50–481 111 TH C ONGRESS R EPORT " !

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–180

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 2010

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

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. D ICKS 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


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


H ONORING S TEWARDSHIP R ESPONSIBILITIES

The primary responsibility of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies is to provide adequate resourcesto 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 andfauna 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 morethan 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 billionfor 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. Thisyear, 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 beforethe 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


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 IndianHealth 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 notwell 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. Thereare similar examples of this issue in health care, housing, education, and other areas.

The Committee encourages the Secretary of the Interior and theSecretary 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.

P ROTECTION AND R ESTORATION OF O UR G REAT W ATER B ODIES

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 bycommunity 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. Butthe 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 thepressure 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


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 squaremiles, 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 largestfreshwater 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 iscomplicated 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 inlaw; 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 theyuse 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, throughthe 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.


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 EnvironmentalProtection 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 toscience, especially at the U.S. Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Smithsonian Institution and the Forest Service research branch. Significant funding is also includedfor applied science and adaptation at the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Forest Service and Bureau ofLand 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 Committeesno 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 increasedabove 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 thisCommittee 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 fiscalyear 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 andWildlife Science Center and a science advisory board, to initiate development of a national strategy to assist fish, wildlife, plants, and


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 strategicfashion among all parties. It is essential that this effort include appropriate parties throughout the Federal government and that itinclude 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 wildlifeconservation, 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 Tribalnatural 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 climatechange. 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 Committeedirects 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 costof 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


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 40individual 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 firemanagement 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 2009funding 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 futuregenerations. The Committee also believes that third-party involvement in land acquisition from local, regional, and national landtrusts 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 thecurrent 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


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 processesand 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 reportto 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 requestand 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 theAdministration 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 increasingthreat 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 bydevelopment 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 theInterior 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 ofappraisals. 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 haveresulted 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,


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 daysafter 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 ofthe Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure that decisions regarding land exchanges are fully documented and carefullyreviewed 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, theCommittee has proposed a number of program terminations, reductions, and other savings from the fiscal year 2009 level totalingover $320 million. In addition, over $300 million in program terminations, reductions, and other savings from the budget request arerecommended. 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. Theseguidelines 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 forwhich 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS11

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 alsois 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 thenonly 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, reprogrammingshould 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 SenateCommittees on Appropriations for approval shall be considered approved 30 calendar days after receipt if the Committees have posedno 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, Stateand 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. ForestService 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 earmarkingcontained 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 servicesor other purposes or new transfers of funds to contingency or reserve accounts which have not been described in the budget shouldbe 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


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 anygeneral, 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

B UREAU OF L AND M ANAGEMENT

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 acresof 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, nationalscenic 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 otherwisestated, 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:







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 oflands and resources, $60,302,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $24,855,000 below the budget request. The amountsrecommended 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 forthe 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 21stCentury 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 enactedlevel 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 Committeesupports 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 theplans 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 processingpermits. 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 $50,232,000for 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


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. TheCommittee 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, $3,954,000above 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 $89,689,000for 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 theuse 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 iscovered 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.


The recommendation includes the entire request of $16,100,000to 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 opportunitiesto 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 overthe 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. TheCommittee 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 $9,500,000for 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 2009enacted 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 managementof 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


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


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 andforest 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. Receiptsare 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 otherActs 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 fromoriginal 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 ofAlaska town lots are also available for expenses of sale and maintenance of town sites. Revenue from unsurveyed lands, and surveys


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.

U NITED S TATES F ISH AND W ILDLIFE S ERVICE

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for thecontinuing 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 Nationalfish 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:








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 Serviceshould 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 somecases 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 coordinateefficiently 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 foraplomado 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 inthe 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 inconjunction 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.


The Committee believes that the Service should adequately document, protect, and manage significant cultural resources on itslands. 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 GuamNational 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 withinthe 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 toemploy 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 $133,593,000for 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 thatthe 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 to30 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.


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 additionof 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 within180 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 Serviceprograms 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.


Within the funding provided for the National Fish and WildlifeFoundation, $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 ........................................................ 1,500,0 00

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 ...................................................................................... 1,115,0 00
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 ..................................................................................... 100,00 0
Administrative cost allocation methodology ............................................................................. 2,456,00 0
Fixed cost and related changes ............................................................................................... 19 1,000

Total construction ............................................................................................................ 2 1,139,000

The Committee is aware that the Refuge System is building orreplacing visitor centers with funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Committee is also awarethat 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 thepublic 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


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


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 ................................................................................................................. 67,250,00 0

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 ................................................................ 0The 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 fairmarket 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


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, 13Canadian 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 Restorationaccount 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 borderingthe 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 inthe 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. TheAfrican 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS37

phants. The Service provides grants to African Nations and toqualified 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 tradeof 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 andrange 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 authorizedgrants 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 multinationalspecies 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 requiredto 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 toincorporate 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS38

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 leasthalf 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 resourcepreservation. 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 NationalPark 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 thenational 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 thesystem for a second century of conservation, environmental stewardship and recreation benefiting millions of visitors from throughout the world. Included in the recommendation is a $100,000,000increase 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.






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, $1,250,000below 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 Servicecomponent of the Secretary’s 21st Century Youth Conservation Initiative to provide high school and college aged youth internshipsand 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 Committeerecommends $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:


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 Servicehas 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 toensure 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 increasefunding 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: newperformance measures, park superintendent accountability, museum management, funding and staffing. Nearly two-thirds of the 391 national park units were created because of their historic andcultural 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 hasincluded 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 Officeof 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 thelast 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 thedifference 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS45

diately begin allocating no more than 60 percent to the parks thatcarryover $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 servicewidepriority 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, incollaboration 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 wereprovided 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


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 leveland $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 $2,078,000above 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 increasedduring 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, andthe 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, theCommittee has included new bill language in Title I, General Provisions, that will expand the acquisition boundary of the MinidokaNational 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS47

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 Statemanagement 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 accountalso 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 leveland $13,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommends the following changes to the request.

Preserve America. —The Committee recommends $6,175,000 forthe 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 topreserve a building or artifact which might otherwise be lost to future generations. All projects require a 50 percent match. The billprovides $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


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 carryoverbalances 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 thefunds 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS49

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 ......................................................... 500,0 00
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 ................................................................. 5 00,000

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 .................................................. 2,0 00,000

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 forcontinuous 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 waterquantity improvement; restoration of more natural water flows; removal of invasive exotics and development of sound science. Thislarge 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 ofFlorida, 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


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 Committeeurges 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 Federalgovernment 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 theannual contract authority provided by 16 U.S.C. 46l–10a. This authority has not been used in years, and there are no plans to useit 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


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 ....................................................... 200,00 0

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 ............................................................................................... 73,22 2,000

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 NationalPark Service to transfer funds to the Federal Highway Administration, without limitation. The Park Service should present its plansfor 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 byan 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 andrelated 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 andground 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS52

ment and conservation of our Nation’s biological resources; and theapplication 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:




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 leveland $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 Committeeshall 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. TheCommittee 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 ofareas 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS56

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. TheWater 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 $202,494,000for 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 WildlifeService 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 andapplied 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 speciesworldwide 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 inthe northeastern United States from white nose syndrome and encourages the USGS to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service toresearch 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, $3,315,000above 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.


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 enactedlevel. 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 activeFederal 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 oiland 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 oilspill 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 publiclands. 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:




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 increaseuse 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 developa 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 forcollecting fees and royalties, siting and operational standards, reclamation standards, environmental protections needed, and thestaff 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 Beaufortand 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, acomprehensive 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 ResearchCouncil, 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 bestinterest 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 ContinentalShelf (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 tothe 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS61

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 andsubsequently accepted public comments on the NOI. The Committee believes it is not only appropriate and timely for the MMSto 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, toconduct 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.

O FFICE OF S URFACE M INING R ECLAMATION AND E NFORCEMENT

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 theirown 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 ofSurface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement appropriation account, compared with the budget estimates by activity, are shown in the following table:




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 andtechnology, 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 theirmandatory 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 emergencygrants that will further assist the States in transitioning to mandatory funding.

B UREAU OF I NDIAN A FFAIRS

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 NativeAmericans 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:






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 theInterior to work with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each Departmentand 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 programswithin 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 protectionto 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 besubstantial 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 terminationera 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS70

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 tobegin 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 regulatorypolicies and other actions that affect public safety and justice in Indian Country.

• Participate, along with the Department of Justice, Tribal, andState 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 bethe 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 withTribal 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 UnitedStates 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.


• 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 forjob 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 Departmentof Justice on a comprehensive detention center program that complements their detention center grant program. Additionally, theBureau 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.


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.

D EPARTMENTAL O FFICES

O FFICE OF THE S ECRETARY

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, $11,680,000above 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


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 enhancedfor 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 patrolagents 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 thatwould 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 theTohono 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 fiscalyear 2009 permanent funding of $359,477,000 will be made available to these governments in addition to the discretionary funding

discussed below.


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:




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 $33,523,000for 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 thefunding 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 inGuam 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; howeverthe funding of this office should not come out of the limited resources of the Office of Insular Affairs. The new officer should befunded 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 theAssistance 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 ofAgriculture, 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS78

ture. This language, which does not supplant any existing USDAauthority, 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 chargedwith 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 andprocedures, 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 responsibilityfor 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS79

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 $506million 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 ................................................................ 0The 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 obtainingappraisals 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 SpecialTrustee 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 hasincluded bill language under the Office of Special Trustee that limits the amount of funding available for historical accounting to $56,536,000.

D EPARTMENT -W IDE P ROGRAMS

W ILDLAND F IRE M ANAGEMENT

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 2009this 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


above the budget request. A total of $34,606,000 of this increase isfor suppression activities. This discussion does not include the additional $75,000,000 provided for the emergency wildfire suppression contingency reserve fund. Additional discussion of wildfireissues 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:



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 expectsthat 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 largefire 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 tocontinue 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 leveland $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 baseappropriation. 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.


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 forcatastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression activities on Department of the Interior and National Forest System lands. If theFLAME 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.

N ATURAL R ESOURCE D AMAGE A SSESSMENT AND R ESTORATION

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.

W ORKING C APITAL F UND

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 year2009 enacted level. The Committee has also provided the Administrative provision, as requested, governing acquisition of certain aircraft.


G ENERAL P ROVISIONS , D EPARTMENT OF THE I NTERIOR

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 ofIndian 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 payprivate 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 toenter 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 begranted to a State, a local government, or any other land management entity. Section 113 provides the Department of the Interior with civiland 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


from five different agencies and departments. Major EPA programsinclude 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. TheAgency is responsible for conducting research and development, establishing environmental standards through the use of risk assessment and cost-benefit, monitoring pollution conditions, seekingcompliance 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 thefiscal 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.












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 providedin 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 notsystematically sought to align changes in workload with its staff allocations. The Government Accountability Office reported to theCommittee 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 researchactivities 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 privatebusiness, 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.


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 ................................................................ +7,300,000The 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 recommendsthat $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 theTIME–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 fuelsstandard, 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 leveland $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 $66,332,000for 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 usea 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 2009enacted 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


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 andtheir contribution towards compliance with environmental standards.

Research: Priorities. —The Committee recommends $5,700,000 tosupport 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 year2009 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 willallow 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 tomore 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 notbeen 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 airtoxics 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 childcare and school settings and the impact of these exposures on children’s health and development.

The Committee notes that it also has provided the requestedlevel 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 aportion 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 believeswill increase transparency and reduce delays in finalizing assessments.


Additional Guidance. —The Committee has included the followingadditional 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 EPAscientists 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 polycyclicaromatic 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 isaware of concerns about the public health impacts of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) frequently used in window caulking in schools, public housing, hospitals, and other public buildingsfrom the 1940s to 1977. The Committee urges the Agency to investigate the potential adverse health and environmental impacts ofPCBs, 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 andecosystems. 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 wouldbe 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 issuesrelating to particulate matter, ozone, and atmospheric transformations, and their modeling, and monitoring. The Committeenotes 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 therisks 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.


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 sponsoredscientific 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 includedfunding 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 andTechnology, 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 emissionsand 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 administrativecosts 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


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 year2009 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 thefiscal 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 thePresident’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 ProtectionAgency. 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS102

ment portions of the Great Lakes Collaboration Strategy. Once final funding allocations are made, EPA is directed to report thosedecisions 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’sinitiative 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 increaseeach Agency’s level of effort by supplementing and expanding existing programs. Additionally, of the funds provided, the Committeedirects 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 theexceptional 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 CollaborationStrategy 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 LakesRestoration 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


scientific research to target restoration priorities and adapt and modify activities in fiscal years 2011;

(4) A description of the funding provided by the Committeeto EPA and other Federal agencies to support Great Lakes restoration activities, including information comparing fundingand 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 activitiesin 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 Committeerecommends this funding level to improve and accelerate the performance of Federal and State programs to protect the ChesapeakeBay. 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 CleanWater 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 pollutionfrom urban, suburban and agricultural lands. This direction is consistent with the recent findings of the EPA Inspector General andthe 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 tostrengthen 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 toprovide 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 atthe 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 anyrequests 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.


Long Island Sound. —$15,000,000 for implementation of the LongIsland 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 therequest 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). Theseguidelines 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 thisand 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 GrowthProgram 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 thebudget request. The Committee directs the reduction to be allocated as follows:


¥ $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 forthis 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 minimumof $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 followingadditional 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 futureof 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 theWater Sense label and encourages the Agency to continue developing water efficiency and performance criteria for additional products.

Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. —The Committee continues tohave a strong interest in EPA’s efforts to assess the impact of endocrine disrupting chemicals on the environment and on humanhealth. 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 lessthan 100 chemicals for screening that includes drinking water contaminants, such as halogenated organic chemicals, dioxins, flame


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 hormonesthat 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 RadioactiveMaterials). 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 thewinters 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 tothe 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 IGfor 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 SubstanceSuperfund account and from the Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigations Board.


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 presenceat 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 scopeof 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 andconstruction 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 healthand 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 ................................................................

¥ 2,000,000The 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 wasestablished 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 overfive 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS108

nues. Enforcement activities are used to identify and induce parties responsible for hazardous waste problems to undertake clean-upactions 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 leveland $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 leveland $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 andRemoval. 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 theproposed 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 followingadditional 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 theSuperfund 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


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 examinationof 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 fromleaking underground storage tanks. Owners and operators of facilities with underground tanks must demonstrate financial responsibility and bear initial responsibility for clean-up. The Federal trustfund 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 StorageTank (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 storagetank 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 PolicyAct 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 authorizeexpenditures 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS110

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 andthe 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, providesfunds 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 theOil 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 broadtypes of funds: (1) Infrastructure Assistance, which is used primarily by local governments for projects supporting environmental


protection; and, (2) Categorical Grants, which assist State andTribal 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 NativeVillages 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 WaterSRF 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. TheClean 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 withthe 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 issueand 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 SafeDrinking 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


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 thecourse 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 waterand wastewater infrastructure assistance ever provided by the Federal government in a single year to protect public health and theenvironment. 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 donot 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 thosecommunities 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 thatexceed $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 the20 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS113

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 itsnew 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, whichreceived $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 ........ 500,00 0
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 .... 500,00 0
25. CA ............................................ The City of Ridgecrest for wastewater treatment facility infrastructure 400,00 0
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


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 .................. 4 40,000
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 ..... 180,00 0

55. IL ............................................. The Village of Johnsburg for wastewater treatment infrastructure ........ 500,0 00

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 ........ 500,00 0

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 ......................... 5 00,000

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


State Project Amount

74. MA ........................................... The City of Malden for citywide lead water service replacement ........... 500,00 0
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 ....... 500,0 00
87. MO ........................................... McDonald County for wastewater infrastructure improvements .............. 244,000

88. MO ........................................... The City of East Prairie for stormwater and sewer infrastructure .......... 200,0 00

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 .......................... 50 0,000

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 ............ 400,00 0

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 .............. 500,0 00

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 ................ 51 7,000

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 ..................... 50 0,000

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


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 393,0 00
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 ............ 4 00,000
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 ............. 50 0,000
145. TX ............................................ The City of Gainesville for the water treatment plant expansion project 500,0 00
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 ................. 43 9,000
149. TX ............................................ The City of Temple for industrial park wastewater line and interceptor 500,00 0
150. UT ............................................ Weber County for the Weber County storm water master plan ............... 500,0 00
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 categoricalgrants to EPA’s environmental partners, the Committee recommends $1,115,446,000, $20,591,000 above the fiscal year 2009


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. —Thebill 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) totransfer 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 climateprograms 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 tailorapproaches 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 reportwithin 180 days of enactment of this Act on its progress in implementing this grant program, including a summary of the projectsfunded, 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 ofthe 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


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 efficiencyprojects, 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 SRFloan. 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 followingadditional 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, carriedin 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 thatthe 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 whichthis 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.


TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES

D EPARTMENT OF A GRICULTURE

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 administersa wide variety of programs, including forest and rangeland research, State and private forestry assistance, wildfire suppressionand fuels reduction, cooperative forest health programs, an International program and human resource programs. The National Forest System (NFS) includes 155 national forests, 20 nationalgrasslands, 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 accountsare 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 Fishand 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:








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 leveland $8,000,000 above the budget request. The recommendation includes increases of $3,000,000 to cover previously unfunded fixedcosts and $5,000,000 for global climate change research. The Committee expects the Forest Service aspen free air CO 2 enrichmentexperiment 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 adaptationand 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 evolvingclimate 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 destructiveblast 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 forFIA 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.


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 protectionand 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 fromwildfire; 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 thebudget 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 andprivate 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 developmentand scientific monitoring of the emerald ash borer situation and report to the Committee by December 31, 2009 on the emerald ash


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 preparethe 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 morestrategic 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 $31,639,000for 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 budgetrequest. 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, includingstrategic selection of several projects of national and regional significance.


Forest Resource Information and Analysis .—The Committee recommends $5,035,000 for forest resource information and analysisas 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 2009enacted 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 over153,000 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 forestvegetation 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 formore 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 gameand 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 $35,237,000has 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


land management planning activity. The Forest Service is expected to work closely with the Interior Department, especially the BLMand 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 thefiscal 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 thefiscal 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 $50,714,000for 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 onthe Mark Twain National Forest, MO, including stewardship contracting authority provided under Section 323 of Public Law 108– 7, utilizing available agency funding.


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 thefiscal 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 thefiscal 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 MarkTwain 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 discretionarybudget, 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 maybe 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 Committeecontinues 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 facilitiesthrough the use of the funds generated by selling surplus administrative sites under the Federal Land and Facility Conveyance Act


(FLFCA). The budget justification indicates that there is a backlog of deferred maintenance for buildings of $711,925,000, so a varietyof 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 expectsthat the Forest Service will not build new roads unless they are absolutely needed for resource or service purposes.

Trail Maintenance and Capital Improvement. —The Committeerecommends $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 fortrail 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 fundingfor 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. Futurebudget justifications should continue to provide specific trail operation, maintenance and construction funding and accomplishment

data for the national scenic and historic trails. The Service shouldprovide 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 onthe progress the Service is making at reducing the deferred maintenance backlog.


Legacy Road and Trail Remediation. —The Committee recommendation merges the budget requests for both the legacy roadand 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 roadand 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 theaquatic 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 upstreamareas. 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 streamsand water bodies which support threatened, endangered or sensitive species. The Service should utilize public input to help selectprojects, 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


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 .......................................................... 5 00,000

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 .............................................. 1,000,00 0

WV ....................... Monongahela NF—Dolly Sods Conservation Area ....................................................... 1,00 0,000

WV ....................... Monongahela NF—Cummings Tract ......................................................................... ... 985,000

Sub-total ............................................................................................................. 26,782,00 0

Acquisition management ............................................................................................. 7,000,000

Cash equalization ........................................................................................................ 1,000, 000

Critical inholdings/wilderness protection .................................................................... 2,000,000

Total .................................................................................................................... $36,78 2,000

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


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 acquisitionfor 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 cashequalization of certain land exchanges can be appropriated to acquire similar lands suitable for national forest system purposes inthe 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 beused 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.


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 ................................................................ 0The 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 wildfiresuppression 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 maintainingpreparedness resources in the field at a level not less than that established in fiscal year 2008 will, based on the best information


available, result in lower overall firefighting costs. If the Forest Service makes such a determination, the Committee directs theForest 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 athorough 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 withinthe 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 wildfiresuppression 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 largefire 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 tocontinue 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 year2009 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


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 sameas 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 isprovided 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 year2009 enacted level and $15,750,000 above the request. The increased funding should be used strategically to protect Federal andcooperative forests and rangelands, leading to more resilient habitats and reduced wildfire danger.

State Fire Assistance .— The Committee recommends $80,000,000for 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 wildlandfire 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 toa 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


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 forcatastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression activities on Department of the Interior and National Forest System lands. If theFLAME 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 thewildland fire transfer authority, allowing use of funds from nonwildfire accounts available to the Forest Service during wildfireemergencies when other wildfire emergency funds are not available. However, this year this transfer authority can be used onlyafter suppression funds in both the wildland fire management account and the new contingency account will be obligated within 30days. The Secretary of Agriculture must notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 5 days before such atransfer 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 thebudget 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 concernedthat 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 ServiceInternational 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS140

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 foundationsto 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 forYouth Conservation Corps and Public Lands Corps projects, in accordance with P.L. 109–154.

The Committee recommendation continues the bill language fromprevious 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 extendsthe 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 Departmentof 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

I NDIAN H EALTH S ERVICE

The provision of Federal health services to Indians is based ona special relationship between Indian Tribes and the U.S. Government first set forth in the 1830’s by the U.S. Supreme Court underChief Justice John Marshall. Numerous treaties, statutes, constitutional provisions, and international law have reconfirmed this relationship. Principal among these is the Snyder Act of 1921, whichprovides 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 healthcare 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 healthcenters, 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:





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 ofdomestic 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 andsupport 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, Tribaland 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 reportedthat, 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. TheCommittee 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 2009enacted 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS145

mittee is pleased to see progress in reducing the vacancy rateamong 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 implementingthe 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. TheCommittee has learned that the Service has not reached any agreement with Tribal leaders on how the funds appropriated for themethamphetamine prevention and treatment initiative from previous years can best be distributed. Given the epidemic levels ofmethamphetamine 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 theincreased 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 thefiscal year 2009 enacted level and $5,000,000 above the budget request. From within the increase provided, the Service is directed toconduct 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 fundingfor 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.


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 releasedfollow-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.

N ATIONAL I NSTITUTES OF H EALTH

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 of1986 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.

A GENCY FOR T OXIC S UBSTANCES AND D ISEASE R EGISTRY

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 section104(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 hazardoussubstances 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 ortoxic substances, and the development and implementation of certain research activities related to ATSDR’s mission.


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 theCommittee’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 resultsof 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 andmedically 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

E XECUTIVE O FFICE OF THE P RESIDENT

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.


C HEMICAL S AFETY AND H AZARD I NVESTIGATION B OARD

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 tofund costs associated with the Office of the Inspector General’s duties associated with the Board.

O FFICE OF N AVAJO AND H OPI I NDIAN R ELOCATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation was establishedby 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.

I NSTITUTE OF A MERICAN I NDIAN AND A LASKA N ATIVE C ULTURE AND A RTS D EVELOPMENT

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.

S MITHSONIAN I NSTITUTION

The Smithsonian Institution is the world’s largest museum andresearch 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS149

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 hasbeen 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 fiscalyear 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:




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 beenmade, 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 isvery 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 SmithsonianInstitution collections, such as the priceless military uniform collection at the National Museum of American History, may be storedin 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 otherindependent 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 forthe 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS153

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.

N ATIONAL G ALLERY OF A RT

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 endeavorbetween 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 thebudget request and 2009 enacted levels are shown by account, program area and selected activity in the following table.



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 millionswho 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 ofArt, $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 NationalGallery’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.

J OHN F. K ENNEDY C ENTER FOR THE P ERFORMING A RTS

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.


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 challengesposed by the economy, such as board governance, budgeting, marketing, technology and other areas pertinent to managing a vitalperforming 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 andrestoration as requested, $2,383,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

W OODROW W ILSON I NTERNATIONAL C ENTER FOR S CHOLARS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is aunique 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.


N ATIONAL F OUNDATION ON THE A RTS AND THE H UMANITIES

N ATIONAL E NDOWMENT FOR THE A RTS

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. TheCommittee has been especially pleased with the American Masterpieces, Big Read and Operation Homecoming initiatives. Fundingfor 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:



N ATIONAL E NDOWMENT FOR THE H UMANITIES

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 programthrough 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. Theallocation of funding among these activities is shown in the following table:



C OMMISSION OF F INE A RTS

The Commission of Fine Arts was established in 1910 to meetthe 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 NationalEndowment for the Humanities, nor to fundamentally alter the nature and purpose of the program by eliminating the criteria forgrant 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.

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

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 LandsManagement 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.


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.

N ATIONAL C APITAL P LANNING C OMMISSION

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 expensesof the National Capital Planning Commission as requested, an increase of $179,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

U NITED S TATES H OLOCAUST M EMORIAL M USEUM

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 planningand 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


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.

P RESIDIO T RUST

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 theyear 2013, as authorized by Public Law 104–333. Federal appropriations have been provided to the Presidio Trust since 1999 basedon 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.

D WIGHT D. E ISENHOWER M EMORIAL C OMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission was established by Congress in 1999 by Public Law 106–79 for the purposeof creating an appropriate, permanent memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Commission has escalated its work over the last twoyears 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.


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 designplanning 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 processingapplications 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 contractsupport 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 provisionproviding 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 considerationto rural communities, local and non-profit groups, and disadvantaged workers in entering into contracts for hazardous fuels and watershed projects.


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 permitsexpiring, 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 effortto 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 tohelp 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 NationalCouncil 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 andCultural 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 year2014. 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 asis the case for all oil and gas leases. The Committee recommendation requires that coal leases will be treated in the same manneras 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 directedback 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 theColorado 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 HR180erowe on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS166

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 ofhazardous 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 DirectedSpending’’ 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 year2011 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 orany 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 maynot 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






BILL

- WIDE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

C ONSTITUTIONAL A UTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII requires each committee report on apublic 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 reportthis 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.

S TATEMENT OF G ENERAL P ERFORMANCE G OALS AND O BJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the Houseof 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 attainingoutcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations.

C HANGES IN A PPLICATION OF E XISTING L AW

Pursuant to clause 3, rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following Statements are submitted describing theeffect 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 legislationdoes 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 restrictionson 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.


TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

B UREAU OF L AND M ANAGEMENT

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.

U NITED S TATES F ISH AND W ILDLIFE S ERVICE

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.


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.

N ATIONAL P ARK S ERVICE

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

Designating funds for Everglades restoration. Providing for repair, rehabilitation and maintenance of National

Park Service Assets.

P ARK P ARTNERSHIP P ROJECT G RANTS

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 PreserveAmerica 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.


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.

U NITED S TATES G EOLOGICAL S URVEY

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.


M INERALS M ANAGEMENT S ERVICE

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.

O FFICE OF S URFACE M INING R ECLAMATION AND E NFORCEMENT

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.

A BANDONED M INE R ECLAMATION F UND

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.

B UREAU OF I NDIAN A FFAIRS

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.


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 Programfunds to offset costs associated with significant enrollment increases. Specifying distribution of indirect and administrative costs for

certain Tribes.

D EPARTMENTAL O FFICES

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 bemade 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 ofthe 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.


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.

O FFICE OF S PECIAL T RUSTEE FOR A MERICAN I NDIANS

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.

D EPARTMENT -W IDE P ROGRAMS

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.


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.


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 administrativecosts 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, localgovernment climate change, and environmental information exchange network initiatives grants.

Providing waivers for certain uses of clean water, State revolvingfunds 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 forAmerican Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and United States Virgin Islands.


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 GreatLakes 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, wateror 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

F OREST S ERVICE

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.


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.


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 InternationalDevelopment 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.

I

NDIAN H EALTH S ERVICE

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.


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 newhomes 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.

A GENCY FOR T OXIC S UBSTANCES AND D ISEASE R EGISTRY

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.


Limiting use of funds for administrative costs. Limiting the number of toxicological profiles.

E

XECUTIVE O FFICE OF THE P RESIDENT

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Designating the appointment and duties of the chairman.

C

HEMICAL S AFETY AND H AZARD I NVESTIGATION B OARD

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.

O FFICE OF N AVAJO AND H OPI I NDIAN R ELOCATION

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 Navajoreservation or selected a replacement residence off the Navajo reservation.

S MITHSONIAN I NSTITUTION

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.


N

ATIONAL G ALLERY OF A RT

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.

N ATIONAL E NDOWMENT FOR THE A RTS

GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION

Provides funds for the support of projects and productions in the arts, including arts education and public outreach activities.

N

ATIONAL E NDOWMENT FOR THE H UMANITIES

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 ofmoney 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.

C OMMISSION OF F INE A RTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Permitting the charging and use of fees for its publications.

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Restricting hiring at Executive Level V or higher.

N

ATIONAL C APITAL P LANNING C OMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Permitting limited use of funds for certain international hosting of official reception and representational expenses.


U

NITED S TATES H OLOCAUST M EMORIAL M USEUM

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 applicationsfor 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 anddisplaced 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.


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 fouryears, 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 paysalaries 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 AppropriationsCommittees no later than 120 days after the fiscal year 2011 budget is submitted to Congress describing in detail all Federal agencyobligations 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 Actto 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 Statesterritories 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 MarshallIslands, 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 ofpermits 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


[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.

R ESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the House ofRepresentatives, 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

T RANSFERS OF F UNDS

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.


A PPROPRIATION T RANSFERS R ECOMMENDED IN THE B ILL

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

C OMPLIANCE W ITH R ULE XIII, C L . 3(e) (R AMSEYER R ULE )

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)

* * * * * * *


DIVISION F—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,

2008

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

* * * * * * *

D EPARTMENT

- WIDE P ROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

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 (42U.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 ø in 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 includestocks, 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

* * * * * * *

M INERALS M ANAGEMENT S ERVICE

LEASING AND ROYALTY MANAGEMENT

For expenses necessary for minerals leasing and environmentalstudies, 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 andoperating 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


audit program: Provided further , That notwithstanding any otherprovision 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 publicand private sources, which shall be available for the purposes provided for in this account, including, ø in 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 butnot 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.

* * * * * * *

S EC . 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) P ROPERTY A CQUISITION .— (1) * * * (2) P ROPERTY 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’’, datedMay 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.


(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

S CIENCE AND T ECHNOLOGY

* * * * * * *

A DMINISTRATIVE P ROVISIONS

* * * * * * * For fiscal years 2006 through ø 2011 ¿ 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

F OREST S ERVICE

* * * * * * *

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

, FOREST SERVICE

* * * * * * * For each fiscal year through ø 2009 ¿ 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 ofagency 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

S EC . 6. (a) * * *


(b) A PPOINTMENT AND C OMPOSITION OF C OUNCIL .—(1) The Council shall be composed of members as follows: (A) * * *

* * * * * * * (C) ø 14 ¿ 18 members appointed by the President, by andwith 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. ø Eight ¿ Tenmembers 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 inthe 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 centumshall 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.

* * * * * * *


SECTION 339 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

* * * * * * *

S EC . 339. P ILOT P ROGRAM OF C HARGES AND F EES FOR H ARVEST

OF F OREST B OTANICAL P RODUCTS . (a) * * *

* * * * * * * (h) D URATION OF P ILOT P ROGRAM .— (1) C OLLECTION OF FEES .—The Secretary of Agriculture maycollect fees under the authority of subsection (c) until September 30, ø 2009 ¿ 2014

.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 331 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

(Public Law 106–291)

S EC . 331. F EDERAL AND S TATE C OOPERATIVE W ATERSHED R ES

TORATION AND P ROTECTION IN C OLORADO . (a) * * *

* * * * * * * (e) E XPIRATION OF A UTHORITY .—The authority of the Secretary ofAgriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements and contracts under this section expires September 30, ø 2009 ¿ 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) A UTHORIZED U SES .—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; ø and ¿(3) to develop community wildfire protection plans in coordination with the appropriate Secretary concerned ø

. ¿ ; 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.

* * * * * * *


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 fundingrequested 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 percentof 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 earmarkdesignated 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 ofrule 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.



























































F ULL C OMMITTEE V OTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Houseof 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:





C OMPARISON W ITH B UDGET R ESOLUTION

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 budgetauthority 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.

F IVE -Y EAR P ROJECTION OF O UTLAYS

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 followingtable 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.

A SSISTANCE TO S TATE AND L OCAL G OVERNMENTS

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


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 thatresponsibility 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 fullpay 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 payand 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 showthe 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.


But it isn’t just the spending that concerns us. This legislationis funding large increases in programs without having clearly defined goals or sufficient processes in place to measure the returnon 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 allocationto 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 howwe’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. Anyonethat 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 havewe 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 FY2011 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 climatechange programs but because they need to be coordinated government-wide. Given the uncertain economic times our country is facing, we’realso 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 hedescribes 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


strategy to address record deficits or risk long-term damage to our economy. He said, ‘‘Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment tofiscal 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 disproportionatelevel 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 ofmillions 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 ofbudgeting 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 recentfire 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 otheritem 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


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 thatduring 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 aswell 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.

J ERRY L EWIS

. M IKE S IMPSON

.