’ of more and more deficit 

spending has not worked—including the Great Depression in the 

1930’s and Japan in the 1990’s. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
259 

But it isn’t just the spending that concerns us. This legislation 

is funding large increases in programs without having clearly defined goals or sufficient processes in place to measure the return 

on our investment. We are making rapid investments in water, climate change, renewable energy, and other areas—all of them worthy endeavors—but with relatively little planning and coordination 

across multiple agencies and the rest of government. 

Our country has some serious environmental challenges that 

need to be addressed. And we have an overly generous allocation 

to meet many of those needs. But, with all due respect to Chairman Obey—too often we believe that our commitment to an issue 

is measured by the amount of money we spend rather than how 

we’re spending the money. History has shown us that bigger budgets do not necessarily produce better results. 

The climate change issue is an illustration of this point. ‘‘Climate 

change’’ is today what the term ‘‘homeland security’’ was in the 

days and months following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Anyone 

that came to our offices to discuss an issue spoke of it in the context of ‘‘homeland security.’’ The argument was, ‘‘We have to have 

XYZ because our homeland security depends upon it.’’ 

Well, today many of our priorities are related to climate change. 

We agree with Chairman Dicks that it’s an issue we need to study 

carefully and know more about. It’s affecting the intensity of our 

wildfires and even the duration of our fire seasons. But what have 

we learned from the money this subcommittee and other committees have already provided? Are we spending $420 million on climate change next year to learn something new or to re-learn what 

we already know? 

We’re also concerned that many climate change functions within 

this bill won’t be coordinated with similar efforts undertaken by 

other Federal agencies resulting in a duplication of efforts. We 

ought to require coordination across the entire Federal government 

on an issue as important as this. 

It’s for this reason that the minority offered an amendment— 

adopted during full committee consideration—requiring the President to report to Congress 120 days after submission of his FY 

2011 budget request on all obligations and expenditures across government on climate change programs and activities for FY 2008, 

FY2009, and FY2010. It’s not because we’re opposed to climate 

change programs but because they need to be coordinated government-wide. 

Given the uncertain economic times our country is facing, we’re 

also troubled by the unsustainable pattern of spending in this legislation. This subcommittee and this Congress ought to be as concerned about the impact of too much spending as we are about the 

potential impact of climate change and other issues. 

Chairman Dicks has spoken on many occasions about what he 

describes as ‘‘the dark days’’ and ‘‘the misguided policies and priorities of the previous Administration.’’ Still, for any perceived or real 

inadequacies of past policies or budgets, it would be a mistake for 

any of us to believe that we can simply spend our way to a solution 

for every challenge we face. 

The Federal Reserve Chairman—Ben Bernanke—recently told 

Congress that it’s time for the Obama Administration to develop a 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
260 

strategy to address record deficits or risk long-term damage to our 

economy. He said, ‘‘Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to 

fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.’’ 

A good bill is a balanced bill. But providing a disproportionate 

level of funding to one agency creates an imbalance that undermines the legitimate needs of other deserving agencies. That is 

why we question a $10.5 billion budget for the EPA—a 37 percent 

increase from just last year. This is on top of the $7.2 billion the 

agency received in the stimulus package and the $7.6 billion it received in the enacted 2009 Interior bill. Taken together, the EPA 

will receive over $25 billion in this calendar year alone. That’s 

about the size of this subcommittee’s entire budget just two years 

ago. 

We’re including a series of tables and charts at the conclusion of 

these views illustrating the unprecedented levels of spending in 

this legislation. These include major increases by Title, as well as 

a summary of increases by agency under the jurisdiction of this 

subcommittee. 

While the EPA will receive an extraordinary, historic funding increase, it’s worth noting that the U.S. Forest Service was recently 

rated as one of the worst places to work in the federal government 

by a study conducted by the Office of Personnel Management. It 

isn’t clear why Forest Service employees feel as they do but it may 

be linked to the incredible funding challenges the Service has faced 

in recent years due to the growing cost of fire suppression. 

From our hearings we know that almost 50 percent of the Forest 

Service budget is now consumed by the costs of fighting wildfires. 

In past years, the Forest Service has had to borrow hundreds of 

millions of dollars from other accounts just to pay for fire suppression. Without any question, this creates uncertainty among Forest 

Service employees. 

President Obama is to be commended for tackling the issue of 

budgeting for fire suppression by proposing a fully-funded fire suppression budget as well as a contingency reserve fund. We commend Chairman Dicks for providing the Forest Service with resources to address many fire-related needs. Still, based upon recent 

fire patterns and the monumental increase in demand for fire suppression dollars, we felt strongly that the wildland fire contingency 

reserve fund should be funded at the President’s request level of 

$357 million. This reserve fund is similar to the emergency funding 

source contained in the FLAME Act which passed the House in 

March on an overwhelming 412–3 vote. 

That is why the minority offered an amendment—adopted during 

full committee consideration—that increased the fire contingency 

reserve fund from $250 million in the Chairman’s mark to the 

President’s request level of $357 million. If virtually every other 

item in this legislation is funded at or above the President’s request level, there is no justifiable reason to exclude fire suppression. 

We paid for this increase by rescinding $107 million from the 

EPA’s prior year balances. According to a May, 2009 report issued 

by the EPA Inspector General’s office, the EPA presently has $163 

million on the books that have been sitting there unspent since 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
261 

1999. The EPA does some good work but if these dollars haven’t 

been spent in 10 years, we ought to put them to good use fighting 

fires. 

In closing, while Chairman Dicks has done a fine job addressing 

many critical issues through this legislation, we don’t believe that 

during this time of extreme economic uncertainty that a $4.7 billion, or 17 percent, increase over the FY09 enacted level is justified 

or warranted. This unprecedented increase follows a $3.2 billion, or 

13 percent, increase between FY2008 and FY2009 spending bills as 

well as an $11 billion infusion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

It is our hope that between now and conference negotiations with 

the Senate later this year we can address the most egregious 

spending issues and seek bipartisan consensus on a reasonable, 

sustainable subcommittee allocation. Our sincere hope is to continue working together with Chairman Dicks to fashion a balanced, 

responsible, and sustainable conference report worthy of broad, bipartisan support. 

JERRY LEWIS. 

MIKE SIMPSON. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
262 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 087 here HR180.073
263 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 88 here HR180.074
264 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 89 here HR180.075
265 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 90 here HR180.076
266 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 91 here HR180.077
267 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 92 here HR180.078
268 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 93 here HR180.079