S. HRG. 110–648 

Senate Hearings 

Before the Committee on Appropriations 

Department of the Interior, 

Environment, and 

Related Agencies 

Appropriations 

Fiscal Year 2009 

110th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2009 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–257 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–648 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of the Interior 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Nondepartmental Witnesses 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHARLES KIEFFER, Staff Director 

BRUCE EVANS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED

AGENICS

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

Professional Staff 

PETER KIEFHABER

GINNY JAMES

RACHEL TAYLOR

SCOTT DALZELL

CHRIS WATKINS

LEIF FONNESBECK (Minority) 

REBECCA BENN (Minority) 

CALLI DALY (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

KATIE BATTE (Minority) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2008 

Page 

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

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008 

Department of Agriculture: Forest Service ............................................................ 49 

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 

Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary ............................................. 159 

Nondepartmental witnesses .................................................................................... 221 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Stevens, Craig, and Allard. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMININSTRATOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

MARCUS C. PEACOCK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE 

OF WATER 

SUSAN PARKER BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and 

welcome to the Interior Subcommittee’s hearing on the EPA agency’s fiscal year 2009 budget. 

This one is a series of budget hearings that the subcommittee 

will be holding. But, I’d like to take a moment and set the stage 

for the challenges that this administration’s request presents, before we begin with the EPA budget. The President has requested $25.715 billion in discretionary 

spending for the agencies and programs in the Interior budget. 

That’s a cut of $842 million, or 3.2 percent, from the currently-enacted level. 

The real cut, of course, is much higher, when you factor in some $300 million in fixed costs that must be covered, an extra $200 million for fire suppression to meet the 10-year average, and approximately $150 million to cover increased health care costs for the 

services provided by the Indian Health Service. 

In short, this Interior budget is a very difficult one, and we are 

going to have our work cut out for us, as we proceed with this 

year’s appropriation process. 

With respect to this morning’s hearing the administration’s request for the EPA’s budget is $7.142 billion, a $329 million—or a 

4 percent cut—from the 2008 enacted level. This proposal calls for 
2 

the smallest budget for EPA, since 1997. The smallest budget for 

EPA, since 1997. 

GRANTS TO STATES

Grants to States for environmental protection, in general, are slashed $304 million, a 10 percent cut, for a total of $2.6 billion. 

As in previous years, the largest cut is to the Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund. The administration’s request for this program is 

$555 million. That’s a 20 percent cut from the 2008 enacted level. 

Now, this happens despite the fact that EPA just released a re- port, citing a need for $20 billion to keep pace with clean water infrastructure funding in the United States over the next 20 years. The budget proposes $186 million in State grants for reduction of air pollution—that’s a 14 percent cut—and it eliminates $9.8 

million in funds added to clean up air pollution in the San Joaquin 

Valley, and South Coast air districts of my State—the two most 

polluted air districts in the country. Finally, EPA budget cuts $14 million in funding for climate change programs—including the outright elimination of $3.4 million added last year for a greenhouse emissions reporting rule. This 

comes, despite the fact that Congress has required a final rule on 

this by June 2009, and we know additional funds are badly needed 

to complete this important work. Under this budget, though, that 

money is just gone. 

We’re here today to talk about more than the budget, too. As you 

know, I am strongly opposed to the administrator’s decision last 

December to deny the State of California its authority to regulate 

greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. 

I’m going to ask Administrator Johnson to justify how he could 

have reached this decision, that California’s need to regulate greenhouse gases was not compelling or extraordinary, when his decision 

looks to be plainly contradicted by both the Clean Air Act, and by 

40 years of agency policy. 

What’s even more unprecedented, is that he has denied this 

waiver, without offering a shred of legal or technical evidence for 

this decision. Incredibly, EPA released its justification for the waiver decision just last Friday—more than 2 months after the decision 

was made. You would think it would be done before the decision 

was made. I want to know why. 

This issue is much bigger than California. Sixteen States around 

the country have asked to implement California’s emission standards, and take action against climate change. The people in those 

States deserve answers to these important questions. 

I’d like to turn now to our distinguished ranking member, Senator Allard, for any opening comments you might make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Just to make a brief comment here, I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and I want to thank Mr. Johnson for joining us 

this morning to testify on the fiscal year 2009 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

EPA has one of the most important and difficult missions of all 

Federal agencies. The agency’s jurisdiction ranges from responsi-
3 

bility for clear-up of Superfund sites, to funding clean water and 

drinking water infrastructure programs, to the enforcement of a 

long list of environmental laws. 

The administration has requested $7.1 billion in total budget authority for fiscal year 2009—this is $330 million below the enacted 

level. 

While I’m a supporter of this agency’s—and the administration’s—effort to curb spending, I am concerned that the bulk of the 

reduction in EPA’s budget is in the form of is in the form of a $134 

million to the Clean Water SRF. 

As I have mentioned in past years, I am uneasy with continued 

increases in enforcement budget at EPA. The $9 million increase 

above the enacted level, $563 million total budget for enforcement. 

I hope that the agency will work in good faith with small and rural 

communities who do not always possess the expertise to comply 

with new regulations. 

LEADVILLE MINE DRAINAGE TUNNELL

Mr. Administrator, I am sure that you are familiar with the 

issues surrounding the Leadville Mine drainage tunnel in Lake 

County, Colorado. I am extremely concerned that Lake County officials were forced to declare a state of emergency on February 13, 

to prepare for a possible toxic flood as a result of water trapped in 

a collapsed drainage tunnel. 

Now, EPA is not the only entity that bears responsibility for the 

Leadville Tunnel, but I would like your word, Mr. Johnson, that 

your agency will continue to work toward a long-term solution for 

this situation, so that the residents of Lake County can rest easy. 

I was pleased that your representative in our Colorado meeting 

took the bull by the horn, so to speak, and came up with a shortterm solution. So, we’re talking about a long-term solution for this 

problem, and I am appreciative of him stepping forward at a time 

when we had a couple of agencies, sort of, knowing at each other, 

and you brought—you took some leadership out of your agency and 

brought about a consensus, and I appreciate that. 

Senator Feinstein, I do not necessarily agree on all aspects of the 

greenhouse debate, but I’m concerned by reports that the agency 

may have disregarded standard protocols in denying California’s 

Clean Air Waiver Request. 

There are a number of States, including Colorado, which would 

have considered in California’s footsteps to adopt a law to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, if a waiver was granted to that State. As a supporter of States’ rights, I am also troubled 

by the suggestion that the State of California’s rights may have 

been curtailed. 

I’m confident that Senator Feinstein has a number of questions 

for you, Mr. Johnson, on this topic so I look forward to a healthy 

debate during the question round of this hearing. 

Mr. Administrator, thank you again for being here today, and I 

look forward to working with you on the many challenges you face 

at the helm of the agency. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 
4 

I’d like to suggest this, that we hear from Mr. Johnson and then 

we have 10-minute rounds. Since it’s the two of us, we go back and 

forth—if that’s agreeable with you. 

Senator ALLARD. That sounds fine, thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good, thank you. 

Mr. Johnson. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman Feinstein, and Senator Allard and members of the 

committee, I’m pleased to be here to discuss the President’s fiscal 

year 2009 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

This marks the 8th, and final, budget introduced by the President during his tenure. As the Bush administration sprints to the 

finish line, I believe this budget will keep EPA on a course for a 

cleaner tomorrow. 

At EPA, we are proud—our Nation’s air is cleaner, our water is 

purer, and our land is healthier than just a generation ago. So, we 

appreciate the President’s $7.14 billion budget proposal, which will 

help the EPA keep pace with the environmental challenges of tomorrow. 

One important challenge is in the arena of clean and affordable 

energy. With both demand and cost on the rise, innovators are 

moving forward to advance the clean power solutions. At the same 

time, industry is searching for new, domestic energy supplies, to 

help reduce the Nation’s dependency on foreign oil. 

In doing so, we estimate that industry will explore thousands of 

new oil and gas wells on tribal and Federal lands alone, as well as 

proposing many energy projects. 

To ensure these projects move forward in an environmentally re- sponsible manner, this budget requests $14 million to hire additional technical experts, and provide grants to our partners to increase their capacity to review and assess proposed projects. 

In addition, the budget contains sufficient funding to meet our 

commitment to addressing the serious challenge of global climate 

change. In order to advance clean air technologies, the President 

requested $49 million for EPA’s diesel retrofit grant programs. 

Another challenge is to improve our Nation’s aging drinking water and waste water infrastructure. The budget requests $842 

million to fund Drinking Water State Revolving Fund grants—an 

increase of $13 million from last year. This will help meet the 

President’s commitment to achieve a $1.2 billion revolving level by 

2018. 

For Clean Water State Revolving Funds, the President proposes an investment of $555 million in fiscal year 2009. This will enable 

the program to meet its long-term revolving target of $3.4 billion 

by 2015. 

In addition, we once again, propose to create Water Enterprise 

Bonds, as innovative financing tools for State and local partners to 

cost-effectively provide for resident’s water needs. 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

As we address our water infrastructure, the budget continues to 

support EPA’s collaborative work to protect America’s great water 
5 

bodies. It provides $35 million for the Great Lakes, $29 million for 

the Chesapeake Bay, and $4.6 million for the Gulf of Mexico. 

As you know, EPA is not only a guardian of our environment, it 

is a guardian of our homeland. I’m proud of our response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to a number of other natural events 

in recent years. 

However, we recognize the need to expand our capabilities to respond to multiple, simultaneous, catastrophic events. So this budget requests an extra $32 million, for a total investment of $170 million to train staff volunteers, increase decontamination capabilities, 

and fully fund 5 water infrastructure security pilots. This additional funding also includes a $5 million increase to support our 

bio-defense research. 

In order to keep pace with the environmental challenges of tomorrow, we have a responsibility to advance the state of our 

science. In this budget, the President requested $15 million, to help 

EPA study nanotechnology, as well as $15 million for computational toxicology. 

At EPA, we’re working with our community partners to pass 

down a healthier, more prosperous future. The President’s budget 

provides over $1.2 billion for the Superfund Program—to continue 

transforming contaminated, hazardous waste sites back into community assets. This is a $10 million increase from fiscal year 2008. The President also requested $165.8 million for our successful 

Brownfields program. We project the grantees will help assess the 

renovation of 1,000 properties, and create leverage for more than 

5,000 jobs. 

So, while cooperative initiatives are important, we must continue 

to vigorously enforce our Nation’s environmental laws. This budget 

proposes the highest dollar amount for enforcement in EPA’s history, $563 million, an increase of $9 million over fiscal year 2008. 

As EPA works to fulfill our responsibilities to the American people, I’m pleased this budget not only continues to deliver environmental results today, and keeps EPA on course to deliver a cleaner, 

healthier tomorrow. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Bottom line—this budget represents good government. It helps 

EPA meet our environmental goals, while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. 

Thank you, and I request that my full written statement be submitted for the record. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON

Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity 

to discuss our proposed fiscal year 2009 Budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget. 

The President requests $7.14 billion for fiscal year 2009 to support EPA’s mission 

to protect human health and the environment both directly and through EPA’s 

state, local and tribal partners nationwide. Since its founding, EPA has laid a strong 

foundation of environmental progress. Our air, water and land are cleaner today 

than they were just a generation ago. This budget continues this progress, supports 

the environmental commitments that the President and I have made and institutionalizes EPA’s major management and performance improvements. 
6 

In particular, the budget meets the major priorities that I’ve set for my final year 

of service: 

—Advancing clean, affordable and safe energy, 

—Safeguarding our nation through stronger homeland security, 

—Encouraging stakeholder collaboration to address energy and climate change 

issues, 

—Improving our water infrastructure and programs, 

—Continuing Superfund remediation of the most highly contaminated hazardous 

waste sites, 

—Encouraging economic development through revitalization with our successful 

Brownfields program, 

—Ensuring full compliance with the nation’s environmental laws, 

—Building a stronger EPA for my successor—including strengthening our protection of human health and the environment through best available science, and 

—Demonstrating fiscal responsibility for all our successors. 

ADVANCING CLEAN, AFFORDABLE AND SAFE ENERGY

We all know that our Nation faces multiple challenges to assure a future of clean, 

affordable and safe energy. With both demand and costs on the rise, innovators are 

moving forward to propose cleaner power solutions that are good for our environment and good for our energy security. Industry is searching for many new domestic 

alternatives to help reduce our dependence on foreign energy. We estimate that over 

the next several years industry will propose drilling thousands of new oil and gas 

wells on Federal, state, and Tribal lands, apply to renew up to 100 nuclear plant 

licenses, consider building dozens of new liquefied natural gas terminals, and propose many other projects. This budget recognizes that industry’s increased efforts 

will mean a larger workload in our existing air and water permitting programs as 

well as our enforcement programs—especially out West. 

This budget includes an additional $14 million to help ensure environmentally 

sound decision-making—with proper permitting and review and in full compliance 

with the law. The $14 million will support our state and tribal partners’ efforts to 

increase their capacity to review and assess all the proposed energy projects and 

pay for the additional technical experts the Agency needs to meet permitting, technical review, and NEPA requirements. 

One related clean energy initiative that I’m glad that we and the appropriating 

committees agreed upon is the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) program 

grants. In fiscal year 2009, $49 million will fund 250–300 diesel retrofit grant programs that target older diesel engines which are not subject to the new regulations. 

A combination of strategies including engine retrofits, rebuilds or replacements, 

switching to cleaner fuels, and idling reduction strategies can reduce particulate 

matter emissions by 95 percent, smog forming hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 90 percent and greenhouse gases by up to 20 percent. These strategies will allow us to make continued progress in five sectors: freight, construction, 

school buses, agriculture and ports. 

HOMELAND SECURITY

Homeland Security continues to be one of EPA’s top priorities. EPA has responded 

to five major disasters and catastrophic incidents in recent years, including response 

actions to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax terrorist incidents, the Columbia 

Shuttle disaster and recovery efforts, the Ricin incident on Capitol Hill, and the 

Gulf Coast hurricanes. Our experience from these responses, coupled with EPA’s externally driven mandates such as Homeland Security Presidential Directives and 

Emergency Support Function mission assignments, lead me to propose that EPA 

heighten its preparedness. 

This budget ensures that we can meet these commitments by proposing an additional $32 million over last year’s enacted budget for a total of $170 million to advance the EPA’s capabilities to respond to multiple incidents, strengthen bio-defense 

research, and continue to support the Water Security Initiative. 

As a part of this request, we remain committed to funding five Water Security 

Initiative pilots to secure a broad range of data so water utilities across the country 

will have the necessary information to install and enhance contamination warning 

systems. With the fiscal year 2009 request we will have initiated all five pilots and 

expect to complete them by 2012. EPA is also advancing its preparedness to respond 

to multiple, large-scale, catastrophic incidents, and in particular, potential chemical, 

biological and/or radiological agent terror attacks. 
7 

CLIMATE CHANGE

For fiscal year 2009, EPA requests a total of $114.7 million to continue to achieve 

real reductions of carbon dioxide, methane, per fluorinated compounds (PFCs) and 

other greenhouse gases, and continue research to better understand climate change 

and its ramifications. 

EPA will continue to achieve real reductions in greenhouse gases by promoting 

energy efficiency through partnerships with consumers, businesses and other organizations. We will continue to see real results in the home, building, industrial and 

transportation sectors by spurring our partners’ investments in energy efficient and 

greenhouse gas saving technologies, policies and practices. Based on a historical 

analysis, we estimate that for every dollar spent by EPA on its climate change programs, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by up to the equivalent of one metric 

ton of carbon. 

One cornerstone of our partnerships is the ENERGY STAR program, which has 

helped speed new lighting technologies to market, fostered development of more energy efficient computers, and increased Americans’ understanding of how they can 

help the environment by purchasing cleaner and more efficient machines. To give 

one example, ENERGY STAR qualified light bulbs use 75 percent less electricity 

and last up to 10 times longer than traditional bulbs. If every American household 

switched just one traditional bulb to a high-efficiency ENERGY STAR bulb, America 

would save enough power to light more than three million homes... save $600 

million in energy costs... and prevent greenhouse gas emission equal to more 

than 800,000 cars annually. 

A Washington Post article 2 weeks ago on how pollution can be blown to the 

United States from overseas reminded me that our international programs are essential to realizing American ecological goals. If we don’t help China, India and 

other developing countries build energy efficient technologies into their infrastructure, their increases in greenhouse gas emissions will far out-weigh any reduction 

that we achieve here. That is why it remains essential that we move forward with 

the Asia Pacific Partnership, Methane to Markets and other international programs. 

In climate change research, EPA will invest $16.4 million to continue to better 

understand climate change and its ramifications. EPA will investigate how climate 

change affects air and water quality to protect the gains in public health made by 

the Agency. We will explore opportunities to anticipate the impacts and incorporate 

climate change considerations into regulatory processes. We will use research findings to support the development of a proposed rule on the geological sequestration 

of carbon dioxide to ensure that underground sources of drinking water are protected. We will continue to reach out to all our potential 300 million ‘‘green’’ partners by making available free, online decision support tools to enable resource managers to incorporate climate change considerations into their day-to-day operations. 

COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS

Our cooperative programs also provide an outstanding example of how we can 

find ‘‘win-win’’ solutions that make sense both environmentally and economically. 

They allow us to work with businesses and individuals to achieve environmental results while improving the bottom line. They allow EPA to start addressing environmental challenges as soon as we recognize them and give us the opportunity to test 

innovative approaches to meet today’s challenging environmental problems. To date, 

our conservative estimate is that over 20,000 businesses and other groups across 

America have participated in cooperative programs. We are proud of the record of 

success of these programs and want to encourage our talented employees to continue 

to use their creativity in finding innovative ways to improve environmental results. 

WORKING WITH FEDERAL PARTNERS

Cooperation with Federal partners is also crucial for EPA to meet its mission. In 

the fiscal year 2009 budget, I want to highlight our efforts to work with Federal 

partners to better understand the environmental impact of the almost $2 trillion 

worth of imported goods coming into the U.S. annually. To meet this challenge, the 

President directed agencies with import/export responsibilities to work together to 

create an International Trade Data System (ITDS) within an expanded Automated 

Commercial Environment (ACE). EPA’s $3.1 million investment in fiscal year 2009 

will help build the linkage with ITDS to identify, track and confirm vital environmental details about imported goods in 6 areas: (1) vehicles and engines, (2) ozone 

depleting substances, (3) fuels, (4) pesticides, (5) toxic substances, and (6) hazardous 

waste. 
8 

This is not a pie-in-the-sky dream. It builds on a successful pilot test by our Office 

of Enforcement, which showed that accessing useable records lead to timely action. 

One pilot test identified imported engines in several planned shipments that did not 

meet U.S. specifications and allowed us to block their entrance. One bad engine can 

make a big difference in emissions of particulate matter. Another pilot test proved 

that even child’s play can be harmful to the environment. Detailed records highlight 

many batches of innocent-looking ‘‘silly-string’’ which contained banned 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These tests make clear that prompt data retrieval 

translates into prompt protection. 

This is also an example of how our long term planning has paid off. EPA can efficiently link to ITDS because of the Agency developed a Central Data Exchange, a 

standard set of IT systems and protocols for sharing information among multiple 

partners. 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROGRAMS

This President’s budget meets our commitments to finance state revolving funds, 

proposes new financing options, continues WaterSense and other collaborative 

water-efficiency projects, strengthens our wetlands and watershed protection, and 

furthers our successful geographic initiatives. 

We propose $842 million for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) 

grants, an increase of $13 million. This funding will help achieve the target of 445 

additional infrastructure improvement projects to public water systems—and help 

reach a long term target $1.2 Billion revolving level. The DWSRF program supports 

states by providing low-interest loans and other assistance to water systems to help 

provide safe, reliable water service on a sustainable basis, protect public health and 

achieve or maintain compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 

For Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs), we propose a fiscal year 2009 

investment of $555 million to help meet the program’s long term revolving target 

of $3.4 Billion. This program is able to meet EPA’s $6.8 billion total capitalization 

goal for fiscal years 2004–2011 with a reduced budget request due to higher than 

anticipated funding levels in previous years. The CWSRF program provides funds 

to capitalize state revolving loan funds that finance infrastructure improvements 

through low interest loans for public wastewater systems and other water quality 

projects. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget continues to support the Water Enterprise 

Bond Initiative that proposes financing wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects using Private Activity Bonds (PABs) that are exempt from unified 

state PAB volume caps. We estimate this initiative will increase capital investment 

in the nation’s water infrastructure by up to $5 billion per year over time through 

public-private partnerships. These bonds will complement local efforts to move towards full-cost pricing for wastewater and drinking water services, help localities 

become self-financing and minimize the need for future Federal expenditures. 

These financing proposals work together with our continuing efforts to increase 

efficiency, protect our wetlands and watersheds, accurately monitor the condition of 

our waters and wetlands and target vital geographic areas. 

For example, in June 2006 EPA launched the WaterSense program to reduce 

water use across the country by creating an easy-to-identify label for water-efficient 

products. The WaterSense label certified that products had been independently tested to meet strict efficiency and performance criteria. In less than two years, 

WaterSense has become a national symbol for water efficiency among utilities, 

plumbing manufacturers, and consumers. More than 125 different models of highefficiency toilets and 10 bathroom faucets have earned the label and more than 600 

manufacturers, retailers, utilities and professionals have joined the program as 

partners. In fiscal year 2009 EPA will continue supporting development of new 

products and working with utilities, retailers, distributors, and the media to educate 

consumers on the benefits of switching to water-efficient products. 

EPA’s Wetlands Program supports the Administration’s goals to achieve ‘‘no net 

loss’’ of wetlands in the Sec. 404 regulatory program and an overall increase in wetland quantity and quality. Wetlands provide numerous ecological and economic services: they help to improve water quality; recharge water supplies; reduce flood risks; 

provide fish and wildlife habitat; offer sites for research and education; and support 

valuable fishing and shellfish industries. In fiscal year 2009, EPA will work with 

its state and Tribal partners to promote up-to-date wetlands mapping tied with GIS 

(Geographic Information Systems) analysis, strengthen monitoring and assessment 

programs to report on wetlands condition, and improve data to better manage wetlands within a watershed context. Two key activities will be implementing the 2006 

Supreme Court decision in the Rapanos case, and working with our federal agency 
9 

partners to accelerate the completion of the digital Wetlands Data Layer within the 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). 

Watershed protection runs through our budget and strategic plan as one of the 

overarching principles for clean and healthy communities. Our strategic plan, our 

daily activities and our proposed fiscal year 2009 budget all reflect the importance 

of core regulatory and stewardship programs prevent water pollution and protect 

source waters. With our partners we launched a Green Infrastructure Strategy on 

January 17, 2008 to reduce sewer overflows and storm-water runoff. We also continue to urge Congress to enact targeted, bipartisan clean water legislation to encourage ‘‘Good Samaritan’’ cleanup of abandoned hard rock mines. This simple step 

will remove legal and bureaucratic obstacles, keep environmental safeguards in 

place, save tax payer dollars and help clean up watersheds. 

We continue to place a high priority on improving the states’ ability to accurately 

characterize the condition of their waters. In fiscal year 2009, we will continue our 

water quality monitoring initiative by providing grant funding totaling over $18.5 

million to states and tribes that participate in collecting statistically valid water 

monitoring data and implement enhancements in their water monitoring programs. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget continues funding for geographic initiatives, including: 

—In the Great Lakes, EPA’s $35 million investment in the Great Lakes Legacy 

Act will give priority to working with states and local communities to achieve 

improvements in water quality and reducing the number of toxic ‘‘Areas of Concern’’. ‘‘Areas of Concern’’ include areas with damaged fish and wildlife populations, contaminated bottom sediments and past or continuing loadings of toxic 

and bacterial pollutants. 

—In the Chesapeake Bay, the $29 million investment will be committed to substantially accelerating the restoration of the Bay’s aquatic habitat and achieving 

the pollution reduction targets for 2010. 

—For the Gulf of Mexico, EPA’s $4.6 million investment will continue to support 

efforts to reduce nutrient loadings to watersheds. We will identify the top 100 

nutrient-contributing watersheds in the Mississippi River Basin and use a computer model determine the location of major sources of nitrogen and phosphorus 

and where to target hypoxia- reduction efforts. 

SUPERFUND REMEDIATION OF HIGHLY CONTAMINATED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

The President’s budget requests a $10 million increase for a total of $1.264 Billion 

for the Superfund program to continue our progress cleaning up contaminated sites 

and strengthening our emergency preparedness and response capabilities. The vital 

goals of the Superfund program remain assuring the health and safety of neighboring citizens during cleanups and protecting human health and the environment 

in the long-term. Within this budget request, funding for Superfund clean-up remains at essentially the same level as enacted in fiscal year 2008. 

EPA takes seriously its responsibility to take actions to protect human health by 

controlling exposure to hazardous substances during clean ups. Before or during 

long-term remedial action, the Superfund program often completes removal actions 

to mitigate immediate health threats prior to completing investigations and starting 

long-term cleanup construction. For example, to date, EPA has provided more than 

two million people living near contaminated sites with alternative sources of drinking water, has completed more than 9,400 removals at hazardous waste sites to reduce the immediate threat to human health and the environment, and has conducted 351 emergency response and removal cleanup actions in fiscal year 2007 

alone. 

Developed more than a decade ago, EPA’s construction completion measure continues to show substantial progress in the Superfund program. As of the end of fiscal year 2007, cleanup construction had been completed at 1,030 of the National Priorities List (NPL) sites—66 percent of the sites listed on the NPL. EPA plans to 

complete clean up construction at 30 sites in fiscal year 2008, and 35 sites in 2009. 

This will keep EPA on track to complete construction at 165 sites during the fiscal 

year 2007 to fiscal year 2011 time period—EPA’s goal in the current Strategic Plan. 

To better measure long-term progress, the program added a Site-Wide Ready for 

Anticipated Use measure in 2007. This measure tracks the number of NPL sites 

where the remedy is constructed (construction complete) and all of the controls are 

in place to ensure that the land is protected for reasonably anticipated uses over 

the long term. EPA expects to make at least 30 sites ready for anticipated use in 

2009, building upon its 2007 achievement of doubling the original goal of 30 by making 64 Superfund sites ready for anticipated use. 
10 

BROWNFIELDS AND LAND REVITALIZATION

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request provides $165.8 million for the 

Brownfields program, including $93.6 million to fund program assessment, cleanup, 

revolving loan fund, and job training grants. This will fund 129 assessment grants, 

96 cleanup grants, 7 revolving loan fund grants, and 12 job training grants. 

Through this work, we project that Brownfields grantees will assess 1,000 properties, clean up 60 properties, leverage 5,000 cleanup and redevelopment jobs, and 

leverage $900 million in cleanup and redevelopment funding. 

Experience has taught us that one of the best ways to clean up contaminated sites 

and to address blighted properties in communities is to expressly consider the future 

uses of this land. The country has accepted the economic and ecological importance 

of recycling various consumer products—and our understanding of sound resource 

management must now also embrace the recycling of contaminated properties. In 

addition, by incorporating ‘‘green’’ and sustainable approaches into Brownfields redevelopment, we can further increase the environmental benefits from land revitalization. We remain committed to the goal of restoring our nation’s contaminated 

land resources and enabling America’s communities to safely return these properties 

to beneficial economic, ecological, and societal uses. 

ENFORCEMENT

Experience has also shown that we cannot always rely on collaboration to attain 

all our goals. This budget doesn’t neglect that lesson. Once again I request the largest enforcement budget in history, $563 million—an increase of $9 million—to maintain our vigorous and successful enforcement program. 

These dollars will prove to be a wise investment. Last year, EPA’s enforcement 

programs succeeded in: 

—Having defendants agree to $10.6 billion in investments to reduce pollution; 

—Achieving private party reimbursements of $252 million for Superfund; and, 

—Reducing water pollution by 178 million pounds and air pollution by 427 million 

pounds. 

This all-time record budget request includes a $2.4 million increase to a total 

budget of $52.2 million for criminal enforcement. These dollars are vital to help us 

increase the number of criminal investigators. 

STRONGER EPA—SOUND SCIENCE

As a 27-year Agency veteran, one of my most solemn duties is to leave behind 

an EPA that is stronger than when I came in. As both a scientist and a long time 

manager—I am convinced that the only way that a technical, regulatory agency can 

meet its mission is by doing a lot of hard thinking to ensure that we keep our technical, legal and scientific base strong—and that we hone our management goals and 

measures to guide our efforts. This budget builds on the progress we’ve made by 

strengthening our workforce, sharpening our management and performance measurement and increasing our scientific knowledge. 

First, as a scientist, I want to continue to provide strong support for research addressing our nation’s and our world’s critical and increasingly complex environmental issues. In fiscal year 2009, I propose that EPA invest extra resources to understand two critical, growing areas: nanotechnology and computational toxicology. 

For nanotechnology, I ask for an additional $4.5 million, for a total budget of 

$14.9 million to strengthen understanding of health and ecological implications arising from new routes of exposure and/or toxicities associated with exposure to these 

novel materials. We must identify and develop risk assessment methodologies for 

use by risk assessors, and evaluate the adequacy of current exposure assessment 

approaches. We will coordinate this research closely with the President’s National 

Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which emphasizes the need for the government to 

understand which processes govern the environmental fate of nano-materials and 

what data are available or are needed for accurate nano-material risk assessment. 

This includes determining the release potential of nano-materials in the environment, researching the state of science for sampling and measuring nano-materials 

in environmental media. We must also study effects on human and ecological receptors and determine which technologies and practices minimize risk. 

I also remain strongly committed to improving our computational toxicology work 

and ask for a $2.7 million increase—for a total budget of $14.9 million for this vital 

area. In fiscal year 2009, we want to improve EPA’s ability to more efficiently understand chemicals’ toxicity through advanced modeling. One aspect of this work 

that is particularly important is that it can reduce the need to use animals for toxicity testing. 
11 

To help further these initiatives and ensure EPA’s ability to attract and retain 

the highest caliber scientists, the budget proposes expanded special authority that 

will allow EPA to hire up to 40 scientists quickly and competitively. 

STRONGER EPA—PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT

As a manager, I want to make sure that we focus on something we can all take 

pride in—delivering results. And I’m proud to tell you about what we’ve accomplished to date in the planning and management fields. EPA: 

—Scored ‘‘green’’ in the President’s Management Agenda on all initiatives in the 

first quarter of fiscal year 2008—one of only a few agencies to reach that goal, 

and 

—Improved outcome measures to more directly link the results of our work and 

resources to environmental, on-the-ground, results. 

We’ve addressed specific challenges as well. For the first time in ten years we’ve 

succeeded in removing grants management as a ‘‘management challenge’’ or ‘‘material weakness’’. We’ve fixed problems identified by the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and built a system of internal controls fully integrated into the grants management process that includes: 

—Improved mandatory training, 

—Heightened grants performance standards, 

—Quarterly management close-out reviews, 

—New post-award monitoring orders, and 

—EPA’s new grants management system. 

Finally, as I conclude my tenure at EPA, I want to fulfill my responsibility to cultivate the next generation of EPA leaders. This budget includes funding for a Leadership and Professional Development rotation program to ensure that our talented 

GS–13, 14 and 15 employees can expand knowledge and expertise, develop leadership skills and enhance professional growth through short term rotational assignments. For more senior leadership, we propose to continue our SES mobility program to make sure that we populate the highest levels of the agency with proven 

managers. 

CONCLUSION

Madam Chairman, when I look at the candidates who are getting the opportunity 

to broaden their skills in these programs, I am heartened that I’ll be leaving the 

agency in good hands. I look forward to working with you to enact this budget. 

I am confident that this budget gives them an excellent basis on which to build. 

I hope that together we can see prompt action on these budget proposals so that 

we can implement your funding decisions. 

Thank you. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. Let us 

begin. 

CALIFORNIA WAIVER

The legal justification for denying California’s waiver rests heavily on your view that in 1967, Congress intended that waivers 

would only be issued if California had a unique problem. The waiver decision cites 1967 committee reports and floor statements 9 

times. 

If the pollutant is global, and therefore exists to a similar extent 

in other States, you conclude that this is grounds for a waiver denial. 

Well, in 1977, Congress amended the Clean Air Act, changing 

both the words, and intent, of section 209. The House committee 

report from 1977, explains the section 209 revisions by saying, and 

I quote, ‘‘The committee amendment is intended to ratify and 

strengthen the California waiver provision, and to affirm the underlying intent of that provision, i.e., to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the 

health of its citizens and the public welfare. The Administrator, 

thus, is not to overturn California’s judgment lightly. Nor is he to 
12 

substitute his judgment for that of the State. There must be clear 

and compelling evidence that the State acted unreasonably, in evaluating the relative risks of various pollutants in light of the air 

quality, topography, photochemistry, and climate in that State, before EPA may deny a waiver.’’ 

Your waiver justification document does not mention congressional intent in 1977. Why? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Madam Chairman, as I evaluated the petition from California, as you correctly point out, I am bound by section 209 of the Clean Air Act, and there are three very specific criteria. 

I did not make judgment on two of the criteria. The one that I 

did was that California does not need such California standards to 

meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. Again, based upon 

the record and the evidence before me. 

Clearly, we looked at legislative history—as you pointed out—but 

again, as I point out, even with affording California the broadest 

possible discretion, evaluation under section 209 does not mean a 

rubber stamp. It does not mean that it’s a popularity contest, it 

means that I need to thoughtfully and carefully think evaluate the 

data that are before me under section 209, and in this case, I determined that California did not need its own greenhouse gas standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Even though that same section allows other 

States to accept California’s standards? I mean, it seems to me if 

Congress intended for waivers to be limited to problems unique to 

California, why did it give other States the right to adopt the same 

standards? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you raise a very good point, Madam Chairman, and in fact the section 209, and the law and the criteria by 

which I am to judge the standard does not allow me to consider 

what other States may or may not do—it’s very specific to California. 

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

As I pointed out, and I think it’s worth pointing out here—that 

the more States that believe that greenhouse gas emissions is a 

problem, are in fact, making the very point that California is not 

unique—it is not exclusive in its need for addressing greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

Rather, it is a national problem, requiring a national solution, 

and that’s certainly what my 48-page decision document goes 

through, very carefully, and addresses. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

According to the Washington Post, you made the decision to deny 

the waiver over the unanimous recommendation of your legal and 

technical staff. Here’s the question. When you went around that 

room full of staff, and asked each person’s recommendation last October, did a single one of your legal and technical staff support a 

flat denial of the waiver? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, when I met with and had a—literally hours 

of briefings with my technical and legal staff, which included career as well as my policy staff, as well, they presented me with a 

wide range of options, ranging from approving the waiver, to deny-
13 

ing the waiver. They were all presented to me as legally defensible 

option. 

Yes, I did seek their comments, I appreciate the ability to have 

that candid input to me. But, according to the Clean Air Act, and 

certainly I take the responsibility very seriously, the decision rests 

with me, and me alone, and I made the decision as is evidenced 

in our final agency decision document. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yeah, let me understand, then. You are saying that technical staff, and legal staff, gave you a recommendation 

to deny the waiver, is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The technical and legal staff presented me with a 

range of recommendations, which included improving the waiver, 

and included denying the waiver. That, based upon their input, 

based upon my evaluation, thoughtful and careful consideration of 

the record before, and what the requirements are under the Clean 

Air Act under section 209, I determined that California did not 

meet the waiver criteria. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Did you ask them what they thought? As individuals? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I—generally it is my approach on all agency decisions to ask for input, and if people want to give their person input, 

that’s fine. If they choose to pass, that’s fine. But I routinely, at 

least what I recall—as routinely as for all major decisions, seek 

input. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I mean, we’ve been told, informally, 

that none of the staff was for denying California’s waiver. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, as I said, I received a range of options—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I understand, it’s not what I’m asking. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. I also, I also—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I receive a range of options on many things— 

here’s the best case this way, here’s the best case that way—but 

what do you think? Is my question. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Did any of the legal or technical staff believe 

you should deny the waiver? You can say yes, if yes is the answer. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again, I appreciate the ability to have candid 

comments from my staff, and I want to protect that ability to, for 

them to give me candid advice. What I said is, is that I received 

a—not only a wide range of options, clearly as both the record indicates, and certainly the press indicates—there’s a wide range of 

opinions. It’s not—my decision is not based upon, again, a popularity contest of the opinions. It has to be based—and was based— 

on what the law directs me to do. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Bottom line, Mr. Johnson, you’re not answering my question. But there’s nothing I can do, other than to believe 

what a non-answer to the question means. 

DETERMINE WHETHER CARBON DIOXIDE CONTRIBUTES TO CLIMATE

CHANGE

Let me go on. You are under remand from the United States Supreme Court to determine whether carbon dioxide contributes to 

climate change, and endangers public health and welfare, and I 

would like to know by when you intend to respond. You have 

missed your own deadline of completing this finding by the end of 
14 

2007. In January, you told the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee that EPA’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s remand had been delayed by passage of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act, even though this new law did not amend section 

202 of the Clean Air Act which governs your decisions regarding 

endangerment. 

We are rapidly approaching the 1-year anniversary of that landmark decision. Will you commit that your agency will respond to 

the remand of the highest court in the land, by the anniversary of 

this ruling, which is April 2, 2008? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Madam Chairman, what I will commit to is 

we will be responding to the Supreme Court decision. As, I believe 

I have indicated—or staff have indicated in correspondence with 

you regarding funding issues for this year, is that right now I am 

in the process and, if you will, to have taken a step forward and 

said, we have, obviously, the Mass v. EPA decision that is pending 

before the agency. We also have the implementation of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act and again, congratulations, Madam 

Chairman and Senator Allard, for great work, for—and certainly 

the President signing that. 

We are looking to, and working on the implementation regulations for that. We also have a number of pending petitions before 

the Agency, as well as a number of corridor deadlines. 

One of the unique things is—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Excuse me, my time is—all I’m asking of you 

is when might we expect this, which was due in 2007? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, what I was—as I’ve communicated with you, 

I don’t have a date, but I can assure you we will be responding to 

the Mass v. EPA, and that what I was beginning to try to explain 

is that we have many pending actions before the agency, and I’m 

assessing those before I make a final determination as to what the 

next steps are on all of them—including Mass v. EPA. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. My time is up. 

Senator. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I have some concerns about enforcement from the perspective that I hope that EPA’s approach to many of the infrastructure 

problems that we have in meeting some of your rules and regulations will take more of a helpful approach to small communities, 

because they don’t have the staff and the expertise—as opposed to 

just a strict enforcement approach. 

ARSENIC LEVELS

We have a couple of issues in Colorado where this is brought— 

one of them is the arsenic levels which was passed by the Congress, and you don’t have a lot of flexibility in that—but we do 

have communities that have—they’re small communities, so they 

don’t have a large tax base—are faced now with the increased arsenic levels of reducing that arsenic level in their drinking water. 

Now this is a natural background level, it’s been there for years, 

we’ve tightened it up, and now they have to spend the money to 

improve that water over and beyond what the natural background 

level of arsenic would be. Yet those standards are below the public 

health requirements, but the Congress felt necessary to go below 
15 

that. So that creates a real problem for small communities, and I’d 

like to know what you’re doing to help them out. 

You have—you just promulgated or are working on a radon rule. 

Again, it’s a small community problem, Colorado has a lot of uranium in their soil, naturally, the background radiation in Colorado 

is higher than most States, and so radon is around, but what they 

need is help in developing the technology and being able to afford 

this, as opposed to straight enforcement, because it’s naturally in 

the background level. There’s no industry in that water stream, 

that stream, that’s causing the problem, it’s there naturally. 

So I’d like to have you comment as to what you’re doing to assist 

small and rural communities in meeting new regulations, instead 

of just imposing fines. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, thank you. There are really three things 

that I would like to point out. One is that a request for increased 

funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund of $13 

million, that will help. Obviously, we think other steps will help, 

whether it is Good Samaritan legislation to help with these abandoned mines, or private activity bonds—all of those will help from 

a financial standpoint, and environmental. 

Second is, we have been investing—and again, thanks for your 

collective support—of new technologies; technologies that help, that 

are particularly focused on small communities, and actually I have 

some statistics, I’d be happy to share with you. 

Then the third is what you started out with, is the importance 

of flexibility. We want to make sure, and ensure, that small communities are able to meet the new health protective standards, but 

we want to be able to do so in a way that recognizes the limitations 

that may exist at a community, small community level—local 

level—and the need for flexibility to achieve those is very important. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, I have a small community that wants to 

find out about these technologies—how do they go about getting 

that information from the Environmental Protection Agency? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you’ve just asked, and we’d be happy to respond. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

EPA has developed a set of user-friendly multimedia products to help small drinking-water utilities meet revised regulations to control arsenic. The tools will provide 

owners and operators with information to guide them in making treatment decisions. The anchor product of this suite of tools is the Arsenic Virtual Trade Show, 

a learning portal for arsenic-treatment technology. The website features a database 

of vendors, a treatment ‘‘decision tree,’’ and tips for evaluating and selecting treatment options. Other products on the website include: 

1. A brochure, Evaluating Arsenic Treatment Providers: A Guide for Public Water 

Systems, which includes a checklist of questions that owners and operators of small 

utilities should ask treatment providers. 

2. A CD–ROM disk, Interactive Workshop on Arsenic Removal from Drinking 

Water, features commentary from the nation’s top experts. The disk is a companion 

to 11 arsenic-training events EPA held across the country during 2005. 

3. A DVD collection of videos, the Arsenic Treatment Technology Showcase, which 

highlights arsenic treatment technologies currently being pilot-tested through EPA’s 

Arsenic Treatment Technology Demonstration Program. 

The website is located at www.arsenictradeshow.org 

Mr. JOHNSON. Just to give you—we’ve been doing demonstration 

projects through our Office of Research and Development, that, in 
16 

fact, are now 37 sites that have treatment systems that have been 

installed. Twenty-seven completed projects and systems are now 

being installed for those. We have 14 sites that are under development, we have 15 different technologies that we’ve been evaluating, 

and as a result—at least as of the most recent data that I have, 

which is August 2007—about 2,400 of the estimated 4,100 effective 

systems are now meeting the new standard of 10 parts per billion. 

So, we want to continue and certainly have our commitment to 

continue to work with your State and all States and local communities to see that the health protective standard is met in a flexible 

and appropriate way. 

Senator ALLARD. I appreciate that last paragraph on your comments, I appreciate the willingness to be able to work with those 

small communities. 

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Let me move on to the energy development—I’m pleased that the administration included the additional $14 million for EPA to meet 

the Nation’s need for clean and affordable energy development and 

production. Can you tell me how the agency intends to use the additional $14 

million for energy development if the dollars are appropriated? 

You know, we have a lot of energy development systems that 

happens at the Department of Energy. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. So what are you doing that would be separate 

from what they’re doing in the Department of Energy, or if it is 

what they’re doing, and you’re doing similar—what effect is that 

having, an added effect on your efforts? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure, and again, I appreciate the—your interest in 

this, and certainly appreciate the President’s recognition and support for this additional $14 million. 

There are three offices that will be within EPA, will be the principal recipients of these additional monies. In addition to monies 

made available to States and tribes, our Office of Air has responsibilities for permanent application NEPA reviews, our Office of 

Water is working on carbon sequestration regulations, as we speak, 

and also has NPDS Permit responsibility, and our enforcement Office also has responsibilities under the NEPA program, as well. 

So, those are the three areas which are unique. In addition, out 

of that $14 million, I think it’s approximately $6.3 million has been 

identified to help support State, local, and tribal activities in this 

area, and the permitting area. 

So, we think it’s a well-rounded proposal that helps us at EPA, 

but also will help our partners at the State, local, and tribal level. 

Senator ALLARD. I want to cover the Leadville Mining Drainage 

Tunnel again, that’s another issue that I alluded to, in my remarks. 

On February 21, in Colorado, I hosted with the staff from the 

EPA’s regional aid office, and the Bureau of Reclamation, a meeting on the Leadville Mining Drainage Tunnel problem. 

As you well know, this situation had reached untenable proportions and required immediate attention, and I’m cautiously optimistic about the briefing that I received from the folks in the Re-
17 

gion 8 office. Can you give me an update on how things are progressing since the briefing we received out in Colorado? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, yes, sir. Again, thank you for your leadership on this very important issue. In fact, on February 27, EPA 

began pumping water from the shaft, to help to relieve some of the 

pressure. We’ve been working on a new well that would be in the 

tunnel. I’m told that we’re—that effort is underway. I’m also told 

that by March the 7th we will have a more permanent pump in 

place that will help. 

Again, I appreciate the good comments about Robbie Roberts, our 

Regional Administrator—he’s been doing a fantastic job of helping 

to stay on top of it, and certainly you have my assurance, to stay 

on top of it and to do everything that we can. 

Senator ALLARD. Is this going to require a new treatment plant, 

or expansion of that current treatment plant there? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m not aware of, certainly, what I’ve been told 

that some of the early analysis of the water that’s being pumped 

was okay, from an environmental standpoint. But, I think we’ll, 

you know, that’s something we need to continue to monitor and 

watch. 

Senator ALLARD. So, they talked about cadmium and zinc and 

those two and, let’s see, another product that they thought might 

be elevated, but you didn’t pick up any of that in the water that 

you pumped out? 

Mr. JOHNSON. My understanding, at least in the initial sampling 

we did not, but that’s something, we certainly will go back and continue to watch. 

Senator ALLARD. Good. All right, now, I guess, again I hope that 

you would continue to work on a long-term solution, I hope we can 

get a commitment to work on that long-term solution to that—the 

way that water’s trapped in there. It probably will just be a matter 

of time before that tunnel is going to break open, which was caused 

by collapse of the tunnel and then so we’ve got about a billion gallons of water backed up in that system of tunnels. So, again, I 

think it’s important to work on a long-term solution, we have your 

commitment on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, yes. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, thank you. 

ABANDONED MINES

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Senator, if I might, just to add one other comment that—what we’re finding around the United States is some 

number approximating 500,000 abandoned—key word—abandoned 

mines. That we have a citizen army of volunteers that want to go 

in and help to clean these up—again, key word, abandoned—and 

they are reluctant, in fact, won’t, because of liability concerns. 

We see the Good Samaritan as a wonderful legislative fix to 

allow Good Samaritans to go in and help clean up these abandoned 

mines, and certainly would encourage you and the members of the 

Committee to strongly consider Good Samaritan legislation, because it makes sense—it make sense for the environment, it certainly makes sense for water, water quality and also—— 

Senator ALLARD. Those States like Colorado that have a lot of 

abandoned mines, and you’re right—abandoned—there’s no interest 
18 

in there, nobody—there’s no ownership of them, they’re just a hole 

in the ground that are causing pollution problems, there are people 

that would like to have those mining sites for various reasons, but 

they won’t—most of it—and in order for them to use it for whatever reason they want to, they have to clean it up. 

You don’t have the discharge into the river, which causes problems for wildlife and quality of the water. I think it’s kind of a common sense piece of legislation, and I’m hoping the Congress will see 

that—it’s no loophole for any kind of solution, and I’m glad to hear 

you agree with that, it’s a common sense solution, where we can 

get a volunteer group out there, working in cleaning up the pollution from these old abandoned mines. 

So, I appreciate your comments in this regard. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I see my time’s 

expired. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

We are joined by Senator Leahy—it’s great to have you here, 

Senator, we’re on 10-minute rounds. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. At the present time, so I’ll recognize you. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Appreciate it, and I appreciate your 

holding this hearing. I think it’s very important, certainly the questions you’ve raised on California’s efforts—a very commendable efforts—to protect the environment are significant. 

MERCURY POLLUTION

I’m going to just divert just a moment, Administrator, from the 

budget proposal, I want to talk about an issue that’s extremely important, also, in my State, and I’ve been working on it for years, 

for decades, actually, and that’s mercury pollution. 

Your agency had the Clean Air—what you called the Clean Air 

Mercury Rule to regulate mercury admissions from power plants, 

it turned out that part of it was just written by the lobbyists from 

same power plants—somehow the fox got in the chicken, came to 

mind. 

I said at the time that I thought it was wrong, I raised that question with you that it was wrong, urged that there be a change, and 

on February 8 this year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—a very conservative, Republican-oriented court—agreed with 

my position, they struck down EPA’s Mercury Rule as insufficient 

to protect public health. I think if your agency had been willing to 

listen to some us on the Hill, it could have saved taxpayers an 

awful lot of legal fees. 

Now, there are cost-effective technologies today that can dramatically reduce mercury emissions from power plants, far beyond what 

your administration has proposed. So, I’m asking, does EPA, under 

your leadership now, plan to abide by the Clean Air Act, will it 

abide by what the Court said, will it issue a mercury regulation 

that will follow the law, will protect human health, and the environment from this harmful neurotoxin? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Senator—— 

Senator LEAHY. Are you going to follow the law, in other words? 
19 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you for the question. Yes, and I always follow the law, sir. 

In the case of the mercury decision, we—both EPA and Department of Justice are currently evaluating the decision you refer to. 

We haven’t decided what our next steps are. Having said that—— 

Senator LEAHY. An easy one—an easy one would be simply to follow the law as the decision said. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Having said that, that we—we also recognize that 

because of the—another rule that I put in place, the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule, which controls SOX and NOX emissions, upwards 

to 70 percent, also have early reductions of mercury—which we certainly think that that’s a good thing. 

However, saying that—we are disappointed, in face this is the 

first regulation of mercury from coal-fired power plants in the Nation’s history that would have achieved a 70 percent reduction. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, I think—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. The Court decision did not get into the merits of 

cap-and-trade or using section 111 as the vehicle. It was focused on 

the delisting. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, the Court—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Regardless, we’re evaluating that now. 

Senator LEAHY. You’ll have to issue new regulations now, based 

on that Court—the Congressional Review Act will come in place, if 

they’re not strong enough, but I’m also thinking the Court based 

their actions on what they heard from the arguments. During that 

hearing the EPA represented to the Court that States could adopt 

more protective mercury provisions, should they wish, and EPA 

would not disapprove of those plans solely on the basis that the 

States opted out. Made it clear that they’re not going to threaten 

the States. 

But then, the Associated Press now reports that EPA officials 

had threatened States with disapproval for adopting more protective mercury control programs, or the Department, EPA’s approach 

that they use a more protective way. They said it’s not their job 

to pressure States, that’s what they said in court, but it appears 

that they had. Now, I’ll ask that—not only is it appropriated, but 

wearing another hat as chairman of the Senate of the Judiciary 

Committee, if there is a misrepresentation by the government to 

the Federal Courts in this area, that becomes a fairly serious matter, as you can well imagine. Has anyone with the EPA ever pressured any State against instituting more restrictive mercury regulations because they conflicted with the agency’s mercury rule? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m unfamiliar with the Associated Press report, 

and I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of what you speak, 

but—— 

Senator LEAHY. No, I’m asking you a very specific question, has 

anyone at the EPA ever pressured any State against instituting 

more restrictive mercury regulations? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As I said—— 

Senator LEAHY. Because they conflicted with your rule? 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. I don’t recall having any firsthand 

knowledge of that. What I was going to say—— 

Senator LEAHY. I’m not asking you if you have any firsthand— 

do you know whether they have, yes or no? 
20 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know that they have, no. I don’t know. 

Senator LEAHY. Okay, well then let me ask for the record, will 

you go back and check. Remember it’s very—you’re in a congressional hearing, will you tell me whether EPA has ever pressured 

any State against instituting more restrictive mercury regulations 

because it conflicted with what we now see by the Court ruling, 

was a flawed mercury rule from your agency? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’d be happy to respond, for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

STATE MERCURY PROGRAMS

EPA did not pressure any State to not institute mercury regulations because they 

restricted mercury emissions more than the agency’s mercury rule. 

The environmental stringency of a State program was never an issue for us as 

long as the State was at least as stringent as CAMR. If a State chose to participate 

in the multi-state CAMR trading program, its program was required to be consistent with certain core requirements in the rules promulgated in 2005 that did not 

prevent them from being more stringent. These core requirements were included in 

the rules to ensure that the trading program would work correctly. 

Unfortunately, that has apparently been misinterpreted by some—as reflected in 

the AP story—as an EPA effort to discourage States from providing stronger, more 

protective programs, as they are entitled to under the Clean Air Act. That was 

never our intent, and I believe the record of our review of state programs bears that 

out. 

States were permitted to be more stringent than the Federal requirements. States 

could, and some did, seek greater emission reductions than CAMR required and 

were in the process of approving those plans. 

EPA offered States considerable program flexibility to meet their assigned mercury budgets. In addition to the option of joining the multi-state emissions trading 

program that we offered to run, states could have source-specific control requirements, have intrastate trading, combine trading with source-specific controls, or go 

from trading to source-specific controls over time. 

If a state did not adopt EPA’s multi-state trading program, EPA evaluated the 

State’s plan to ensure it was at least as stringent as EPA’s trading program. This 

evaluation included determining whether the mercury emissions from all of the 

state’s EGUs would remain at or below the annual state emissions cap each year, 

and ensuring that these emissions would be measured and reported using specific 

rigorous protocols. Based on this type of evaluation, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania’s stringent source-specific control program and was working towards approval of source-specific controls in final state plans in seven additional States. 

If a state chose to participate in the multi-state trading program, there were certain core provisions that we required that they adopt. These core requirements were 

intended to ensure the program was environmentally- and cost-effective. For example, allowances had to be allocated and available sufficiently ahead of compliance 

deadlines, and had to be freely transferable, so that companies could use allowance 

trading where it would be cost-effective and would result in compliance with the 

emissions cap. 

EPA had issued final approval of trading programs for Louisiana, Iowa, and Missouri and proposed approval of the Kansas trading program. EPA was working toward approving trading programs for 18 more States, 8 of which had either added 

source-specific control requirements or had tightened the emissions cap by not distributing all the state’s allowances. This latter group of 8 State programs was more 

stringent than CAMR would have been. At the time of the court decision, 36 States 

had adopted rules and 2 others were in the rule development process. 

Sixteen of these State plans were more stringent than CAMR and we were in the 

process of approving them when the court decision was issued. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I was going to point out that you raise another important issue, in our evaluation, is given the recent court decision, 

not only what are our next steps as an agency working with the 

Department of Justice, but then, what does that mean with respect 

to State programs? That’s another important question that I don’t 

know the answer today, but certainly, we’re working on. 
21 

Senator LEAHY. Okay, well, I appreciate that, and I would like 

to know the answer, because if the Associated Press is correct, then 

the EPA gave misleading information to the courts, which would be 

an extremely serious matter, the courts would consider it extremely 

serious, the Judiciary Committee would consider it a very, very serious matter. I’m sure that the lawyers doing it would value their 

licenses, probably consider it serious. 

Now, you also adopted the Mercury Trading Rule in 2005, and 

you committed to—you, EPA—committed to remedying mercury 

hot spots. There’s a 2006 peer-reviewed study co-authored by EPA 

scientists who found that coal combustion was the dominant contributor to mercury deposition, in an enhanced monitoring site in 

Steubenville, Ohio. Then a meteorological analysis found that a 

majority of the mercury deposition found at the site was due to 

local and regional sources. 

In the 2007 peer-reviewed study documented biological mercury 

hot spots in fish and wildlife, in the Northeastern United States, 

in the area I’m from, and I live in. Do you have a plan to address 

these, and other documented hot spots? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again, that’s another important question 

that has come up as, post the publication of our final rule. Of 

course, we haven’t decided what we’re doing with the final rule, at 

this point, given the court decision. Obviously there’s science— 

which we certainly support—continues to evolve and get a better 

understanding. 

Certainly, at that time it was our belief that given the way the 

cap-and-trade program would work for mercury that it was likely 

that those—if there were potential hot spots, that they would be 

the first ones that would be addressed, just by the nature of how 

companies sign up to cap-and-trade, but that’s certainly an important question as the science has continued to evolve. 

Senator LEAHY. But, if you know of hot spots now, do you have 

a plan to take the known hot spots and address them? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again, that’s part of our—what are our next 

steps, given the court decision, we haven’t decided yet. 

Senator LEAHY. Will you let us know when you decide? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We will be happy to. 

Senator LEAHY. The court matter, I would like a detailed response on that, because if the court wasn’t misled, it’s one thing. 

If they were misled—and I’m asking you the question because I 

don’t know, if they were misled as the story appears, then I think 

we’d all agree that we have a very, very serious matter. But I’d be 

happy to hear your response. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator and we’re 

joined by Senator Craig. 

We are in 10-minute rounds, Senator, so—— 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Please proceed. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Administrator Johnson, it’s good to see you again. Serving at EPW, we get 

two bites at you—— 
22 

Mr. JOHNSON. So to speak. 

Senator CRAIG. So to speak. So today I won’t chew quite as hard. 

NEW STANDARDS FOR LARGE ANIMAL CONFINED OPERATIONS

But I do want to come back to an issue that I discussed with you 

at EPW as it relates to your new standards for large animal confined operations, and what you plan to do as it relates to change. 

I know—I sense there are steps in the right direction, however, I 

believe some media reports might have misconstrued the rule, particularly in making references to changes in the Clean Air Act requirements. 

Can you clarify the scope of the regulations and perhaps correct 

the record so, as to what will be continued to be required of these 

animal operations, versus what no longer will be required? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it a very important issue, or the KFOE 

issue, as it’s known. 

Senator CRAIG. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are working to finalize regulations that will 

move forward. Our intent is we—as I think you’re well aware— 

next year we do have compliance dates that are in place. 

Senator CRAIG. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So, we want to keep those compliance dates in 

place while we work to finalize the regulations. 

In addition to that, I think as you’re well aware, and certainly 

appreciate everyone’s support of, the National Academy of Sciences’ 

recommendation, and that was to conduct the first-ever nationwide 

study of air emissions, particularly from poultry and dairy and 

swine, from the animal feeding operations. It’s a 2-year monitoring 

study I believe last year was the first year that the actual monitoring began. 

So, as we get that information and certainly as we move to look 

at the final regulations, and we move to ensuring compliance, all 

of this will help better inform our approach on this important 

issue. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, timeliness is going to be very important 

here, I think the industry is anxious to move toward compliance, 

and the flexibility to get there is going to be important, I think, as 

we get there. So, your urgency on this is appreciated. 

BLUEGRASS FIELD-BURNING

Let me become very regional or parochial at this moment, if I 

can. A very big industry in my State is bluegrass seed. And one of 

the only ways to get rid of the stubble and to stimulate next year’s 

crop into a level of production that’s profitable are to burn the 

fields. Field-burning, of course, has become a very difficult issue for 

Idaho, in an area that is not only the largest bluegrass seed raising 

area in the Nation, it is also a beautiful recreation destination location. 

Now, after lengthy processes and lengthy issues, we’ve come to 

an agreement, between EPA Region 10 and the State of Idaho, the 

State legislature is now moving to implement the necessary policy 

language—it’s going to be extremely helpful for Region 10 to expedite the evaluation and the approval of the newly negotiated State 
23 

Implementation Plan so that the burning in some areas under this 

Plan can resume. 

It is just a big chunk of a very important economy, at the same 

time, it is controversial, there’s balance been struck, so I guess 

that’s not a question as much as it is a flag going up. All things 

are moving in the right direction, at the moment to most everyone’s 

satisfaction, including your office in Seattle, and in Region 10. So, 

timeliness, again, there—once the State has acted—is going to be 

important. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again, thank you. It’s an issue that I am 

aware of and I know that we have had a very cooperative and collaborative working relationship with State officials to be able to 

make sure that air quality is being maintained at the same time, 

recognizing the use of field burning to be able to produce high-quality bluegrass seed. I will be happy to get back to you for the record 

as to what our, what we believe are the next steps, and a sense 

of the timing for that. Again, understand the importance of the 

issue. 

[The information follows:] 

BLUEGRASS SEED BURNING

EPA is expecting to receive new regulations from Idaho allowing burning within 

the next several months. We are working closely with the State of Idaho to coordinate the schedule for processing the State’s regulations, taking every opportunity 

to expedite the process. Specifically we are dedicating extra resources to work with 

the State upfront during its development of its regulations and for expedited processing once the regulations are received. Once the regulations are submitted, EPA 

will process them under the Federal Clean Air Act, which requires a 30-day public 

comment period and EPA to respond to all comments before it takes final action. 

The time it takes to finish the process will depend in part on the level of public 

interest. 

DECREASE OF CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

Senator CRAIG. Okay, thank you very much. Last question, 

Madam Chairman, I didn’t get a chance to ask it, although it was 

discussed and I understand that Senator Allard had mentioned it 

in his comments—what was your reason behind the decrease of the 

Clean Water State Revolving Funds by such a large amount? They 

have been so critical to States like mine and others—Colorado and 

California, I think, has similar problems? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, first, we recognize that there is a significant 

need. In fact, Madam Chairman, you spoke of $20 billion, in fact 

our clean water survey actually showed $202 billion, is my recollection. So, there’s no doubt a large need. 

What the President has done is said, ‘‘Look, we recognize there’s 

a large need. Here is the commitment, and the commitment for the 

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund was to achieve a revolving 

level of $3.5 billion.’’ So the budget reflects that commitment, in 

fact, it does reflect that we did receive higher-than-anticipated levels in enacted prior year budgets. 

It’s, again, here’s the target, what the commitment is—and 

again, it’s $3.5 billion. But at the same time, we recognize both for 

clean water, as well as for drinking water, the needs are large. 

They are in the, literally, hundreds of billions of dollars. 
24 

So, that’s why, yes, SRF plays an important role, but all steps 

that we can take—whether it’s private activity bonds, whether it’s 

helping clean up abandoned mines, whether it is other steps that 

we can take, like we’re doing with our Water Sense program, helping consumers to make better choices, such as we have for Energy 

Star on the energy side—all of those add up, and of course as a 

rate-payer, rate-payers also have a responsibility, as well. 

Senator CRAIG. Understanding all of that—how lenient will you 

be? When there’s a good effort on the part of a location to respond 

and comply, but it’s obviously—you said there’s a need but here’s 

all we can do, here’s what we will sustain, when maybe it ought 

to be over here. Because it is a Federal mandate, where in almost 

every instance compliance is being struggled with and there are 

other costs involved—when there’s reasonable due diligence on the 

part of the locale, depending which the issue—how’s the lenience 

going to fit into that if the government says, ‘‘This is all we can 

do, get in line, it may be 5, 10 years before you get there.’’ 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we want all of the communities to be able 

to meet the health protective standard of whatever the contaminant might be—arsenic or radio nucleides or whatever it might be. 

But we also recognize that we have to be flexible in achieving that. 

An unintended consequence would be if there’s a small community 

water system that is working to achieve that, if it’s forced so quickly—to quickly—and the community water system is shut down, 

people still need water, and they dig wells, and then the water 

quality hasn’t changed. 

So, we recognize that we need to one, do everything that we can 

to help communities achieve the health protectiveness, but do so in 

a reasonable and flexible way. That’s what we have been working 

on, and that’s what we will continue to work on. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

CALIFORNIA WAIVER

Let me see a couple of things on the California waiver. We’ve— 

my staff has reviewed all of the documents and I believe very clearly that your legal staff and your technical staff were in favor of a 

waiver, unless you tell me that is not the case, that is what we 

have found. 

My question is—did anyone outside of EPA, part of this government, weigh in with you against the waiver? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Madam Chairman—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. The answer to that is yes, or no. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I received many opinions, the point is, is that 

under the Clean Air Act it was my decision, my decision alone, nobody directed me to make the decision I made, I made the decision, 

on my own, and the record will indicate that, does indicate that 

and it’s the right decision. I know you disagree, and I know that 

there are others that would disagree—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Did you discuss it with the White House? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As I have said in previous testimonies, yes, I discuss major issues with the White House, I think that’s good government, I discuss it with my colleagues across the administration. 

But, again, the decision, the final decision, rests with me, and I 

made the decision—mine, mine alone—and I recognize that people 
25 

disagree with it, as I’ve said earlier, the 48 pages goes into great 

detail as to how I came to the decision I did, on the scientific basis, 

as well as what the legal rationale is for making that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, candidly, I read the 48 pages, and I 

find them not at all impressive. But, that’s your view. I obviously 

very much regret it. I think it is harmful—not only to our State, 

but to our country. I think the recalcitrance with respect to global 

warming is harmful to the people’s health of this country. 

I’d like to go back to the remand. You have not given me a firm 

date, I have asked in writing, I’d like to enter those records into 

the—those letters into the record. 

I’d also like to enter a letter to Mr. Bookbinder of the Sierra 

Club, in which you again say you do not have a specific time, and 

I’d like to read you the Supreme Court decision on this subject. 

‘‘Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do 

not contribute to climate change, or if it provides some reasonable 

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

to determine whether they do. 

‘‘To the extent that this constrains agency discretion to pursue 

other priorities of the administration, or the President, this is the 

Congressional design.’’ 

So, as I read this—and I believe as your lawyers will probably 

tell you—this is the decision of the Supreme Court. I don’t understand—you’ve got 4 people working on this, you’ve had one thing 

or another as to why you can’t do it. The only conclusion that I can 

draw, is that you are under pressure not to do it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I’d like to—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I find this unbelievable, on behalf of what is 

called an Environmental Protection Agency, not an Administration 

Protection Agency, but an Environmental Protection Agency. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I respectfully—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. There’s a finding of the United States Supreme Court telling you to do something. 

CLEAN AIR ACT

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Madam Chairman, I respectfully disagree 

that this is an easy decision. In fact, when the Supreme Court— 

and if you refer back to, I think, Justice Scalia, actually set it us 

as, in essence, a three-part test for me, and this would be my brief 

summary. That is, if the Agency finds—if I find that there’s 

endangerment, then under the Clean Air Act I must regulate. If I 

find that there is not, that’s test one. If I find that there is not 

endangerment then I should not regulate. Or third, if there are 

other circumstances, including—and then goes through some description of that. 

What I have found is I have looked at and continue to evaluate 

the issue of endangerment. It’s that it’s not only just the science 

of, and the endangerment, but it’s also—what is the potential impact of that decision? 

The way that the Clean Air Act operates, is that a decision in 

the area of mobile sources, could have a significant impact on what 

happens in stationary sources. That is all part of the reason why 

I’m taking time, I think appropriate—I know people are anxious for 
26 

me to get on with business, but I believe that it’s important—this 

is an issue that’s been debated since 1978. It’s clearly—as I said, 

climate change is a serious issue, and it’s one that I’m carefully 

considering. Mass v. EPA, the issue of endangerment, but also we 

have a number of pending petitions before the Agency, including 

airlines, including off-roads, including marine, including stationary 

sources, including NSPS, including PSD, and I can go on and on. 

I have a responsibility—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me ask you this. All right, let me ask you 

this question—how many personnel, right now, are working on the 

endangerment finding. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know how many people, specifically, at this 

time, how many people are or are not working on specific pieces of 

our work. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, we’ve been told no one is working on 

it, currently. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I would have to check with—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, if you would ask your staff, I would appreciate knowing what the answer is. 

RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I know that we are focusing our attention on 

the moment on several parts. One is, working on the regulation to 

implement what the Congress and the President signed on the Energy Independence and Security Act, the renewable fuel standard. 

Working with—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Is anyone working on this, at the present 

time, Mr. Johnson? This isn’t a question I shouldn’t answer, this 

is a question to which I’m entitled to know the answer. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we are—I know I am working on what are 

the next steps, what’s the framework that I should be evaluating 

the endangerment issue, as well as, as has been the traditional 

practice, of endangerment, and what the regulatory approach 

would be, and that’s what I’m currently evaluating. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. How many members of your staff are currently working on this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Does anybody know the answer? You have 

numerous staff in this room, somebody must—this is a Supreme 

Court finding—you quote the dissenter, not the majority opinion. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As I said, we are evaluating—I am currently evaluating what are the next steps that the agency should take, in response to the Supreme Court, in response to the Energy Independence and Security Act, in response to the myriad of petitions that 

are pending before the agency. That responsibility rests with me, 

and as I make the decision as to what the next steps are, then we 

will be deploying staff—as I said, I know I have staff that are 

working on a myriad of issues, from renewable fuel standard to 

carbon sequestration and injection under the UIC program. I know 

we have people who are working on the major economies, I know 

that we have people that are reviewing McCain-Lieberman legislation, the scientific piece of that—we have a lot of activities, important activities, not the least of which, you mentioned, the green-
27 

house gas registry that we’re working on, as well. So, we have a 

lot of activities that our staff are working on. 

STONEWALLING

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, the answer that I deduce from your answer is that you have no one currently working on it. I want the 

record to reflect that, unless some—and I give you every opportunity to change that, to give me a number. If you can’t give me 

a number, on something that is a Supreme Court finding, and that 

has asked you to respond, then I’ve got to believe you’re 

stonewalling. I want the record to reflect that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chairman, I am not stonewalling, I’ve 

shared with you very openly and candidly of the importance of the 

issue of endangerment, not only in the mobile source context, but 

in the context of the Clean Air Act, and that we are—since the Energy Independence and Security Act which again, complement—it’s 

been 32 years since the CAFE standard has been changed—that’s 

significant and very important. But we’re looking at—I am looking 

at—all of these, and then determining what our best steps should 

be in deploying our 2008 resources. That’s what I’m working on. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. 

EMISSION REDUCTION

I think, let me ask this—at my request, Congress included $9.8 

million in funding last year for emission reduction projects for the 

San Joaquin Valley, and the South Coast air management districts. 

These districts face an almost-impossible task of meeting Federal 

air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone, including 

requirements to be in attainment for particulate matter by no later 

than 2015. They are not going to be able to meet that standard, 

which triggers some very complicated and special things which can 

have disastrous economic impacts on both of these districts. 

Last year at this hearing, you gave me your commitment that 

you would work with me to come up with solutions to help these 

districts, and yet, your budget now eliminates this funding to help 

these regions improve their air quality. Why was it not a priority 

for EPA to continue this funding? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Madam Chairman, as has been routinely the 

case, certainly my 27 years at EPA is that the President’s budget 

does not carry over congressionally-directed funding, the so-called 

earmarks, from year to year—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, this is an earmark, I admit it, and I put 

it in. 

Mr. JOHNSON. This was, and this is the reason. 

Now, having said that—having said that, we recognize, and certainly the President recognized the importance of dealing with diesel emissions, and that’s why the President is asking for $49 million. 

Further, we believe that it’s very important for us to focus attention on the ports, and as you know, because I’ve had the great 

pleasure of visiting the Port of Los Angeles area and the need for 

helping, particularly in the ports. 

So, we have identified $15 million of the $49 million, to focus on 

ports, and help in this area. 
28 

EARMARKS ELIMINATED

Senator FEINSTEIN. So, you are saying to me that because this 

was an earmark, you’ve taken it out, and you’re not going to do it. 

Have you taken every earmark out of this budget? Because you’ll 

be sure—you can be sure of one thing, that I’m going to find that 

out. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am told by our budget staff, the answer is yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So, any congressional add, is essentially 

eliminated from your budget. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Every earmark has been eliminated. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That’s a congressional add. That’s the only 

way we can add. 

Okay, that should be very interesting. Well, let me give you another one—$8 million in the fiscal year 2008 omnibus to accelerate 

cleanup activities at the Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard. EPA must 

continue to work with the Navy to ensure and do everything in its 

power to ensure that this site is cleaned up. Have those funds been 

transferred to the Navy yet, so they can be used promptly? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Madam Chairman, I know we have been 

working very diligently with the city of San Francisco and the 

Navy in establishing both a timetable, as well as a cleanup strategy of construction of either a football stadium, or commercial and/ 

or residential use. The $8 million, I’m told, will be transferred from 

EPA to the Navy very soon, and I’d be happy to keep you posted 

on that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would appreciate it. 

Thank you very much, my time is up. 

[The information follows:] 

The agency is currently engaged in the apportionment approval process for the 

$8.0 million in funding for the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard site along with other 

agency funding. There were several legal and technical issues to resolve regarding 

this new account, and we are working to finalize the apportionment in order to 

transfer the funds to the Navy as soon as possible. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Senator Allard. 

CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I just have three more questions 

and they have been—those issues have been asked to a certain degree, I want to follow up on those three areas a little bit more and 

then I will wrap up what questions I have for the Administrator. 

It’s been a year now since Colorado submitted a program which 

meets EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule, and provides—in our view— 

a cost-effective mercury reduction for coal-fired powerplants, and 

you approved that. 

So, then the court has overturned that. So, where does that put 

States like Colorado’s proposal? That wasn’t clear, and Senator 

Leahy was focusing more on the legal argument, we’re focusing 

more on the practical aspect—so where do we stand? Do we—does 

that rule for the State continue to stand until you come out with 

a new one, or do we have to consider—we’ll be in—will we be in 

a position where we have to re-do that rule? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you’re asking the very question we’re asking 

ourselves. Given the court’s decision, what does this mean for the 
29 

State programs? Either ones that have been approved, or ones that 

are pending. I don’t know the answer to that, and that’s certainly 

part of the conversation that we’re having, is in light of the Court’s 

decision, what should be our next step? As I’ve already mentioned, 

that EPA and Department of Justice are looking at that to determine what our next steps are, and then that may or may not impact where States are. 

So, it’s an important question we’re looking at, and obviously the 

clock continues to tick, and we will—we are expeditiously looking 

at that, and I hope to have a response, soon. 

Senator ALLARD. These mercury levels do become kind of an industry issue, between soft coal and hard coals—perhaps you’re 

aware. I know, States like Colorado, we have hard coal, and we 

market a lot of our hard coal to the East, because they burn soft 

coal and there’s a lot of discharge, and so we clean up the air by 

burning our coal, and then if you have a mercury requirement on 

that—how does that impact those cities that have to require, on the 

hard coal, to meet the Clean Air standards? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again, we think that mercury is a problem, 

we are disappointed in the court’s decision, because it’s the first 

time in the Nation’s history that we’ve regulated mercury from 

coal-fired power plants, and our program was designed to eliminate 

70 percent. So, we believe that it’s a neurotoxin, we need to deal 

with it. Again, our next steps, we’re not sure. 

I did want to point out, I did have the opportunity, because mercury is not just from coal-fired powerplants, but if you own an automobile that was before the vintage of about 2003—not every one, 

but many—had little mercury switches, about the size of a pencil 

eraser. Working with industry and the environmental community 

and others—put together a program to actually collect these. 

Senator ALLARD. I remember that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I had the opportunity last week to pull the millionth switch from an automobile. Doesn’t sound like much, but 

just the switches alone in all of these old automobiles account for 

about 75 tons of mercury that would have otherwise gotten into the 

environment. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, we under—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. So, we take our responsibilities very seriously, and 

whether it is dealing with the air issue or mercury switches, we 

need to continue to eliminate these. 

Senator ALLARD. I don’t think anybody’s arguing with you on the 

toxicity of mercury. You know, we’ve pretty well established that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I trust not. 

Senator ALLARD. You don’t see mercury thermometers anymore. 

I just, my question was, you know, it does have an economic impact on some of those communities that have to use hard coal to 

burn their soft coal. Is mercury a problem to those communities 

that have to use that coal for, to reduce air pollution? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We believe, and certainly in our final regulation, 

believe that a cap-and-trade program was the most efficient way of 

eliminating mercury, and that our experience indicated that those 

communities that may have had more of a problem were ones likely—that those industries would have adopted the newest technology to help with that. 
30 

Again, we’re now evaluating this court decision, and deciding 

what’s our next step. 

DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION

Senator ALLARD. Now, again, this is another program that was 

mentioned—it’s your Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program. 

You clarified that $15 million of the $49 million requested for 

DERA has been set aside for EPA’s Sustainable Ports Initiative. I’d 

like to have you explain in more detail how this $15 million is 

going to be used, that was appropriated for a new initiative? 

Mr. JOHNSON. In the 2009 budget, what our plan is, is to actually 

run a competitive program among the ports, and that is obviously, 

will be designed once we are sure that we have those appropriated 

funds. 

But, we recognize that diesel emissions are a challenge and one 

that is a great opportunity for improving the environment. One of 

the statistics is to bulldozers, which I think—certainly I have 

grandchildren, and they—grandsons—that understand a bulldozer—but to retrofit 100 bulldozers—just retrofitting 100 bulldozers, eliminates 16 tons of pollution every year. 

Senator ALLARD. That’s particulate matter, because usually diesel, because the—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. It’s that black puff of smoke that we’re all very familiar with. 

Senator ALLARD. It’s the visible part of air pollution, not the invisible. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is, it is the visible part that you see. So, we recognize that investment in clean diesel—whether it’s retrofitting, 

whether it’s replacing—is a great investment in protecting public 

health. 

CLEAN WATER

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Let me move on to the Clean Water, to 

the State Revolving Fund, I think Senator Craig brought that up. 

Again, in light of what I mentioned here, on my first question, 

about some of these mandates that are requiring problems for 

small communities to comply with—can you tell me how EPA intends to help rural and poor communities maintain sewage plants 

and mitigate non-profit source pollution, in the face of those reductions in the State Revolving Fund? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again, we believe it’s multiple approaches. 

One is through support of the SRF; two, for continuing to provide 

flexibility in implementation; three, research and development; 

four, through a variety of—what I would characterize as—innovative approaches, whether it’s, again, dealing with runoff from these 

abandoned mines to private activity bonds, which we have seen 

very successful implementation, to the technology that we’re continuing to do our research and development. 

Again it’s—unfortunately—— 

Senator ALLARD. Now, if—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. We do have a challenge. It’s going to take all of 

those pieces coming together to really, I believe, accelerate the 

progress that we all want to make. 
31 

Senator ALLARD. If the Congress puts more money in the State 

Revolving Fund, how are you going to treat those dollars? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I support the President’s budget, and look 

forward to continuing to work with you and other Members of Congress as you consider the fiscal year 2009 request. 

Senator ALLARD. What was the commitment that you said that 

you had made, you would just fund a certain percentage of that, 

and that has been met, and you felt that justified a reduction this 

year in the State Revolving Fund because they put extra money in 

there in previous years. So, how do you—so, again, if we put more 

money in there, what happens to that money—does it just sit there, 

does it end up getting diverted over to another program, or does 

it stay in the State Revolving Fund and you spend it out? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, all dependent upon how—if you Members 

of Congress made a decision to appropriate funds to that account, 

it is at least my experience that we recognize that and honor that 

commitment. 

Again, look forward to working with you, the President’s budget 

recognizes that there’s a need, the President’s budget recognizes a 

commitment that he’s made to achieve a revolving loan fund, both 

in drinking as well as safe water—— 

Senator ALLARD. I understand—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Also recognizes that as the Madam Chairman has 

pointed out—it’s a challenge. 

Senator ALLARD. I understand the President wanting to stay to 

the bottom line figure, but—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. It would just go to the States with the rest of the 

money. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, yeah. Yeah, I understand the President’s 

need to try and reach the balance, you know, that total budget figure for your agency, or agencies. I understand that, but, you know, 

we can shift money around a little bit, we can take—we can get 

money someplace else and put in here and do those kind of things. 

So, I just wanted to know how you would treat that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

PERCHLORATE CONTAMINATION

I have three questions, they are California-related questions. The 

first relates to perchlorate. As you know, it’s a by-product of rocket 

manufacture, it leeches into the ground, it contaminates ground 

water. We have many drinking water wells that are contaminated. 

The small city of Rialto has 22 of them, has had to declare water 

emergencies. Santa Monica has had half of its water supply contaminated by perchlorate, and we have a half million residents in 

San Bernardino now who, for 6 years, have had additional charges 

on their water bill, to try to clean up perchlorate. 

Local water people—both locally elected officials as well as water 

contractors have requested that EPA seek replacement orders that 

require that parties who contaminated the water, in the first place, 

to help provide a solution. However, EPA does not appear to have 

taken any significant action. 
32 

In 1999, I worked with EPA, other Members of Congress, on this 

similar situation in Santa Monica, and EPA did issue a water replacement order against Shell Oil Company. That was an effective 

solution, it cleaned up the MTBE contamination in Santa Monica. 

So, there’s a track record of success, using this mechanism. 

I’ve been asked, by the locally-elected officials, and by the water 

contractors, to ask you to sit down with us and see if we can’t work 

out a solution. It can’t go on the way it’s going, because there is 

so much insecurity about water, and the need to increasingly have 

water emergencies in this area—particularly in San Bernardino 

County. So, I’d like to ask you if you would be willing to do that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chairman, I would be pleased to have our 

staffs sit down. Again, I appreciate the great collaborative work 

that we have enjoyed through the years, and you certainly have my 

commitment. We will sit down and see if we can identify a solution. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right, I would appreciate that, very much. 

MARINE DIESEL AND LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION CONTROL RULE

Now, the press has reported that OMB has approved the final 

Marine Diesel and Locomotive Emission Control Rule. Is that true? 

If so, when can we expect the final rule to be released? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is my understanding that, in fact, the Marine 

Diesel Rule—a very important rule, as you’re well aware—is just 

cleared Interagency Review, and we and the Agency are now—and 

particularly my team—are looking at communication and rollout 

strategy for that. I expect us to be able to roll out that final rule 

soon, within the next few weeks. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, good. Good. That’s the first good thing 

I’ve heard, thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Now, under Federal law, the deadline in 

South Coast to attain the annual particulate matter 2.5 national 

ambient air quality standard is 2015. So, the district is thus required to demonstrate that attainment in the year 2014. 

I’m informed that the district needs advance control of nitrogen 

oxides created by locomotives, i.e., Tier 4 standards, to comply with 

this deadline. I also understand that the Draft Locomotive Rule 

EPA issues, only requires such advanced controls for locomotives 

first sold in 2015. This is after the Federal attainment deadline. 

What will the final rule do to speed up this schedule to ensure that 

Southern California can meet Federal attainment deadlines? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Madam Chairman, as you correctly point 

out, that was what our proposal was, of 2015, and that’s also one 

of the issues that did come up during the public comment period 

for the agency, and that will be addressed in our final rule. So, a 

very important issue, and I look forward to moving our final rule 

in this area, again, because the diesel emissions, we understand 

the significant opportunity to advance public health protection. So, 

that issue will be addressed in our final rule. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. 

SUSTAINABLE PORTS INITIATIVE

Your budget includes a new proposal to target $15 million of the 

$49 million you request for Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grants 
33 

toward a Sustainable Ports initiative. This initiative will provide a 

low-cost way for ports to pay for diesel retrofits, or other emission 

controls. 

As you know, California is home to some of the world’s busiest 

ports—L.A. Long Beach has 40 percent of the container traffic coming into the Nation, coming into this port. Goods movement 

through these ports is a major contributor to ozone and particulate 

matter. 

How will these new funds be spent? How will EPA prioritize 

those funds so that the lion’s share will reach ports like Long 

Beach L.A., because they handle so much of the traffic? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank you for the opportunity to actually visit 

the L.A. port, and I’ve had the opportunity to visit other of our Nation’s busiest ports, as well. It was very clear to me of a need and 

an opportunity and that’s why we have designated $15 million, to 

help in this arena. 

Our plan is to develop a competitive program that, when they— 

would enable us to get these advanced technologies, whether it’s replacing or new equipment or retrofitting, and to look at those areas 

that both have the greatest need and the opportunity for making 

a difference. Making a difference, not only from an environmental, 

but from a public health standpoint. So, we’re still working on 

what the criteria would be for competitive, but that’s the general 

area. 

Certainly, there is a need and an opportunity. We’re going beyond that, because we’re also, certainly, recognize the opportunity 

internationally, and we’re working as part of the IMO arena, in the 

International Marine Organization and others, of what steps can be 

taken both in the area of clean diesel fuel, as well as in the technology for these large, ocean-going vessels. 

Certainly we have funded as an agency—through Congress’ support, and the President’s support—some innovative approaches in 

helping to reduce that air pollution. So we’re going to continue on 

that front, as well. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I appreciate that. 

I’d just like to add, and you probably know this—that people living in areas related to this now have a 1 in 500 risk of achieving 

cancer from air pollution. I want you to know that it is a very serious problem in the area, that the asthma rate is going up, and that 

if you ask people in the Los Angeles area, this is going to be one 

of their major environmental concerns. 

We’re joined by Senator Stevens, and Senator, I think everybody 

has come and gone, so I’ll turn it over to you for any questions you 

might have. 

Senator STEVENS. As Senator Simpson said once, ‘‘Everything’s 

been said, but not everyone’s said it.’’ 

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE GRANTS

I’ve come by from—we’ve just had a hearing with Homeland Security in the other subcommittee, and I’ve come by to discuss some 

of the problems that we’ve got in Alaska, and in particularly, I 

want to raise the question to you of the Alaska Native Village 

grants—this is part of the Alaska Native Rural Program. 
34 

ANTI-EARMARK SYNDROME

We had hoped that we could go forward with that list of priorities—there’s now an anti-earmark syndrome around here, as you 

know, but it seems this budget has been written with the idea that 

we would increase several items, because in the past we’ve done 

that. 

Did you take into account, at all, the probability that the various 

earmarks that members have put in, in the past, would probably 

not be achievable this year? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Senator, as we prepared the budget, and certainly as the President made decisions as to what the budget 

should look like across the government, we as an agency—and 

that’s certainly been my experience, as I’ve commented earlier to 

Madam Chairman—as an agency, we don’t carry over congressionally directed funding, or so-called earmarks, and we did not in the 

2009 budget, as well. 

Then, we constructed the budget based upon where the priorities 

are, where we think there is significant opportunity for delivering 

results to the American people. 

Senator STEVENS. Do you carry over the funds if you don’t spend 

them? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Many of our funds are 2-years funds, and so those 

funds—for example, like the Greenhouse Gas Registry—in the omnibus appropriation, we have $3.5 million this year—those are 2- 

year funds, and so we’ll use those this year for working on the Registry, as well as next year as we move forward in developing one. 

So, that’s just an example. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, we—I thought we had an understanding, 

sort of a plan with the administration going back to 2007, when 

there’d be a target for 92 percent coverage for drinking water and 

sanitation in rural Alaska villages. Last year, for 2008, we had a 

request for $15.5 million, we raised that $9 million. We’re still not 

going to achieve the goal of having even 92 percent of the villages 

of Alaska have water and sewer facilities. 

There was the Federal Government—if they don’t have water 

and sewer, they have higher costs, basically, of medical costs, 

frankly. We’ve traced a lot of the diseases that the children’s had 

to bad disposal systems for sewage, we call them ‘‘honey buckets.’’ 

Now, this budget goes back to $15.5 million. 

Did you spend the money we gave you last year? Have you obligated it for 2008? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’ll have to check with our—I don’t believe that 

we’ve obligated it, Senator Stevens. I also just want to make sure, 

because the staff have pointed out that the Alaska Native Village 

Funding increase is not considered an earmark, however, we did 

not sustain the 2008 increase in the budget. 

Senator STEVENS. Not considered an earmark? Do you have a 

definition for earmarks that I don’t know of? I raised a budget item 

in this subcommittee from $15.5—I raised it $9 million last year. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think the current funding of the 2009 President’s 

budget is—— 

Senator STEVENS. Fifteen point five. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Fifteen point five. 
35 

Senator STEVENS. That’s what it was last year, and we added $9 

million on top of that. I don’t think it was spent, but beyond that, 

we had a target of—hopefully of trying to reach 100 percent of the 

villages to be covered by 2011, currently your—by the way, when 

we started this we were at about 41 percent—we’ve done pretty 

well with the program, and people in the area are very appreciative. But it looks like we’re abandoning the program. It’s not 

going to keep up the level we had last year. 

Now, how did you—you said that was not considered an earmark? When I asked the subcommittee, and they did increase that 

by $9 million, that wasn’t an earmark? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Senator, it was an increase, however, we didn’t 

sustain that 2008 increase as we went through and made tough 

budget decisions. 

Senator STEVENS. What do you mean, you mean you didn’t even 

plan to spend it? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, no. Whatever has been appropriated we will 

spend, and spend as directed. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Excuse me, you just told me you weren’t 

going to spend any money that was an earmark. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, no—there was a—let me make sure that it’s 

clear—my Deputy, Marcus. 

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES

Mr. PEACOCK. Well, I have some familiarity with this program, 

although this budget, not recently. It’s a longstanding program, as 

you know, Senator, to as you pointed out to help the Alaska Native 

Villages. We’ve kept the funding flat despite the fact that it was 

increased last year, in our proposal for 2009. As you pointed out, 

it has been successful but we have had problems in the past, in 

terms of getting the money spent, once it was obligated. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, you have trouble getting the money 

spent if you don’t put it up and give it to the area office. 

Mr. PEACOCK. The vast majority of it has been obligated—not all 

of it—for this year. But the vast majority of it has been obligated 

for this year. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, am I to report to my people that you decided that 2011 is not the target for 100 percent of water and sewer 

for these villages? 

Mr. PEACOCK. Within the budget constraints, we think the same 

amount that was, that we requested last year is sufficient for 2009. 

Senator STEVENS. That’s not my question. Have you abandoned 

2011 for 100 percent of all of these villages having water and 

sewer? 

Mr. PEACOCK. I think our goal has remained the same, but we’ll 

have to get back to you after we talk to the Office of Water. We 

do try and, of course, what we want to make sure is that not only 

Alaskan villages, but that all of the water systems throughout the 

country eventually reach the goal of 100 percent. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, eventually is, you know, I’m trying to 

seek reelection right now, but 6 years is 6 years. You know? We’ve 

been involved in this one for longer than 6 years, already. I do not 

understand why it’s been reduced. 
36 

I would like to have you put in the record what you consider to 

be the date for completion of the water and sewer facilities for 

Alaska rural villages under this program. Our target was 100 percent, at one time. Is that—put in the record—is that still your target? If so, what’s the date for that? 

Mr. PEACOCK. We’ll get that information to you, Senator. 

[The information follows:] 

EPA and the State of Alaska estimate that the EPA Alaska Native Village infrastructure program will be able to provide 100 percent of ‘‘serviceable’’ rural Alaska 

homes with access to drinking water and wastewater services by the end of fiscal 

year 2018. This fiscal year 2018 end date is based on current EPA and USDA funding levels. (Unserviceable homes are defined as residences that cannot be serviced 

due to reasons such as being structurally unsound, seasonally occupied, or located 

in areas that are too costly to serve. In addition, whole communities may be unserviceable due to the dangers of erosion and flooding or because they are financially 

unable to operate water/wastewater systems due to local economic constraints or 

limited community size.) 

Senator STEVENS. All right. 

I’m a little concerned about the $134 million reduction in the 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund, could you explain that to me? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. As you said, this issue has come up—the 

President’s budget invests $555 million, and that it meets the 

President’s commitment to achieve $3.4 million—— 

Senator STEVENS. You guys put the President—what did you ask 

the President for? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As I said, this represents—— 

Senator STEVENS. What did you ask the President for? On this 

item? 

Mr. JOHNSON. This is what I represented to the President, this 

is again, meeting the President’s commitment, and—— 

Senator STEVENS. Don’t tell me that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I support the President’s budget. 

Senator STEVENS. What was the amount you requested from the 

Office of Management and Budget for this account? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As I said, I support the President’s budget, and 

this is an important area—— 

Senator STEVENS. Are you going to answer my questions, Mister? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, as I said, this is the President’s budget, it 

doesn’t—— 

Senator STEVENS. I didn’t ask you that. I asked you, what did 

you ask OMB for? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, may I ask Ben Grumbles to come to the 

table? He’s head of our water program. 

CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

Mr. GRUMBLES. Senator, in the process, through the Chief Financial Officer in the engagement and the development of the 2009 

budget, what was agreed to back in 2004 was a long-term plan for 

the Clean Water State Revolving Fund that would be reflected in 

each of the President’s budget requests, including fiscal year 2009. 

So, when we engaged with the OMB in terms of the national water 

program, we looked at what Congress had previously appropriated, 

and measured that against the level, and that’s how we came up 

with the $555 million. 
37 

But, we didn’t have a separate dollar amount, other than looking 

at, well, the previous year we had asked for $600 million in the 

2008 President’s budget request we had requested $688 million. We 

then looked at what Congress had appropriated for the fiscal year 

2008 budget and based on that, and the math—taking into account 

the 2004 commitment to provide $6.8 billion through 2011—that’s 

how we came up with the $555 million. Jointly with OMB, Senator. 

Senator STEVENS. What I’m hearing you to say is that you set 

a target back several years ago—— 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. This year, you looked at how much had been 

appropriated by Congress, so far, toward that target? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That’s correct. 

Senator STEVENS. You asked for the balance, is that right? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That’s the way it would work out, yes. 

Senator STEVENS. Did you—that’s the amount now, I asked—you 

know, I sat at those tables when I was with the Eisenhower administration. I know what you’re under in terms of what you can and 

can’t do. But you can tell me what you requested of OMB for this 

year, can’t you? There’s no par on that. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Right. We—— 

Senator STEVENS. How much did you ask OMB for this year? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. We requested—when we went to OMB, we requested the amount that would be consistent with our 2004 commitment that we reached with OMB, in terms of the administration’s $6.8 billion request. So, we went to OMB saying, ‘‘Let’s do 

the math, and figure out what the appropriate level is.’’ So, that’s 

how we jointly got—— 

Senator STEVENS. Was that amount, that 2004 level, was that 

approved by Congress? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. No, it was part of the present—the administration’s vision on how much continuing seed money to put into the 

Clean Water SRF and each budget request since then has been 

consistent with that. Budget requests have declined over the last 

several years, taking into account—— 

Senator STEVENS. What you’re telling me, I hope you’re hearing 

this, Madam Chairman, because they decline based on how much 

we put up—you reduce the next year by the amount we added to 

the previous year, in effect. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That, coupled with the vision on sustainable infrastructure and the innovative technologies, and the full-cost pricing—that has been the approach on the State Revolving Fund to 

get to a final level that revolves at $3.4 billion a year. 

Senator STEVENS. This is not a spending program, this is a loan 

program. You understand that, don’t you? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Yes, sir. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Senator, what the staff just informed me, is 

that we have never agreed to this. They just arbitrarily did it. 

Senator STEVENS. I understand that. We’ve never agreed to it, 

and as a matter of fact, until last year, we didn’t even know about 

it. But this policy of having an ongoing—the more Congress adds, 

the more it’s reduced in succeeding years is an additional—it really 

forces earmarks. Because you’re saying, in order to maintain the 
38 

same level that we had last year, we’ve got to earmark the additional monies. I’ve never heard of it. 

I really think—if you’ll pardon the phrase—it’s bureaucratic arrogance. Having served a, you know, 8 years in the administration— 

another administration—I want you to know I don’t appreciate 

that. We didn’t have that kind of arrogance, and I really think you 

ought to listen to what Congress is doing, in terms of setting national goals. 

It sounds to me like your 2004 decision was sacrosanct as far as 

the Federal Government was concerned—nothing Congress can do 

about it, you just keep reducing down by the amount we increase. 

It’s a crazy system. 

GREENHOUSE GAS REGISTRY

Now, let me ask you about another one, though. That is the 

Greenhouse Gas Registry. The White House proposed no funding 

for this new program, it was put into the appropriations bill in December, Senator Klobuchar came and talked to me, as a matter of 

fact, and others about it. But—why didn’t you put money in for the 

Greenhouse Gas Registry? There’s so much talk about this, but 

without such a Registry, no one is really going to know what 

they’re talking about. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we have $3.5 million this year as part of the 

omnibus appropriation. We are working on a draft regulation, we 

intend to meet the omnibus, congressionally directed schedule, 

which we expect that by the—September of this year, that we will 

have a proposed regulation on Greenhouse Gas Registry. 

We’ve also begun the work with the States—there’s California, 

plus, I believe either 6 or 7 other States that have, or are developing, registries, and we think that’s a good thing. But we’re working on developing—and intend to have a—proposed regulation by 

what the schedule that was in the omnibus appropriations was, as 

I recall, September. 

Senator STEVENS. Let me tell you—is there any direction Congress would give you with regards to spending money, you would 

follow? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we are, sir. We’re following the direction 

and—— 

Senator STEVENS. I haven’t heard any so far. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we’re working on—— 

Senator STEVENS. What you’re saying is, the money we put up 

for 2008, you take into account as you reduce 2009. 

Fully understanding that there is a new paradigm, no add-ons. 

No earmarks. So, that under the rules here, that program is going 

to have to be slashed. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Senator, you’re right—I put in the $3.5 million last year. It takes 2 years. So, they need $3.5 million this year, 

assuming they’re doing it. 

Senator STEVENS. I agree. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So that would have to be, I guess, an earmark, which they are now saying, they won’t follow. 

Senator STEVENS. That’s right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chairman, just to make clear for the 

record, we area working on a draft regulation, and I intend to 
39 

make sure that we meet our mandate of having a proposal, and I 

believe the date is September. 

Senator STEVENS. Did you know how the Congress dealt, no, the 

administration—Congress dealt with an administration official that 

wouldn’t follow their suggestion, back in the old days, the Bureau 

of Land Management? The next bill, they just eliminated the job 

of the person that would refuse to obey their direction. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I’ll tell you, this budget is disastrous 

when you look—— 

LAND PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

Senator STEVENS. I’ve never seen such arrogance as there is in 

this EPA budget, as a matter of fact. The Land Protection and Restoration line item for oil spills response was slashed by $183,000 

for 2009. Why? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you referring to our—— 

Senator STEVENS. The Land Protection and Restoration line item 

for oil spills response was reduced by $183,000. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me ask Susan Bodine who heads up our program. 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, we believe we can still—we can carry out the 

program within the requested amounts. So, we don’t anticipate—— 

Senator STEVENS. What led you to that belief? What led you to 

believe that we don’t need money for land response for oil spills? 

Ms. BODINE. We have funding for the oil spill program. 

Senator STEVENS. But you reduce it by $183,000 over 2008. 

Ms. BODINE. That’s correct, but—— 

Senator STEVENS. But what was the rationale for bringing it 

down? 

Ms. BODINE. The rationale was that we believe we can carry out 

our responsibilities within the requested amount of funding. 

Senator STEVENS. I don’t know, I’m really disturbed at some of 

the things they’re doing, because the administration is taking the 

position that you can’t have earmarks, we’re not supposed to make 

add-ons. But at the same time, they’re using formulas which punish us for past earmarks, and past add-ons. And it puts us in an 

absolutely untenable position as to maintaining a level of ongoing 

programs that we’ve funded in the past. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I was thinking the same thing. I outlined the 

percent cuts. The percent cuts in critical programs are very large. 

This means there is no way for us to restore those cuts, if they’re 

going to ignore any congressional add, which they call an earmark. 

I don’t even know if we want to pass this budget, if that’s the 

case. I mean, at some point, you’ve got to the conclusion, why run 

for the Senate of the United States, why sit as an appropriator— 

I come from a State that gives far more in taxes than it gets back 

in services. If you’ve got a major environmental problem in the 

State—and we have several, I’ve outlined the non-attainment 

standards for Fresno, and for the Los Angeles area, the port problems—yet we can’t add money to solve those problems. So, why put 

out—why put our names on a budget that we know is going to fail 

to accomplish the purpose? I think that’s the problem we have. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, that’s the conclusion that’s got to be 

reached, that we’re better off under the 2008 budget. We’re better 
40 

off not to give you anything for 2009, and just to travel on a continuing resolution into October 2009. The programs that affect my 

State would be better off under 2008, than they would under 2009. 

Did you ever think about that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, we believe that this budget is a good budget, it balances the needs of moving forward with the pace of environmental protection, at the same time recognizes that we have to 

be good stewards of taxpayers dollars. 

Senator STEVENS. I don’t have any more questions. I don’t think 

it’s—you might carry back the message that, in all probability, if 

the Senate follows my advice, we’ll give the President a continuing 

resolution for 2009. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You know, it’s very hard, because we have a 

20 percent cut in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a 10 percent cut in grants to States for environmental protection, a 14 percent cut in State grants for reduction of air pollution, and it goes 

on and on and on. 

I, you know this—for the first time he’s said, in so many words, 

‘‘We’re not going to recognize any congressional add.’’ Well, maybe 

we join the issue, and we don’t pass a budget. Because I don’t know 

why you’d want to run for the United States Senate—particularly, 

I come from 37.2 million people—and not be able to do anything 

that benefits a real need of my State. 

If the President doesn’t do it, then what you’re saying, the President conditions all spending, and the Congress has no voice. So, we 

don’t even need an Appropriations Committee, if that’s the case. 

Senator STEVENS. They ought to read the Constitution. That’s for 

sure. Well, we can talk and talk but I share your feelings about 

this, and I think there is a total breakdown in regard to the process that we’re involved in. I’ve been through this process now for 

well over 30 years, and I’ve never seen it in worse shape. But, it’s 

because of what we’re getting from downtown. You refuse to recognize what we’ve done in the past, which was approved by the President. What you do is, then, offset that against a goal you set in 

2004? Notwithstanding, all the goals we set in, we established in 

legislation and the President signed in 2005, and 2006, and 2007 

and 2008. That’s arrogance. Pure arrogance. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I—no, I think there is no jointness with 

this administration. There is no real consultation with the Congress. There is no real understanding that the Congress plays a 

role in all of this. It’s that we’re to be a rubber stamp for the President’s request, and—— 

Senator STEVENS. It’s really not the President. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, Mr. Johnson pointed out, over and over 

again during this hearing, ‘‘This is the President’s budget.’’ 

Senator STEVENS. He’s says that, but I don’t think the President 

even knows of some of these items, I’m sure he doesn’t it is the 

OMB and the Assistant Secretary in each Department dealing with 

this budget process. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator FEINSTEIN. There will be some additional questions 

which will be submitted for your response in the record. 
41 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the agency for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

CALIFORNIA WAIVER DECISION/GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATION

Question. The ‘‘Federal Register Notice of Decision Denying a Waiver of Clean Air 

Act Preemption for California’s 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas 

Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles’’ (The Notice of Decision) concludes that 

Congress intended that waivers would only be issued if California had a ‘‘unique’’ 

problem, based on both Committee Reports and Floor statements from 1967. In 

1977, Congress amended the Clean Air Act, changing both the words and intent of 

section 209. The Federal Register notice does not mention congressional intent in 

1977. 

a. Did you consider the intent of Congress in 1977 when making your decision? 

b. If so, why didn’t the Federal Register Notice discuss this intent? 

c. Is it correct to infer that you do not find the 1977 amendments relevant to your 

decision to deny a waiver to California? 

Answer. In 1977, Congress amended section 209, but did not change section 

209(b)(1)(B), the waiver criterion at issue in this waiver decision. The decision document describes in detail the bases for the decision including the legislative history 

of section 209(b)(1)(B). The decision document discusses the issue of deference to 

California’s judgments, at 73 FR 12158 and 12162, noting that EPA’s role in applying section 209(b)(1)(B) is not to substitute its judgment for California’s on the value 

or benefit that might be derived from a specific set of greenhouse gas standards, 

and noting that with respect to sections 209(b)(1)(A) and (C) EPA is not addressing 

or changing its approach to deferring to California’s policy judgments on the best 

way to protect the public health and welfare of its residents. This discussion of deference is based in part on the 1977 legislative history behind section 209. 

As explained in the decision document, EPA appropriately exercised its own judgment in determining the limits or confines of state authority established by section 

209(b)(1)(B). This does not change EPA’s consistent view that within such confines 

it should give deference to California’s policy judgments. 

Question. The Notice of Decision asserts that in 1967 Congress intended waivers 

to address problems ‘‘unique’’ to California. But in 1977, Congress added section 177 

to the act, which allows other States to adopt California’s standards. If Congress intended for waivers to be limited to problems unique to California, why did it give 

other States the right to adopt the same standards? 

Answer. The decision document discusses in detail EPA’s interpretation of section 

209(b)(1)(B), including the legislative history of that provision. That waiver criterion 

was not amended by Congress in 1977. In the 1977 amendments, Congress did afford States the option of adopting and enforcing California’s motor vehicle emission 

standards, under section 177, if certain conditions were met. The legislative history 

indicates that section 177 was added to give States more flexibility in determining 

how to ‘‘protect public health while still permitting reasonable new growth Still another element of flexibility for States that is afforded in this section is the authority 

for States with nonattainment areas for automotive pollutant pollutants (other than 

California) to adopt and enforce California new-car emission standards if adequate 

notice is given... this should pose no significant burden to the manufacturers. It 

permits the State to decide whether or not such standards should be adopted in 

order to permit more stationary source growth and jobs in the State.’’ [Report by 

the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (95th Congress, 1st Sess. Report No. 95–294, at pgs. 213 and 310–311)]. 

Question. In 1984, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus issued a waiver decision that stated, in part: 

‘‘Motor Vehicles Manufacturing Association, Auto International Association, General Motors and Volkswagen also argue that in order to be granted a waiver for its 

particulate standards California must have a ‘unique’ particulate problem; i.e., one 

that is demonstrably worse than in the rest of the country. However, as CARB 

points out, there is no indication in the language of section 209 or the legislative 

history that California’s pollution problem must be the worst in the country, for a 

waiver to be granted.’’ 

The Notice of Decision asserts that the legislative history of section 209 requires 

that California’s pollution problem must be ‘‘unique.’’ Upon what legal basis have 

you rejected the precedent set by the 1984 ruling? 
42 

Answer. EPA’s waiver decision discusses in detail the 1984 waiver decision at 73 

FR 12159–12160. As stated in the 1984 waiver decision, the phrase ‘‘compelling and 

extraordinary conditions’’ refers to ‘‘certain general circumstances, unique to California, primarily responsible for causing its air pollution problem,’’ like thermal inversions, topography, and California’s motor vehicle population. Thus, in 1984, EPA 

reasoned that the term compelling and extraordinary conditions ‘‘does not refer to 

the levels of pollution directly.’’ Instead it refers primarily to the factors that tend 

to produce higher levels of pollution—‘‘geographical and climatic conditions (like 

thermal inversions) that, when combined with large numbers and high concentrations of automobiles, create serious air pollution problems.’’ 73 FR 12160. 

EPA’s waiver decision concerning California’s greenhouse gas standards does not 

reject the focus of the 1984 decision on the factors that cause air pollution. EPA’s 

decision document describes the 1984 waiver decision, which addressed a local or 

regional air pollution problem like ambient levels of particulate matter and discusses in detail the appropriate way to implement section 209(b)(1)(B) in the very 

different context of a global air pollution problem, like elevated concentrations of 

greenhouse gases. In the context of greenhouse gases, EPA determined that the appropriate criteria to apply is whether emissions of California motor vehicles, as well 

as California’s local climate and topography, are the fundamental causal factors for 

the air pollution problem of elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases, and in the 

alternative whether the effect in California of this global air pollution problem 

amounts to compelling and extraordinary conditions. 73 FR 12162. 

Question. Mr. Johnson, you are under remand from the United States Supreme 

Court to determine whether carbon dioxide contributes to climate change and endangers public health and welfare. I have requested that you set an internal deadline by which you intend for EPA to respond, and you have refused. 

a. Please provide a detailed list of benchmarks that EPA must meet before it can 

respond to the Supreme Court’s remand. 

b. Please determine how many of these benchmarks have been completed to date. 

c. Please state how many EPA staff members are working on each remaining 

benchmark at this time. 

d. Please provide an explanation for why you stated in your March 3, 2008 letter 

that ‘‘I am currently unable to provide you and the Committee with the ‘detailed 

timeline’ requested.’’ 

e. Please explain what impedes the EPA from setting a timeline for completion 

of this work. 

f. Please explain why it was possible for EPA to set such a timeline in 2007, but 

it is not possible to set a timeline today. 

Answer. As you know, EPA had previously planned to issue a proposed 

endangerment finding and vehicle GHG standards under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

by the end of last year. However, after enactment of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act in December, it was appropriate for the agency to consider the impact 

of the new law, with its requirement for tighter vehicle fuel economy standards, on 

EPA’s regulatory plans. 

As I explained in my March 27, 2008 letter to you, I have decided that the best 

course of action for responding to the Supreme Court’s remand is to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) later this Spring. That notice will 

build on the agency’s work to date on a potential endangerment finding and vehicle 

GHG standards under Clean Air Act section 202. It will also explain the broader 

Clean Air Act implications of taking such actions. My letter describes some of those 

implications and explains why it is important to consider them in developing a 

strategy for potentially regulating GHGs under the CAA. 

I have asked my staff to develop an ANPR for publication by late Spring. Because 

of the breadth of issues the ANPR will cover, including the regulatory implications 

for stationary sources if the vehicle GHG standards are set under the act, staff from 

several offices within the Office of Air and Radiation as well as staff from the Office 

of General Counsel are involved in drafting the notice. They are drawing from, and 

in some cases adding to, the information that was developed and compiled last year 

as part of EPA’s efforts to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision and the President’s 20-in-10 Executive order. 

The ANPR will give the public an important opportunity to comment on the many 

issues that need to be considered in moving forward with any Clean Air Act regulation of GHGs. Following the public comment period, I will assess how best to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision in light of the comments received. While I 

cannot give you a detailed timeline for issuance of the ANPR or for next steps following receipt of public comments, I can assure you that I intend to proceed expeditiously and lay a solid foundation for future decisions on addressing climate change. 
43 

AIR POLLUTION IN NATIONAL PARKS

Question. EPA recently participated as the science lead in the Western Airborne 

Contaminants Assessment Project (WACAP) to determine the levels and sources of 

airborne pollutant deposition in ecosystems that are traditionally regarded as the 

most pristine and intact ecosystems in the America: western national parks. The 

National Park Service recently released the results of this study and they are 

alarming: over 70 different contaminants, including toxic heavy metals like Mercury 

and pesticides such as DDT, were found at significant levels in parks from SequoiaKings in California to Glacier in Montana to Denali in Alaska. 

In many parks, the toxicity levels in native fish in high mountain lakes exceeded 

the recommended consumption guidelines, not only for humans, but for other mammals and birds that rely on fish as a key source of caloric intake. These contaminants are weakening the ecosystems of national parks and a potential danger to 

human health. 

1. What are the implications of the WACAP study in terms of the ability of current regulations to effectively prevent air pollution, not only in our national parks, 

but across our country? Do these results not suggest additional action to improve 

air quality is warranted? 

2. Will EPA present policy recommendations for Congress and/or the Administration in the wake of these results? Please provide details. 

Answer. EPA commends the National Park Service and the interagency contributors for the WACAP study. This valuable research has demonstrated that a number 

of environmental contaminants are more persistent and widely distributed than previously understood. The study also showed that, for many contaminants, local and 

regional sources may contribute more to contamination in the western parks, outside of Alaska, than international or intercontinental transport of airborne contaminants. 

All of the contaminants identified by the study as being of highest concern are 

the subject of existing regulations or on-going regulatory actions under the Clean 

Air Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. In addition, most of the contaminants identified in the study 

as being of potential concern are subject to existing regulations or are being considered for further regulation under these statutes. Many of these contaminants and 

their sources are also subject to state and local controls. EPA is aware that the National Park Service is working at the level of individual parks to address the few 

local sources identified in the study. While the study did not address how the levels 

of contamination in the parks would be affected by further environmental regulations, EPA will evaluate this study, as well as other recent and ongoing studies (e.g., 

EPA’s Great Waters program and newly-initiated National Academy of Sciences 

study on the significance of the international transport of air pollutants), in determining future research and regulatory needs for these pollutants. 

Many of the contaminants identified by the study are the subject of international 

cooperation, through bilateral and trilateral relationships with Canada and Mexico 

and through multilateral institutions, such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and the United Nations Environment Programme’s Mercury Programme. The United States’ ability to address some of the 

contaminants of concern, particularly those that are no longer used in this country, 

would be significantly enhanced if Congress were to complete legislation enabling 

the United States to ratify the Stockholm Convention, as well as the Rotterdam 

Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (PIC) and the Convention on Long Range 

Transboundary Air Pollution POPs Protocol (LRTAP POPs), and to work through 

these institutions to reduce their use globally. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JACK REED

Question. Recently, the Rhode Island Treasurer, the Rhode Island Department of 

Health, and the Rhode Island Clean Water Finance Agency contacted my office regarding a proposal by the EPA Office of the Inspector General to prevent states 

from using revenue bonds to provide the necessary 20 percent match for the State 

Revolving Funds. Is EPA considering changing this policy? If so, what process is 

EPA using to evaluate if this change is necessary? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2009 President’s budget continues the policy of allowing 

States to use revenue bonds repaid from interest earnings to provide the State 

match for the State Revolving Funds. No decision has been made on how or whether 

to change this policy. 
44 

Question. For over 10 years, EPA has failed to issue a final rule to protect children from lead poisoning during home renovation and remodeling in target housing, 

despite a 1992 congressional mandate to adopt a rule by October 28, 1996. The fiscal 

year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations conference report included language requiring EPA to finalize its Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule by March 31, 2008, 

and encouraging that the rule be at least as protective as HUD’s Lead-Safe Housing 

Rule. What progress has EPA made towards finalizing the Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Rule by the deadline at the end of this month, and what are the plans for 

implementation of the rule in fiscal year 2009? Specifically, how does the agency 

plan to provide sufficient training and outreach opportunities within the bounds of 

the current budget request? 

Answer. EPA finalized its Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program rule on 

March 31, 2008 (available at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm). Implementation of this program is a priority for our lead poisoning prevention program. 

We expect many States to seek authorization to run the program and will be working with our State partners to develop efficient approaches to implementation. 

EPA will work with a broad range of stakeholders, including States, community 

groups, trade associations and other industry groups in conducting outreach and 

training. Central to this outreach is the pamphlet Renovate Right: Important Lead 

Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Facilities and Schools. This brochure, 

which is jointly sponsored by EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides renovation-specific lead hazard information for persons 

who contract for or perform renovation, repair and painting projects in pre-1978 target housing and child-occupied facilities. EPA is also developing information specifically for contractors, including the brochures Contractors Lead Safety During Renovation and Steps to Lead-Safe Renovation & Remodeling. To effectively conduct 

outreach and training within the current budget request, the agency will build on 

the infrastructure and successes of its outreach and training program for abatement 

activities. 

EPA will facilitate having training providers for abatement expand their training 

courses to include formal training of renovators by developing a model training 

course for renovators required by the regulation. In addition, EPA will continue to 

encourage the training of a broad range of stakeholders, including community 

groups, in the use of lead-safe work practices. 

Question. The fiscal year 2008 Appropriations language encouraged the EPA Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule to be at least as protective as HUD’s Lead-Safe 

Housing Rule. What steps has the agency taken to respond to concerns about the 

proposed rule, in particular, the fact that the proposed rule did not ban dangerous 

lead practices (such as dry sanding), and did not include requirements to test for 

lead dust at the end of a renovation, painting or repair job involving lead-based 

paint in older housing? 

Answer. The final rule prohibits or restricts the use of dangerous practices such 

as removing lead paint by power sanding, use of a torch or by the use of a high 

temperature heat gun. EPA is allowing the use of dry hand sanding based on the 

results of a study the Agency conducted of renovation activities. In this study, when 

the work practices being required by EPA’s rulemaking were used, including containment and specialized cleaning, renovation activities involving dry hand sanding 

did not result in lead levels above EPA’s regulatory hazard standards. 

The work practices required by this rule have been demonstrated to be effective 

at protecting children from the lead-based paint hazards generated by renovation 

activities. Renovations covered by this rule will be performed in many homes all 

over the country. They will be performed for many reasons, most of which have 

nothing to do with lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards. Moreover, EPA has 

determined that the work practices in the final rule, including containment and specialized cleaning effectively minimize exposure to lead-based paint dust generated 

during renovations. Thus, EPA has determined that requiring dust clearance sampling and clearance, which is required for abatements in which all lead hazards 

must be removed, is not warranted. In addition, dust clearance sampling and clearance would not provide added value in terms of protecting children to balance the 

time and effort and the cost to home and building owners associated with requiring 

this additional step to the work practices. 

Question. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Water Act only applied if there was a ‘‘significant nexus’’ of jurisdictional waterways. This test put a 

significant onus on the agencies to make a determination of what waters were or 

were not under the protection of the Federal Pollution Control Act. In response to 

this the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers increased the amount of funding to go toward these jurisdictional judgments, but no increases have been seen in the EPA’s 

budget for this additional work. How is the agency addressing these increased de-
45 

1While Section 111 of CERCLA limits EPA’s authority to expend Superfund dollars to carry 

out remedies (i.e., remedial actions) at federally owned facilities, EPA’s authority to conduct certain removal actions under CERCLA is not limited. However, the Federal agency that owns the 

Continued 

mands and where is the funding coming from to deal with the increased bureaucratic burden? 

Answer. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is given the primary responsibility 

under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for work related to the issuance of section 404 

permits. These responsibilities include conducting CWA jurisdictional determinations and review and issuance of permits. It is these activities where workload has 

increased the most in recent years as a result of, for example, recent court decisions. 

While EPA’s workload has increased somewhat as a result of these same factors, 

EPA expects to be able to continue to meet our responsibilities under the CWA by 

adjusting the level of resources applied to the 404 regulatory program from within 

the available wetlands protection resources. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

DELAY IN IMPLEMENTING A SOLUTION TO THE LEADVILLE MINE DRAINAGE TUNNEL

Question. We now have a locally declared emergency situation in Leadville involving a Superfund Site declared in 1983, 25 years ago. Why is this the case 25 years 

after recognizing the need for a solution? 

Answer. The California Gulch Superfund Site (Site) was listed on the National 

Priorities List (NPL) in 1983 to address hazardous releases associated with historic 

mining activity. The Site is comprised of approximately 17.9 square miles of mountainous terrain in and around the Town of Leadville in Lake County, Colorado. 

Since 1983, this large and complex Site has been divided into 12 separate Operable 

Units (OU). EPA has conducted studies, removal actions and remedial actions at 

various OUs, and many of the OUs have been completed in part or in full. Two OUs 

have been deleted from the NPL and EPA is in the process of deleting parts of other 

OUs. The emergency situation referenced in your question is a relatively new development. Since 2001, additional investigations have indicated that groundwater and 

mine pool levels are increasing over time, and are likely due to blockages in the 

Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT). Over the last three years, EPA, the State 

and local community have become concerned that the increasing mine pool levels 

may cause an uncontrolled release of contaminated water. 

In view of the recent concerns of rising groundwater and mine pool levels, EPA, 

in coordination with the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of Colorado, is now 

conducting a removal action. This work commenced in February 2008 and includes 

two major activities. EPA installed a pumping system in the Gaw mine shaft and 

has been pumping at a rate of 450 gallons per minute since late February. This action may lower water levels in the mine pool. In addition, it appears to have diminished seeps and springs that had recently appeared in the lower California Gulch. 

Second, EPA is taking steps to drill a relief well into the LDMT to lower the level 

of water in the LMDT and mine pool. EPA plans to have the relief well, pump and 

pipe to the LMDT installed and ready to operate in Summer 2008. 

Question. As you know, the Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for the Leadville 

Mine Drainage Tunnel and the EPA is responsible for the Superfund site. In your 

view, what has prevented the various involved entities (EPA, Bureau of Reclamation, the State of Colorado, locally elected officials) from fixing this well known problem? 

Answer. EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in 2003 for Operable Unit 6 

(OU6) of the California Gulch Superfund Site (Site). Part of the remedy included 

addressing the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT). 

Specifically, the OU6 ROD called for: 

—Installing an engineered plug, approximately 4,300 feet from the LMDT portal. 

—Installing dewatering wells in the tunnel to manage tunnel and hydrologically 

connected mine pool water levels behind the engineered plug. 

—Installing a pumping system to deliver water to the LMDT treatment plant 

from the dewatering well. 

The LMDT is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as is the LMDT 

treatment plant. 

In view of the recent concerns of rising groundwater and mine pool levels, EPA, 

in coordination with Reclamation and the State of Colorado, is now conducting a removal action 1 to install dewatering wells in the tunnel and a pumping system to 
46 

facility is required to provide reimbursement pursuant to Executive order 12580, section 9(i) 

‘‘Funds from the Hazardous Substance Superfund may be used, at the discretion of the Administrator or the Coast Guard, to pay for removal actions for releases or threatened releases from 

facilities or vessels under the jurisdiction, custody or control of Executive departments and agencies but must be reimbursed to the Hazardous Substance Superfund by such Executive department or agency.’’ 

deliver water to the LMDT treatment plant. EPA, Reclamation and the State are 

working on a plan to implement a long-term solution to address these concerns and 

long-term operation and maintenance. 

Question. Why is the EPA, rather than the Bureau, now the lead Federal agency 

on the Leadville situation? Who made that decision and for what reasons? 

Answer. That decision has not been made. EPA is the lead Federal agency with 

respect to the California Gulch Superfund Site. EPA, the Bureau of Reclamation 

and the State are working on a plan to implement a long-term solution to address 

the high water levels in the mine pool and the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. 

Among the items under discussion is what authority to use to implement that solution. 

Question. What can the EPA do to permanently fix this mine drainage problem? 

Answer. EPA, acting alone, cannot permanently fix this problem. EPA, the Bureau of Reclamation and the State are working on a plan to implement a long-term 

solution to address the high waters in the mine pool and the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. 

Question. When is the mine pool (elevated ground water) going to be at a level 

that is not a threat to residents, local water supply and the environment? What 

level is considered a safe level? 

Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation is conducting a risk assessment that may 

help determine the appropriate mine pool level. Lowering the elevation of the 

groundwater will decrease risk to residents, the local water supply and the environment. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

ARSENIC STANDARDS AND COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE

Question. In January 2006, the EPA began enforcing a new arsenic standard that 

requires public water systems to reduce arsenic levels to 10 ppb, down from 50 ppb. 

My home State of New Mexico has high levels of naturally occurring arsenic in its 

volcanic soils which filter into the water supply. New Mexico is also one of the poorest states in the Union, with high levels of poverty. The costs of compliance facing New Mexico run upwards of $500 million. According to the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, 20 percent of the 

State’s municipalities will have to treat their drinking water to meet the standard. 

The new arsenic standard disproportionately impacts my State because only 5.5 percent of municipalities nationwide will have to treat their drinking water to meet the 

standard. 

Of the communities in New Mexico requiring water treatment, 93 percent of them 

are small communities that probably cannot afford the cost associated with meeting 

this new standard. Indeed, for the average New Mexican, meeting the standard 

could increase the cost of water by $50–$90 per month. 

Would you discuss what resources, if any, are being marshaled by EPA to assist 

communities faced with the extraordinary costs in meeting the new arsenic standards? 

Answer. EPA has promoted the use of the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan 

Fund (DWSRF) for arsenic projects, and has worked with The Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service to make arsenic treatment a priority for their funding programs. Currently 167 loans, totaling approximately $380 million, have been 

made for arsenic compliance through the DWSRF. Together with the Rural Utilities 

Service loan program, nearly $500 million as been made available to communities 

for arsenic compliance. 

To help reduce water utility costs for arsenic treatment, the Agency has developed 

a toolkit that facilitates decision-making, including choosing the most cost-effective 

technology. The kit includes websites (epa.gov/safewater/arsenic and 

arsenictradeshow.org), a print brochure, a training CD and a treatment technology 

DVD. Program managers and scientists at EPA have collaborated to promote the 

latest high-performing, cost-effective advancements in arsenic treatment technologies, particularly through EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s Arsenic 

Treatment Technology Demonstration Program. In addition, EPA has partnered 
47 

2 Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ EADABBF40DED2A0885257308006741EF/$File/sabl07l008.pdf. 3 Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

WebProjectsbyNameBOARD!OpenView. 4Lamm SH, DM Byrd, MB Kruse, M Feinleib, and S–H Lai. (2003). Bladder Cancer and 

Aresnic Exposure: Differences in the Two Populations Enrolled in a Study in Southwest Taiwan. 

Biomedical and Environmental Sciences 16:355–368. 

Lamm SH and MB Kruse. (2005). Arsenic Ingestion and Bladder Cancer Mortality—What do 

the Dose-Response Relationships Suggest About Mechanism? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 11:433–450. 

Lamm SH, A Engel, CA Penn, R Chen, and M Feinleb. (2006). Arsenic Cancer Risk Confounder in Southwest Taiwan Data Set. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:1077–1082 5 Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ EADABBF40DED2A0885257308006741EF/$File/sabl07l008.pdf. 

with technical assistance providers such as the American Water Works Association 

(AWWA), National Rural Water Association (NRWA) and Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) to provide training opportunities and innovative outreach 

materials. 

Question. Would it be appropriate to try and assist those communities faced with 

debilitating costs in trying to meet the high standard through some legislative 

means, perhaps in targeted assistance in treatment facility construction? 

Answer. We believe that Congress has already provided an appropriate vehicle for 

assistance through the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF). Since 

1997, the EPA, through the DWSRF, has leveraged approximately $8.1 billion in 

federal grants to States into $14.4 billion in funds available to assist with drinking 

water infrastructure needs, including compliance with new arsenic standards. 

Through these funds, over 5,300 loans for over $12.6 billion have been made to 

projects to address the public health goals of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Almost 

all of these loans are provided at a reduced interest rate and almost 600 with some 

principal forgiveness. Nearly 75 percent of loans go to communities with 10,000 people or fewer. 

Question. Because New Mexicans do not exhibit a higher rate of cancer due to the 

States higher levels of arsenic, and because studies released after the EPA issued 

its new arsenic standard do not tie the new arsenic standard to reduced health impacts, have you considered reviewing whether this more stringent arsenic drinking 

water regulation is appropriate? 

Answer. The agency is currently performing its second review of existing drinking 

water standards and we expect to release the preliminary results by summer of 

2009. One of the key steps in our review uses a final, peer-reviewed health risk assessment. While arsenic is one of the 70 plus drinking water regulations included 

in the second review effort, the Agency is currently updating the arsenic risk assessment and it is not expected to be complete in time to consider for this review. 

For the revised risk assessment, EPA is considering all relevant studies published 

since the 2001 Arsenic Regulation. We presented the draft cancer assessment to 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) in September 2005. EPA is considering the 

SAB’s June 2007 final report 2 and public comments as the Agency works to update 

and finalize the arsenic risk assessment. 

Question. What conclusions has the EPA drawn from the two studies conducted 

by Dr. Steven Lamm and published by the NIH, which challenge the data from Taiwan used by EPA to establish the current standard? 

Answer. Dr. Lamm presented his findings to EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) 

in September 2005. And the SAB record of the arsenic advisory meetings, report development and public meetings 3 contains Dr. Lamm’s subsequent comments and responses (to SAB), representing his 2003, 2005, and 2006 studies.4 The final 2007 

SAB report 5 directed EPA to identify criteria to evaluate all relevant human studies 

and include information on the factors that affect the risk estimates. EPA is considering the 2007 SAB report and public comments as the Agency works to update and 

finalize the arsenic risk assessment. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HARRY REID

Question. EPA’s budget request only briefly mentions the environmental standards that the Agency is required by statute to develop for the proposed Yucca Mountain Project. In 2004, a Federal Court of Appeals rejected the EPA’s original standards. Over three years later, EPA still has not promulgated final radiation standards. When will EPA release its final standards? 

Answer. The radiation standard for Yucca Mountain has not yet been determined 

and is the subject of ongoing rulemaking proceedings. There are many complex 
48 

issues involved in establishing regulations applicable for up to one million years 

that make it difficult to predict when these rulemaking proceedings will conclude. 

EPA continues to review public comments on its proposed rule and participate in 

the interagency review process pursuant to Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

EPA is not in a position to state when its final rule will be promulgated. 

Question. What is EPA’s reason for not finalizing the radiation standards? 

Answer. The radiation standard for Yucca Mountain has not yet been determined 

and is the subject of ongoing rulemaking proceedings. There are many complex 

issues involved in establishing regulations applicable for up to one million years 

that make it difficult to predict when these rulemaking proceedings will conclude. 

Question. Where is the EPA’s final radiation standard in the rulemaking process? 

Answer. EPA continues to review public comments on its proposed rule and participate in the interagency review process pursuant to Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, EPA is not in a position to state when its final rule will be promulgated. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me sum up by saying, this is a very 

unhappy budget, and we’ll have to consult among ourselves, and 

come up with a course of action. 

I thank you very much. The subcommittee will stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Tuesday, March 4, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(49) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Feinstein, Domenici, Bennett, Craig, Allard, 

and Alexander. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

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

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

ABIGAIL KIMBELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE 

LENISE LAGO, BUDGET DIRECTOR, FOREST SERVICE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. The subcommittee’s oversight hearing on the 

administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Forest 

Service will come to order. 

I would like to welcome Mark Rey, the Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment at the USDA, and Forest Service 

Chief Gail Kimbell. They are accompanied by Lenise Lago, the 

Budget Director for the Forest Service. Thank you, three of you, for 

joining us, and we look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Because the Forest Service manages 20 percent of the land in my 

State, California, this agency and its budget are incredibly important to the State from an environmental protection, recreation, and 

public safety perspective. Keeping that in mind, I would like to 

note that overall the administration’s request totals 

$4,109,000,000. Now, that’s a cut of $379 million. Now, that’s a full 

8 percent from the 2008 level. In reality, though, the cuts are much 

deeper. If you factor in the $77 million needed to fund fixed increases, 

and the $148 million needed to increase needed to cover the 10- 

year fire suppression average, and the Forest Service budget is 

$600 million less than what is needed just to do that, bottom line 
50 

here is that under the administration’s proposal, the way we look 

at it, the Forest Service is being cut nearly 15 percent. 

I might say for me, and what we look at as the future in my 

State, that’s unacceptable. 

Specifically, firefighter readiness is cut 13 percent; hazardous 

fuels reduction work is cut 4 percent; Law Enforcement programs 

are cut 12 percent; capital improvement and maintenance programs are cut 14 percent; recreation programs are cut 8 percent; 

and research programs are cut 10 percent. 

I don’t know how anyone could really consider this a serious 

budget proposal, so rather than take time here to go through the 

budget line by line, let me say for the record that I hope to work 

with my distinguished ranking member, Senator Allard, and the 

other members of the committee, including Senator Domenici, who 

has had such a long-standing interest in this. The three of us all 

come from States that are critically affected by this budget. 

I hope we can undo these cuts, and I hope we can restore the 

Forest Service budget to a reasonable level. 

I’d like in my questions to talk about what progress the agency 

is making on Lake Tahoe restoration; what’s happening with respect to firefighter retention, particularly in the southern California effort, and what can be done to overcome the challenge of 

implementing the Quincy Library Group pilot project. Those are 

three big issues in my State, and, as you know, a Governor’s commission has just found that the three forests adjoining Lake Tahoe 

are in immediate threat of catastrophic fire. So we have big problems. 

I would like to turn to our distinguished ranking member, Senator Allard, for any opening remarks he might care to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I agree with 

many of your comments that you made. I would also like to just 

take this opportunity and welcome the Under Secretary for Natural 

Resources and Environment, Mark Rey, and the Chief of the Forest 

Service, Gail Kimbell, to the subcommittee today. 

I hate to get too sour about this budget but to tell you that I do 

feel that is a budget that has me very deeply concerned. The proposed fiscal year 2009 budget for the Forest Service is more troublesome to me than any other in the bill, and my record on fiscal 

restraint I think is pretty clear; however, I believe the proposed reductions in the Forest Service just simply are not justified. 

We’re facing a forest health crisis in this country unlike anything 

I’ve ever seen in my lifetime; however, your budget proposes to reduce the forest health programs of the agency by nearly half. The 

issue, of course, health, is very personal to me and to my constituents. We have a pine beetle epidemic in Colorado that is beyond 

description. You simply have to see it with your own eyes to understand the magnitude of the devastation. 

Experts say that within 5 years all of Colorado’s remaining 

lodgepole pine forests could be wiped out—that’s 6 million acres— 

over the next 5 years. I simply can’t support a budget that slashes 

support for programs that address these problems. 
51 

Mark, I appreciate that you have agreed to testify at a field hearing in Colorado that this subcommittee will hold in May on the 

pine beetle epidemic, and I hope that we can come up with some 

better strategies for dealing with the forest health problem than 

those that are reflected in this budget. 

Other proposed cuts in the agency’s budget are similarly without 

merit to me. For example, the Fire Preparedness is cut by $77 million. The real cut in terms of program delivery is actually $88 million because you have not provided for mandatory salary increases 

and other fixed costs that must be paid. 

With fire seasons becoming worse each year, I can’t understand 

why we would reduce the funds that go to train and equip our firefighters. This will lower the agency’s initial attack capability and 

lead to more catastrophic fires. It is essential that we have a robust 

initial attack capability to catch fires when they are small so that 

they don’t escape containment and become the catastrophic fires 

that we see on the nightly news every summer. It is these large 

fires that end up consuming the lion’s share of the fire budget. In 

my view, reducing the preparedness budget will ultimately increase 

costs. 

I also don’t understand why your budget documents how you can 

cut fire preparedness by 13 percent, yet claim that through efficiencies you will maintain the same number of firefighters, hot shot 

crews, and engines in the field. I’m all for efficiency, but I’ve 

watched firefighting costs skyrocket over the last few years. So forgive me if I am a bit skeptical and you’ve suddenly found this level 

of efficiency in your operations. 

I could go on with the litany of all of the cuts in this budget that 

I find objectionable, but I won’t take up the committee’s time. To 

me, the crux of the problem with the Forest Service budget boils 

down to this: There is a fundamental difference in the way that the 

Office of Management and Budget treats the Forest Service compared to other land management agencies at the Department of the 

Interior. 

The Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the National Park Service are not singled out consistently for dramatic cuts each year as the Forest Service continues to be. I believe 

this disparate treatment is explained by the fact that as the tenure 

average for the Forest Service firefighting program rises, this year 

by $148 million, OMB has taken the position that these costs must 

be borne on the back of the agency’s other programs. 

Apparently, OMB believes that this will provide incentives for 

the agency to reduce its firefighting costs, and I, fundamentally, 

disagree with this approach. No one would disagree that the Forest 

Service fire program could also strive to maintain costs, but escalating costs shouldn’t come at the expense of the agency’s other 

programs. 

Indeed, many of these increasing costs can be traced to issues 

that are beyond the control of the agency: More development adjacent to Forest Service lands, persistent drought in the West, forest 

health programs like the pine beetle that have reduced entire forests to tinderboxes and the lack of active forest management 

caused by endless lawsuits. 
52 

Perhaps even more troubling is that OMB slashing of other agency programs to fund firefighting has led to many well-intentioned, 

but in my view misguided, proposals in Congress to move parts of 

the fire program off budget. As an appropriator and as a fiscal conservative, I find these proposals unacceptable. Moving parts of the 

fire program off budget is tantamount to giving the agency a blank 

check which will lead to abuses and take away any incentive to 

control costs. There is no reason that the fire program can’t be provided with the funds it needs each year on budget, and the other 

Forest Service programs be provided with the funds that are necessary to run effectively. 

Forgive the pun, but I believe it is critical that we, as the Appropriations Committee, hold the agency’s feet to the fire each year to 

justify their requests for firefighting and be ever vigilant about containing costs. 

I noticed with some interest last week an article in The Washington Post, about a GAO study which is analyzing whether the 

Forest Service should be moved from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of the Interior. While I have not had the 

opportunity to fully consider the implications of such a reorganization, when I look at the unequal treatment of the Forest Service 

compared to the Department of the Interior, then when it comes to 

the budget, it makes me wonder whether such a move might be 

worth some serious thought. 

Thank you for joining us. I look forward to listening to your testimony and asking you some questions later in the hearing. Thank 

you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much for that, Senator Allard. 

The committee will follow the early-bird rule, and we will go to 

7-minute rounds of questions when the time comes. The next person up is the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

This can be my opening statement, not questions, right? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It’s your opening statement, if you wish. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. 

I have two issues that I want to bring up. There are many others, and I thought that these two were very important: 

First of all, we all know that the cost of wildland firefighting is 

consuming too much of our Forest Service’s discretionary budget, 

and it’s likely to get worse. We know that dealing with environmental documentation, appeals and litigation is stopping hazardous 

fuels cleanup in many areas, work which could reduce the intensity 

of fires and reduce the cost of fighting these fires. I believe these 

problems have to be dealt with. Failing to do so will only hasten 

the day when our national forests become a wasteland, and no one 

will be proud of them. 

We have also failed, and we have also allowed the job of our Federal firefighters to expand into areas where they never were meant 

to deal with. I guess when I said one, I have three. I just gave you 

one, that we have to address the issues of documentation and appeals. You all know what that’s doing; that’s adding 1 full year 
53 

minimum, sometimes 2 or 3, to any activity going into an area that 

has been burned to see what you can do to clean up and revitalize 

the forest. 

We ought to be bold and just change that, and just a few words 

would fix it where they couldn’t use this process. This process is 

being abused. 

My second position has to do with something that has happened 

to us where, over time, we are letting our Federal firefighters move 

into areas that they were never meant to deal with. We send a significant number of personnel on emergencies like cleaning up after 

major disasters, and now it seems that we may be turning our firefighters into first responders for traffic accidents. 

That may be going on, Madam Chair, in the State of California. 

All of these efforts are laudable, but all of them cost money, and 

I would urge that this committee review this mission creep and 

refuse to let it continue by refocusing the job of wildland firefighting back into the primary mission. I don’t know how much 

that would be, but it would be some, and, certainly, what I have 

just described is right and fair. 

In our efforts to ensure the highest standards of safety, we impose reporting and training requirements. My third point has to do 

with training requirements. Our actions have unintended consequences. We imposed additional training requirements, and the 

agency has been attempting to provide that training. 

But the Office of Personnel Management, Madam Chairperson, is 

not questioning whether the additional training is acceptable and 

wants it to be provided as part of an accredited college curriculum. 

Confusion between OPM and the Forest Service human resources 

specialists is causing people who have invested time and money to 

give up applying for positions in fire because no one knows which 

courses are acceptable to the OPM. 

The result is that we are on the cusp of having several hundred 

highly trained and experienced wildland firefighters quit because 

they feel that the rules have been changed unfairly. Thus, we may 

be filling key positions with recent college graduates who have little or no real wildland fire experience, but who have the sheepskin 

being demanded by the OPM. I hope this committee will step forward and keep this from happening. 

Madam Chairman, I would have liked to have spoken about some 

of the funding requests in this budget that concern New Mexicans 

and myself, but they pale in comparison with the need for the committee and Forest Service to deal with wildland fires and wildland 

firefighters. 

Thank you for the opportunity, and, hopefully, we can work together on this problem. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Domenici. 

The order is Senators Alexander, Craig, and Bennett, and no one 

need feel compelled to make an opening statement if you don’t 

choose to do so. 

Senator Alexander. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will try to 

make a succinct opening statement. 
54 

Number one, Mr. Rey, I want to thank you for making, as a priority, an additional $4 million in Federal funding for the acquisition of Rocky Fork in Eastern Tennessee. 

That’s a very important project. There’s broad support for that, 

and the Federal Government’s role in that is a big help, and there 

may need to be some discussion in order to make it all work; to 

discuss something I usually don’t support, but which would be to 

do some land swap of less desirable Forest Service land in order 

to get the 10,000 acres of Rocky Fork. I’m not ready to propose that 

at the moment, but we would only do that in conjunction with the 

conservation fund and other environmental groups that are involved in this and make sure that it was a big net plus in terms 

of conservation environment and Forest Service protected property. 

So I just wanted to make you aware of that, and thank you for 

making that a priority. 

Second, I’m interested in your comments today on what’s already 

been discussed about fire protection, and the other functions in the 

Forest Service. We don’t want to just make the Forest Service into 

a fire service, as important as the fire service projects are. 

Senator Allard has spoken eloquently about how he thinks that 

should be done. I would like to hear from you, perhaps, during your 

testimony about whether we ought to separate a fire suppression 

service into a separate account, or separate budget, or separate 

agency even, so that we don’t continue to run the risk of damaging 

the traditional functions of the Forest Service by taking money 

away for fighting fires. 

The Forest Service superintendents in Tennessee say the increase in fire suppression funding at the expense of Forest Service 

operations and programs is one of the biggest problems they face. 

So, if you could in your testimony talk about some of the pros and 

cons of separating the functions or consolidating them, I’d be very 

interested in that. Thank you for being here. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Senator Craig, I think you’re the next up. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman, it isn’t by accident that Western Senators and even a Southern Senator is focused on fire, and 

fire suppression with the Forest Service and our chief today. It is 

without question a front issue to all of us in public land States and 

large forest States who have gone through the last decade of a fire 

scenario that ramps up on an annual basis, Chief, and a real concern, not only about the actual fires themselves. 

But, as I have lamented in working with Mark Rey over the 

years, and as Senator Alexander just lamented, the old style of 

funding fires doesn’t work anymore because you don’t have cash 

flow. That went out the door with the green sales a decade ago, 

and you are now an agency that, in my opinion—and I say it rather 

publicly—is bankrupt: bankrupt on the standards and the payments and the cash flows of a century of green sales, and a timber 

program that largely doesn’t exist today in a comparable way to 

two decades ago, which then means that if you’re still borrowing 

from accounts that do all these other things, and we are not replacing the money, those accounts go wanting. The true needs of the 
55 

management on the ground of our Forest Service goes wanting, and 

in my opinion, that’s happening. 

Last week, I met with the supervisor of the Sawtooth for a variety of reasons. It was kind of a typical exchange between a policymaker and an agency head as to how we manage and what we do. 

We talked about bighorn sheep and how you manage those with domestic lifestock grazing. Forest Service letters actually said a decade ago: We want to put sheep in where they once existed, but they 

in no way will conflict with domestic grazing. 

Now that the sheep are there, we’re kicking the domestic grazers 

off the land through court action and indecision on the part of the 

Forest Service. It just so happens on the Sawtooth, they probably 

got it under control, because they haven’t been sued yet, and 

they’re trying in a proactive way to avoid these interrelationships 

between domestic livestock and wildlife, and I hope it works. 

But I can’t imagine that when you have a tradition of public 

grazing, and you write a letter and you make it policy that we will 

in no way displace the domestic sheep, but we want to try this experimentally. Then the experiment works. In come the lawsuits 

and out go the domestic sheep, and down goes a couple of ranchers, 

and down goes the economy in local communities because of a public policy not effectively managed by the Forest Service. 

We also talked about something that is very typical of wildland 

firefighting that Senator Domenici talked about, that Lamar has 

talked about. As you know, in the Castle Rock fire last year out 

in Idaho, we had an unprecedented situation. Large wildfire started on our public land, started on the Forest Service land, and ultimately threatened the Sun Valley, Ketchum area, the grand old ski 

resort known as Sun Valley worldwide. We fought and you fought, 

and you had your best people in there to save that community, and 

so did we. 

Now, the fire started on your land. The fire then moved to 

threaten private property, and we are now negotiating a $5 million 

fire bill with the city of Ketchum. You know, it’s awfully hard for 

me to understand when we don’t manage the public land and the 

public land threatens private property, then we bill the private 

landowner. 

Now, there’s going to be a lot of negotiation going on between 

State and community and the Forest Service, and I’m going to hold 

my tongue for a time. But it is typical of the situation we now find 

ourselves in, and that is that you, the Forest Service, are spending 

more time protecting private property than you are saving natural 

resource watershed wildlife habitat in this wildfire scenario. 

Of the 10 million acres last year that burned, 2 of them were in 

Idaho, and our skies were full of smoke all summer, and our air 

quality was dramatically lessened. The beautiful, clear blue skies 

of our State were gray and smoky all summer. You were violating 

clean airspace and clean air everywhere you went, and I’m always 

appalled that we slap the private sector when they damage air 

quality, but we say the public sector, when it damages air quality, 

is simply a natural event. That gets my ire up a little bit when we 

just oh-ho-hum, as a public attitude—you don’t, and I’m not suggesting you do. 
56 

Madam Chairman, I have questioned the Forest Service before 

the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the last time 

we visited was a month ago. As of December 1, 2007, we’ve had 28 

mill closures across the United States. Since we visited, I’ve lost 

another mill, 60 employees down, won’t come back. They’re going 

to tear it down. 

They had planned to take it down in a couple of years, but the 

timber issue is so bad that I don’t know that you’ve let a sale, or 

there’s been a successful sale of timber in Idaho off the public lands 

yet in 2008, and this mill is now down not to come back. They say 

it won’t come back to the market for at least 2 years, more than 

likely, based on inventory both of logs in yard and dimensional in 

yard. 

My point is, we struggle to fund our country schools and the 

Craig-Wyden bill hasn’t been fully funded. We have hundreds of 

school districts across the United States whose budgets are being 

cut anywhere from a quarter to a third with no way of raising new 

dollars. Now we have a flat timber market; even the best expectations that we all might have for some slight increases may well go 

out the window. It’s very hard to come to a Congress today that’s 

so dramatically in deficit and try to find the kind of money we need 

for these thousands of schools districts. 

Well, Madam Chair, tough issues with an agency that I know 

that the parties in front of us, both the Chief and the Deputy Secretary worked awfully hard at making work, but I think I agree 

with Senator Alexander. I know that Mark Rey and I have had 

those conversations. 

We’ve got to think out of the box about new methods of funding 

fire and doing a lot of other things, because, in my opinion, you’re 

broke. You no longer have a cash flow. You have to come begging 

before the general fund, a grand old agency that used to fund itself 

and have surplus money that it put into the general fund is today 

in a very different environment than it was simply a decade ago. 

Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Craig. 

I don’t see Senator Bennett, but if he comes back we’ll allow him 

some time, and I’d like to begin with Mr. Rey now for his testimony, and then the Forest Service. 

How long do you believe you need, Mr. Rey? 

Mr. REY. Oh, I think that—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. REY [continuing]. I can be done in the usual 5 minutes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That would be excellent if we could do that. 

I think for this hearing the questions, really, are the most beneficial, so thank you very much. 

Mr. REY. Sure, and I will summarize for the record—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If we could begin the clocks, please. Thank 

you. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MARK E. REY

Mr. REY. What I’ll touch on in my testimony is three issues: First 

the Wildland fire programs and management reforms; second, the 

proposal for reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools legislation; 

and, third, the State and Private Forestry programs. 
57 

1The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large 

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and 

TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Direct, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720–6382 (TDD), USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

The 2009 budget proposes a total of $1.97 billion for Wildland Fire Management programs, including $994 million for suppression, $588 million for preparedness, and $297 million for hazardous 

fuels. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could you speak up, please? I think your 

mike’s on, it’s just hard to hear you. 

Mr. REY. I’m not sure that the mike is live, actually. Is it? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It’s working. 

Mr. REY. Okay. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. We need you to—— 

Mr. REY. I’ll try to get in to it closer. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Maybe because it’s a bad budget, you don’t 

want to speak too loudly. 

Mr. REY. I’m speaking softly. 

Additionally, the Forest Service is adopting significant management reforms to ensure equitable fire suppression cost-sharing between Federal and other firefighting entities. We are fully implementing the Risk Informed Appropriate Management Response and 

an acting cost-containment accountability throughout the Wildland 

Fire program. 

Despite having more fires in 2007 than we did in 2006 and a 49 

percent increase in acres burned, the cost of suppressing fires was 

$127 million lower in 2007 due to aggressive implementation of appropriate management response and other cost-containment measures. 

In southern California, you may recall that when we testified on 

December 13, we compared our experiences in the 2007 southern 

California fire season with our experiences in the 2003 season, noting that in almost every available index our performance was superior in 2007 even given more dire circumstances. 

We have recently completed a draft of the annual report for the 

Fire and Aviation Management program, and I will submit that for 

the record. 

[The information follows:] 

DRAFT FIRE AND AVIATION MANAGEMENT YEAR REVIEW—FISCAL YEAR 2007 1

LETTER FROM DIRECTOR TOM HARBOUR

The greatest accomplishment of fiscal year 2007 was being safe and successful. 

Human safety is, and always will be, our first priority as we strive to protect and 

manage the public lands entrusted to us. I am thankful every day that in 2007 we 

have not had to mourn the loss of any Forest Service firefighters on the fireline. 

We, in the Fire and Aviation Management program, have faced many challenges 

this year and made measurable accomplishments. We are strategically preparing for 

the years to come. 

Fire and Aviation Management is at a crossroads. Critical analysis of the program’s function and purpose over the past 10 years has led to various documents, 

policies, management reviews and the integration of fire with ecosystem manage-
58 

ment. As the agency looks forward to the next decade, Fire and Aviation Management must significantly increase efficiency, manage organizational structure and 

lead the charge to improve land conditions. 

We are continually challenged by the growth of communities into previous 

wildland areas—80 percent of our population lives in urban environments; and as 

the Chief has pointed out, they need to understand the connection of natural resources to their homes and communities, as well as the effects of climate change, 

the importance of protecting water resources and of maintaining healthy forests. 

Fires are a natural part of forested landscapes; but each year, wildfires come earlier 

and last longer. Fires burn hotter and bigger; they have become more damaging and 

dangerous to people and property. 

As wildfires and their associated risks increase, controlling the cost of fighting 

wildland fire continues to be one of our greatest challenges. Gone are the days of 

‘‘throwing everything but the kitchen sink’’ at each and every fire. We are making 

the transition from ‘‘overwhelming mass’’ applied to every fire to using the doctrinal 

approach of speed, agility and focus. Make no mistake, I am not suggesting that 

overwhelming mass will cease to be an objective for some fires, but I am suggesting 

that a variety of wildland and prescribed fire will benefit from the application of 

a doctrine which considers speed, agility and focus. 

To accomplish this transition, we and our interagency partners have adopted 

management efficiencies, focused on wildfires, which were categorized into the areas 

of Leadership, Operations and Management. These management efficiencies were 

practiced with some great success during the 2007 fire season—realizing a savings 

of approximately $200 million. This, coupled with the doctrinal approach to wildland 

firefighting, will allow us to create an organization guided by well-stated doctrinal 

principles which represent the reality of the work, the environment and our mission. 

Finally, the basis for our accomplishment is anchored in people. Partnerships 

among Federal, State, tribal, and local firefighting agencies continue to expand and 

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of wildland fire management across agencies and boundaries. We need to incessantly build a strong, well-trained workforce 

who can teach others, think and react to the future in a professional, trustworthy 

manner, and always, with integrity. 

As public servants, we are accountable to those who trust we will do our jobs and 

do them prudently, professionally and effectively, in collaboration with our other 

Federal, State, tribal, and local partners. This publication is intended to be a reflection of the year past—a report card of sort, which will detail some of the challenges 

we’ve faced, as well as our accomplishments and successes. It will be centered on 

certain ‘‘themes,’’—the goals identified in our National Fire and Aviation Strategic 

Plan which ties back to the Forest Service Strategic Plan. Those goals include: technology and science; protection of life, property, natural and cultural resources; hazardous fuels and restoration; community assistance; effective communications; and 

promoting workforce capacity and diversity. We recognize our future is decided with 

people and that having strategic goals and a doctrinal approach to managing 

wildland fire is vital. We will continue to work toward those goals. 

The challenges are many; but with our talented, dedicated employees and the support of our partners, we will continue to progress. I look forward to working together 

to meet the challenges in the years ahead. 

TOM HARBOUR, 

Director. 

PART I.—2007 FIRE SEASON DISCUSSION

Agency suppression expenditures have increased in recent years due to the effects 

of the wildland urban interface and climatic and ecological changes. As a result, protection of life, property and natural resources from wildland fire has become more 

complex, demanding and expensive. 

In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service continued implementation of an aggressive 

hazardous fuel reduction program, accelerated the use of risk-informed management, initiated operational efficiencies and adopted rigorous management controls. 

More specifically, these actions included: 

—focus on hazardous fuels treatments in wildland urban interface areas and in 

fire-adapted ecosystems that present the greatest opportunity for restoration; 

—accelerated development and deployment of decision tools similar to the 

Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) to support risk-informed incident management; 

—implemented operational efficiencies such as management of national and critical resources for maximum flexibility and expanded the use of Exclusive Use 

aviation contracts; and 
59 

—the execution of management controls akin to the establishment of the InterDeputy Group, the Chief Principle Representative, the Line Officer certification 

process for incident management, and the enhancement of fiscal monitoring and 

oversight. 

Fire and Aviation Management (FAM) has worked aggressively with other agency 

programs and cooperators to implement these strategies and manage suppression 

expenditures. These actions resulted in significantly lower suppression expenditures 

than would have occurred under previously implemented strategies. 

Fire Suppression Expenditure Forecast 

Fire and Aviation Management utilizes a model developed by the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station to forecast fiscal year fire suppression expenditures. The model 

has been used since fiscal year 1998 and relies on Predictive Services’ forecasts, historical and current year-to-date expenditures to estimate future expenditures. A 

2005 analysis indicated this respective model does extremely well forecasting suppression expenditures. The fiscal year 2007 August forecast indicated a range of 

Forest Service expenditures from $1.4 to $1.75 billion with a median forecast of 

$1.57 million. 

The Forest Service expended $1.37 billion at the conclusion of fiscal year 2007— 

below the 1 percent probability forecast of $1.4 billion and $200 million below the 

median forecast of $1.57 billion, achieving the agency’s projected $200 million of 

savings in fiscal year 2007. The savings were realized as a direct result of the agency’s aggressive implementation of risk-informed management, operational efficiencies and management controls. 

Fiscal Year 2007 Wildland Fire Management Appropriation Highlights 

In February 2007, the President signed the Revised Continuing Appropriations 

Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 110–5), which included funding for the Forest Service 

through September 30, 2007. The full-year Continuing Resolution sustained all requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations and other provisions of the fiscal 

year 2006 Appropriations Act with the exception of emergency funding. The act also 

stripped all earmarks from bill and report language. 

The full-year Continuing Resolution included specific amounts for Wildland Fire 

plus an additional amount for pay-costs—the total Wildland Fire appropriation was 

approximately $1.82 billion. In May 2007, an Emergency Supplemental (Public Law 

110–28) authorized $370 million for Fire Suppression bringing the total available 

Wildland Fire funds to $2.29 billion. There were several other notable changes from 

fiscal year 2006: 

—Total funds for Preparedness increased by $5 million. Regional allocations were 

increased $29 million to ensure readiness capability was commensurate with 

congressional intent. 

—Funds for Hazardous Fuels increased by $21 million. Regional allocations increased $14 million. These numbers do not reflect funds from other programs 

or appropriations. The agency also initiated use of a newly developed risk based 

allocation process. 

—Total funds for Suppression Operations increased by $51 million. This increase 

was based on the inflation-adjusted 10-year moving average of suppression expenditures. An Agency Severity fund limitation of $35 million was established 

which included regional limitations. 
60 

—The remaining funds for all other Wildland Fire accounts remained relatively 

constant. 

Wildland Fire Management represented 42.1 percent of the Forest Service’s Discretionary budget in fiscal year 2007—a significant portion and a 1.4 percent increase over fiscal year 2006. The agency expended $1.374 billion on fire suppression 

in fiscal year 2007, necessitating a $100 million transfer of funds from other program areas. 

Fire and Aviation Management aggressively pursued budget planning strategies 

to enhance efficiency and cost effectiveness through risk-informed allocation of preparedness resources (Fire Program Analysis), alternative methods of funding suppression activities (Fire Partitioning), risk-informed prioritization of hazardous fuel 

treatments (Ecosystem Management Decision Support), and prioritization of funds 

to States (State and Private Forestry Re-Design). 

PART II.—MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

OVERVIEW

Fiscal year 2007 started where 2006 left off with a volatile, active fire season in 

southern California that extended well into the winter months. Predictive Services 

forecasted significant wildland fire potential throughout the 2007 season. Critical 

conditions influencing the wildland fire outlook were: 

—drought conditions expanding and intensifying across large portions of the West 

and Southeast; 

—low snow pack, warmer-than-normal forecasted temperatures and earlier snow 

melt over most of the West—likely to dry out timber fuels and cause an early 

onset of fire season in some areas; 

—the abundance of new and carryover fine fuels expected to green up and cure 

early, leading to an active, prolonged grassland fire season; and 

—a hotter than normal summer was projected for the West. 

These projections were realized early in the season when by the end of June 2007, 

drought and high temperatures resulted in wildfires burning of over 1.1 million 

acres in the southern area and more than 161,000 acres in the eastern area of the 

United States and Canada. Preparedness Level 5 was declared on July 19, 2007, 

with 61 active large fires occurring across 9 geographic zones. 

For the 2007 fire season, the Forest Service secured firefighting forces comparable 

to those available during the 2006 season and added two interagency National Incident Management Organization (NIMO) teams ready to respond to wildland fire incidents. 

Escalating fire suppression costs continued to be a concern, as the wildland fire 

seasons in recent years have generally lasted longer and acreage figures have 

grown. In fiscal year 2007, the Wildland Fire Management Appropriation represented 42.1 percent of the Agency’s Discretionary budget—a 1.4 percent increase 

over 2006. 

Over the past several years, various studies and assessments dedicated to fire 

suppression costs have been conducted. As a result of these reviews, several hundred recommendations were made. Fire and Aviation Management has taken those 

recommendations seriously; and this year, aggressively pursued cost efficiency and 

management strategies to enhance the efficiency and cost effectiveness of fighting 
61 

fire. Management efficiencies were adopted that included cost control measures focused on leadership, operations, and aviation and general management practices. 

The implementation of these management efficiencies proved effective during the 

2007 season, and their components and successes are discussed in further detail 

throughout this report. 

The Successes 

Throughout the season, incident managers adopted risk-informed strategies to 

manage wildfires within the context of the geographic and national situation. They 

implemented long-term plans with established primary protection objectives, strategies and tactics to achieve those objectives in an efficient, effective manner within 

the limits dictated by individual fires. The Forest Service realized great successes 

in the areas of aviation efficiencies and contracting, hazardous fuels treatments— 

exceeding 3 million acres treated this year across boundaries, partnership accomplishments, international cooperation and input into the National Response Plan. 

Those endeavors are detailed in the sections that follow. As always, collaboration 

is expected. Other Federal, tribal, State, and local partners continue to be an integral, vital part of the Forest Service success in meeting the expectations of Congress, as well as those of the American people. 

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND EFFICIENCIES

Management efficiencies are the cost control measures focused on leadership, operations, aviation and general management practices. These efficiencies were developed after numerous reviews and evaluations centered round fire suppression and 

large fire costs were conducted by independent, outside sources and other Federal 

regulatory agencies. More than 300 recommendations were generated from these reviews. These suggestions were integrated into the current management efficiencies—a number were implemented in 2007 with good success, others will be implemented over the long term. When fully implemented they will serve to ensure 

the following: 

—Clear, concise understanding of Appropriate Management Response (AMR) or 

choosing the best suppression strategy for the resources and values at risk (Policy Transition to Risk-Informed Management). 

—Expanded knowledge, skills and abilities for agency administrators responsible 

for managing large or nationally significant fires (Line Officer Certification). 

—Increased oversight from the Regional and Washington offices on incidents of 

national significance (Chief Principle Representative). 

—Increased support in support of the agency administrator in the development 

and implementation of decisions (Fire Suppression Decision Support). 

—Severity funds are used within limits (Severity Authorization Limitations). 

—Monitor expenditures and provide oversight on total cost of each incident. 

—Critical, high demand resources such as Type 1 firefighting crews, helicopters 

and heavy air tankers are managed in a more centralized fashion to achieve 

more flexibility (National Shared Resources). 

—Revision of the current aviation strategy ensuring the safe, financially prudent 

use of firefighting aircraft (Aviation Resource Cost Management). 

This segment of the report will strive to describe each of the management efficiencies implemented in 2007 and some of the success experienced by each. 

Stratified Cost Index—Performance Measure for Large Fire Suppression Costs 

Due to growing fire suppression costs and the lack of a quantifiable performance 

measure for suppression expenditures, congressional appropriation language in 2005 

directed the Forest Service, in collaboration with the Department of the Interior, to 

develop an interim performance measure for suppression expenditures and to begin 

reporting on this measure in fiscal year 2006. 

The interim performance measure called for by Congress was a stratified cost 

index (SCI), originally specified in the appropriation language as cost per acre/energy release component. After discussions between the Forest Service, Department 

of the Interior representatives and economists at the Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS), the decision was made that the SCI would assess a variety of factors 

influencing suppression expenditures, rather than focusing solely on energy release 

component. 

Built using data over the past 10 years of nearly 2,000 large—greater than 300 

acres, Forest Service wildfires, the SCI calculates the expected suppression cost of 

a large fire considering each specific fire’s characteristics. The cost calculated by SCI 

is subsequently compared to actual suppression expenditures. 

SCI was incorporated into the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) 

process during the 2007 fire season. Problems were encountered when SCI considers 
62 

complexes—or multiple fires, because part of what the model uses is the ignition 

point. When you have a complex of fires, rather than a single fire, SCI loses that 

part of the equation. FAM is reviewing how to deal with complexes from both the 

management and data standpoint. Additionally, the incorporation of SCI in WFDSS 

created some concerns considering that the spatial data used for SCI is limited in 

history. 

The Success 

Although refinement of SCI is needed, its use this season assisted agency administrators and the Chief’s Principle Representatives with evaluating current costs of 

fires as compared to past fires with similar fuel types and ignition sources. SCI allowed officials to better evaluate the tactics and strategies from an historical cost 

data viewpoint as compared to today’s costs. From that data, officials were able to 

see if the proposed approach was comparable. If the costs were higher, SCI afforded 

them the ability to determine the reasons. 

The Rocky Mountain Research Station is in the process of evaluating the SCI 

model and will provide Forest Service leadership feedback after a sensitivity analysis of the model concerning the use of ignition point. 

FEDERAL WILDLAND FIRE POLICY

Federal Wildland Fire policy has changed greatly since 1935 when the agency instituted the ‘‘10 a.m. Policy,’’ under which all new fires were to be controlled by midmorning on the day after they were reported. Existing policy gives Federal fire managers a high degree of flexibility in managing wildland fire. Current implementation 

direction requires that fire managers apply an Appropriate Management Response 

(AMR) to every wildland fire event, allowing a common sense approach to the management of a fire by applying fire management resources at places and times where 

they can be effective and efficient. Beginning with the initial response and continuing throughout the incident, all decisions consider firefighter and public health 

and safety, fire cause, current and predicted weather and fire behavior, fire effects, 

values to be protected from fire, management priorities, resource availability, cumulative effects of the fire, and cost effectiveness. 

In 2007, Forest Service regions applied flexibility afforded by Federal Wildland 

Fire Policy to develop and implement wildland fire responses commensurate with 

availability of firefighting resources, protection and resource objectives, coupled with 

the probability of success. Regional application of the appropriate management response concept freed up firefighting resources for initial attack and focused fire 

management efforts on critical portions of wildland fire incidents. 

Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) Tools 

Recently, new tools were developed to assist fire managers and agency administrators in making decisions regarding strategies and tactics on wildland fires. The 

use of these tools has the potential to improve the understanding of wildland fire 

decisions and the rationale behind them. This year, they were available for priority 

fires. 

WSDSS—Fire Spread Probability Model (FSPro) 

WFDSS-FSPro is a spatial model that calculates and maps the probability of fire 

spread, in the absence of suppression, from a current fire perimeter or ignition point 

for a specified time period. Combining data layers that include the standard fuel 

models, current weather projections, historical weather scenarios, fuel moisture classification, and wind speed and direction, WFDSS-FSPro can project probabilities of 

fire spread in specified increments of 7, 10, 13, 30, and 90 days. It is not a fire perimeter like a FARSITE map. WFDSS-FSPro assists managers prioritize firefighting 

resources based on probabilities of fire spread. The model helps to assess a fire’s 

growth potential. Managers can then match appropriate strategies, tactics and resource allocations. The program can also aid in communications with affected partners and the public. 
63 

WFDSS—Rapid Assessment of Values at Risk (RAVAR) 

WFDSS–RAVAR is also a spatial model, showing the primary resource values to 

be protected and/or at risk by ongoing large fire events. The program can be directly 

integrated with the WFDSS-FSPro model, as demonstrated above, to identify the 

likelihood of different resources being threatened. The most important data layer 

generated by the WFDSS–RAVAR model is the structure layer, using local parcel 

records but is not limited to the assessment of threatened structures. Any resource 

value that has been spatially mapped may be included within a WFDSS–WFDSS– 

RAVAR assessment including power lines, road networks, gas pipelines, recreation 

facilities, sensitive wildlife habitat, cultural heritage sites and municipal water intakes. WFDSS–WFDSS–RAVAR assists fire managers in the prioritization of firefighting resources based on values to be protected segmented by the risk categories 

from WFDSS–WFDSS-FSPro. 

The WFDSS tools can be used on any fire. Use of these tools is mandated on fires 

anticipated to reach expenditures of $10 million or more and recommended for fires 

anticipated to reach, $5 to $10 million. 

National Multi-Agency Coordination Group (NMAC) National Shared Resources 

Managing of national shared resources such as aircraft, equipment, Type 1 crews, 

incident management teams and overhead, Fire Use Teams, smokejumpers, military 

and international assets and other national contract resources are now all being 

treated as national agency assets and managed in a centralized fashion. They are 

moved to areas and incidents based on Predictive Services and planning levels. The 

goals are to enhance responsiveness of the assigned resources and eliminate concentration of resources in a geographic area. Specifically, the National Multi-Agency 

Coordination Group implemented: 

—Management of Type 1 Crews, heavy and medium helicopters was done in a 

more dynamic manner. Geographic Areas provided the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) with specific action points or priority objectives along 

with resource requirements. Resources were then allocated and/or reallocated to 

meet these objectives. This allowed successful actions on multiple fires, rather 

than the standard practice of an automatic 14-day commitment once they are 

on an incident. 
64 

This management philosophy provided greater flexibility in the command and 

control strategy of moving resources to the critical areas through the draw down 

of geographic area resources. The strategy engages a certain level of risk, placed 

on the providing geographic area; however, the risk is mitigated with the ability 

to quickly redeploy if the situation changes. 

—The National Incident Management Organization (NIMO) was assigned to manage large complex incidents and implement long-term fire planning and response, where in prior years, the agency would have had long Type 1 and Type 

2 incident management teams rotating in and out every 2 weeks with the same 

anchor and flank strategy. Where possible, strategies, other than full suppression, were implemented and were successful in mitigating risk to lives, property 

and communities. The use of the NIMO teams provided opportunities to allow 

other Type I teams to be available for the shorter duration but highly complex 

incidents. In addition, part of the cost savings generated above the mobilization 

and demobilization costs is due to the reduced size of the NIMO teams who operated with less than a full incident management team compliment of personnel. 

The NIMO team also provided an opportunity for the New York Fire Department Incident Management Team to shadow and assist on a complex Type 1 

incident. This not only provided support to the NIMO team but also allowed the 

agency to build capacity in support of all-hazard incidents in the future. 

—Incident Management Teams in many cases were assigned to manage more 

than one or multiple fires using a range of wildland fire and response strategies. 

The utilization of Fire Use Teams (FUMT) also changed this year to allow for 

more flexibility in meeting the demand for teams but also saving funds by implementing appropriate management response strategies, whereas a Fire Use 

Management Team—fully qualified to handle any Type 2 incident, already assigned to an incident would also take on the management of a new incident 

rather than filling the request with another Type 2 IMT. This occurred several 

times throughout the season, but was utilized to the largest degree on the 

Payette and Salmon-Challis National Forests in Idaho. 

—Another strategy utilized by NMAC this year was to allow an existing incident 

management team to manage fire use incidents if they were already managing 

a wildland fire or multiple fires with the addition of a Long-Term Analyst 

(LTAN) to their personnel. This provided for increased flexibility in the incident 

management teams use of existing resources and eliminated the requirement 

for demobilization of the incident management team and the mobilization of a 

FUMT and related resources. 

The final piece worth noting is that NMAC required the geographic area submit a detailed rationale when a team request was submitted. NMAC would review the request and rationale, respond back with not only the available resources to fulfill the request, but also they would also suggest other items and 

strategies for managing the situation. This allowed for controlling the number 

of resources to be assigned in cases where management of incidents/complexes 

and strategies could be refined. 

In applying all the strategies and utilizing appropriate management response and 

long-term planning the following cost comparisons display the estimated cost savings: 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 FIRE SEASON 

Incident 1 Duration 

(days) 

Total 

acres 

Team 

assigned 

Total 

cost 

Cost per 

acre 

Ahron Fire ............................... 25 41,260 Type I Team ............................ $6,500,000 $157 

Rattlesnake ............................. 23 29,652 Type II Team ........................... 6,200,000 209 

Poe Cabin ............................... 14 54,500 Fire Use Team ........................ 5,400,000 99 

1 The comparisons above display how utilizing the appropriate decision models, current predictive services information, managing resources 

on a geographic area basis versus incident only basis can contribute to reducing the costs of large fires. The same principles and development of long-term plans and protection points were incorporated into managing the large complexes in Idaho and California, as well. 

APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT RESPONSE (AMR)—SUCCESS STORIES

Prioritizing Scarce Fire Management Resources to Mitigate Risk and Minimize Loss 

Northern Rockies Geographic Area 2007 

The Northern Rockies Geographic Area experienced a fire season setting records 

for high temperatures, low relative humidity and extreme fire danger. Despite the 
65 

conditions favoring the rapid spread and development of high intensity wildfires, 

initial attack efforts achieved a 98 percent success rate. Fires escaping initial attack 

due to fire behavior conditions and resource availability would require significant 

commitment of fire management resources to obtain perimeter control or be managed as long-duration events until a season ending weather event occurred. In order 

to minimize costs and maintain initial attack effectiveness, a regional strategy for 

managing these fires was implemented to ensure the safety of all fire management 

personnel and the public while deploying firefighting resources when and where 

they would be most effective in mitigating economic and natural resource loss. 

In 2007, at a strategic level, the Northern Rockies Multi-Agency Coordination 

Group (MAC) and the represented agencies adopted a primary strategy of cost effectiveness where learning how to work smarter was emphasized over a cost efficiency 

strategy of simply working harder. Using this regional strategy, they aggressively 

implemented the flexibility afforded them by Federal Wildland Fire Policy. The region applied a wide-range of strategic and tactical options to manage wildland fires 

which met protection and fire use management objectives as described in their respective land management plans. 

When planned conditions were met in areas where wildland fire use was allowed, 

after a Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP) was completed, lightning fires 

were managed as wildland fire use events to achieve resource benefit. In areas not 

appropriate for wildland fire use, after the Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA) 

was completed, long-term implementation plans were developed for fires where assigning additional resources would have little chance for successful perimeter control. Decision support system tools were critical elements used in both the WFIP 

and WFSA development. 

A key component of the Northern Rockies strategy was the approach taken to 

prioritize and allocate fire management resources. The prioritization process allocated critical firefighting resources to key management action points—not to individual fires. The use of management action points for both wildland fire use events 

and long-duration events allowed the precise application of resources to key sections 

of a fire where the consequences of management actions were greatest and did not 

allow commitment of resources to the ‘‘siege’’ fire events where effectiveness and 

outcomes were uncertain. 

Priorities were established through the use of a decision model which used defined 

criteria, evaluated the relative importance of the criteria and rated potential management actions accordingly. Key criteria used in the evaluation included values at 

risk, probability of success and duration of commitment of firefighting resources. 

The decision model process enabled open discussion of evaluation criteria by leadership and facilitated documentation of decisions regarding prioritization and allocation of resources. 

Long-term management strategies were developed for over 20 incidents, and 

Wildland Fire Implementation Plans were created for more than 64 wildland fire 

use events. The geographic area monitored fire management costs and accomplishments for individual wildfires and fire use events. This type of monitoring allowed 

further evaluation and understanding of the effectiveness of these strategies and the 

utilization of resources, thereby providing a basis for future fire management operations. 

CHIEF’S PRINCIPLE REPRESENTATIVE (CPR)

An incident becomes one of national significance when it has the potential to 

reach a magnitude and intensity that will capture national attention and/or could 

become a significant drain on response personnel, resources and budget. Wildfires, 

projected to exceed $10 million in total cost, are generally considered to be of national significance. 

In the infrequent situation where an incident reaches national significance or 

when requested by a Regional Forester, a Chief’s Principle Representative (CPR) is 

assigned and available to assist agency administrators in reaching incident management decisions that will achieve safe, effective and efficient operations commensurate with local protection objectives and national priorities. The CPR assists the 

agency administrator to assure appropriate management and fiscal controls are in 

place and functioning. 

Roles and Responsibilities of CPR 

The agency administrator continues to carry incident decision authority associated 

with their respective position; however, the CPR is responsible for: 

—providing assistance and advice to the Regional Forester relative to national 

policies, budgetary objectives and incident management priorities; 

—sharing risks associated with incident decisions; and 
66 

—providing advice to the Regional Forester relative to line officer certification and 

incident management performance. 

The CPR reviews decisions made and decision support information previously developed on the incident. They review scarce or critical resources deployed on the incident along with the availability of or need for those resources nationally. The CPR 

will provide a national perspective to the risk-informed decision process and priority 

deployment of resources for consideration in future agency administrator decisions 

on the incident. They assist in development of public information products to ensure 

that risk-inform decision logic and discussions of national priorities are incorporated. Throughout the incident, the CPR will document activities associated with 

the incident, provide fiscal oversight, assist the Regional Forester in developing a 

budget for the incident and ensure that effective, positive communications occur 

across all levels of the agency and organization. 

Deployment 

A flexible approach to meeting the needs of each individual situation applies to 

the deployment of a CPR. In some cases, the CPR will be sent to the incident to 

work directly with the agency administrator and Regional Forester. In other cases, 

the CPR may work remotely through telecommunication means. The CPR may be 

accompanied by a small decision support group staffed to provide support not already available on the incident. 

Chief’s Principle Representatives were deployed to eight incidents of national significance during fiscal year 2007. 

CHIEF’S PRINCIPLE REPRESENTATIVE (CPR)—SUCCESS STORY

During fiscal year 2007, eight Chief’s Principle Representatives were deployed to 

incidents of national significance throughout the United States. Each was responsible for preparing a report at the conclusion of their assignment. Collectively, these 

reports were reviewed and the following reveals some common observances by the 

Chief’s Principal Representatives: 

—The CPR concept is an excellent idea. Assigning a member of the National 

Leadership to represent the Chief and to assist agency administrators in reaching incident management decisions that will achieve safe, effective and efficient 

operations, commensurate with local protection objectives and national priorities and to help the agency administrator assure that appropriate management 

and fiscal controls are in place and functioning should be continued. 

—Appropriate Management Response and the use of Wildland Fire Decision Support System tools are the keys to cost efficiency when managing wildland fire. 

—The use of a CPR on incidents affords the opportunity for the mentoring of line 

officers with limited fire experience. 

LINE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

All line officers will meet enhanced qualifications prior to being designated as the 

responsible official for an incident. The certification process has been developed and 

is designed to improve decision-making and risk management on large fires. Certification will be at three levels. In addition, a mentoring network has been established 

of experienced line officers to provide training and share experience to enhance performance skills. 

AVIATION EFFICIENCIES AND CONTRACTING

A full-time National helicopter coordinator is in place to provide interagency national oversight for the assignment and positioning of helicopters. This year, the 

Forest Service shifted to more ‘‘exclusive use’’ (EU) versus ‘‘call when needed’’ 

(CWN) contracts for helicopters. This change in contracting procedures greatly reduced large fire suppression costs with the potential cost savings in the tens of millions of dollars per year. The agencies are pursuing longer term aviation contracts 

for all aviation resources with increased performance-based contacting. 

The National Interagency Aviation Committee (NIAC) has prepared an overarching strategic plan to address the interagency strategic direction. The NIAC plan 

was constructed with input from participating interagency partners. This strategy 

contains an overview of aviation doctrine, mission requirements, currently available 

aviation assets, the role of Federal and State governments in the utilization and 

management of aviation assets, and future infrastructure and technology needs. 

The National Interagency Aviation Committee (NIAC) has prepared an overarching strategic plan to address the interagency strategic direction. The NIAC plan 

was constructed with input from participating interagency partners. This strategy 

contains an overview of aviation doctrine, mission requirements, currently available 
67 

aviation assets, the role of Federal and State governments in the utilization and 

management of aviation assets, and future infrastructure and technology needs. 

The Forest Service and other agencies involved with the plan development realized the need for more specific strategies to address individual agency needs. The 

Forest Service has developed a supplement to this plan to bring the overall interagency strategic direction to the agency level. The Forest Service supports this national strategy with the following initiatives: 

—Safety remains the highest priority. A detailed plan to complete airworthiness 

assessments for all Forest Service firefighting aircraft in compliance with NTSB 

recommendation A–04–29 will be formulated by January 31, 2009. 

—Control of the escalating cost of aviation assets is the second priority. Centralized management of airtankers and Type 1 helicopters, pre-positioning of aircraft and a greater reliance on speed and accuracy will be used to operate more 

efficiently and maintain adequate delivery capacity without sacrificing safety. 

Work together with other firefighting agencies to share aircraft, intelligence and 

other resources in a more collaborative manner. 

—Rebuild the aging fleet of firefighting aircraft is the third priority. The Forest 

Service is measuring the loads incurred by firefighting aircraft and developing 

structural specifications that will identify appropriate aircraft sufficient to carry 

out the mission in a firefighting environment for the long term. Rebuilding toward a smaller, stronger and more agile fleet that takes advantage of modern 

technology is a part of this priority. 

AVIATION EFFICIENCIES AND CONTRACTING—SUCCESS STORY

Exclusive Use Contracting for Aircraft Saves $14,475,000 

The 2007 fire season was extremely active requiring activation of all aviation assets on contract. Exclusive Use (EU) helicopter contracts were utilized, yet there 

was a need for additional helicopters—requiring Call When Needed (CWN) helicopters to supplement the fleet of EU helicopters. The following demonstrates common practices utilizing EU helicopters before CWN and identifies points that indicate when and why CWN resources may be used. 

—Pre-season placement of EU helicopters in areas with higher fire potential can 

lessen the need for last minute CWN resources. EU Helicopters are utilized 

under their pre and post-season option to limit the activation of the more costly 

CWN resources. 

The National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) dispatches helicopters 

based on: 

date/time needed, 

emerging fire or existing large campaign fire, or preposition, 

estimated duration of incident, 

mobilization cost, 

daily availability rate, and 

hourly flight rate. 

The length of need is also addressed at each step of the ordering process to ascertain which resource could be utilized most efficiently for the lowest cost. The 

WildCad dispatch analysis program calculates cost of resource, length of need, proximity to the incident and determines the lowest cost option to meet the need. There 

are instances when ordering a CWN helicopter is significantly cheaper than activating an EU asset. In those instances, CWN helicopters were ordered. 

Incidents routinely cycle out CWN resources when EU helicopters are available 

if it provides a better value to the incidents needs—the NICC Helicopter Coordinator assisted in this transition. 

When the need reaches a level where nearly all helicopters on contract are required, EU resources were utilized first to assist in the success on initial attack incidents. The complement of personnel on an EU resource makes this an excellent use 

of the resource. On the other hand, CWN helicopters do not come with personnel 

and are better served on large incidents rather than initial attack if they are used 

at all. 

The Helicopter Coordinator position works to utilize EU helicopters whenever possible instead of CWN resources, finds aviation personnel to assist incidents, and 

tracks aircraft movements and utilization daily to ensure and realize the greatest 

efficiencies. 

Exclusive Use helicopters are contracted to guarantee their availability for the duration of the time period contracted. The average national EU contract period is 90 

days. CWN aircraft have the ability to work for us one day and someone else the 

next; there is no commitment from the vendor under the CWN. 
68 

The efficiencies identified above led to an estimated cost savings of $14,475,000 

for the fiscal year based on utilizing the aircraft under exclusive use. Total cost savings estimate for entire life of the contracts is $26,441,486. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The hazardous fuels treatment and ecological restoration job that lies before Federal land management agencies, tribes, States, counties, and local communities is 

enormous. The best opportunity to protect communities and valuable resources in 

the event of a problem fire is to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations through active 

management, aligning programs and leveraging resources to bring the full capability 

of the agency and partners to bear on the problem. Despite an extremely busy fire 

season, the Forest Service was able to reduce hazardous fuels on over 3 million 

acres from all vegetation management programs in 2007. 

The Forest Service remains committed to the reduction of hazardous fuels adjacent to communities. Since the National Fire Plan was instituted in fiscal year 2001, 

nearly two-thirds of all hazardous fuel reduction funds have been invested in the 

wildland urban interface (WUI), treating more than 7 million acres directly adjacent 

to communities—an area comparable in size to the State of Maryland. In 2007, the 

Forest Service treated 1.4 million acres of WUI. Fuel reduction in the WUI is the 

most complex, costly work done, balancing the risk, weather conditions, access, 

smoke concerns, and important but intricate, collaborative relationships with communities, stakeholders and partners. 

Forest Service hazardous 

fuels reduction accom- plishments 

Fiscal year 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Total Acres TreatedHF ........................... 772,400 1,361,600 1,248,300 1,453,300 1,803,400 1,663,700 1,454,300 1,725,400 

WUI Acres .......... .............. 611,600 764,400 1,114,100 1,311,000 1,187,900 1,045,100 1,138,500 

Non-WUI Acres ... .............. 750,100 494,000 339,200 492,400 476,000 409,200 586,900 

Other Programs: 

Restoration ........ .............. ................ ................ ................ 550,200 730,300 839,500 821,200 

SFA Grants ........ .............. ................ 40,100 136,300 146,000 76,600 82,000 216,000 

Wildland Fire 

Use ................ 37,900 62,600 59,400 290,900 60,900 251,100 171,700 264,100 

HAZARDOUS FUELS PRIORITIZATION AND ALLOCATION SYSTEM

Increased numbers and frequency of large fires have drawn attention to the agency’s hazardous fuels reduction program and the method by which areas are 

prioritized for treatment and funding. In order to identify high priority areas and 

integrate hazardous fuels treatments, the agency developed a consistent, spatially 

relevant process to inform funding allocation decisions. By implementing this system, the Forest Service is able to more effectively implement hazardous fuels 

projects and funding in order to have the greatest impact. 

The prioritization and allocation methodology for the hazardous fuels reduction 

program is now used by both the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. 

Nationally-consistent geospatial information is modeled to prioritize Regions for 

hazardous fuels funding. The following decision criteria determine the priorities: 

—wildfire potential (based on fuels potential, weather potential and large fire occurrence potential); 

—negative consequence associated with catastrophic fire (values at risk); and 

—past performance and other opportunities (other funding sources and restoration objectives). 

LANDFIRE is a 5-year, multi-partner project producing the only consistent and 

comprehensive national vegetation and fuel maps covering all ownerships in the 

United States. In its fourth year of development, the project continues to make good 

progress with anticipated completion of the continental United States by fiscal year 

2008. A contract will be awarded to continue the development process for Alaska 

and Hawaii. LANDFIRE products help land managers prioritize areas for hazardous 

fuel reduction and ecological restoration, and are routinely used to support wildland 

fire suppression decisions. 

LANDFIRE products are used by the Hazardous Fuels Prioritization Allocation 

System, Fire Program Analysis, Wildland Fire Decision Support System, and the 

State and Private Forestry Redesign Analysis Tool. It will also feed directly into the 

Southern States Wildfire Risk Assessment. The project has an approved Operations 

and Maintenance Plan, and is on time and on budget. 
69 

HAZARDOUS FUELS—SUCCESS STORIES

Fuel Treatments Help Firefighters Save 100 Homes on Tin Cup Fire, Darby, Montana 

Hazardous fuel treatments on public and private lands significantly contributed 

to the success of firefighters when containing the Tin Cup Fire, outside Darby, Montana, during the 2007 fire season. The fuel reduction projects resulted from partnerships between the Forest Service, Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, the Bitter Root Resource Conservation and Development Area, Incorporated, and private landowners. The locations of these treatments were guided by 

priorities established in the Bitterroot Valley’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 

The Bitterroot National Forest treated 214 acres during the months preceding the 

fire; and the Bitter Root Resource Conservation and Development, working through 

grants from the Forest Service and the Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and conservation, assisted five landowners in treating an additional 102 acres during the previous 5 years. 

PREPARATION SPARES COMMUNITY DURING GRASS VALLEY FIRE, SAN BERNARDINO

NATIONAL FOREST, CALIFORNIA

Tammy Hopkins awoke just after 4:30 a.m., on Monday, October 22, 2007, to hear 

her 8-month-old son crying and realize the power was out to her home. As the Lake 

Arrowhead area resident scooped her son out of his crib, flashlight beams raked her 

darkened walls; and she heard the honking of a neighbor coming down the road. 

Back in the master bedroom, the sliding glass doors, normally opened to a panoramic view of the canyon, revealed a red glow that could only mean one thing—a 

fire and a big one at that. 

The firefighter’s wife was only concerned with protecting the young couple’s two 

sons. She knew she had to do it alone. Her husband had been called to a fire that 

began earlier in the recent siege of southern California fires. She gathered her 

things and headed to her husband’s grandparents down the block to help them. 

In the 15 minutes it took to alert the elderly couple and get them into the car, 

a power line had fallen across the exit route; and the group had to retreat, heading 

back toward the fire in order to reach another roadway. ‘‘At that point, I could see 

flames from the canyon below my house,’’ Tammy relates. ‘‘But the engines were 

coming down the street, and we had the fuel break.’’ 

The fuel break Tammy makes reference to was a 150-foot wide clearance, or 

ground fuels treatment, funded by the Forest Service through the California Fire 

Safe Council. It had been something of an experiment. Fire Chief George Corley 

summarized the project by saying, ‘‘We wanted to use our grant to show that you 

could do a little work along the edge of the interface and get paid extensive dividends. We trimmed up trees and removed ground fuels on the slope beneath the 

homes.’’ 

The experiment worked. In the aftermath of the 1,247-acre Grass Valley Fire, 

Chief Corley recounted, ‘‘What we did gave fire crews enough time to anchor off it 

(the fire from the fuel break). Firefighters didn’t have to struggle with fires in the 

backyards, so the structure protection units were able to keep moving down the 

street. Unfortunately, the first house outside the project area burned to the ground. 

But that’s how you know this works; you can stand here and see it. This project 

only cost $40,000, but it saved millions of dollars worth of homes.’’ 

CAL FIRE’s San Bernardino Unit Chief Tom O’Keefe added, Arrowhead Fire Safe 

Council and San Bernardino County Fire ‘‘prevented these losses 6 months ago.’’ 

WILLIAMS TRAIL FUEL BREAK TESTED DURING THE GALION FIRE, HURON-MANISTEE

NATIONAL FOREST, MICHIGAN

In an effort to protect a small subdivision from wildfire, a shaded fuel break was 

constructed adjacent to homes along Williams Trail in 2002. The fuel break was 

about one-half mile long and 200 to 300 feet wide. The construction consisted of tree 

thinning to increase the distance between the tree crowns, and several homeowners 

prepared for potential wildfire events by establishing defensible space around their 

homes and thinning flammable tree species such as jack and red pine. 

On August 30, 2007, the Galion Fire erupted to the south of the Williams Trail 

subdivision. The fire quickly transformed into a running crown fire heading toward 

the Williams Trail subdivision; however, once the fire hit the fuel break, its intensity reduced to a ground fire. Although the ground fire continued through the fuel 

break and into the subdivision and destroyed several structures, most remained 

damage free; home owners who had prepared ahead of time suffered little or no 

damage to their homes or outbuildings. 
70 

The fire stopped later that day as the weather moderated and ran into the moister, riparian area of Silver Creek. In total, 557 acres burned. Two homes were lost 

in the subdivision adjacent to the fuel break. 

The fire was controlled with assistance from the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources; the Grant Township; Tawas City, East Tawas and Plainfield Township 

Fire Departments; Michigan State Police; Iosco County Sheriff; United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the United States Forest Service. 

Camp Caloosa Project, Lee County, Florida 

Camp Caloosa is an 80-acre property located in Lee County, Florida, and is designated as a high wildfire risk area. The camp is owned by the Southwest Florida 

Girl Scouts and is used as a residential camp and instructional retreat. Most of the 

80 acres are pine flatwoods with a significant accumulation of dense palmettos 

reaching 10 to 12 feet tall and areas with dense melaleuca growth. 

Efforts to reduce the hazardous fuels began in the area following a request by the 

local fire department in 2006. The fire department responded to a small wildfire and 

experienced difficulty accessing the property. They were concerned about the dense 

vegetation and the need for additional fuels management of the camp. Following a 

meeting with Scout staff at the camp, a management plan for the property was developed that included a comprehensive mitigation plan. 

During the initial phase of the mitigation plan, walking trails through the camp 

were widened by the Intermountain Region Mitigation Team. The widened trails 

were used to define prescribed burn units for the next phase of the work. 

On April 4, 2007, a wildfire burned into the northwest boundary of the camp. The 

widened trails served as firebreaks that stopped or slowed the fire enough for suppression equipment to work effectively. The trails were also wide enough for brush 

truck access. As a result, the fire burned only eight acres before it was contained. 

The cost of this project, including Intermountain Region team personnel, equipment and local district personnel working jointly on the mitigation project was approximately $9,000; however, the project protected 21 structures with an estimated 

value of $3,675,000 in the face of wildfire. The per structure cost in order to provide 

this additional protection was only $426. 

EFFECTS OF VEGETATION TREATMENTS ON THE VINCENT FIRE, APACHE-SITGREAVES

NATIONAL FOREST, ARIZONA

The Vincent Fire started on the morning of May 29, 2007, outside the treatment 

units contained in White Mountain Stewardship Projects Dutch Joe A and Dutch 

Joe B. These projects were designed to reduce the threat of wildfire to adjacent private lands. Aggressive thinning and slash removal had been completed in 2006 

under the Dutch Joe A project; similar actions were in progress under the Dutch 

Joe B project. 

In each project unit, the understory was thinned and trees up to 18 inches in diameter were removed. Remaining slash was chipped and transported to be burned 

at a 24 mega-watt biomass plant. Large diameter trees were retained, but tree spacing was increased and ladder fuels (branches in the lower part of the trees) were 

removed. 

Once ignited, the Vincent Fire grew rapidly in size due to dense forest conditions, 

low humidity and moderate winds. The ground fire quickly moved into the canopy 

of untreated ponderosa pine stands, and tree torching and running crown fires were 

observed. 

Once the fire reached the area treated by the Dutch Joe A and B projects, it 

dropped from the tree crowns (upper portions of the trees) to the ground, demonstrating that thinning and slash treatments are effective tools to moderate fire 

behavior—far easier and safer to control. 

PARTNERSHIP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The Partnerships program identifies, develops and coordinates with other organizations to achieve shared goals. The result is a synergistic approach to issues such 

as wildland urban interface fire, national emergency response, fire prevention, fire 

in the ecosystem, State and local unit cooperation and coordination, and many other 

issues that affect a wide variety of national interest groups. 

By collaborating with groups such as the National Association of State Foresters, 

International Association of Fire Chiefs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

National Fire Protection Association, and many others, the agency facilitates a cooperative course of action that yields integrated solutions to common issues. 

The Partnerships Program includes Cooperative Fire Protection which deals with 

Volunteer Fire Assistance, State Fire Assistance, and Federal Emergency Personal 
71 

Property. It also includes Fire Prevention, Firewise, the Wildland Urban Interface 

Fire program, and All-Hazard Emergency Answer. The Partnerships program also 

coordinates any requests for international programs and cooperation for Fire and 

Aviation Management. 

PARTNERSHIP—SUCCESS STORIES

Cooperative Fire 

The Forest Service Cooperative Fire program provides support and grant opportunities to assist State and local agencies prepare for and respond to wildland fire. 

The two most important grant opportunities include the State Fire Assistance and 

Volunteer Fire Assistance programs. Many other important initiatives are supported 

either through collaborative efforts or grants. Examples include grants provided to 

the National Association of State Foresters, International Association of Fire Chiefs, 

The Advertising Council, and National Fire Protection Association, as well as collaboration with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Forest Service is 

continuing our commitment, as detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding, to 

work with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior to coordinate wildland fire grant programs. Another important achievement of 

the Cooperative Fire program was the coordination with interagency partners to 

gain approval of an updated template for preparing cooperative wildland fire agreements with the States. The new template was approved by the National Fire and 

Aviation Executive Board in January 2007 and will help improve efficiency and facilitate coordination during wildland fire and also Stafford Act emergency responses. 

State Fire Assistance 

Forest Service funding in 2007 provided in excess of $79 million for technical and 

financial assistance to the States for all fire management activities, including training, planning, hazardous fuel treatments, and the purchase and maintenance of 

equipment. State Fire Assistance funding assisted 33,332 communities in the form 

of risk assessments, fire prevention programs, fire management planning, and hazardous fuel mitigation projects. An emphasis in funding was placed on wildlandurban interface (WUI). The State Fire Assistance program provides key support to 

successful community programs such as Firewise Communities/USA and Fire Safe 

Councils, as well as support for an expanded national public service fire prevention 

program. In addition, many communities and local fire departments, in collaboration 

with State foresters, developed community wildfire protection plans (CWPP’s) to 

prioritize hazardous fuels treatments and reduce structural ignitability in communities that receive support from State Fire Assistance funding. State Fire Assistance 

grants treated approximately 215,000 acres of hazardous fuels in the WUI, helping 

to protect over 6,000 communities at risk from catastrophic wildfire. 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans and Communities at Risk 

In fiscal year 2007, assistance was provided for hazard assessments and funding 

was provided for Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP’s) for communities at 

risk (CAR). CWPP’s address issues such as wildfire response, hazard mitigation, 

community preparedness, and structure protection. They provide communities with 

a tremendous opportunity to influence where and how Federal agencies implement 

fuels reduction plans on Federal lands and how additional Federal funds may be 

distributed for projects on non-Federal lands. State Foresters evaluate the progress 

made at reducing risk in communities at risk (CAR). A CAR may be considered at 

reduced risk by the State Forester if the community has mitigated high priority 

fuels according to the CWPP, has achieved Firewise or equivalent recognition, or 

has enacted mitigation or fire prevention ordinances. The following chart illustrates 

the current status of CWPP’s, as well as Communities at Risk. 

STATUS OF COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLANS—COMMUNITIES AT RISK 

NASF region States with CAR list/map Total CAR 

Communities 

covered by 

CWPP’s 

CAR at reduced risk 

West .............................................................................. 17 6,169 3,145 1,412 

South ............................................................................. 13 40,984 1,160 888 

Northeast ...................................................................... 19 4,459 457 1,514 

Total ................................................................ 49 51,612 4,762 3,814 
72 

Volunteer Fire Assistance 

The Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) program provides grants to rural and volunteer fire departments which serve communities of fewer than 10,000 people. The 

grants are made by the State foresters and funded at a 50/50 cost share. Generally, 

most grants are for less than $5,000 and average $2,000 for a fire department. The 

grants are used for training, firefighting equipment, and safety equipment, including personal protective equipment. They are also used for organizing fire departments. Application for these funds is made by the fire departments to the respective 

State Forester. In fiscal year 2007, the VFA program accomplished the following: 

—increased firefighting capacity by providing technical assistance, training, supplies, and equipment to approximately 10,157 small, rural communities; 

—provided nearly $14 million for technical and financial assistance to States to 

enhance firefighting capacity at State and local levels; and 

—supported the organization or expansion of 53 fire departments. 

VFA SUCCESS

West Virginia uses Volunteer Fire Assistance Funding to Train Wildland Firefighters 

Rural fire protection in the 20 States served by the U.S. Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry relies heavily on volunteer fire departments (VFDs) and their members. While State forestry agencies are legally responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires, local VFDs provide the 

initial attack capabilities on most wildland fires. For the local communities and the 

State forestry agencies, a well-trained, equipped workforce is critical to the suppression of these fires. 

In 2003, the West Virginia Division of Forestry (WVDOF) developed a program 

to train volunteer firefighters in the suppression of wildland fires. Using funding 

from the Volunteer Fire Assistance Program, the WVDOF trains VFP personnel and 

university students in three courses that will enable them to fight wildland fires 

more safely and effectively—Basic Incident Command, Fire Weather Behavior and 

Basic Firefighter training. Upon successful completion of these courses, firefighters 

each receive a set of personal protective equipment—Nomex yellow shirt and green 

trousers. Firefighters are also eligible to take the work capacity test; and if successful, they receive an incident qualifications card—‘‘red card,’’ enabling them to participate on out-of-state fires with the WVDOF. 

Since 2003, the WVDOF has trained more than 390 wildland firefighters under 

the VFA Training Grant. This includes members from more than 83 fire departments, 49 students from the Forestry Department of the West Virginia University 

and 28 members of the West Virginia Air National Guard. The WVDOF has been 

able to increase its firefighting workforce while instilling proper wildland firefighting techniques and safety procedures in their firefighters. 

This training program has increase personnel available for the WVDOF’s wildland 

fire crews for both in and out-of-state fire assignments. Since 2003, the WVDOF has 

conducted eight pack tests and issued more than 180 ‘‘red cards.’’ In addition, the 

firefighter training program has become a permanent part of the West Virginia University’s School of Forestry curriculum. 

Prevention 

Smokey turned 63 years old in 2007, and his message is still needed. Many 

wildfires are carelessly started by humans each year, including the Angora Fire 

near Lake Tahoe, California, during the 2007 fire season. The Angora fire ignited 

when an illegal warming fire was left unattended. It burned more than 3,100 acres, 

cost $12.7 million to suppress, and destroyed more than 250 homes. 

Fire Prevention Education Teams were deployed throughout the Nation before 

and during the 2007 fire season. The Southern Region leads the Nation with more 

than 400 trained prevention team members. 

The teams produced public service announcements (PSA’s) for television and 

radio, created fliers and posters, and conducted Firewise Awareness workshops. One 

of the most notable team achievements was the PSA developed Georgia for national 

comedian Jeff Foxworthy who stated ‘‘Even a 5th grader knows you shouldn’t start 

a wildfire. Cut it out!’’ The PSA’s were aired throughout the Southern Region during 

their busy fire season. 

The prevention message across the country stressed the role of individuals in protecting homes and public lands from wildland fires. Prevention teams worked with 

partners at the University of Nevada—Reno Extension, to develop a ‘one-stop-shopping’ website to educate residents on creating defensible space. 

The Fire Prevention Branch continued the partnership with the Ad Council and 

Radio Disney to increase the awareness of the Ad Council campaigns. The Smokey 
73 

Bear Fire Prevention Campaign remained at the top of Radio Disney’s list of campaigns. More than $12.9 million in media services were donated in the first quarter of 

2007. Radio and outdoor/transit (billboards, bus signs, etc.) media accounted for 62 

percent of total donated media support. Highlights of the media campaign’s first 

quarter, when compared to the same quarter a year ago, include the following: 

—378 percent increase in newspaper-donated media; 

—187 percent increase in magazine-donated media; 

—687,801,976 impressions (each time a target audience member is exposed to the 

message) on the internet, including the New York Times, National Geographic, 

and Google websites; and 

—Spanish and English radio activity dominated air play with the public service 

announcements Smoke :60 and Sprinkler :60. 

Smokey Bear was the only PSA costumed icon at the ‘‘Move it! Summer 2007,’’ 

mall tour, in 42 major markets during July through August. Smokey Bear was one 

of only six PSA campaigns featured at the Eisner Museum of Advertising and Design in Milwaukee. The exhibit continues through March 2008 and is estimated to 

be viewed by over 20,000 visitors. 

The Southern Region, with help from Eastern and Pacific Southwest Regions, coordinated the Smokey Bear advertisement campaign for the Little League World Series. This Advertisement—American Traditions (Apple pie, the American flag, and 

Smokey Bear)—was spearheaded with help from the Virginia Department of Forestry; and the ad was located in each region’s souvenir program guide. The National 

Gardens Clubs and the Forest Service annual poster contest reached 300,000 students. 

RESTORING FIRE ADAPTED ECOSYSTEMS: A FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR AND NATURE CONSERVANCY PARTNERSHIP

The Forest Service, Department of the Interior and Nature Conservancy continue 

to partner to accelerate fire restoration across the country. Restoring Fire Adapted 

Ecosystems is designed to advance the common goals of the sponsoring partners, 

while focusing on collaborative outreach, education, training, and community-based 

conservation. In 2007, the program centered on developing and promoting a common 

national fire education message that emphasizes the role of fire in the ecosystem. 

Fire and Aviation Management funded the public education campaign stressing 

fire’s natural and beneficial role. The campaign complements Smokey Bear’s message of preventing unwanted human-caused wildfires. This partnership supports the 

10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan and the philosophies behind the Chief’s program, ‘‘Kids in the Woods,’’ which encourages the education of youth in order for 

them to understand the link between their homes and the natural resources. 

WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE FIRE PROGRAM

The 2007 fire season started early and got big fast with the Sweat Farm and 

Bugaboo fires in the Southern Region. Once again, wildland urban interface issues 

took the forefront. Development in the WUI continues to grow exponentially and 

along with it the cost of fire suppression and the danger to private property. The 

growth vastly outpaces available resources to protect the structures from wildland 

fire threats. 

Firewise is the best tool for homeowner mitigation of risk from wildland urban 

interface fires. Partnerships’ grant and cooperative agreement with the National 

Fire Protection Association (NFPA) supports the program. Its principles, when implemented, significantly increase defensible space and survivability. It provides a 

layer of safety for structures, homeowners and firefighters. Through this program, 

the Forest Service encourages and teaches property owners to take responsibility for 

mitigation on private land. Every dollar invested in the Firewise program yields $14 

in matching funds or in-kind contributions. 

In 2007, Firewise principles were implemented in every State of the Nation, and 

Firewise Communities were in place in 36 States. There are Firewise liaisons in 45 

States, and over 300,000 people live in Firewise communities. 

Overall visibility and awareness of Firewise and its principles has increased nationwide as a result of targeted outreach to media. Print and broadcast media 

reached over 30 million people with the Firewise message in 2007 alone. NFPA provided over 150,000 printed or audio-visual items, mostly free of charge, to fulfill orders received through the on-line catalog. 

The Firewise web site received an average of 40,000 individual hits per month 

during the peak of fire season, and those individuals visited an accumulated total 

of a million times on the site after logging in. More than 8,400 people are registered 
74 

on the site to receive monthly Firewise Alerts—e-mails with items of interest and 

upcoming events such as chat sessions which are held monthly. Online learning enrollment for fire related topics is also increased. 

Assessing Wildfire Hazards in the Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) training sessions 

reached many more with train-the-trainer sessions in five locations across the country. The HIZ training sessions were so successful that they will be continued in 

2008. 

Partnerships piloted a Firewise Hazard Mitigation Team during the 2007 fire season. The concept concentrated on addressing issues resulting from increased growth 

in the wildland urban interface. 

Federal Excess Personal Property Program (FEPP) 

The Federal Excess Personal Property (FEPP) program allows the loan of Forest 

Service owned property, including high demand equipment and supplies, to State 

foresters in order to assist State and rural agencies and volunteer firefighters in 

preparedness for suppression and pre-suppression missions on Federal, State, and 

community lands. The FEPP program provides items from gloves to fire trucks, 

thereby effectuating substantial savings to the taxpayers. 

FEPP Success 

In 2007, a total of 393 trucks and 218 trailers were assigned to State cooperators. 

In most instances, these items were equipped with tanks, generators and pumps to 

assist firefighters on wildland and brush fires. Approximately 17 pieces of heavy 

equipment were loaned to State cooperators to help maintain and build fire roads. 

In fiscal year 2007, the State forestry agencies have acquired nearly $30 million 

worth of FEPP. Currently, 49 States and 5 territories participate in the FEPP program. 

Department of Defense Firefighter Property Program (FFP) 

The Firefighter Property Program (FFP) is a new authority that began in March 

of 2006. The FFP allows a State to acquire title to excess military equipment and 

then assign that equipment to rural fire departments. The Department of Defense 

(DOD) authorized the Forest Service FEPP program to manage the transfer of DOD 

property through a Memorandum of Agreement. 

The major difference between the FFP and the FEPP program is the ownership 

of the items acquired. All items acquired in the FEPP program remain the property 

of the Forest Service, while items acquired under the FFP are transferred to the 

recipient. The FFP property is screened at a higher level, therefore, making better 

quality and larger quantity of property available for the firefighting agencies. The 

program also acquires items for emergency services such as search and rescue, hazardous material spills and emergency medical services (EMS) equipment in addition 

to firefighting equipment, making it beneficial to participating agencies. These functions often fall within the firefighting agencies’ responsibilities but are not applicable to the FEPP program. 

FFP Success 

Currently, 23 States are able to acquire FFP through the program—Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North 

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. 

New agreements between other States and the Forest Service are in the process, 

with most States expected to be signed up within the next 1 to 2 years. 

In 2007, more than $38 million in equipment went to 23 States. North Carolina 

Division of Forest Resources acquired two backhoes for clearing fire roads, providing 

a cost savings of more than $6 million to the State agency and its taxpayers. 

The FFP has allowed State cooperators to acquire more than 400 refurbished 

trucks, equipped with pumps and generators to assist in rural in wildland firefighting in 2007. With an original acquisition cost of over $18 million, these freeissue vehicles provided an enormous savings to rural and volunteer fire departments 

not only in resources to fight fire but in the level of protection and safety there are 

able to provide their communities. 

Fire Management Today 

Founded in 1936, Fire Management Today has served the wildland fire community for more than 70 years by providing information on new techniques, technologies and ideas. In 2007, a new column was added ‘‘Anchor Point,’’ penned by 

Tom Harbour, Director of Fire and Aviation Management. This column focuses on 

the challenges and changes to Fire and Aviation Management. Another landmark 

event occurred in 2007 for Fire Management Today—the initiation of the Forest 
75 

Service website (http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/) which has been updated with many 

previous issues bookmarked to provide ease in finding information. 

NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN

The Forest Service is a land management agency with a unique combination of 

people, skills and resources that add significant value to the agency’s national allhazard response capability. The agency accepts their all-hazard role under the National Response Plan (NRP) as complimentary to its overall land management mission. In recent years, there has been a major increase in the number and complexity 

of all-hazard incidents resulting in unprecedented demands on Forest Service employees and its partners in emergency response. 

The NRP has been revised and the new draft is called the National Response 

Framework (NRF), which establishes a comprehensive all-hazards approach to enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents. It forms the 

basis of how the Federal Government coordinates with State, local, tribal governments and the private sector during incidents. Partnerships staffs took the lead for 

agency participation in the revision of the NRP by the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS/FEMA). 

The Forest Service is the Primary Agency and coordinator for Emergency Support 

Function 4, Firefighting (ESF4) under the NRP, and this role continues under the 

NRF. The function of ESF4 is to enable the detection and suppression of wildland, 

rural, and urban fires resulting from, or occurring coincidentally with, an incident 

of national significance. ESF4 manages and coordinates firefighting activities, including the detection and suppression of fires on Federal lands, and provides personnel, equipment, and supplies in support of State, tribal, and local agencies involved in rural and urban firefighting operations. 

To successfully accomplish this function, the Forest Service has close working relationships with partner departments and agencies. Department of the Interior 

agencies provide staffing support for ESF4, and wildland fire resource support for 

mission assignments during all-hazard responses. The U.S. Fire Administration 

(USFA) provides subject-matter experts and expertise regarding structural/urban/ 

suburban fire and fire-related activities. The Forest Service, in conjunction with 

USFA, is developing a standardized training program for ESF4 personnel and the 

production of job aids and other ancillary materials for use during ESF4 activations. 

There have been many changes to Federal disaster response based on lessons 

learned from the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. ESF4 personnel participated in 

exercises to test the procedures resulting from the changes. Several exercises, involving many Federal departments and agencies, were held during 2007. The Forest 

Service was an active participant in these exercises at both the national and regional levels. 

NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN—SUCCESS STORIES

Some highlights of the Forest Service’s all-hazard support to the National Response Plan during fiscal year 2007 include: 

—Kansas tornados—when a tornado destroyed the town of Greensburg, Kansas, 

in May 2007, FEMA activated ESF4 regionally at the RRCC in Kansas City. 

ESF4 deployed a Forest Service National Incident Management Organization 

(NIMO) incident management team and an Interagency Hotshot Crew to establish and manage a base camp for emergency responders. 

—Micronesia floods—when salt water intrusion from storm surge and unusually 

high tides in May 2007 wiped out the subsistence food crops in Chuuk, Micronesia, FEMA activated ESF4 regionally to deploy Forest Service personnel as 

part of a preliminary damage assessment team and later to establish and manage a food distribution program, providing quality assurance and technical assistance to a USDA feeding program. 

—Hurricane Dean—Hurricane Dean was one of the strongest hurricanes on 

record; and at one point, threatened several U.S. territories and States. As a 

precaution, FEMA activated ESF4 regionally at the Regional Response Coordination Centers (RRCC) in New York (for Puerto Rico) and Denton, Texas; and 

at the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) in Washington, D.C. Logistics Section personnel were deployed to provide expertise, quality assurance 

and technical assistance to FEMA for the establishment of a base camp. 

NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) SUPPORT

The NIMS outlines a standard approach to incident management and response 

that follows the wildland fire model—one used by the Forest Service and other fire 

agencies for years. It integrates effective practices in emergency response into a 
76 

comprehensive national framework for incident management. In addition, it enables 

responders at all levels to work together more effectively and efficiently to manage 

domestic incidents no matter what the cause, size or complexity. 

Partnerships took the lead for agency’s participation in the upgrade of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) by the DHS/FEMA. Partnership subject 

matter experts were embedded in the senior steering committee for NIMS and 

chaired the working group which developed guidelines for resource typing, 

credentialing, multi-agency coordination, emergency operations centers and an 

emergency response guide book. 

NIMS is of supreme importance for national incident management, but its update 

will have minimal impact on the agency since the Forest Service’s current system 

is grounded in the NIIMS and has been for years. Impact to the agency includes: 

—training of agency personnel (IS–700 and IS–800); 

—review of Emergency Plans at the District, Forest, and Regional levels; 

—review of agreements to ensure NIMS compliance; and 

—resource typing of non-fire assets for disaster service. 

Each Region has identified a NIMS contact to assist in coordination of information 

and to ensure compliance. 

Over 600 Federal, State, local, tribal, non-profit, and private company representatives assisted in the process. Partnerships staffs were part of the ten-person final 

adjudication committee. The upgraded NIMS document was ready for release by the 

June 1, 2007, timeframe established by the White House. The NRP is awaiting final 

review and comment. 

FIRE AND AVIATION MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Over 100 years of wildland firefighting experience has earned the U.S. Forest 

Service a worldwide reputation. This experience, along with the technical and professional expertise of fire specialists in the Forest Service, provides the basis for 

FAM’s international involvement. 

Partnerships staff both coordinate and manage fire requests for international programs. FAM builds and maintains strategic national alliances through emergency 

firefighting arrangements with Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand. 

Some examples of the success experienced by this program are as follows: 

—When firefighting resources became scarce during the 2007 western wildland 

fire season, Canada provided support through the Canada/United States Reciprocal Forest Fire Fighting Arrangement. The United States also provided firefighting support to Australia in January and February 2007 through the United 

States/Australian Participating Agencies Arrangement. 

—FAM employees traveled to Greece as part of a Disaster Assistance Support 

Program (DASP) wildfire technical assessment team in September 2007. The 

team provided technical assistance and support to the government of Greece 

during their disastrous fire season. 

—FAM employees provided instruction in all aspects of fire management on assignments to Mexico, India, Jamaica, and several countries in the Association 

of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). 

—Fire and Aviation Management has been an active member of the Forest Commission (NAFC) Fire Management Working Group (FMWG) for over 40 years. 

The NAFC is one of six regional forestry commissions of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). NAFC, which was established in 1958, provides a forum for fire policy and technical information sharing for member nations (Canada, Mexico and the United States) to discuss and 

address North American forest and fire issues. The FMWG, established in 1962, 

is one of nine working groups under the NAFC. 

—In May 2007, Fire and Aviation Management supported the NAFC–FMWG by 

co-sponsoring the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference in Seville, Spain. 

FAM and NAFC–FMWG supported the exchange of experiences and technological advances by hosting a study tour Australians and New Zealanders. The 

tour visited sites and studied current fire management issues throughout Canada and the western and southern United States during September 2007. 

PART III.—LOOKING AHEAD FOR 2008 

In fiscal year 2008, Fire and Aviation Management will continue to support the 

Chief’s initiatives through the deployment of a program with specific focus areas 

and planned activities. These emphasis areas and activities, highlighted below, will 

enhance the program and agency’s performance and efficiency. They, and others, 

will be integral components in Fire and Aviation Management’s Strategic Plan. 
77 

CHIEF’S INITIATIVE

Fire and Aviation Management will continue to support the Chief’s ‘‘Climate, 

Water and Kids’’ initiative through an integrated program which includes: 

—reduced hazardous fuels and the integration of fire within ecosystems; 

—expanded use of Appropriate Management Response and Wildland Fire Use; 

—protection of vital watersheds during wildland fires and through the restoration 

process; and 

—an education program, reaching all ages, that emphasizes fire prevention, the 

natural role of fire in fire-adapted ecosystems, and the connection of natural resources to the homes and communities surrounding the national forests and 

grasslands. 

FOCUS AREAS

Management Controls and Operational Efficiencies 

Fire and Aviation Management (FAM) will maintain its emphasis on management 

controls and operational strategies which improve program oversight, delivery, effectiveness and efficiency. Utilizing rigorous management controls such as the Chief’s 

Inter-Deputy Group to provide Executive level fiscal leadership and oversight; the 

Chief’s Principle Representative for fires of national significance; and the Line Officer certification process for incident level oversight will emphasize cost containment. 

Strategic use and deployment of firefighting resources and implementation of aviation efficiencies such as centralizing aviation services and assets will be underscored. 

Risk-Informed Management 

The Forest Service will continue to accentuate the importance of decision support 

technology development for risk informed management strategies to support implementation of Appropriate Management Response and prioritization of hazardous 

fuels. Development and refinement of systems and services such as the Wildland 

Fire Decision Support System, the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System and Predictive Services are essential to the agency’s success. These systems and 

other tools will support managers in making informed decisions, thereby increasing 

the likelihood of success and potentially reducing costs. 

Integrated Fuels Management 

The Forest Service will continue to work collaboratively with other Federal, State, 

local, tribal, government and non-governmental organizations, and other partners to 

ensure the accomplishment of mutual objectives. Program funding will be prioritized 

and integrated to accomplish Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) and Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act (HFRA) objectives, efficiently and effectively. Continued emphasis 

will be placed on the integration of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) 

with Federal hazardous fuels mitigation priorities. 

PLANNED ACTIVITIES

Readiness Capability and Mobilization 

The Forest Service will provide readiness resources comparable to fiscal year 

2007, including approximately: 10,480 firefighters, 120 helicopters and 20 

airtankers. The agency will use Predictive Services and other resources to analyze 

potential fire activity to guide strategic placement of resources. All actions will occur 

with firefighter and public safety as the primary consideration. 

Fire and Aviation Management Strategic Planning 

FAM continues to develop a Fire and Aviation Management Strategic Plan linked 

in part to the current Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Improvement Plan. 

The strategy will define program components relative to incentives, accountability 

and cost containment while considering risks and establishing objectives to evaluate 

if strategies are being achieved in an effective and efficient manner. 

Reduce Hazardous Fuels 

The Forest Service will continue hazardous fuels reduction efforts by treating approximately 2.9 million acres of hazardous fuel and reducing flammability of the forests, woodlands, shrublands and grasslands including 2 million acres in the 

wildland urban interface (WUI) and 868,000 acres in areas outside the WUI areas. 

Additionally, fuel loads will be reduced on approximately 1.5 million acres as a secondary benefit through other vegetation management activities, wildland fire use 

events, Hazardous Mitigation Grants awarded under the State Fire Assistance program, and activities of southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. 
78 

The Forest Service will continue participation in the Federal Woody Biomass Utilization Working Group to promote and support the utilization of woody biomass 

and woody biomass products from forest and woodland treatments. 

Restoration and Post-Fire Recovery of Fire Adapted Ecosystems 

The agency will continue to promote the increase of wildland fire use consistent 

with land and resource management plans and public and firefighter safety. These 

acres will be reported annually. On lands that are severely burned by wildland fire 

in fiscal year 2008, emergency stabilization, rehabilitation and restoration treatments will be implemented. Burned areas will continue to be reforested through a 

5-year cost-share agreement with American Forests for Wildfire ReLeaf. Additionally, the Interagency Program to Supply and Manage Native Plan Materials—a 

long-term strategy to improve nursery and plan material center infrastructure and 

monitor restoration effects and public/private partnerships, will be continued. 

Promote Community Assistance 

FAM will partner with the National Fire Protection Association, State, Federal 

and nonprofit partners to encourage community responsibility for hazard mitigation 

through land use planning, building codes, landscaping codes, zoning and community fire protection planning through the Firewise Communities Program. 

Technical assistance, training, supplies and equipment will be provided to more 

than 6,500 small rural communities and 5,075 volunteer fire departments. Firefighting capacity will be increased by providing technical assistance, training, supplies and equipment to rural communities through Volunteer Assistance Fire Assistance (USDA Forest Service) program. 

Mr. REY. I will also submit for the record of the hearing continued progress in over 40 other areas of cost containment, and, finally, concluding the remarks on fire, we will submit for the record 

of this hearing the Firefighting Retention Study that the committee 

requested that we do and that we made available to your staffs 

earlier this week. 

[The information follows:] 
79 

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES: LEADERSHIP UPDATED—APRIL 9, 2008 

Management controls and efficiencies 1 Benefits 2 Parties involved 3 Action required 4 Status 

L–1 Appropriate Management Response 

(AMR).—Promote AMR provisions of 2005 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy in a clear, concise manner. Reaffirm leaders’ intent for full implementation of AMR—enable full range of tactical options.

Decision-maker has the greatest flexibility 

in management of incident from the onset, which can be supported through decision-making tools.

Consistent implementation of AMR will lead 

to greater flexibility in wildland fire management.

Fire and Aviation Management (FAM), Ecosystem 

Management Coordination (EMC), interagency partners.

Clearly articulate the policy for consistency 

across all units.

Develop accountability standards for IMT 

and Line Officer performance.

Review policy with interagency partners to 

allow movement between suppression and WFU as needed. Remove the distinction between WFU and suppression.

Develop an AMR Guidebook FAM and budget should modify handbook 

direction for suppression authority to support WFU.

Letter from the Chief sent 

to field units regarding policy and AMR ,on April 19, 2007. 

On March 24, 2008, WFLC 

approved the next step in AMR development to establish WFDSS prototype units for the 2008 fire season. Information collected and lessons learned from those prototypes will be used in the consideration of national policy adjustments for 2009. 

Agency Savings est. at 

$200M total all items. 

L–2 Land and Fire Management Plans.—Land 

and Fire Management Plans (LMP and FMP) for each unit should consider a full range of AMR, including point protection as an equally acceptable approach to perimeter control.

Enhanced decision making environment 

provides support for decision makers who select AMRs that may entail higher risk.

FAM, EMC ......................... Decision by NLT to have FAM and planning 

work together on FS Manual changes.

Provide decision criteria to allow for consideration of investments in reducing or 

maintaining fuel profiles rather than simply the cost of suppression.

Interagency group developed a FMP template, 

which includes AMR. Template will be used in revision or future development of FMP’s. 

The template will be distributed to the field for 

their use May 2008. 
80 

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES: LEADERSHIP UPDATED—APRIL 9, 2008—Continued 

Management controls and efficiencies 1 Benefits 2 Parties involved 3 Action required 4 Status 

L–3 Line Officer Certification.—Enhance skills in 

incident decision making in high risk environments. Line Officers (LO) core competencies should be certified on criteria including: —Cost containment and Delegation of 

Authority (DOA).

—Incident management and processes ....—Wildland Fire Situation Analysis/ 

Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFSA/WFIP) and other decision support tools.

—Situational awareness of resource 

availability and allocation.

—Working knowledge of fire ecology and 

behavior.

—Safety ......................................................—IMT (Incident Management Team) review and evaluations.

Improved decision-making ability at the 

onset of a new incident when the greatest benefits can be achieved.

Enhanced skills in the preparation of DOA, 

specifically in development of language on how to manage the incident.

Line Officers are certified commensurate 

with the complexity of the incident.

Line Officer Team (LOT), 

FAM.

LOT team work in conjunction with FAM to 

reevaluate current policies in manual.

Develop Line Officer Certification Process ...Develop a template for RFs (Regional Foresters) to use for interim certification, 

available for implementation prior to 2007 fire season. (see core competencies framework developed in R9). This interim certification will be used until certification procedures are in place.

Developed and implemented an interim certification. Letter to RF’s 6/01/07. 

L–3a Line Officer Simulation.—Build Line Officer 

competency through the use of simulation/sandtable exercises.

Better informed decision-makers at the 

local level.

Practice high risk decisions in low risk environment.

LOT team working with 

FAM.

FAM to develop proposals for approval by 

LOT team.

Consider LO certification with 420/520 type 

simulations.

Under consideration with 

LO items for AAR (xxxxx) of successes and gaps. 

L–3b Shadow Assignments.—Organize and manage a program to provide support and 

training for inexperienced agency administrators.

Provide for better decision-making in early 

phases of incident, as well as increased experience base for future Line Officer assignments.

LOT team, Regional Foresters, FAM. LOT team is developing shadow protocols ... Regions should develop and maintain a list 

of qualified line officers for implementation. Incorporate the LO items for increasing their skills and abilities.

Shadow and mentoring 

program implemented in 2007. 
81 

L–3c WFSA Training.—Ensure adequate WFSA 

training for line officers and fire management personnel, focusing on capturing ‘‘commanders’ intent’’ in the development of alternatives as opposed to the technical use of WFSA program 5.

Consistent application of WFSA development and alternatives with better decision making and long-term reduction of 

costs.

FAM ................................... FAM to work with research ...........................

Identify and develop an implementation 

strategy to accomplish WFSA training. Consider distance learning and webbased training opportunities.

Develop a mandatory one-day module for 

line officer and fire management personnel.

Regions accomplished 

WFSA training using centralized methods. 

Training is incorporated 

into Fire Management Leadership (FML) for Local Line Officers. 

Focused on WFDSS implementation. 

L–4 (recommendation linked to GO–3) Chief’s Principle Representative (CPR).—Assigned by the Chief to provide decision 

support on incidents of national significance. This position would be assigned to any fire exceeding or projected to exceed $10 million of Forest Service (FS) expenditures.

Regional Foresters Representative (RFR): Assigned by the Regional Forester to provide 

decision support. RFR would be assigned to any incident exceeding $5 million of FS expenditures.

Local units would receive decision support 

from the national and regional level including the use of a decision support team of experts. Provides opportunity for mentoring of line officers with limited fire experience. Goal is to reduce the cost of long term fires projected to cost over $10 million.

LOT, National Leadership 

Team (NLT).

LOT to develop criteria for roles and responsibilities of CPR. Complete. CPR’s were assigned by 

the W.O. to all fires over $10 million. 

8 CPR’s assigned in fiscal 

year 2007. 

Anything to add about 

RFRs for 2007 season. 

L–5 Line Officer Authority.—Use current benchmarks of $2 million, $10 million and $50 

million for Line Officer approval. Tie this to the development of Line Officer competencies in L–3.

Current WFSA process is only authority to 

spend—once approved, authority still stays with local agency administrator.

Consistent with current chain of command 

established in the manual.

Ensures organizational authority commensurate with incident significance.Improve decision-making ability at the 

onset of an incident.

LOT, NLT ........................... FAM develop policy and criteria for manual 

change to be approved by NLT.

Approving levels were not 

changed. 

RFR’s were assigned for 

fires over $5 million. 

LO training provided for 

complex fire situations. 
82 

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES: LEADERSHIP UPDATED—APRIL 9, 2008—Continued 

Management controls and efficiencies 1 Benefits 2 Parties involved 3 Action required 4 Status 

L–6 Decision Support (Current).—Ensure units 

develop a fully considered Most Cost Effective Alternative in the WFSA 6.

Emphasis pre-season work for WFSA and 

WFIP development such as fire costs, historic costs and other data layers. This is necessary in order to make initial decisions under AMR.

Ensure WFSA strategy implemented is 

achievable.

Improved decision-making process at all 

phases of incident, which will reduce costs through the duration of the incident.

FAM, research, LOT, NLT .. WO letter to the field directing units to do 

pre-season work for WFSA/WFIP requirements.

Emphasize designation of analysts and preseason updates of WFSA data during 

preparedness reviews.

At a minimum, revalidate WFSAs and traditional cost benchmarks when team rotations occur. Ensure that IMTs adequately 

reflect the selected WFSA alternative and DOA as they report daily in the ICS–209.

FAM and LOT work toward FSM modifications. Tie in direction set in WO letter into proposed training module. 

The April 19, 2007 letter 

from the LOT included key points for the Line Officers which included their involvement with WFSA. Manual modifications are ongoing. 

L–7 Decision Support (Future).—Continue investment and expansion of decision support 

system technologies; FSPro, RAVAR, and SCI for use with Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS).

WFDSS needs to equally consider Fire Use 

for resource benefit with other suppression-oriented portions of AMR. WFSA and WFIP need to be integrated into one product 7.

Improved decision-making process at all 

phases of incident will reduce costs through the duration of the incident.

Provides well documented and repeatable 

protocols that demonstrate the cost effectiveness of suppression strategies.

FAM, research, LOT ..........Integrate DOI into this 

project.

FAM working with LOT team and research 

to ensure decision making support is supported (WFDSS) and provide more opportunity to utilize new tools such as FSPro early on.

Establish Decision Support Teams to assist 

units with development of incident strategies. Require FS PRO and RAVAR on fires projected to cost over $10 million.

WFDSS and other tools 

were available to the field and used extensively throughout fiscal year 2007. Investment is ongoing. WFDSS development is continuing. 

The Forest Service begins 

transitioning from WFSA to WFDSS during fiscal year 2008 for full implementation in fiscal year 2009. 
83 

L–8 Stratified Cost Index.—Make full use of the 

SCI for IMT/Line Officer evaluations for cost efficiency, effectiveness and performance.

Utilization of SCI to establish an incident 

budget is required for fires projected to cost over $5 million.

Sets specific benchmarks for cost containment regardless of the socio-political 

environment.

Data used comes directly from units Provides true incentive for using least cost 

option under WFSA.

Provides the ability to analyze spending 

trends of IMTs.

FAM, NLT, LOT, research .. FAM develop policy and criteria for manual 

change to be approved by NLT.

Review and develop a guide for implementation of SCI.Establish a system to address the need for 

additional authority and provide for incentives and disincentives.

SCI is under development. 

SCI highlighted problems with reporting and tracking dollars. 

DOI will begin using SCI 

in the future as well. Should develop an interagency guide if this occurs. Development of performance standards for line officers and Incident Management Teams is in progress. 

L–9 Incentives.—Provide incentives related to 

getting ‘‘credit’’ for acres burned that meet management objectives whether WFU or suppression. IA effectiveness should also be a measurement based on the Stratified Cost Index for a particular unit. Federal Fire Policy must be changed.

Line Officer decisions resulting in lower 

costs should have the capability of directing a percentage of the savings back to their home unit.

LOT, NLT, research ........... FAM and LOT with concurrence of NLT to 

work on policy development.

Stratified Cost Index should be incorporated. 

Interagency task group 

established to develop policy. WFLC approved the shift to managing wildland fire as wildland fire use and suppression concurrently 3–24–2008. 

L–10 Predictive Services for Line Officers.—Make 

Line Officers aware of current tools and decision models. Expand the use of new decision models, including FSPro, earlier in the decision-making process.

Improved early and successive decision 

making, leads to lower costs on large fires. Better effectiveness for initial attack. Improved national mobilization of resources.

Also relates to operational recommendations. 

FAM, interagency partners FAM to propose study on Predictive Services through (NFLT). Commit resources 

to expand predictive capabilities, make services widely available.

Expand and redefine the objective of Predictive Services. Include operations staff 

in discussions.

An interagency review of 

the predictive Services organization was completed. A national program is developed and a charter was signed this year. 

FSPro was used widely in 

fiscal year 2007. 
84 

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES: LEADERSHIP UPDATED—APRIL 9, 2008—Continued 

Management controls and efficiencies 1 Benefits 2 Parties involved 3 Action required 4 Status 

L–11 Comptroller.—Developed as a National 

Inter-Deputy Command Group to provide large fire and transactional oversight.

Inter-Deputy group is comprised of Deputy 

Chief for State and Private Forestry (SPF), Deputy Chief for National Forest System (NFS), Director of Fire and Aviation Management (FAM), and Director of Program and Budget Analysis (PBA).

Assists Line Officers in managing suppression costs.Transactional oversight will result in cost 

savings associated with ABCD miscellaneous funds, DOI/FS offset, etc.

Associate Deputy Chief 

S&PF, NLT.

Establish policy and roles for the InterDeputy Command Group.The position will develop a set of accountability measures to be reviewed at all 

levels..

Complete. Implemented in 

fiscal year 2007 and continuing in fiscal year 2008. 

Developed as a National 

Inter-Deputy Command Group to provide large fire and transactional oversight. 

Inter-Deputy group is 

comprised of Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry (SPF), Deputy Chief for National Forest System (NFS), Director of Fire and Aviation Management (FAM), and Director of Program and Budget Analysis (PBA) 

L–12 Cost Containment Reviews.—Modify current 

cost containment review team process. Begin the process at onset of the incident.

Implementation of SCI and AMR may eliminate the need for post-event cost containment reviews. FAM, fiscal ........................ FAM request fiscal to drop requirement ...... Cost containment review begins when the inci- dent begins by utilizing 

decision support tools and predictive modeling, RFR, and CPR. 

Forest Service developed 

and utilized a Large Fire Cost Review Guidebook in fiscal year 2007. An interagency guidebook is in review. 
85 

L–13 Cost Containment Training.—Assess existing training to ensure cost containment is 

a focus, particularly among cadres currently working on revisions to curriculum.

Ensures consistency of cost containment 

training nationwide which translates into clearer expectations in the DOA to the IMT from the Line Officer.

Interagency training 

groups.

FAM (AD for risk management) review LFML 

curriculum for appropriate level of cost containment.

Regional pre-season 

meetings held discussing cost containment and decision making specific to fire. Two training sessions for OIG reviewers were held in fiscal year 2007. Two more were held in fiscal year 2008. 

L–14 Structure Protection.—Evaluate current 

structure protection policies to determine better utilization of local rural fire departments for increased capacity.

Consistent understanding of roles and responsibilities in the Wildland Urban 

Interface.

USDA–FS, USDI, State, 

and local governments.

WO FAM policy discussion with NWCG .........Develop National Wildland Fire Policy. Define the mission in the Wildland Urban 

Interface as defined in the National Fire Plan.

A letter was sent to the 

field transmitting the policy in the FSM on August 13, 2007. This will be discussed at NWCG in fiscal year 2008. 

L–15 MAFFS.—Over the past 5 years, Modular 

Airborne Firefighting Systems (MAFFS) operations have continued to increase in cost due to military adding requirements. Explore utilization of MAFFS through different venues such that cost savings can be realized. Pursue cost sharing with military rather than full reimbursement.

The new MAFFS units will provide for an 

opportunity to streamline operations on both sides and would facilitate additional cost efficiencies.

Potential Cost Savings: $5 million. 

Department of Defense 

(DOD), FAM, interagency.

Chief discuss with Secretary of Agriculture 

for potential implementation.

Initiate discussion with DOD to identify potential efficiencies in the mobilization, 

support, and demobilization of the MAFFS operations.

Explore venues in the private sector for use 

with MAFFS.

Task group associated 

with the aviation feasibility study is reviewing this. Information will be submitted by the end of 2007. 

MAFFS were not utilized 

in 2007—discussions occurred at National Multi-Agency Coordination Center (NMAC) to ensure cost savings remained a focus item. 

Estimated savings of 

$955,000 per week for a period of at least 8 weeks. 
86 

MANAGEMENT CONTROL AND EFFICIENCIES: OPERATIONS 

Management controls and efficiencies Benefits Parties involved Action required Status 

Aviation Operations 

AO–1 National Helicopter Coordinator.—Lack of 

real time field intelligence for appropriate tracking and assignment of helicopter resources.

Immediate savings through utilization of 

appropriate helicopter resources.

Potential Cost Savings: $2–3 million annually 8.

Dispatch, aviation community, end users. Assistant Director for Operations to NICC Coordinator.

Establish a permanent full-time position for 

helicopter oversight and to manage the Helicopter Cost Efficiency Program (HCEP) database.

Completed. Employee 

start date 04/27/2008. 

Total savings estimated 

$15–20 million by managing the exclusive use and limiting Call When Needed (CWN). 

AO–1a Performance-Based Aircraft Dispatching.— 

Frequently, dispatched aircraft do not meet operational performance needs in the field.

Best performing resource for field conditions will provide most efficient and cost 

effective utilization.

Potential Cost Savings.—$1.5 million annually 9.

Dispatchers, Acquisition 

Management (AQM), Agency Aircraft Inspectors, end users.

FAM will modify current aircraft dispatching practices to implement bestvalue aircraft dispatching tool called 

Helicopter Cost Efficiency Program (HCEP). Develop communication strategy to gain field acceptance immediately.

HCEP program updates 

identified after beta test currently underway. New version scheduled for field use in 2008. 

AO–1b Centralization (C&C) of Exclusive Use Helicopters.—Utilization of aircraft will be 

based on Predictive Services. All helicopters will be considered national resources rather than National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) model of Most Efficient Level resources 10.

Reduction in severity costs by linking resources to Predictive Services. This 

would also reduce the use of CWN resources.

Potential Cost Savings.—$1.5 million 

based on reduction of CWN aircraft mobilization under severity needs.

FAM, dispatch, Predictive 

Services, Assistant Director for Operations.

FAM Director will initiate decision and 

begin implementation strategy.

Remove regional boundaries for aircraft 

utilization.

Type 1 and Type 2 helicopters are now consolidated into two national contracts. Managed as national 

shared resources. 

AO–2 Exclusive Use Helicopters.—Utilize the 

‘‘Wildland Fire Management Aerial Application Study’’ (August 2005) to determine the number of Type I and Type II Exclusive Use helicopters to be added to the system.

The addition of exclusive use helicopters 

will increase preparedness costs, but will result in a substantial reduction in suppression costs due to fewer CWN helicopters.

Potential Cost Savings: $39.8 million ($6.1 

million for Type II aircraft, $33.7 million for Type I aircraft) 11.

FAM, AQM ......................... Review Type III costs with intent to add additional Type III helicopters for exclusive 

use.

Reduce CWNs. 

Completed. Appropriate 

number of Type 1 and 2 helicopters determined for maximum cost efficiency based on actual use statistics. Aircraft have been contracted under AO– 1b recommendation. 
87 

AO–3 Performance-Based Contracts.—Helicopter 

contracts are currently awarded based on antiquated aircraft typing criteria.

Improved effectiveness of the airframes in 

the field, resulting in cost reductions in price/lb delivery. We would obtain more modern aircraft with better safety features. Improved customer service and support during dispatching process.

Potential Cost Savings: $581,000 

AQM, Department of the 

Interior (DOI), vendors.

Revise the contracting system by implementing the best value helicopter performance-based contracting.FAM submit request for contract action and 

performance based requirements to AQM.

Completed. Linear optimization model developed 

for technical evaluation and best-value award for national helicopter contracts. 

AO–4 Long-Term Aviation Contracts.—Develop 

long term contracts to achieve an overall reduction in helicopter and airtanker costs.

Services will cost less due to greater availability of aviation resources. Longer contracts are more cost effective. Provides 

industry stability, thereby creating a greater incentive to invest in new technology.

Potential Cost Savings: $4.8 million for 

180 day contracts, $24 million for 5 year contracts.

FAM, AQM, industry, interagency. FAM submit request for contract action and requirements to AQM. Look at adding additional Exclusive Use helicopters.

Explore partnerships across regional and 

agency boundaries as well as multi-mission capability.

Completed. 2008 large 

airtanker contract is a 5 year fixed length. National helicopter contracts are transitioning to a 4 year cycle. 

AO–5 Limiting Aviation Resources.—Consider limiting/re-evaluating use of aviation resources as an incident increases in scale 

and duration and costs approach benchmarks.

More resources for initial attack or reassignment. Forces consideration of aviation needs/costs in strategy development 

on long term incidents.

Potential Cost Savings: $3 million per 1

⁄4

incident time 12.

FAM, Incident Management Teams, NLT. FAM will establish benchmarks for long term aviation use. Justify extended use 

under WFSA alternative.

Geographic Multi-Agency 

Coordination Center (GMAC) managed helicopters at the geographic area level in fiscal year 2007. Also, utilized priority setting criteria for moving helicopters around. Established long-term fire plans for incidents to efficiently utilize all resources. Ongoing. 

AO–6 Airtanker Base Efficiency.—Airtanker base 

infrastructure has not changed with the decrease of available large airtankers.

Cost savings as a result of reduced facility 

expenses and a decrease in FTEs.

FAM, airtanker base personnel, retardant contractors. Identify appropriate blend of aircraft types for year-round versus partial contract. Convert bulk contracts to full-service 

contracts for existing bases. Evaluate existing bases for re-designation as mobile or reload bases.

Airtanker base efficiency 

study completed in 2007. Awaiting decision on implementation. 
88 

MANAGEMENT CONTROL AND EFFICIENCIES: OPERATIONS—Continued 

Management controls and efficiencies Benefits Parties involved Action required Status 

Ground Operations 

GO–1 Severity Funds.—Consider applying a cap to 

approvals of no more than $1 million per pay period or a percentage of the WFPR allocation for each Regional severity request.

Allows for longest distribution of severity 

funds over season nationally and displays assertive management.

Review of ABCD Miscellaneous accounting 

will bring everyone to parity and consistent implementation.

Potential Cost Savings: $21 million 13

Fiscal, FAM ....................... FSM, Letter of Instruction .............................

Review use of ABCD Miscellaneous Accounts in lieu of severity requests.Pre-positioned NSRs in lieu of severity 

when available.

Letter to the field Limiting 

severity authorizations by Region May, 2007. 

Allocated a ceiling of $30 

million and moved authority around as needed. 

Actual severity spent 

about 2⁄3 of $35 million 

ceiling. 
89 

GO–2 National Shared Resources (NSR).—Treat 

these resources without regional boundaries, and move to areas based on projections by Predictive Services. Depending on planning Levels, hold a percentage of NSRs at each level for IA rather than large fire support.

Consistent definition of NSRs. Efficient 

process of mobilization. Process provides for consistent use of ABCD Miscellaneous funds and reduced severity needs.

Simultaneous increase in percentage of resources held for IA with increased planning levels.National level funding ensures consistent 

use of NSR funds across regions.

Increases National flexibility in the assignment of resources.Increases availability of resources by eliminating concentration of resources in a 

geographic area.

Mobilization System, Fire 

Operations, MAC Group. While interagency in scope, can be implemented FS—only through Assistant Director for Operations.

Strategy Operations Plan, National Operations Plan.Reconsider definition of National Shared 

Resources.

Centralize funding and management of national cache system.Hold funding for NSRs at the national level 

instead of distributing to local units. Establish agreements with host units to cover fixed costs.

Included the utilization of 

national shared resources in the national operations plan. NMAC moved IHC’s when needed due to potential activity or critical fire needs. 

Funding has not been 

held at the national level yet for these resources or the caches due to the issue of WO ceiling. Discussions need to take place between FAM and PBA. 

DOA from Chief of FS, 

Deputy Secretary of Interior, Administrator of U.S. Fire Administration, and President of National Association of State Foresters to NMAC on 6/19/07. 

GO–3 (recommendation linked to L–4) National Operational Oversight.—Provide review of incident strategy from organizational level above the Line Officer. Provides additional expertise to local Line Officers in making strategic decisions on potential mega fires. Early strategic decisions significantly influence long term 

fire costs.

FAM, Predictive Services, 

National Incident Management Organization (NIMO).

Immediate direction to NIMO Incident Commanders (ICs) from WO.Develop a national operations decision support group. Supply Chiefs Principle Representative as decision support with 

team.

Decision Support Group 

was assigned with the RFR and the CPR. NMAC utilized a support group to provide intelligence for decision making. 
90 

MANAGEMENT CONTROL AND EFFICIENCIES: OPERATIONS—Continued 

Management controls and efficiencies Benefits Parties involved Action required Status 

GO–4 Incident Complexity.—Many incidents can 

be managed safely and effectively under a Type III organization. Current complexity analysis occasionally leads to a higher level incident management team than needed.

Keeping an incident at Type III can reduce 

costs.

Potential Cost Savings: $1.5 to 10 million 

per incident that does not go to T1/T2.

Type III organization: 

FAM, NLT.

Complexity analysis: National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG).

Letter from WO, through NLT, mandating 

each Forest/sub-geographic area establish a Type III organization.

FAM request to NWCG to revise current 

complexity analysis to reduce ambiguity and better differentiate between various incident levels.

NWCG engaged the IOSWT 

to review complexity and team typing. NWCG will continue to work on this. Will review the capability in each region this winter. 

GO–5 Length of Assignment.—The current 14-day 

rotation is not optimal for NSRs and IMTs, including Area Command. Manage fatigue in order to gain optimal utilization of resources assigned to an incident.

14-day rotation policy will continue to apply 

to other resources.

Reduces mobilization costs, improves transition-related safety issues and promotes 

better local community relations.

Potential Cost Savings: $1.7 million annually 14.

NWCG, LOT, FAM .............. FS recommend through NWCG changes to 

Redbook, Mobilization Guide, FSM, and FSH.

IMTs adopt methods to monitor accidents, 

illnesses, and other safety concerns throughout incidents. Safety Council would assist in monitoring accidents, trends and near misses and facilitate peer-reviews.

Area Commands assigned 

this season will recommend a review at the NMAC/GMAC end of year meeting. 

Pacific Northwest (PNW) 

used longer assignments. 

NIMO 30 days × 3. 

GO–6 Constrained Resources.—Constrain resources to an incident to eliminate concentration of resources on a few incidents 

and increase resource availability to a wider range of incidents.

Assign a set number of resources based on 

planning levels to an incident.

Assignment of additional resources would be 

approved at GMAC or NMAC levels and only after an analysis assisted by FS Pro and RAVAR that develops an alternative in the WFSA for the specific conditions and duration of use.

Increased efficiency by requiring a true 

prioritization of actions and assignment of resources by the IMT/Line Officer.

Equalizes the use/availability of resources 

during major weather events across geographic areas.

Increases National and geographic area 

flexibility in assignment of resources.

Develops a suppression resource baseline 

to serve as a foundation for constraining the number of resources made available to an incident.

FAM, NLT, NMAC .............. Request development and implementation, 

through GMAC, of a ‘‘Stratified Resource Index.’’ Analysis would determine the ‘‘average’’ number of resources that would be assigned to an incident commensurate with conditions and resource values.

Develop and implement a ‘‘constrained resource approach’’ in the assignment of 

firefighting resources to incidents that progress beyond the extended attack stage.

Have not officially initiated this request. However Geographic Areas 

utilized long term planning relative to their incidents and implemented this philosophy by moving resources internally to assist in managing fires during peak/critical times. 

Area Commanders will develop a recommendation on a process to be 

adopted nationally. 
91 

GO–7 Coordination Centers.—With full implementation of ROSS, is the need for the current number of Geographic Area Coordination Centers necessary? Fewer intermediate stops in dispatch sys- tem may reduce cost as well as provide for resource order filling efficiencies. Potential Cost Savings: $650,000 per 

unit 15.

Mobilization system, 

interagency partners.

Related to fiscal year 2008 Dispatch Feasibility Study.Consider re-engineering of mobilization 

system from 3 Tier to 2 Tier Mobilization.

Dispatch Feasibility Study 

was completed. No decision as of 3/1/08. Outcome of study will help determine where efficiencies will be gained and implemented. 

GO–8 Standardization.—Identify efficiencies that 

may be gained through engine standardization. All geographic area needs will be considered in the selection of standard models.

Standardization will reduce long term costs 

of fleet management, due to standardization of equipment.

Engineering, FAM ............. FAM to work with engineering to establish 

a national policy for engine standardization and develop a series of common models to be used nationally.

The Fleet Feasibility Study 

is completed, but has not been released. 

FAM will establish a small 

task group to develop recommendations for fleet make-up and standardization for engines. 

GO–9 Review Traditional Operations.—Review traditional organization, use and structure of 

Area Command, IMTs and NSRs.

Allow all resources to be configured in the 

most cost efficient manner possible.

NWCG or consider contracting the development and review or utilize NIMO. Formal FAM request to NWCG ...................... Establish a study group to perform review. Consider multi-mission, year-round capa- bility, size, configuration, etc. Consider 

contracting the development and/or the review.

A request has not been 

made yet to NWCG. 

GO–10 Local Resources.—Incorporate local fire 

agencies into the IA and extended attack organization for each National Forest.

Using local resources would reduce costs 

related to mobilization of national resources. Local resources provide immediate and often less expensive support 16.

USFS leadership with 

NASF.

WO FAM policy discussion with NWCG .........Develop strategy to pilot initial attack support through local government.

Geographic Areas utilized 

local resources per their established agreements. 

FAM strategy development 

is on-going. 
92 

MANAGEMENT CONTROL AND EFFICIENCIES: OPERATIONS—Continued 

Management controls and efficiencies Benefits Parties involved Action required Status 

GO–11 Contract for Contingency Resources.—Look 

into development of contracting buying teams, logistics and planning modules, particularly for all-hazard support.

Contracting provides for additional resources where critical shortages exist. 

This relates more to resource availability than to direct cost savings.

AQM, GSA, NICC ............... FAM should identify critical shortages and 

needs—coordinate with AQM to develop contract packages.

FAM is working with contracting to develop the 

requirements. Will be submitting a request for contract action in 2008. 

GO–12 Smokejumper Program.—Reevaluate 

smokejumper program and all its support requirements for cost/benefits. Include the number of bases necessary to support a national program with delivery systems.

Greater efficiency for Initial Attack would 

promote long-term savings.

FAM, DOI ........................... Annually update National Operations Plan ..

Complete and Implement ADFF 

ADFF was completed in 

December 2007. Results will feed the NIAC Phase 3 and the aviation feasibility study group for potential strategies and recommendations. 

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND EFFICIENCIES: MANAGEMENT 

Management controls and efficiencies Benefits Parties involved Action required Status 

M–1 Hazardous Fuels Support.—Support hazardous fuel treatments among agencies 

with internal and interagency resources. Identify more efficient business practices to facilitate this.

Increased productivity, standardization, and 

efficiencies to both suppression and hazardous fuels organizations.

Reduced overhead costs Increased coordination among interagency 

partners at the local level.

FAM, fire operations, 

fuels, and interagency partners. FS-only: implement through Assistant Director for Operations and Assistant Director for Fuels.

Identify internal and interagency capability 

to form and mobilize resources. Expand ROSS capability to meet this need.

Initiate discussions with DOI and FS Fire 

Directors to review cross billing policy to allow for better utilization of resources as the local level.

Have not begun this. 
93 

M–2 Return on Training Investment.—Focus 

training dollars to meet the needs of critical shortage positions.

Assign mobilization targets (e.g. 50 percent 

of red-carded personnel respond to incidents).

Reduced reliance upon administratively Determined (AD) personnel and contractors 

to compensate for lack of available resources.

Better utilization of training funds for target positions based on needs analysis.

Interagency community, 

but can be started FSonly immediately.

Risk management AD begin needs analysis 

for FS in 2007.

Develop requirement for personnel to utilize 

completed training. Require trainees to complete training assignments as early in the season as possible.

GACCs will work with their partners to ensure adequate training opportunities on 

IMTs.

Initiated review of training curriculum and 

qualifications. Began gathering data relative to number qualified and what positions. 

Utilized the qualifications 

system and ROSS in fiscal year 2007 to assist the regions with personnel for assignments. 

M–3 Long Term Fire Behavior Analyst (LTAN).— 

Currently a critical shortage of LTANs. Long term planning skills are critical for the successful implementation of AMR. Operational decision-making needs to consider the full range of AMR.

Provide skills necessary to evaluate the latest technology for consideration of long 

term strategies.

Increased decision support for AMR. Decision makers will be able to quantify values, costs and benefits, as well as short 

and long term effects.

FAM, HR ............................ FAM work with HR to consider possibility of 

incentives to encourage additional LTAN training.

LTANs were provided with 

in the national and regional support groups to assist with decision making. 

Have not initiated anything with HR. Depending on M–2 and the 

success of fiscal year 2007 season practices, may move forward with HR. 

M–4 Mega Fires.—Work with research to evaluate past mega-fires to compare investments to resource protection to identify 

and establish the thresholds for diminishing returns.

Potential cost savings if early stage decisions can be identified that contribute to 

mega-fire status.

Research, FAM .................. FAM to request research focus .................... On-going project. Results 

of report will be shared and evaluated for implementation. 
94 

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND EFFICIENCIES: MANAGEMENT—Continued 

Management controls and efficiencies Benefits Parties involved Action required Status 

M–5 Fire and Aviation Facility Realignment.—Develop a process similar to the military’s 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) to evaluate on an interagency basis needed facilities and recommend realignment and closures for cost saving benefits.

Eliminate costly facilities that no longer 

meet our primary needs of rapid mobilization of NSRs.

Potential Cost Savings.—$50 million estimated initial reduction.

National Fire and Aviation 

Executive Board (NFAEB), engineering, legislative affairs.

Proposal developed and presented to WFLC 

for action.

Although haven’t started 

this process, some is related to the aviation feasibility study and the priority setting for funding requests for facility maintenance. 

M–6 Cost-Benefit of IFPM.—Better understand 

the true long term costs and benefits of IFPM.

Potential cost savings of training dollars 

with long term cost savings possible.

Training Officers, FAM ..... FAM ................................................................

Conduct a cost benefit analysis of IFPM Assess continuing education needs relative 

to job function. e.g., fire management, Emergency Coordination Center (ECC) managers, safety professionals, etc.

M–7 Contracting.—identify the appropriate procurement tool for obtaining contracted resources in order to influence costs by 

competition and best value.

Reduce overall cost of obtaining equipment 

and services through pre-planning, formal competition and standardization.

FAM, AQM ......................... Continue work already started by Fire 

Equipment Services and Supplies Acquisition (FESSA) and NWCG through the Incident Business Practices Working Team (IBPWT). Establish standards, specifications and requirements in order to gain efficiency in procurement and tactical utilization.

Develop Virtual Incident Procurement System (VIPR).

FESSA group established 

a procurement plan for standardization of equipment for procurement procedures. New program is being developed to facilitate hiring and utilization of contracted services/equipment. 

M–8 Medical Standards.—Review Medical Standards Program with an emphasis on reducing costs and complexity. Evaluate the 

possibility of including the work capacity test under MSP.

Reduce potential redundancy for measuring 

health capacity.

Interagency, Unions ......... AD for Risk Management discuss combining 

requirements to eliminate duplication with Medical Standards Team.

The program is being reviewed on an interagency basis. Some 

changes are being implemented during the 2008 season. 
95 

M–9 ASC/ISO Impacts.—With the centralization 

of the ASC, support to fire for critical positions has become a concern (particularly communications and finance support).

ASC—Albuquerque Service Center ISO—Information Solutions Organization 

Mitigations conducted by fire management 

are costly and could be reduced through greater partnership with ASC.

Business Operations, FAM, 

ISO.

Evaluate the true needs of an incident for 

communication and finance support needs.

Preparation of service level agreement 

The Branch Chief for Incident Business worked 

with ASC to facilitate personnel support on incidents. ASC staff toured a couple of fires to gain an understanding. The IBPWT will submit a proposal to NWCG requesting they evaluate current business practices in the Finance section, and identify methods to change the business where efficiencies can be gained. 

1 Briefly describe the issue followed by the proposed control and/or efficiency. With this protocol other solutions or opportunities might become apparent. 2 Describe the benefits. Actual cost savings may be known or 

possible to gather in this venue but describe how the actual dollar savings would be determined. 3Who has ownership and who needs to be involved with the coordination? 4 Include who, what, and when any documents or manuals, handbooks etc. that would have to be changed would be here. 5 All WFSA recommendations can be cross-referenced to TriData report. 6 Congressional Intent from 2005 Appropriations language. 7 Dependent upon changes in Federal Wildland Fire Policy as identified in the AMR management efficiency description. 8 Implementing this position as an FTE would also save $50,000 annually in salary, travel and lodging for detailers to maintain the helicopter database. 9 Based on historic utilization of local CWN and Exclusive Use Type 3 helicopters, each region could save $100,000 to $150,000. 10 This links to the discussion of 

NSRs in Operations section. 11 Based on conversion of 25 Type I and 25 Type II contracts. 12 Estimate based on reducing aviation resources every one-quarter of incident time. Figures utilized from Tripod incident. 13 Calculated using a 2 percent cap per Regional PR budget. 14 Estimate based on 51 rotations total with 50 people per team. Estimated cost per mobilization/demobilization is $100,000. 15 Estimate based on salary/ support costs of $400,000 and $250,000 rent/utilities. 16 See 12/2003 NAPA Report ‘‘Utilizing Local Firefighting Forces.’’ 
96 

FIRE AND AVIATION MANAGEMENT RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ANALYSIS

[USDA Forest Service] 

INTRODUCTION

This report is in response to the following language in the Explanatory Statement 

accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–161). 

‘‘The Appropriations Committees are aware that the Forest Service is facing challenges to recruit and retain wildland firefighters in Region 5, particularly on southern California forests, due to the agency’s vastly different pay scales and personnel 

policies and the high cost of living in the region. The Forest Service should examine 

Federal firefighter pay and personnel policies and provide the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations with a proposal to increase recruitment and retention for southern California forests no later than February 1, 2008.’’ 

The Forest Service (FS) appreciates the patience of the Appropriations Committees in allowing Region 5 and the national headquarters to develop a thorough analysis of this complex set of issues. The dynamics studied in this proposal are controversial and will not be solved quickly or easily. For that reason, our proposal includes a series of long term suggestions to address the issues identified above. 

It is important to note two things about the national context surrounding this report. First, the efficacy of Forest Service initial attack response has not diminished. 

The success continues to stay around 98 percent for all initial attack incidents. The 

agency is committed to maintaining this high level of success. Second, recent increases in Fire Suppression expenditures have been well documented, as has the resulting impact on other agency programs. In response, Forest Service leadership has 

aggressively implemented cost containment measures, resulting in decreased Suppression costs in fiscal year 2007. It is essential that the proposals related to Region 

5 firefighter recruitment and retention support both continued initial attack success 

and cost containment efforts. 

The issues highlighted by this report will continue to be closely monitored. 

ISSUES EXAMINED

The issues examined in the report are widely circulated and are frequently polarizing; therefore the methods used to complete the analysis relied on data from a variety of sources. Rates of attrition were from Region 5 records, Forest Service 

Human Capital records and the Office of Personnel Management. Pay data was 

from employees’ W–2’s both CAL FIRE and U.S. Forest Service. The reasons for 

leaving were provided from exit interviews in Region 5. 

Forest Service Human Capital Management staff reviewed pay act and authorities and determined there are actions available locally, regionally and nationally. 

The Regional Forester and other line officers have discretion in the application of 

these authorities. 

There is a perception, as noted by the Appropriations Committees and confirmed 

through informal employee sensing, the Forest Service faces recruitment and retention challenges in southern California. While a detailed analysis shows the region 

has some retention challenges, it also suggests the problems are manageable. 

A 10-year analysis of permanent fire workforce in Region 5 reveals several important trends. 

(1) The total number of permanent Fire and Aviation Management staff in the 

region nearly doubled between 1997 and 2007, from 1,257 to 2,290. An 82 percent 

increase indicates successful recruitment efforts, not the opposite. 

(2) In 2007 the Region 5 Fire and Aviation Management staff experienced 370 retirements, resignations and transfers. However, recruitment resulted in a net gain 

of 68 employees, or 3 percent. 

(3) The overall Forest Service attrition rate in southern California (9.4 percent) 

is actually lower than the national Federal attrition rate (13.4 percent). 

These statistics indicate that recruitment is outpacing attrition in Region 5. Furthermore, attrition within southern California is well within national averages. 

Based on these trends, it appears that recruitment and retention are within expected norms. However, there are areas within the statistics cited above which deserve closer examination, and which the proposals of this report will address. 

First, the largest component of separations within the Region 5 Fire and Aviation 

Management organization come at the GS–4 level, where the attrition rate is 46.6 

percent. Attrition rates above the GS–4 level do not differ significantly from regional 

or national averages. 
97 

FIGURE 1.—ATTRITION RATES BY GRADE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, REGION 5, FOREST SERVICE 

AND FEDERAL SERVICE 

[In percent] 

Grade Southern 

California 

Pacific 

Southwest 

Region 

Forest 

Service 

wide 

Federal 

service 

GS–04 ........................................................................................... 46.6 32.1 23.6 ( 1 ) 

GS–05 ........................................................................................... 8.7 10.9 12.3 ( 1 ) 

GS–06 ........................................................................................... 3.9 2.9 2.1 ( 1 ) 

GS–07 ........................................................................................... 4.2 2.4 1.5 ( 1 ) 

GS–08 ........................................................................................... 1.1 0.7 0.3 ( 1 ) 

GS–09 ........................................................................................... 1.1 1.2 0.9 ( 1 ) 

GS–11 ........................................................................................... 0.2 0.6 0.6 ( 1 ) 

Overall ........................................................................................... 9.4 7.2 6.3 13.4 

1 UNK 

Notes: 

Includes series only 0462 and 0401 both fire and non fire positions. 

Data retrieved from NFC Reporting Center. 

Southern California includes Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests. 

The rate of attrition for Cal Fire is currently unknown. 

Second, a higher percentage of separations are due to resignations (as opposed to 

retirement or transfers) than the regional or national average (Figure 2). Exit interviews indicate that 44 percent of those leaving the Forest Service went to CAL FIRE 

or local fire departments (Figure 3). 

Figure 2: Resignations as a Percentage of Total Separations 

Third, these trends are most pronounced on the Angeles National Forest and the 

San Bernardino National Forest, which saw the most resignations of any Region 5 

forests. Of the resignations on these two forests in 2007, 45 percent were at the GS– 

4 level, and 61 percent went to State, county or local fire departments. The attrition 

rates for the two forests were 12.2 percent and 9.3 percent in 2007, according to 

Region 5 data. 
98 

Figure 3. Reason for Leaving Forest Service 

PAY SCALES, COST OF LIVING , AND PERSONNEL POLICIES

Local perception, as noted by the Appropriations Committees, is Forest Service 

pay scales and personnel policies, coupled with the high cost of living in southern 

California, make it difficult to attract and retain Fire and Aviation Management 

workforce in the region. Upon closer examination, the perception of the effects of 

pay scale and personnel policy discrepancies and high cost of living appears to be 

unsupported by the data. 

Pay Scales 

Comparison of Forest Service and CAL FIRE payment and hours worked data for 

2007 suggests that actual hourly rates of pay are comparable. It was difficult to determine the appropriate metric for comparison as the pay, staffing and personnel 

policies differed greatly. Wages as shown on W–2 forms were chosen as a measure. 

Cal Fire employees on average for the three positions examined worked about 62 

percent more hours (4,457 v. 2,768) than their Forest Service counterparts. The 

comparison of pay and hours is not straight forward due to personnel policy differences, such as portal-to-portal pay and planned overtime that guarantee Cal Fire 

firefighters more total hours annually. 

Nonetheless, when accounting for all hours worked, overtime and hazard pay 

rates (see Figure 4): 

—Average pay of Firefighter II is $2.81/hour higher in FS than CAL FIRE 

—Average pay of Fire Engineer is $5.36/hour higher in FS than CAL FIRE 

—Average pay of Fire Captain is $7.08/hour higher in FS than CAL FIRE 

Although Forest Service hourly pay is equal or higher, staffing plans guarantee 

CAL FIRE employees more hours and consequently more pay annually. In addition, 

Cal Fire employees work a 72 hour, three day shift, benefit from 24 hour pay while 

on fire assignments, and have a more generous retirement plan. Federal wildland 

fire staffing is closely tied to the threat of wildland fire activity, which occurs within 

a defined season. To ensure initial attack success and public safety during the fire 

season at the most reasonable cost to taxpayers, the Forest Service uses variable 

staffing, seasonal aviation contracting and seasonal employees. 
99 

FIGURE 4.—PAY COMPARISON CAL FIRE AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE (HOURS) 

Base pay 

Additional 

base hours 

included 1

Planned 

overtime 

Unplanned 

overtime 

Annual compensation 

Average 

hourly 

rate 

Cal Fire FFTR II 2 ........................................ (2,080) 

$33,324 

1 (676) (988) 

$16,973 

(561) 

$14,463 

(4,305) 

$64,760 

$15.04 

USFS SoCal FFTR II 3 .................................. (2,080) 

$35,014 

.................. .................. (838) 

$21,082 

(2,918) 

$56.096 

17.85 

Cal Fire Engineer ........................................ (2,080) 

$39,900 

1 (676) (988) 

$20,322 

(734) 

$22,633 

(4,478) 

$82,855 

18.50 

USFS SoCal Engineer .................................. (2,080) 

$44,987 

.................. .................. (548) 

$17,716 

(2,628) 

$62,702 

23.86 

Cal Fire Captain ......................................... (2,080) 

$43,776 

1 (676) (988) 

$22,296 

(844) 

$28,572 

(4,588) 

$94,644 

20.63 

USFS SoCal Captain ................................... (2,080) 

$51,360 

.................. .................. (679) 

$25,078 

(2,759) 

$76,438 

27.71 

1 Included.—Means money is included in base salary number. Cal Fire calculates base pay and overtime (planned and unplanned) in ac- cordance with their bargaining unit agreement. 2 Full Time Employee. 

3 Seasonal Employee. 

The data in the table above (figure 4) was developed from actual 2007 W–2 data 

randomly selected from a sample of Forest Service employees in southern California. 

It includes overtime and hazard pay. The Cal Fire data is actual 2007 compensation 

provided by their agency. Cal Fire employees do not receive hazard pay. The average hourly rate is computed by dividing the total compensation by the total hours 

worked. Unplanned overtime is highly variable for employees of both agencies. 

Forest Service employees at the GS–04 and 05 grades are Permanent Seasonal 

employees either 13/13 or 18/08 (guaranteed at least 13 pay periods or 18 pay period 

of employment out of a total of up to 26). Cal Fire employees are all full time employees. 

Cal Fire employees work a 72 hour schedule each week which is paid as 53 base 

hours and 19 planned overtime hours. Any time in excess of 212 in a 28 day period 

is paid as unplanned overtime. 

It should be noted the two agencies have very different work schedule expectations and pay rules therefore actual compensation was averaged to determine the 

unplanned overtime. 

Cost of Living 

Analysis performed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) indicates that 

Federal employees in southern California do experience pay disparities compared to 

non-Federal workers. However, Los Angeles and San Diego are not the only localities where this is true, nor do they experience the most severe disparities. In fact, 

the pay disparity in Los Angeles is below the national average, and San Diego’s is 

comparable. Below is a table of 2007 pay disparities for comparison. 

Locality Disparity 

Percent 

Atlanta .................................................................................................................................................................. 23.21 

Boston .................................................................................................................................................................. 25.35 

Chicago ................................................................................................................................................................ 23.06 

Dallas ................................................................................................................................................................... 22.42 

Los Angeles .......................................................................................................................................................... 21.82 

New York .............................................................................................................................................................. 26.67 

Phoenix ................................................................................................................................................................. 25.02 

San Diego ............................................................................................................................................................. 25.20 

San Francisco ....................................................................................................................................................... 28.62 

Seattle .................................................................................................................................................................. 23.39 

Washington DC ..................................................................................................................................................... 36.30 

Average (all of United States) ............................................................................................................................. 22.97 

(http://www.opm.gov/oca/payagent/2007/PayDisparities.asp 

Personnel Policies 

Comparing personnel policies of Federal wildland fire agencies with local and 

State fire agencies is complex. While it is natural for employees to compare their 

job descriptions, compensation, and benefits with those of similar workers in close 

proximity, there are also important distinctions and valid differences between them. 
100 

Forest Service fire management personnel in southern California and across the Nation are Forestry Technicians. This title reflects their land management orientation. 

In the course of their work, they collaborate with State and local employees of fire 

departments. This is a subtle but key difference. Even though both Federal wildland 

firefighters and fire department firefighters focus on fire, the mission purposes of 

the agencies differ, and so too do the roles and responsibilities of their respective 

personnel. Fire departments generally have an emergency responder role that includes traffic collisions, medical calls and other actions that are not wildland fires. 

That is to say, the Forest Service is a land management agency that employs 

wildland firefighters to accomplish land management objectives, while the mission 

of fire departments personnel focus on preserving life and property. Because of differing responsibilities, it is both impossible and inappropriate for the Forest Service 

to pay and staff the same way as these fire departments. For example the Forest 

Service does not allow fire fighters to enter structures to suppress these fires. 

The tendency of our employees, partners and the public to compare Forest Service 

fire management responsibilities to State and local fire departments points to a 

larger issue the agency is facing regarding the need for a clear mission and definition of responsibilities for our firefighters in the wildland urban interface. Fires in 

recent years have become larger and more difficult to control due to a variety of factors, including climate change, historic fire suppression efforts resulting in increased 

density of hazard fuels, and expansion of residences in the wildland urban interface 

(WUI). This situation is acutely felt in southern California where over 189,000 new 

homes have been built since 2003 in the Wildland/Urban interface. This growth 

poses a higher level of complexity on Wildland firefighting in fire adapted ecosystems. Therefore, the agency must clearly express its emergency response role, 

and clarify distinctions between State and local fire department. 

PROPOSED ACTIONS

The analysis outlined above suggests that the perceptions around recruitment and 

retention in southern California are hard to substantiate based on data. An analysis 

of available data confirms that while issues regarding perceptions around recruitment and retention in southern California may exist, they cannot be objectively substantiated. Absent such substantiation, recommendations that the Office of Personnel Management depart from standard Federal pay rates or the agency seek 

other special personnel authorities are unwarranted. Further, such actions may 

have the unintended consequence of negatively affecting recruitment and retention 

elsewhere in the Nation. 

Accordingly, key actions to be undertaken immediately by the Forest Service will 

be internal and external communication around these findings: 

—Region 5’s Fire & Aviation Management recruitment rate is greater than its attrition rate. 

—The attrition rate in southern California is below national averages. 

—On average, Forest Service hourly pay rates are actually greater than those for 

comparable CAL FIRE positions. 

—Federal workers in southern California are paid less than their counterparts in 

the private sector, but other parts of the country experience similar or worse 

rates of disparity. 

In the course of this analysis, additional issues outside the scope of the requested 

report have become evident; clearly there are morale issues which need leadership’s 

attention and action. We refrained from making recommendations addressing these 

in the report as it is outside the scope of the committee’s request. Additionally, these 

morale issues will take more time to review, validate and resolve. Leadership will 

focus attention on this important area and will keep the committees apprised of the 

situation and the progress to resolve the issues. 

In addition to increased communication around key issues, the Forest Service will 

consider specific long-term actions. These recommendations will consider potential 

morale and budget impacts resulting from providing special benefits solely to firefighters in southern California. Changing public and agency perceptions and ensuring employee morale will require active management over years. The recommendations below may be tools in that process. 

—Review and strengthen commitment to Wildland fire mission with Federal, 

State, and local partners. 

—Strategically apply individual retention allowances and/or special pay authorities within the discretion of the agency. 

—Encourage use of optional work schedules and tours of duty. 

—Improve employee housing and working facilities. 

—Improve communications connectivity, training, and access. 
101 

—Determine cost and feasibility of special pay in identified high cost areas. 

—Renegotiate cooperative agreements to provide more equity for Forest Service 

employees. 

—Monitor issues identified and adjust as necessary. 

Mr. REY. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 was enacted to provide transitional assistance 

to rural counties affected by the decline in revenue from timber 

harvests in Federal forests. That legislation was extended for an 

additional seventh year under the terms of Public Law 110–28. 

The 2009 budget of the Forest Service includes a legislative proposal that provides $200 million above the current baseline for a 

4-year extension of the legislation, and that proposal was included 

with our budget. The 2009 budget focuses resources on national 

forest and grassland responsibilities, which we’ve talked about at 

length already today, but it also reflects redesigned State and Private Forestry program approach. 

Funding is proposed in the 2008 farm bill in addition for purposes and activities similar to those supported by the State and 

Private Forestry program. The Conservation, Forestry, and Energy 

titles of the farm bill authorize nearly $10 billion in incentives to 

State and local governments and nonindustrial private forest landowners to pursue conservation, forest restoration, and biomass energy. 

I will submit for the record a summary of what’s included in 

each, the administration, the House, and the Senate farm bill proposals. 

[The information follows:] 
102 

2008 FARM BILL USDA/HOUSE/SENATE SIDE BY-SIDE SUMMARY 

Item USDA proposal summary House summary Senate summary 

T8–1 No comparable provision. Sec. 8001 National Priorities for Private Forest Conservation.—Amends Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act 

(CFAA) to establish 3 priorities: (1) Conserving and managing working forests. (2) Protecting and restoring forests from a range of 

threats. 

(3) Enhancing public benefits from private forests. Secretary must submit report on outcomes to Congress by 2011. 

Sec. 8001 National Priorities for Private Forest Conservation.—Very similar language to House version. 

T8–2 Sec. 8002 Comprehensive Statewide Forest Planning.—Authorizes up to $65 million for States to produce comprehensive forest plans that identify critical forest landscapes and set management priorities. Sec. 8002 Long-Term, State-wide Assessments and Strate- gies for Forest Resources.—States must do assessments of forest resource conditions as a requirement to receive funds for all CFAA programs. Assessments coordinated 

among State forester or equivalent, State forest stewardship coordinating committee, State wildlife agency and State technical committee. Can use up to $10 million in available funds.

Sec. 8004. Comprehensive Statewide Forest Planning.—Directs States to do assessments of forest resource conditions as a requirement to receive funds for CFAA programs. Similar to House language, but includes: Establishment clause directing Secretary to create the planning program; specifies that community wildfire protection plans should be considered in the assessment; a 

plan for achieving the national priorities (sec. 8001); clarifies that the Statewide plan replaces all CFAA planning and assessment requirements; must also coordinate with Federal land management agencies and the State lead agency for the Forest Legacy Program. Authorizes $10 million. 
103 

T8–3 Sec. 8001 Community Forests Working Lands Program.— 

Authorizes up to $65 million per year in technical and financial assistance for local communities to purchase and manage community forests. 

No comparable provision. Sec 8002 Community Forest and Open Space Conservation 

Program.—Provides financial support for acquisition of community forests and emphasized technical assistance to communities.—The program would be a competitive grant process open to tribes, local governments, or nonprofit land trusts. There is a 50 percent cost-share requirement. The community forests should provide economic, environmental, educational technical assistance, and recreational benefits. The program requires that community forests are open to public access and managed consistent with the purposes of the program. Up to 10 percent of program funds are available to State foresters or equivalent tribal officials for program administration and technical assistance. 

T8–4 No comparable provision. Sec. 8003 Assistance to the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.—Amends CFAA by striking, ‘‘the Trust 

Territory of the Pacific Islands’’ and inserting, ‘‘the Federated State of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau’’.

Sec. 8005 Assistance to the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.—Identical language to House version. 

T8–5 No comparable provision. Sec. 8004 Changes to Forest Resource Coordinating Committee.—Modifies and expands the Forest Resource Coordinating Committee at Secretary level to include the 

chiefs of FS and NRCS and administrators of FSA and CSREES. Non-Federal reps with 3-year terms include 3 State foresters or equivalent, a representative from a State technical committee State fish and wildlife agency, NIPF owner, Industry, conservation orgs., land grant university, consultants, and others. Coordinates national efforts to NIPF landowners. Clarifies roles and responsibilities—advises on allocation of competitive funds, and provides annual report to Secretary and Congress.

No comparable provision. 

T8–6 No comparable provision. Sec. 8005 Changes to State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committees.—Replaces requirement for a statewide forest stewardship plan with statewide assessment 

and strategies for forest resources. State committees make recommendations on the statewide assessment. Adds a representative from the State technical committee.

No comparable provision. 
104 

2008 FARM BILL USDA/HOUSE/SENATE SIDE BY-SIDE SUMMARY—Continued 

Item USDA proposal summary House summary Senate summary 

T8–7 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8003 Forest Legacy Applications.—Amends CFAA by 

stating applications submitted by Indian tribes do not have to pass through the State coordinating committee. 

T8–8 No comparable provision. Sec. 8006 Competition in Programs Under Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978.—Requires a portion of 

CFAA funds, as determined by the Secretary, be available competitively to State foresters. State foresters are the only eligible entity. Secretary to consult with new forest resource coordinating committee to determine competitive allocation of funds.

No comparable provision. 

T8–9 Sec. 8003 Landscape Scale Competitive Grant Program.— 

Authorizes up to $30 million per year in competitive grants for large, landscape scale forest conservation and restoration projects. 

Sec. 8007 Cooperative Forest Innovation Partnership 

Projects.—No more than 5 percent of CFAA funding for innovative national, regional, or local education, outreach, or tech-transfer projects to meet the national priorities. Must have 50 percent cost share, including in-kind donations. Funds eligible to States, tribes, local gov’t, landgrant, or private entities.

No comparable provision. 

T8–10 No comparable provision. Subtitle B—Amendments to Other Laws 

Sec. 8101 Healthy Forest Reserve Program Reauthorized 

until 2012. Sec. 508. Funding. Authorizes $10,000,000 in funding. 

Conservation Title Sec. 2331 Healthy Forest Reserve Program.—Reauthorized through 2012. Changes language 

from ‘‘an easement of not more than 99 years’’ to ‘‘a permanent easement.’’ Authorizes ‘‘such sums as are necessary’’. 
105 

T8–11 No comparable provision. Subtitle B—Amendments to Other Laws 

Sec. 8102 Emergency Forest Restoration Program.—Provides Emergency Forest Restoration Program for development and implementation plans of NIPF owners who have 

sustained loss or damage to forest from fire, hurricanes, storms, drought, insects, disease, or invasive species. Plan addresses reforestation, restoration, BMPs and stewardship. Up to 75 percent cost-share, but not more than $50,000/year per owner. Owner has 10 years to use funds. Allows NIPF lands to be eligible for emergency restoration funds if the Secretary determines that insects or diseases pose an imminent threat of loss or damage to those lands. Funding would be through an emergency supplemental.

Conservation Title Sec. 2398 Emergency Landscape Restoration Program.—Available to NIPF owners to restore 

landscapes damaged by fire, drought, flood, hurricane force or excessive winds, ice storms or blizzards, or other resource-impacting natural events. Priority for activities protecting human health and safety. Funding subject to appropriation. Up to 75 percent cost share. 

T8–12 Sec. 8202 Office of International Forestry.—Extends the 

authorization for appropriations (does not specify amount) through 2012 for the Office of International Forestry (International Programs). 

Sec. 8101 Office of International Forestry.—Reauthorized 

through 2012.

Sec. 8202 Office of International Forestry.—Reauthorized 

through 2012. 

T8–13 Sec. 8203 Rural Revitalization Technologies.—Authorizes 

appropriations of $5 million for each fiscal year 2008– 2012 for the Forest Products Lab to accelerate adoption of technologies using biomass and small-diameter materials and provide assistance and information to small businesses. 

Sec. 8104 Rural Revitalization Technologies.—Identical 

Language—reauthorized through 2012. This authority is used to administer the biomass utilization grants..

No comparable provision. 

T8–14 Sec. 8201 Renewable Resources Extension Activities.—Authorizes $30 million for each fiscal year 2008-2012 for 

the Renewable Resources Extension Program administered by CSREES through State universities to provide technical assistance to landowners. 

Included in Research Title. Extends authority through 2012. Sec. 8201 Renewable Resources Extension Activities.—Reauthorized through 2012 at $30 mil each fiscal year. 

T8–15 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8101 Definitions.—Provides definitions for Indian, Indian tribe, and National Forest System that will be used 

under Subtitle B of this bill—Tribal-Forest Service Cooperative Relations. 

T8–16 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8111 Forest Legacy Program.—Amends CFAA to allow 

include Indian tribes to participate in the Forest Legacy Program. Tribes are eligible to receive grants to carry out FLP projects. 
106 

2008 FARM BILL USDA/HOUSE/SENATE SIDE BY-SIDE SUMMARY—Continued 

Item USDA proposal summary House summary Senate summary 

T8–17 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8112 Forestry and Resource Management Assistance 

for Indian Tribes.—Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to tribes to access NFS land for religious and cultural reasons, and coordinate resource management. Authorizes conservation education projects and technical assistance on Indian forest lands. Directs Secretary to develop rules within 18 months in coordination with tribes and DOI. 

T8–18 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8121. Purposes—Cultural and Heritage Cooperation 

Authority (Secs. 8121–27).—Authorizes reburial of tribal remains on NFS lands, provides access to NFS land and forest products for cultural purposes, and prevents the disclosure of burial site locations and other sensitive information. Authorizes the temporary closure of NFS land for cultural purposes. 

T8–19 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8122. Definitions.—Provides definitions for terms used 

in this Subsection. 

T8–20 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8123 Reburial of Human Remains and Cultural 

Items.—Authorizes the reburial of human remains and cultural items, including those repatriated under NAGPRA (25 USC 3001 et seq.) on NFS land. Prevents unauthorized disclosure of information on burial sites. 

T8–21 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8124 Temporary Closure for Traditional and Cultural 

Purposes.—The Secretary shall ensure access by Indian tribes to NFS land. The Secretary may, to the maximum extent practicable and for the minimum period of time, temporarily close from public access specifically designated NFS land to protect the privacy of tribal activities for traditional and cultural purposes. 

T8–22 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8125 Forest Products for Traditional and Cultural Purposes.—Authorizes the Secretary to allow, to the maximum extent practicable, access to NFS land by Indians 

and Indian tribes for traditional and cultural purposes. 

T8–23 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8126 Prohibition on Disclosure.—Authorizes Secretary 

to protect confidentiality of certain information, including information this culturally sensitive to Indian tribes. 
107 

T8–24 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8127 Severability and Savings Provisions.—Preserves 

all existing tribal rights, all existing agreements among tribes and the FS, existing trust responsibilities, and other outstanding rights to use of NFS lands. 

T8–25 No comparable provision. Sec. 8201 Hispanic-Serving Institution Agricultural Land 

National Resources Leadership Program.—Competitive grants to Hispanic serving institutions for undergraduate scholarship programs in forestry. Promotes professional work in Federal and State agencies in natural resources. Authorized ‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’.

No comparable provision. 

T8–26 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8203 Green Mountain National Forest Boundary Adjustment.—Authorizes small modification of the boundary 

of Green Mountain National Forest. 

T8–27 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8204 Prevention of Illegal Logging Practices.—Amends 

the Lacey Act Amendment to include trees in the definition of ‘‘plant’’. 

T8–28 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8205 Sale and Exchange of National Forest System 

Land, Vermont.—Authorizes sale/exchange of certain parcels of land on the Green Mountain NF in Vermont. 

T8–29 No comparable provision. No comparable provision. Sec. 8301 Qualifying Timber Contract Options.—Allows the 

Secretary to cancel or re-determine qualifying timber contracts if the rate at which a qualifying contract would be advertised on the date of an enactment of this language is at least 50 percent less than the original purchased rate of the contract. 

Sec. 8201 Forest Wood to Energy Program.—Mandates $15 

million per year for accelerating the development of renewable energy from woody biomass—including cellulosic ethanol and other bioenergy.1

1 Energy Title.—Similar provisions included in House and Senate Energy Titles. 
108 

Mr. REY. I think the point I’m trying to draw here is that, in 

evaluating the State and Private Forestry budget, you have to put 

it alongside the farm bill proposal, because what we are proposing 

to do is to broaden the reach of some of the conservation title programs to make them accessible to serve some of the interests that 

the State and Private Forestry functions of the Forest Service 

serve. 

So just looking at the 2009 Forest Service budget proposal 

doesn’t give you the full picture of all of that proposed activity. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

In closing, then, I’d like to respond to Senator Alexander’s question. We have, as have our colleagues at the Department of the Interior, evaluated in the past whether it makes sense to try to establish a separate firefighting agency. What we have concluded is that 

doing that then separates the firefighting function from the land 

management function, and probably doesn’t buy you much in the 

way of program reforms or advantages. The issue of appropriate 

funding for firefighting would still remain even if that kind of 

change was made. 

With that, I’ll turn the podium over to Chief Kimbell. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK E. REY

OVERVIEW

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget for the Forest Service during today’s hearing. I am pleased to join Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell at this 

hearing today. 

In my testimony, I will discuss three issues that relate to the 2009 budget. First, 

I will address Wildland Fire programs and management reforms. Next, I will address the need to provide 4 years of further transitional assistance to rural counties 

that received benefits under Secure Rural Schools and Self-Determination Act of 

2000. Finally, I will discuss the redesign of Forest Service State and Private Forestry programs and related Federal investments proposed in the 2008 farm bill. 

WILDLAND FIRE

The 2009 budget proposes a total of $1.977 billion for Wildland Fire Management 

programs, including $994 million for Suppression, $588 million for Preparedness, 

$297 million for Hazardous Fuel Reduction, and continued funding for other National Fire Plan activities. Additionally, the Forest Service is adopting significant 

management reforms to ensure equitable fire suppression cost sharing between Federal and other firefighting entities, fully implement risk-informed Appropriate Management Response, and enact cost containment accountability throughout Wildland 

Fire programs. 

The 2007 fire season illustrated the continued success of the Forest Service fire 

organization, but also the challenges we face. Fires in recent years have become 

larger and more difficult to control due to a variety of factors, including climate 

change, historic fire suppression efforts resulting in increased density of hazard 

fuels, and expansion of residences in the wildland urban interface (WUI). As a result, fire activity in 2007 was above normal by many standards. Across all jurisdictions, wildland fires totaled more than 78,000 incidents burning over 9 million 

acres. Thirteen different fires burned over 100,000 acres each, and the Nation was 

in Preparedness Level 5 for 33 days—the highest level of fire activity during which 

several geographic areas are experiencing simultaneous major incidents. Despite 

more fires than in 2006 and a 49 percent increase in acres burned, the cost of suppressing Forest Service fires was $127 million lower in 2007 due to aggressive implementation of Appropriate Management Response and other cost containment 

measures. 
109 

The southern California fires at the end of the 2007 fire season further exemplified the successful coordination and risk mitigation activities that have made the 

Forest Service fire organization a model the world over. Compared to similar events 

in 2003, the 2007 fires had more fire starts (271 compared to 213) and more large 

fires that escaped initial attack (20 compared to 14), yet much less resulting damage. Only 65 percent as many acres were burned, 60 percent as many structures 

were destroyed, 60 percent as many firefighters were injured, and 40 percent as 

many civilian fatalities occurred compared to 2003. Improvements are attributable 

to pre-positioning efforts, investments in hazardous fuels treatments and community 

capacity, and coordination with other Federal, State, and local entities. 

In spite of these signs of success, the 2007 fire season still resulted in nearly $1.4 

billion of expenditures on fire suppression. As application of Federal firefighting resources on both Federal and non-Federal land has grown, annual suppression expenditures escalate, as does the 10-year average of annual fire suppression expenditures, which determines the program’s budget request. The 2009 Fire Suppression 

request is $994 million, over $250 million higher than it was just 2 years ago, and 

nearly $150 million more than the current enacted level. The total Wildland Fire 

Management program, including continued focus on the National Fire Plan, makes 

up over 48 percent of the agency’s discretionary budget request. The Forest Service 

is adopting substantive management reforms to mitigate this cost trend. 

In fiscal year 2009, the Wildland Fire Management program will continue to improve performance through attention to policy, training, oversight, decision support 

tools, and after action performance analysis. Management policy is set at the national level, and provides clear guidance for the role of Federal firefighters in the 

Wildland Urban Interface. Management policy also provides strategies of Appropriate Management Response, expectations concerning national shared resources 

and aviation resource cost management, and limitations to Severity funding. Mandatory training keeps agency administrators up to date on national policy. During 

an incident, the Chief’s Principal Representative provides oversight, while decision 

support tools such as RAVAR and FSPro offer the incident commander information 

on fire spread probability, resource values at risk, and historic costs for similar fires. 

After action reviews, including use of the Stratified Cost Index, provide lessons and 

best practices to include in subsequent updates to management policy. This performance improvement process resulted in lower than projected suppression expenditures in 2007, and will enable the agency to maintain Fire Preparedness resources 

within a $588 million program budget, a decrease of $77 million from 2008. 

Several additional wildfire management reforms are based on recommendations 

of a USDA Office of Inspector General report that examined large fire suppression 

costs. The report documented inequitable apportionment of fire protection responsibilities between Federal and local entities in residential areas that abut national 

forests. In response, the Forest Service is renegotiating master protection agreements to clarify roles and ensure equitable and appropriate allocation of wildland 

urban interface firefighting costs between the agreement parties. Additionally, the 

Forest Service will implement a science-based methodology to encourage the costeffective practice of using unplanned wildfires to reduce hazardous fuels when appropriate. 

We expect that the management improvements implemented and underway will 

make managers better prepared for wildfires; facilitate better decision making during firefighting operations; and provide the tools necessary to analyze, understand 

and manage fire suppression costs. While the factors of drought, fuels build-up in 

our forests and increasing development in fire prone areas have the potential to 

keep the number of incidents and total cost of wildfire suppression high for some 

time to come, we are confident in our strategy to address wildland fire suppression 

costs and are committed to action. We believe that the measures discussed today 

promise to expand efficiency and reduce suppression costs. We look forward to continued collaboration with our Federal, State, local, tribal, and other non-Federal 

partners to address our shared goal of effectively managing wildfire suppression 

costs. 

CONTINUING TRANSITIONAL SUPPORT TO RURAL COMMUNITIES THROUGH EXTENSION OF

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS PAYMENTS

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination act of 2000 (SRS) 

(Public Law 106–393) was enacted to provide transitional assistance to rural counties affected by the decline in revenue from timber harvests in Federal lands. Traditionally, these counties relied on a share of receipts from timber harvests to supplement local funding for school systems and roads. Funding from SRS has been used 

to support more than 4,400 rural schools and to help maintain county road systems. 
110 

In addition SRS has authorized the establishment of over 55 Resource Advisory 

Committees (RAC) in 13 States, which has increased the level of interaction between the Forest Service, local governments, and citizens—resulting in greater support and understanding of the agency’s mission. The Forest Service has distributed 

more than $2.5 billion under this legislation since 2001 to assist counties in maintaining and improving local schools and roads. Of this amount, $213 million have 

been used by RACs to implement more than 4,400 resource projects on national forests and grasslands and adjacent non-Federal lands. 

Though the Secure Rural Schools Act expired in 2006, Congress extended payments for a 7th year under Public Law 110–28. The final year of payments were 

made in December 2007, and included distribution of more than $389 million in Forest Service revenue to 41 States and Puerto Rico for improvements to public schools, 

roads and stewardship projects. 

The 2009 budget underscores the President’s continuing commitment to States 

and counties impacted by the ongoing loss of receipts associated with lower timber 

harvests on Federal lands. The Budget includes a legislative proposal that provides 

$200 million above the current baseline for a 4-year extension of USDA and Department of the Interior forest county safety net payments, which will be targeted to 

the most affected areas, capped, adjusted downward each year, and phased out. For 

administrative convenience, USDA will make the payments on behalf of both agencies. Offsets for the administration’s proposal are provided within the topline of the 

President’s Budget throughout the Department of Agriculture and elsewhere. For 

the 2008 payment (to be made in 2009), the administration continues to be prepared 

to work with Congress to identify mutually agreeable offsets. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY PROGRAM REDESIGN

The 2009 budget focuses resources on national forest and grassland responsibilities, but it also reflects a redesigned State and Private Forestry program approach. 

The State and Private Forestry program connects the agency’s research and public 

lands-based programs to those of States and private individuals and entities. 

Through a coordinated effort in management, protection, conservation education, 

and resource use, State and Private Forestry programs help facilitate sound stewardship across lands of all ownerships on a landscape scale, while maintaining the 

flexibility for individual forest landowners to pursue their objectives. 

In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters agreed to redesign State and Private Forestry. The intent of the redesign is 

to focus and prioritize resources to better shape and influence forest land use on 

a scale and in a way that optimizes public benefits from trees and forests for current 

and future generations. The foundation for the redesign approach is a national assessment of conditions, trends, and opportunities relevant to forests of all ownerships. The initial phase of national implementation has begun, including a new competitive process for a portion of S&PF funds. The Forest Service has committed to 

monitor implementation of the redesign approach, facilitate an annual review, and 

implement changes as needed. 

As a result, the Forest Service will prioritize work using the best available technology and information focused on three national themes: (1) Conserve working forest landscapes; (2) Protect forests from harm; and (3) Enhance benefits from trees 

and forests. Comprehensive assessments will be conducted at the State and national 

levels to identify conditions, threats, and ecosystem services. The assessments will 

then be used to integrate program delivery with partners through a variety of tools 

and approaches and ensure appropriate skills and organizational structures are in 

place to support priority work. 

In addition, funding is proposed in the 2008 farm bill for purposes and activities 

similar to those supported by State and Private Forestry programs. The Conservation, Forestry, and Energy titles of the farm bill authorizes nearly $10 billion in incentives to States, local governments, and nonindustrial private forest landowners 

to pursue conservation, forest restoration, and biomass energy. The products and 

process of State and Private Forestry redesign have helped focus collaborative efforts around important national priorities which will also receive significant attention and support in the 2008 farm bill. 

This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

may have. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rey. Chief 

Kimbell, welcome. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you. 
111 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL

Ms. KIMBELL. Madam Chairman, Mr. Allard, members of the 

subcommittee, it’s a privilege to be here today to discuss with you 

the President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 for the U.S. 

Forest Service. Each of you have in your packets my full testimony, 

and I’d like to just cover some of the comments from that, but I’d 

like my full testimony added into the record, if I could, please. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Without objection. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you. First I’d like to describe the general 

context that this budget is presented in. I certainly recognize the 

Forest Service is just one small part but a very important part to 

me and to many of you of the Federal budget, and that our requests have to be balanced against competing needs and opportunities across Government for limited funds. 

It’s important to explain how we, as an agency, crafted the budget proposal in front of you now. It is helpful for me to visualize 

things in a tangible, practical way, so I see our budget as a bucket. 

A bucket only has a certain size, it only holds so much, and in our 

case the bucket is decided after the Nation’s highest priorities are 

taken care of such as supporting the war on terror, strengthening 

Homeland Security, and promoting sustained economic growth. 

With support of those priorities in mind, the Forest Service bucket is $4.1 billion in size, about the same size as last year’s request, 

and about $380 million below what was appropriated for 2008. Our 

bucket starts a little smaller, but it also has to hold some programs 

that are bigger this year. The fire suppression request is decided 

by the 10-year average of fire suppression costs, an arrangement 

agreed to by both Congress and the administration. 

The 10-year average this year is $994 million, $250 million higher than it was just 2 years ago, and nearly $150 million higher 

than the current enacted level. Because fire suppression is the first 

thing in the bucket, and because it is considerably bigger than the 

past years, and because the bucket in only so big, other programs 

are reduced to make up the difference. Rather than simply ratchet 

all programs down by a similar percentage to make up that difference, this budget reflects a very difficult strategic decision. We 

are focusing limited resources on core National Forest System programs since we are the sole landlord for these lands. As a consequence, there is significant reductions in the requests for State 

and Private Forestry programs. 

In spite of these difficult cuts, I strongly believe that the Forest 

Service continues to be a good investment for the funds we receive. 

In 2007, we received our sixth clean audit in a row. That was no 

small feat. We have reduced indirect cost to less than 10 percent 

of our total expenses. We increased partnership contributions to 

challenge car-share projects by 35 percent over that of 2006. We 

collected over $700 million in revenue and receipts. 

Forest Service scientists filed two patents. Thirteen Forest Service scientists were recognized with a share of the Nobel Peace Prize 

for their contributions to climate change research. We maintained 

60,000 miles of road and another 26,000 miles of trail. We sold 2.5 

billion board feet of timber. We’ve reduced hazardous fuels on 3 

million acres, and we provided fire assistance grants to 62,000 com-
112 

munities. We protected over 88,000 acres of forest land from conversion through the Forest Legacy Program, and the list goes on. 

We are positioned to make the most of the resources we receive. 

Our agency is in the midst of a difficult but necessary transformation which will ensure a higher percentage of funds going 

into project work. We are encouraging our managers to focus on integrating programs and working with partners to achieve multiple 

objectives, and we are proposing innovative ecosystem services 

demonstration projects that will forge important partnerships with 

States, local governments, tribes, or nonprofit organizations to restore, enhance, and protect ecosystem function on national forests. 

The Forest Service is relevant, and we have a leading role in 

issues affecting the Nation and the world. We have dedicated, professional, and very hard-working employees who come to work 

every day looking for better ways to solve complex problems. I am 

confident we add value to the resources with the taxpayer funds 

you invest in us. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you for the opportunity to describe how our budget was 

formulated and why I am optimistic about our future. I’m happy 

to answer any questions that you may have. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a great privilege to be 

here today to discuss the President’s budget for the Forest Service in fiscal year 

2009. One year ago, sitting here before you discussing the fiscal year 2008 budget 

was one of my first public acts as Chief of the Forest Service. I am grateful for the 

support this committee has shown the Forest Service, and over the past year I have 

been able to see firsthand many of the issues raised by its members. I look forward 

to our dialogue today. 

I can report to you that the state of the Forest Service is sound. The agency continues to sustain and restore the national forests and grasslands. Our researchers 

continue to push the frontiers of knowledge, and 13 have been recognized by the 

Nobel Prize panel for their efforts. Our partnerships with other Federal agencies, 

States, communities, and tribes have broadened and deepened, as together, we have 

faced growing threats from fire and other disturbances. The outstanding competence 

and professionalism of our employees is admired by forestry organizations around 

the world. Entering the second century of service, the Forest Service can reflect with 

pride on its accomplishments. 

Yet for all these achievements, the Forest Service faces significant issues, and can 

do better. The issues are every bit as challenging as those faced by our predecessors. 

America’s population will likely increase by 50 percent in the next 50 years, and 

pressures on the land will increase and change. In an era of globalization, the world 

is shrinking, jobs are growing more complex, and the value of forests and grasslands 

is greater than ever. 

Among the challenges and opportunities facing our agency, three themes stand 

out in particular: climate change, water issues, and the loss of connection to nature, 

especially for kids. I truly believe that history will judge my leadership of the Forest 

Service by how well we as an agency respond to these challenges, and the 2009 

budget is crafted with that in mind. 

The fiscal year 2009 Forest Service budget request totals $4.109 billion in discretionary appropriations, an 8 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2008 enacted 

level. The President’s Budget reflects our Nation’s highest priorities, including supporting our troops, strengthening our homeland security, and promoting sustained 

economic growth. The administration’s pro-growth economic policies, coupled with 

spending restraint, are key to keeping us on track to continue to reduce the deficit 

in the coming years. 
113 

Within the framework of the agency’s 2007–2012 Strategic Plan and the themes 

I’ve laid out, the Forest Service budget for 2009 focuses on core responsibilities, 

maintaining program effectiveness, and addressing on-going management challenges. The 2009 budget aligns Forest Service spending to reinforce the agency’s 

commitment to caring for the 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands, 

and providing for the highest priority activities that can demonstrate performance 

in a transparent manner. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

The responsibility to protect people and property from wildfire is one the Forest 

Service performs professionally and honorably. Fires in recent years have become 

larger and more difficult to control due to a variety of factors, including climate 

change, historic fire management practices resulting in an increased density of hazardous fuels, and residential developments expanding in the wildland urban interface (WUI). As application of Federal firefighting resources on both Federal and 

non-Federal land has grown, these costs escalate, and so too does the 10 year average of annual fire suppression expenditures, which determines the program’s budget 

request. The 2009 Fire Suppression request is $994 million, over $250 million higher than it was just 2 years ago, and nearly $150 million more than the current enacted level. The total Wildland Fire Management program, including the National 

Fire Plan, makes up over 48 percent of the agency’s discretionary budget request. 

The Forest Service is adopting substantive management reforms to mitigate this 

cost trend. 

Several wildfire management reforms are based on recommendations of USDA Office of Inspector General report that examined large-fire suppression costs. The report documented inequitable apportionment of fire protection responsibilities between Federal and local entities in residential areas that abut national forests. In 

response, the Forest Service is renegotiating master protection agreements to clarify 

roles and ensure equitable and appropriate allocation of wildland urban interface 

firefighting costs between the agreement parties. Additionally, the Forest Service 

will implement a science-based methodology to encourage the cost-effective use of 

unplanned wildfires to reduce hazardous fuels when appropriate. 

In fiscal year 2009, the Wildland Fire Management program will continue to improve performance through attention to policy, training, oversight, decision support 

tools, and after action performance analysis. Management policy is set at the national level, and provides clear guidance for the role of Federal firefighters in the 

Wildland Urban Interface and the strategies of Appropriate Management Response 

(AMR). Mandatory training keeps agency administrators up to date on national policy. During an incident, the Chief’s Principle Representative provides oversight, 

while decision support tools such as Rapid Assessment of Values at Risk (RAVAR) 

and Fire Spread Probability (FSPro) offer the incident commander information on 

fire spread probability, resource values at risk, and historic costs for similar fires. 

After action reviews, including use of the Stratified Cost Index (SCI), provide lessons and best practices to include in subsequent updates to management policy. 

This performance improvement process will enable the agency to maintain Fire Preparedness resources within a $588 million program budget, a decrease of $77 million 

from 2008. 

HEALTHY FORESTS

The fiscal year 2009 Forest Service budget focuses resources on maximizing the 

effectiveness of core national forest and grassland programs. Implementation of the 

Healthy Forests Initiative and the Northwest Forest Plan are key initiatives which 

receive increased or similar levels of funding compared to fiscal year 2008 enacted— 

Forest Products is requested at $323 million, Hazardous Fuels at $297 million, and 

Vegetation & Watershed Management at $165 million. These investments will yield 

over 4.9 million CCF (2.5 BBF) of timber volume sold, including 1.6 million CCF 

(0.8 BBF) of timber volume offered from full implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. Other priority program outputs include establishing or improving over 2 

million acres of forest and rangeland vegetation, and 1.5 million acres of hazardous 

fuel reduction with an additional 800,000 acres of treatments accomplished by other 

land management activities to reduce fire risk. Capital Improvement and Maintenance of Roads is requested at $227 million to provide the necessary infrastructure 

to support priority program activities and manage the roads system on national forest lands. 
114 

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY & TRANSFORMATION

The Forest Service is continuing its restructuring process that will improve its organizational structure and maximize resources available for on-the-ground mission 

delivery. Our current organizational structure, designed in the 1950s, does not take 

advantage of the communication technologies and integrated operating systems 

available in today’s business environment. By the end of fiscal year 2009, the Forest 

Service will reduce operating costs by approximately 25 percent in the regional offices, the national headquarters, and the Northeastern Area. This will result in a 

higher proportion of funds going to the field and an organizational structure better 

equipped to meet the natural resource management challenges of the 21st century. 

RECOGNIZING INTEGRATED PROGRAM AND PARTNERSHIP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Another strategy to ensure maximum on-the-ground achievements relates to accomplishment tracking. In fiscal year 2008 the Forest Service is changing reporting 

rules to incorporate accomplishments achieved through integration between program areas and/or partnerships with external groups. This change is designed to 

shift from a program-by-program approach to one that aligns programs and partner 

organizations to achieve multiple goals. By changing how accomplishments are 

counted, the agency hopes to change how managers plan and implement their work, 

increase incentives for working with partners, and ensure maximum value per dollar of Federal expenditure. 

I will now discuss the program budget requests for the Research, State and Private Forestry, National Forest System, Capital Improvement and Maintenance, and 

Land Acquisition accounts. 

FOREST & RANGELAND RESEARCH

The Forest Service Research Program is a globally recognized leader developing 

scientific information and technologies that address the ecological, biological, social, 

and economic issues challenging natural resource management and conservation in 

the modern era. Approximately 500 Forest Service scientists conduct this research 

at 67 sites located throughout the United States. The 2009 budget funds research 

at $263 million. This is equal to the 2008 President’s budget, and an 8 percent decrease from the enacted level of $286 million. The budget eliminates funding for congressional earmarks, employs investment criteria to align research projects with 

strategic priorities, and retains support of the Forest Inventory and Analysis program at $62.3 million. 

Forest Service Research & Development is a world leader on the global climate 

change issue. Thirteen Forest Service scientists participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize 

with former Vice President Al Gore. 

The fiscal year 2009 budget includes $31 million for research on how climate 

change, air and water pollution, land use, and extreme events affect forest and 

rangeland sustainability and the associated benefits they provide to society. In addition, the program prioritizes research in the areas of Resource Management and 

Use ($79 million), Invasive Species ($30 million), and Wildland Fire and Fuels ($23 

million). 

STATE & PRIVATE FORESTRY

The State and Private Forestry program connects the agency’s research and public 

lands-based programs to those of States and private individuals and entities. 

Through a coordinated effort in management, protection, conservation education, 

and resource use, State and Private Forestry programs help facilitate sound stewardship across lands of all ownerships on a landscape scale, while maintaining the 

flexibility for individual forest landowners to pursue their objectives. 

In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service collaborated with the National Association 

of State Foresters to redesign the focus, priorities and delivery of the agency’s State 

and Private Forestry programs. As a result, the Forest Service will prioritize work 

using the best available technology and information, focusing on three national 

themes: (1) Conserve working forest landscapes; (2) Protect forests from harm; and 

(3) Enhance benefits from trees and forests. Comprehensive assessments will be conducted at the State and national levels to identify conditions, threats, and ecosystem 

services. The assessments will then be used to integrate program delivery with partners and ensure appropriate skills and organizational structures are in place to support priority work. 

The 2009 budget funds State and Private Forestry at $110 million, a decrease of 

58 percent from the 2008 enacted level. Forest Health programs, including those 
115 

funded under the National Fire Plan, will receive almost $80 million and treat over 

450,000 forest and rangeland acres for invasive and native pests with a focus on 

early detection, evaluation, and monitoring of new invasive species, such as the 

Sirex wood wasp, emerald ash borer, and sudden oak death. Cooperative Fire programs, including those funded under the National Fire Plan, will receive nearly $75 

million and assist over 18,000 communities through grants to State and local fire 

agencies. In addition, $25 million will fund the Forest Stewardship, Forest Legacy, 

Urban & Community Forestry and International Forestry programs. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

The National Forest System account provides funds for the stewardship and management of national forests and grasslands. The 2009 budget requests $1.345 billion 

for this account, which is equal to the 2008 President’s budget request, but a decrease of $125 million or 9 percent from the enacted level. This budget level reflects 

successful implementation of the organizational efficiency & transformation efforts 

which will direct a higher proportion of funds to on-the-ground mission-critical 

work. 

The 2009 budget includes a legislative proposal authorizing five Ecosystems Services Demonstration Projects that will bring new partners together with the Forest 

Service in a broad effort to advance market-based conservation. States, local governments, tribes or non-profit organizations will have the opportunity to provide up to 

$10 million of funds or in-kind services for activities that restore, enhance, and protect ecosystem function on National Forest System lands. The projects will also introduce and refine methodologies that may be used in potential or emerging markets to quantify and value ecosystem services related to clean water, carbon sequestration and other critical benefits. 

Other important National Forest System programs are increased in the fiscal year 

2009 budget. As mentioned earlier, the fiscal year 2009 budget supports full funding 

for the Northwest Forest Plan within the $323 million for Forest Products. Land 

Management Planning funding is proposed at $53 million, an 8 percent increase 

from the 2008 enacted level. The additional funds will focus on implementation of 

the revised Planning Rule, acceleration of work on 35 planned Land Management 

Plan (LMP) amendments that respond to energy corridor decisions, and completion 

of 18 LMP revisions currently scheduled for fiscal year 2009. 

A number of National Forest System programs will be maintained at the fiscal 

year 2008 President’s budget level including, $146 million for Inventory and Monitoring programs to facilitate efficient implementation of the 2008 Planning Rule, 

which establishes Environmental Management Systems on each NFS unit. The 

Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness programs are proposed at $237 million, which 

will enable completion of travel management plans for 86 percent of National Forest 

System lands and Recreation Facility Analyses on 74 percent of national forests by 

the end of fiscal year 2009. Wildlife & Fish Management, funded at $118 million, 

will focus on continued partnerships with States, non-governmental organizations 

and tribes to actively manage wildlife and fisheries habitat for the benefit of the 

36 million people that visit national forests and grasslands annually to hunt, fish, 

or view wildlife. The $47 million funding request for Grazing Management will support effective management of rangeland resources on approximately 90 million acres 

of NFS lands and compliance with the Recisions Act schedule for completed grazing 

allotments. The $115 million request for Law Enforcement Operations, a $17 million 

decrease, will be focused on combating drug-trafficking organizations along the 

southwest and northern borders, responding to emergency and life-threatening situations, and conducting arson investigations. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT & MAINTENANCE

The Capital Improvement & Maintenance Program maintains the infrastructure 

for many Forest Service programs, including the transportation networks necessary 

for management and visitor access; the recreational infrastructure, including trails 

that serve many diverse populations; and facilities that house Forest Service employees. The 2009 Budget funds Capital Improvement & Maintenance at $406 million, a decrease of $69 million from the enacted level, which included a $25 million 

one-time transfer from the Purchaser Election Program. The $120 million proposed 

in Facilities funding will support maintenance of approximately 22,500 facilities and 

capital improvement of 34 facilities in fiscal year 2009. The $227 million Roads program includes maintenance of more than 70,000 miles, reconstruction and capital 

improvement of 2,000 miles, and decommissioning of approximately 600 miles of 

Forest Service roads. 17,300 miles of trails will be maintained and 700 miles relo-
116 

cated or constructed with the $50 million Trails request. Legacy Roads & Trails, established by Congress in 2008, is not included in the budget. 

CONCLUSION

I present this budget within a management environment that demands more than 

dollars to ensure organizational success. The budget supports national priorities of 

deficit reduction, maintains a safe and effective fire suppression organization, and 

maintains other high priority programs. Just as importantly, it proposes an ecosystem services approach to on-the-ground work in partnership with key stakeholders to protect watersheds, enhance economic and social values, and improve biodiversity. Combined with State & Private Forestry redesign, Wildland Fire Management reforms, and organizational management transformation, this suite of initiatives will enable the Forest Service to continue to deliver outstanding science and 

effectively manage the resources of the national forests and grasslands while adapting to the challenges of the coming decades. 

FIREFIGHTER ATTRITION IN CALIFORNIA

Senator FEINSTEIN. We will begin the question phase. I just want 

to point out that this year California will be sponsoring the Tahoe 

Summit; I’m going to put it together, and deal with forests and forest fires. I’d like to invite both of you to attend and participate. I’ve 

asked Al Gore to speak on how fires, forest fires, affect global 

warming, or how global warming affects forest fires. So I think it 

should be very interesting. Then we’ll hear from all of the fire districts around the Lake. So I hope you will be able to come. 

As you know, I wrote you a letter about the very high attrition 

rate of Federal firefighters in the southern California area. I’ve just 

been looking at your answer, and I gather you know the attrition 

rate in one of your charts is actually above 40 percent. You have 

a pie chart here which States that the reason for leaving the Forest 

Service, 44 percent went to Cal State, county, local fire departments. It’s a huge attrition rate, and yet you then compare the 

wages and point out that the wage, federally, is higher. 

Now, I mean, these people aren’t stupid. They go to local jurisdictions because they get more money. So where is the difference in 

pay? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Senator, the analysis that you have includes the 

description of the different kinds of work schedules that the employees with the Forest Service have versus employees with Cal 

State. There is quite a difference in the work schedule. 

There’s also quite a difference in the mission that these different 

people perform in their different employment. Our wildland firefighters are not typically, across the rest of the country, involved 

in the kinds of activities some of the other committee members 

refer to as first responder and other responses that the Federal 

firefighters in California, State of California firefighters, and certainly the local firefighters are continuously involved with. 

There is a difference in the number of hours that these different 

employees put in; there’s a difference in their work schedules; 

there’s a difference in our firefighters being seasonal and at the 

lower-graded levels. The State and county firefighters, being yearround employees, results in a difference at year end in how much 

they make over a year. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I want to stop you because I’ve got that. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Okay. 
117 

Senator FEINSTEIN. As you know, Senator Allard and I held a 

hearing, and Mr. Rey was good enough to be there in San Diego. 

One of the things that one anticipates in southern California is 

more catastrophic fire. 

You’re saying, essentially, that people are going to Cal Fire because they work more hours, therefore they get more pay. Let me 

ask you this: As we go into the fire season, how many positions will 

be unfilled in those critical fire areas? 

Ms. KIMBELL. We have instituted a new hiring process in California, specifically, with a roster, and over the last year we have 

hired 1,000 people into the firefighting organization in California. 

We anticipate to be fully staffed at the funding level. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So we can anticipate that when we come to 

fire season and I look at this, every position is going to be filled? 

Mr. REY. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I heard that definitive ‘‘yes.’’ I appreciate it. 

It is noted in the record. 

Mr. REY. Occasionally, we can give short answers. 

ILLEGAL DRUG OPERATIONS IN NATIONAL FORESTS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Excellent. All right, thank you. 

We have another problem. Our forests, as you know, are inundated by Mexican drug trafficking organizations growing marijuana, and over the past 2 years I, specifically, added to the Forest 

Service enforcement budget $17 million to deal with that. 

I see your budget eliminates this increase and funds your pro- gram at $115 million. I supported Operation Alicia and Operation 

Green Acres, two major interagency drug operations that took place 

last season that netted literally hundreds of arrests and destroyed 

millions of marijuana plants. 

I met recently with your people as well as DEA. I came away 

from that meeting not satisfied: Not satisfied with the plan which 

I believe should be to clean the marijuana out of our forests—out 

of our parks and forests. I’d really like to get both of you on record 

as to what the intention is this year. 

What I gained from the meeting was that there was going to be 

much more emphasis on the development of intelligence related to 

cartel activity than actual strike force activity, and I’m interested, 

candidly, in the strike force activity. 

Mr. Rey, would you like to answer that? 

Mr. REY. Sure. We are going to be doing at least four major 

strike force actions during the course of the summer. For obvious 

reasons, I don’t think I want to describe where they’re going to be 

or when they’re going to happen, but there will be a significant 

stepping up of that kind of activity in cooperation with both DEA 

and with local law enforcement. I’ll submit for the record some of 

the details associated with those proposals. 

[The information follows:] 

MARIJUANA ERADICATION EFFORTS IN CALIFORNIA

Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations (LEI) personnel will participate in four multi-agency drug eradication operations in Region 5 during fiscal year 

2008. LEI officers will work with personnel from DEA, CAMP, HIDTA marijuana 

investigative teams, local sheriff departments, California National Guard, and the 

Joint Task Force North in the planning and execution of these operations. Each op-
118 

eration will have between 20 and 40 personnel assigned to it. Between June 15 and 

October 15, a total of 34 LEI personnel will be dedicated to drug enforcement operations on NFS lands. 

The program goals in California for fiscal year 2008 are to increase by 30 percent 

the number of plants eradicated, sites raided, and felony arrests over fiscal year 

2007. The results will be 2.4 million marijuana plants eradicated, 418 garden sites 

raided, and 94 felony arrests. 

Mr. REY. We do not intend to reduce the funding or the staffing 

that we’ve developed in Region 5 in California until we’ve turned 

the corner in dealing with the drug activity in California. So, while 

we may be leveling funding in other areas where we don’t have this 

depth of difficulty, we’re going to keep the California operations 

moving forward. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, I appreciate that very much. 

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY

Chief Kimbell, last year I urged you and the Tahoe Regional 

Planning Agency to renegotiate an MOU to better streamline the 

permitting process to reduce hazardous fuels on Forest Service land 

in the Tahoe Basin. Can you give us a status update on the negotiations, and what assurances can you provide that this will be 

done before this year’s fire season? 

Ms. KIMBELL. We’ve been working very closely with TRPA, and 

TRPA provided a draft—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Stay with that: The Tahoe Regional Planning 

Agency? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, thank you. 

Sorry. They provided a draft. It was of concern to a number of people given the amount of process that was included in that redrafting of the MOU. 

The Governors of California and Nevada appointed a fire commission. That commission delivered a report on March 21 with a 

number of recommendations and suggestions. We are reviewing 

that report from the fire commission right now, and we’ll continue 

working with TRPA. Before the 1st of June, we anticipate having 

a final memorandum of understanding for signature. 

Mr. REY. We have a good three-page summary of where everything’s at right now that the Forest supervisor for the Tahoe Basin 

Planning Unit provided. We’ll submit that for the record for the 

hearing. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would appreciate that. Are there signs that 

the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is being more realistic now in 

view of the threat of fire in easing some of its regulations so that 

pine needles can be picked up, so the trees that overhang houses 

can be reduced in bulk and size, and ground cover reduced? 

Mr. REY. There are signs, but it’s a long, slow process. I would 

say that the sharpened focus of thinking that the Angora fire created has sort of been dulled with the winter rains, and I think 

we’ve still got a couple of rounds of negotiations with the Regional 

Planning Authority before we’re at the point where we want to be. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Well, I’d appreciate that memo, 

and if you could keep me advised, I’d appreciate that as well. 

[The information follows:] 

I’ve been requested to provide information for the Senate Interior Appropriation 

Hearing. My response will center on the efforts associated with the California-Ne-
119 

vada Tahoe Basin Fire Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’). Many of the recommendations address the situation and concerns I identified in my August 8, 2007 memo. 

I’ve combined and summarized the ones that will have the most impact on accomplishing fuels work in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

BACKGROUND

In the aftermath of the Angora Fire, the Governors of California and Nevada established an emergency Commission to look at what happened and what can and 

should be done to prevent another catastrophic fire in the Basin. The Commission 

met approximately 19 times and the LTBMU actively participated in all facets of 

the process. A draft report has been prepared and is expected to be finalized sometime in April. There are 48 findings and 90 recommendations recommended by the 

Commissioners in the draft report. 

The finding and recommendation getting the most attention is the recommendation to declare the Lake Tahoe Basin a state of emergency. The Governors from both 

States would have to declare separate emergencies and then request President Bush 

declare a national emergency. When this was voted on, Jim Pena abstained as a 

Federal official. 

The findings and recommendations (‘‘F&Rs’’) that will help the LTBMU most are 

the ones that will: 

—Remove the impediments to getting fuels work done 

—Allow us the opportunity to work more efficiently which results in cost effective 

measures 

—Potentially change the permitting processes 

—Increase the capacity and capability to implement projects 

—Address the roles and responsibilities of the regulatory agencies we work with 

Based on these criteria, following is a summary of the F&Rs we consider to have 

the most impact on the Basin. I’ve attached a list of these findings and recommendations summarized for this memo. 

A. Revision of Memorandums of Understanding 

Immediately after the fire, Senator Feinstein requested information on how we 

worked with the TRPA and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board 

and what could be done to streamline the process. My August 8, 2007 memo that 

went to Senator Feinstein through the RO and WO addressed those issues. As we 

streamlined regulatory processes, we continued to provide the appropriate protection 

for water quality. Since August, progress has been made and I am continuing the 

dialogues with both agencies and working on revising our MOUs. Specifically: 

—LTBMU and TRPA are working to revise the 1989 MOU for fuels projects to 

apply to all FS projects after completion of the MOU revision 

—LTBMU is drafting the language with advice and review from OGC 

—TRPA’s October 2007 draft MOU was unacceptable to LTBMU and OGC because of increased bureaucracy 

—By June 1, LTBMU will give TRPA another draft that takes into consideration 

the Commission F&Rs 

—LTBMU will revise MOU with Lahontan 

B. Reducing Redundant and Complex Permitting 

The Commission found that the existing system to permit fuel reduction projects 

is often confusing, redundant and overly complex. Also, the system used in Nevada 

is different than that in CA because of an added regulatory layer (Lahontan). The 

Commission recommended: 

—The Governors direct regulatory and implementing agencies to simplify the system, including waiving certain restrictions on use of mechanized equipment and 

vehicles within SEZs. 

—Lahontan and TRPA and land managers develop common list of equipment and 

accepted best management practices (BMPs) for mechanical work in SEZs. 

—TRPA, Lahontan and the FS allow equipment use on slopes greater than 30 

percent based on current and future technology. 

—Lahontan transfer its water quality permitting responsibility to TRPA for water 

quality issues relating to fuels reduction projects. This has already been done 

in Nevada by Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 

C. Reduce Permitting for Mechanized Equipment in SEZs 

Several F&Rs identified ways for work to be accomplished in SEZs and still protect water quality and increase cost effectiveness. The Commission recommended: 

—Governors direct TRPA to allow use of mechanized equipment in SEZs including 

revising the Lake Tahoe 208 Water Quality Plan. 
120 

—Governors should direct agencies to consider fire hazard reduction an overriding 

priority with applications for mechanized equipment use. 

—Lahontan change its interpretation of regulations and allow pile burning and 

spreading chipped material in SEZs. 

D. Increase Burn Days 

In Nevada, air quality agencies do not regulate burn days and leaves it to the 

land managers’ discretion to determine acceptable conditions. Below are elements of 

F&Rs that will allow us to increase burn days: 

—More comprehensive air quality and meteorological information should be implemented and further analyzed at the Basin scale to provide for additional 

burn days. 

—The California Air Resources Board should develop a test program to see if additional burn days can be added to the Basin without adversely affecting the 

region’s air quality. 

—Nevada land managers should continue to follow existing practices. 

E. Funding the Recommendations 

The Commission recognized that the Federal Government is not the only answer 

to funding the recommendations. It directed the States and local governments, as 

well as private parties to look for ways to share in funding fuels work in the Basin. 

However, it was also recognized that additional Federal funding will be necessary 

to accomplish the needed work. The Commission also recognized that the Southern 

Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) is not the only funding mechanism. With decreasing land sales in Clark County, Nevada, future funding is on a 

downward trend and funds other than SNPLMA should be identified. 

F. What the LTBMU is Doing that Aligns with Findings and Recommendations 

Even before the fire, the LTBMU has been working toward better working relationships with regulatory agencies. The Commission identified many things they 

would like to see happen. We are already engaged in many, including: 

—TRPA and LTBMU working together on permitting fuels projects under existing 

MOUs to prevent delays once NEPA decision is made (i.e. Round Hill, Angora 

Hazard Tree removal along FS trails/roads) 

—TRPA concurred on Round Hill project which authorized 2 different treatment 

methods: 

—72 acres of whole tree yarding 

—3 acres of mechanical treatment in SEZ 

—Total project treatment is 952 acres in NV 

—Engaging in a joint process with Lahontan, i.e., working with and going forward 

at the same time on environmental requirements (NEPA and CEQA) instead of 

one after the other for our South Shore Fuels Reduction and Healthy Forest 

Restoration Project: 

—largest fuels project analyzed in the LT Basin 

—33,000 acres analyzed; 10,000 acres proposed for treatment in CA 

—550 to 640 acres of mechanical treatment proposed in SEZ 

—2,100 to 3,800 acres whole tree yarding proposed 

—Renegotiating and revising the MOUs discussed earlier 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I call on the ranking member, Senator Allard. 

Senator BENNETT. Madam Chairman—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You have not had an opportunity for an 

opening statement. 

Senator BENNETT. Yeah, and I have to be called out, so could I 

make a quick—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. A quick—yes. 

Senator BENNETT [continuing]. A quick comment? 

Senator ALLARD. I’ll yield to the good—— 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator BENNETT. I apologize to you both, but I simply want to 

make a comment, Mr. Rey. You’ve made reference to it in your 

opening statement about the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act, and I am pleased that the Depart-
121 

ment is taking steps to provide a safety net for payments to States 

that they would have received under that act that expired in 2006. 

But I think we have to do more. 

It’s an act that’s very important to Utah’s rural counties. I think 

we in Congress have to work to reauthorize the act, and these 

funds are used for all kinds of things—roads, public schools, other 

important uses that are critical to our western counties. The expiration of the act means that PILT payments will be reduced, so we 

have to use the rural school payments to offset PILT and stretch 

all of those funds even more. 

So I don’t want to let the opportunity pass without making a 

comment about it, thanking you for your attention to it, and I look 

forward to working with you on this. 

With that, thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for your 

courtesy. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett. 

Senator. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS TREATMENT PROGRAM

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, 

there’s an axiom in veterinary medicine that prevention is a lot 

less expensive than treatment, and I think we’re seeing the impacts on the Forest Service budget now. 

You know, we’ve disallowed a judicious cutting of trees and 

thinning of forests and whatnot, and adequate treatment of these 

forests because of some of the policies we had put in place and 

right now we’re paying the price in less income into the Federal 

Government because we don’t allow the cutting; the more money 

being spent for fires because disease has taken over these fires. We 

get more burnable timber out there that burns hotter and faster, 

and the result is that we’re spending a lot more money now in fire 

suppression and, you know, taking care of fires. I hope that we can 

move back to a more sensible policy than what we have now. 

We have in California and Colorado a pine beetle problem. We 

have in the southern part of this country a beetle problem. The 

beetle problem that they have with the spruce bark beetle in Alaska is extremely prevalent up there. They’ve got some really serious 

problems. 

So my question is, can you explain the large cuts in this particular program with the enormous problems that we have with the 

pine beetles? 

Mr. REY. Well, I don’t think we look at what we’ve proposed in 

its totality as a large cut. If you look at the Fire Management program in its entirety, both USDA’s, Forest Service, and the Department of the Interior, we’re proposing a $927 million program as 

compared to last year’s program, which in regular appropriations 

was $962 million. 

Now, last year was an all-time record of funding, so we’re down 

a little bit from that record. We have tried to make the implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative one of our budget priorities, 

keeping the line items that contribute to that initiative as close to 

at-record levels as we could. 

So, I don’t think that we would concur that they are a big reduction. Yes, it’s down about $35 million from last year’s levels, but 
122 

last year’s levels were the highest levels that those programs had 

ever been funded. 

Senator ALLARD. I got that point. Now, if we were to give you additional money, could you give us some idea of how many more 

acres you could effectively treat, and at what cost? 

Mr. REY. Sure. We can break that out for you in, say, $10 million 

increments in terms of the acreage comparison for what we would 

be able to reach. That’s of course, assuming that appeals and litigation don’t get in the way, obviously. But we can give you a stepwise progression there. 

Senator ALLARD. You know, I want to sit down—I want our staffs 

to work with you a little bit because we come up with different conclusions when we look at the figure that we have here before us 

under the 3-year summary of the appropriations and whatnot. 

Mr. REY. What I was giving you was the documentation on page 

K–1 of our budget’s submission, appendix K. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Well, we’ll review that, and we’ll want to 

continue to have that discussion with you. 

FIRE PREPAREDNESS FUNDING

Now, on the Fire Preparedness, you say through efficiencies 

you’ll maintain the same numbers of firefighters, the same number 

of hot shot crews and engines. Can you describe what the efficiencies are and how that can be so large, and justify so large a 

reduction in spending? 

Mr. REY. I can give you some examples, and then, for the record, 

we can flesh out, you know, larger numbers of them. But let’s take 

aviation assets, planes, for instance. Last year we did a review of 

how we contract for aircraft and modified the use of exclusive use 

contracts, which resulted in a net savings of about $14 million. The 

experience that we gained from those changes is going to result in 

savings that we can carry forward. 

We have put cost control measures in place in large incident 

fires, and it’s important in the fire budget to recognize less than 

2 percent of the fires would account for 85 percent of the cost. 

That’s where the real cost savings can be found in managing the 

cost associated with extended attack on large incident fires. So 

we’ve added cost-containment staff to those incidents that have resulted in some savings as well. 

What we believe is that as a consequence of those savings, we’ve 

reduced real expenses from those which were projected by about 

$200 million. Now what you’re seeing in our 2009 budget proposal 

is a recognition of those savings in some slight reductions in preparedness. 

Now, you’ve given us the authority that if we fall short in preparedness dollars to use suppression funding if that becomes necessary. So we’ve got a backstop if we prove to be too optimistic in 

projecting the effects of some of these savings. If need be, we’ll 

draw from the suppression account to deal with that. 

But if we’re going to make these kinds of investments in cost 

savings, then we ought to reflect that in the way we budget. That’s 

what we think. 
123 

Senator ALLARD. So you can assure us that at this level of preparedness funding, the agency’s initial attack success rate won’t be 

reduced and lead to more catastrophic fires? 

Mr. REY. The preparedness budget is built on maintaining the 

historic initial attack success rated upwards of 98 percent fires 

suppressed on initial attack. 

FOREST PLANNING RULE

Senator ALLARD. Okay, let me just move on. The time is escaping 

us here. On the forest planning process, under the old forest planning rules the time and expense to complete the forest plans have 

become incredibly expensive. The plans designed to last for 15 

years now are taking 6 to 8 years to complete and cost many millions of dollars. That’s for the last 15 years. 

This administration streamlined that process with the new planning rule put in March of last year. A Federal court in the 9th District enjoined the agency from implementing the new planning 

rule. 

Can you tell us what the status of your new planning rule is? 

Mr. REY. It will be out in ‘‘The Federal Register’’ in a matter of 

days. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you believe you have cured the defects found 

by the court? 

Mr. REY. We believe we have cured the defects found by the 

court. I daresay we won’t get the last word on that, though. It will 

probably be the court that determines that. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes, and how do you anticipate the cost for individual forest plans that were reduced by the new rules? Will they, 

do you think, add to the cost or reduce the cost? 

Mr. REY. I think we’ll reduce the cost by a factor of two-thirds 

from what it was costing us to develop plans under the 1982 regulations. 

Senator ALLARD. You feel comfortable that there’s been adequate 

public participation in the new forest planning process? 

Mr. REY. I think, if anything, there has been a greater degree of 

public participation in the plans that have been developed under 

these new rules. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, I think you’re rather optimistic, and I appreciate it, but we’ll see. 

Senator CRAIG. This panel has voted, and we agree. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. I see my time has expired. 

Mr. REY. There’s a vote there. I’m always looking for the 

opprtunity here. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Domenici. 

SERVICE OF MR. REY

Senator DOMENICI. First, let me thank all of you for your service, 

especially Mark, you, for your long service here, and it’s been a 

very difficult job. I was talking to my friend here, Senator Craig 

about your activities and performance, and we’re very lucky to 

have somebody that stays on this kind of difficult job that has the 

knowledge that you have. We are glad that you share it with us. 
124 

We’re very sorry that you can’t implement much of it in the field 

because it is not just Congress and you, the outsiders have a lot 

to do with what you can do, and they find ways to make it very 

difficult for you, and we understand that. We have not been able 

to change that very much. 

EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FIREFIGHTERS

My first question, however, is to you, Ms. Kimbell. I talked to 

you a little bit about this qualification the OPM has imposed with 

reference to degrees and courses and qualifications. I understand 

that the folks out in the field are having some difficult, extremely 

difficult getting definitive answers regarding this situation from 

your human resources specialists. Many are very frustrated. 

How serious is this problem? 

Ms. KIMBELL. I think it’s a very serious problem, Senator, and 

we’ve put together a team of people working with our fire leadership and with our human resources people in Albuquerque to more 

quickly process all that different information. That way, we can 

give employees answers in writing specific to the kind of course 

work that they’ve had and which of those courses will or will not 

qualify them in the 401 Series as per OPM guidelines. 

Senator DOMENICI. What percentage of your field managers are 

at risk of losing their qualifications in 2009? 

Ms. KIMBELL. The exact percent, there are 30 people, actually, 

that we have been granted an extension to be able to get them the 

course work that they need by June 2009. 

Senator DOMENICI. Why did this OPM intervention occur, and do 

you think the training provided by a college or a university is superior to the on-the-job training, your in-house courses and the experience that your fire managers have gained through their years of 

fighting fires? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Well, that’s the larger question with all of this. 

The course work—the courses that we provide through the Wildfire 

Coordinating Group—is recognized as world-class. There are people 

who attend from around the world. It’s very practical, it’s hands on, 

it’s taught by very experienced, knowledgeable people. Yet those 

are courses that the Office of Personnel Management hasn’t been 

willing to recognize as qualifying under the positive education requirements. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. Well, I wanted to say, speaking for myself, I think what’s happening is very, very wrong, unfair, and 

unneeded. I cannot believe that we’re going to lose experienced 

managers and experienced firefighters because OPM says they 

have to have a certain kind of college degree or effort toward a degree. So, from my standpoint I’d like for you to provide the committee with information as to how we would provide a waiver, a 

waiver that you sought, and how we would provide that. I think 

that that would be good for us to have. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Senator, we’d be very interested in working with 

you on that, and we’ll also continue working with the Department 

of the Interior. We entered into this whole arrangement with the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, and we need to be together as we work through this. 
125 

Mr. REY. Yes, there are some Interior firefighters who are in 

similar situations, so we’ll have to readdress this—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Oh, very good. 

Mr. REY [continuing]. With the departments together. 

Senator DOMENICI. Very good. So there’s more than just you 

fighting the fight. 

Ms. KIMBELL. There are 500 firefighters in Interior who are also 

affected, and there are an additional 200 Forest Service firefighters 

who will become affected here shortly. 

Senator DOMENICI. Madam Chairman, do you understand how 

critical this issue is? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I do. We’ll take—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Now, are you willing to work with me—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. 

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. On my—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. We certainly are, and we will. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. 

FIREFIGHTER RESPONSIBILITIES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Under Secretary Rey, I understand that the Forest Service 

wildland firefighters on at least four southern California forests 

now respond not only to wildland fire calls but also calls to deal 

with other emergencies like traffic accidents. Is that correct? 

Mr. REY. It’s correct, but it’s unique to those four forests. It goes 

to how our memorandum of agreement with the local firefighting 

authorities are written. So it’s not a situation that’s comparable 

anywhere else in the system. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, can you tell me approximately how 

many of these traffic calls are nonwildfire calls for service? Requests for firefighters’ response in 2007? Do you require your 

wildland firefighters in all States to perform these type of duties? 

I guess you’ve answered the second question. You don’t require 

that they do it in other districts, is that correct? 

Mr. REY. That’s correct. Based on the records that we have, we 

responded to about 3,200 nonfire calls from Forest Service stations 

in those four national forests last year. 

Senator DOMENICI. That’s a good number, but 3,200 out of what? 

Mr. REY. 3,200. 

Senator DOMENICI. 3,200 out of what? 

Ms. KIMBELL. It’s approximately 70 percent of the calls that are 

nonfire. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay, and yet we’re paying for them as firefighting under this Department’s budget, is that right? 

Mr. REY. That’s correct. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, why should we continue this? I mean, 

it sounds like a nice thing to do for some areas, but—— 

Mr. REY. Well, this will be one of the things that we look into 

as we continue to work on the retention issue in southern California. But I guess the simple answer is that as we work through 

our local agreements with the county fire organizations in southern 

California, this was something we agreed to do, and in exchange 

they’ve agreed to do some things for us. So there is some degree 

of reciprocity in how we organize ourselves. 
126 

Senator DOMENICI. All right. Then are you suggesting, are you 

saying to the committee that, as the man in charge, you think this 

is a good practice that ought to continue? Or should it be put in 

a stage where it’s being diminished annually so that it won’t remain at this high level forever. 

Mr. REY. Well, I think what I would say is that it’s something 

we ought to look at as we move to update the agreements that we 

have with the local fire authorities. It’s not something I think we 

should change precipitously, if these local authorities aren’t capable 

of picking up the slack, because that means we’ll be putting citizens at risk to a less effective initial response. 

It’s a situation that has evolved because of the unique nature of 

the fire organizations in southern California. It’s like many of our 

agreements with State and local firefighting agencies. This is one 

thing that we need to nail down so that the Federal role is clear 

and appropriate, and that, to the extent that we are doing work 

that benefits another jurisdiction, that the Federal Government is 

compensated for that. 

Senator DOMENICI. All right. Thank you very much. On the OPM 

issue we will continue to see what we can do and work with our 

staff and the chairman on that issue. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Yes, thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Domenici. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you for the time this morning and 

your cordiality. I appreciate it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You’re very welcome. Thank you. 

Senator Craig. 

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. 

FIREFIGHTING FUND

Chief, if the chairman of this committee and I were to do something we did a year ago against your better judgment, and that 

was put $500 million in your fire fund to fight the fires that you 

fought last summer, would you oppose that against your current 

budget? 

Ms. KIMBELL. I’m not certain I understand the nuance in what 

you’ve—— 

Senator CRAIG. The nuance was we felt you had substantially underfunded yourself for the fire season that was ahead of you. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Oh. 

Senator CRAIG. The history is now in, and it was shown that you 

did, and we saw that coming and advanced you some money. 

Ms. KIMBELL. We absolutely appreciate the money you advanced 

us. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. KIMBELL. We’ve put it to very good use. 

Senator CRAIG. Yes, you did. None of that’s disputed. 

EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR FIREFIGHTERS

I’m sitting here listening to this question about the Office of 

Management and Budget and who’s the most talented. There are 

probably few in this room who have fought fires. I have a young 

man staffing me as my legislative assistant in this area who was 

a wildland fire firefighter. He just handed me a note that said if 
127 

he had a minor in fire science from a university, he would now be 

his boss’s boss, who might have had 8 or 10 years more experience 

than he. 

When you’re out on a wildland fire, I’ll opt for experience every 

day before I’ll opt for a college degree. College degrees get burned, 

tragically enough, if they don’t have the knowledge and the experience that goes down the road toward a year-after-year fire knowledge. 

I don’t know where OMB’s coming from other than the green-eyeshade people got way out in front of themselves on this one. And 

you ought to fight it aggressively and with passion as it relates to 

experience on the ground. We’ll help you there. This is just silliness, absolute silliness on the part of a Government agency run 

amok on this issue. I don’t know of any more dramatic way to say 

it. 

If we’re opting for a college degree versus ground experience, and 

the kind of work and the professionalism you’ve built into your fire 

corps over the years, both the BLM and the Forest Service—I see 

it out at the interagency in Boise—the talent that comes with the 

experience. We know that the fires we fight today cannot be diagrammed in a textbook. They are hotter, they’re more dramatic, 

you’ve learned some tremendously tragic lessons over the last good 

number of years of how to engage, when not to engage, when to 

step back, where to fight, when to fight, all of those kinds of things. 

So let us help you do that. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you, Senator. 

I’m sitting beside and in front of a number of people who have 

been wildland firefighters, and I think they’d absolutely agree 

they’d rather be working for somebody with 8 to 10 years of experience than someone with simply a degree without the experience. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. I think that’s important for the 

record. OMB, listen: Don’t hide your head in a bunch of paperwork. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY FUNDING

I’m frustrated, Secretary Rey, throughout the U.S. Forest Service’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2007 through 2012, references 

are made to the necessity and the high value of partnerships, especially with respect to State and Private Forestry programs. Please 

explain how the proposed 58 percent reduction in 2009, in State 

and private forestry appropriations will help the Forest Service attain the goals and objective set forth in the strategic plans. 

Mr. REY. As I said in my opening statement—— 

Senator CRAIG. It wasn’t clear. 

Mr. REY [continuing]. We look at the full context of what we’re 

proposing in the State and private forestry area as including not 

just our fiscal year 2009 budget proposal, but also the proposals 

that the administration made and that Congress is considering in 

the 2008 farm bill. 

What we’ve proposed in that farm bill and what, for the most 

part, the House and Senate bills have carried forward is a substantial broadening of the use of conservation title funding to make it 

accessible to both State forestry organizations as well as forest 

landowners. The amount of money in that title, in the conservation 

title, is substantially greater than the amount of proportional re-
128 

ductions that we’ve made in the State and private forestry programs. 

So in the full context, if you look at those two proposals together, 

what we would submit is that you’re probably seeing an increase 

in funding available for State and private forestry rather than a 

decrease. But you have to look at both pieces to get to that point. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Well, I’ll try to look at it from a different 

approach, then, because I’m not sure that what’s in the budget now 

fits. 

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS FUNDING

Chief Kimbell, in your statement—and I don’t mean this as a 

criticism—you gave a reasonably rosy scenario as it relates to 

where the Forest Service is today. Let me step back to communities 

of interest, because there are a lot of communities in my State that 

are—were, not are today—but were tied directly to the Forest Service because they were dependent upon the Forest Service. 

The great minds that created our forest reserves suggested that 

those communities ought never disengage or be disengaged from 

that relationship. But we’ve watched that happen over the last several decades. No longer is the Forest Service or that which flows 

from the Forest Service lands a majority employer of those communities. There seems to be a growing isolation and frustration from 

the communities that the Forest Service is no longer the great 

neighbor and provider and asset that it once was. 

No longer does the mill exist, the green sales are gone. Now 

you’re posing—you’re developing road plans that are closing as 

much as a third to a half of the roads, so access to the public lands 

is rapidly being denied, and it’s even suggested that you will enforce them once you’ve closed them, and you might start arresting 

people for trespassing in certain areas. 

The story goes on and on; Forest Service offices are closed, the 

number of employees are down, the relationships have dramatically 

changed. I don’t see that as for the better in many instances; I see 

it as a kind of a growing isolationism between a Federal agency 

and Federal lands and citizens of a State in a community that are 

tied to that. 

I know that we have struggled on the timber-dependent school 

and county issue. Of course, we crafted Craig-Wyden, funded it for 

a time, you heard Senator Bennett speak to it today. If you would, 

either you, Chief Kimball, or Secretary Rey, speak to how much 

you currently have in the budget and what we might be able to do 

to plus that up. 

I have school districts that by June are going to have to dramatically cut budgets for the coming year, lay off people, cut programs, 

diminish the quality of education to their children, struggling with 

State’s and limited resources to see if they can’t do some emergency 

funding because of their dependency upon a relationship with the 

public land that they are now being denied. Why? Because of public 

policy. 

Could you respond to that? 

Mr. REY. Sure. We’ve proposed in our budget an additional 4- 

year extension to the Secure Rural Schools legislation, and we have 
129 

provided a couple of hundred million dollars over baseline that’s 

available without offsets for that purpose. 

It’s our judgment that that extension should eventually start to 

phase down in terms of the guaranteed payments, but, we’re happy 

to work with the committee and with the Congress in deciding 

what the rate formula for the distribution of those payments are, 

and in a mechanism for reauthorizing the legislation. 

It will require additional legislative activity to continue, because 

the 2000 legislation has now expired. 

Senator CRAIG. Right. 

Mr. REY. So we would be eager to work with the committee and 

the Congress to reauthorize the legislation; to continue the work of 

the resource advisory committees, which I think have had a material benefit in improving the relationship between local communities and the Federal land managing agencies; and to see the 

guaranteed payments extended for at least a time into the future. 

You know, it’s interesting that we are now in the 100th anniversary of the first time that we made payments available to local governments that was enacted with legislation. It was passed by Congress in 1908 in the last year of the Roosevelt presidency. For 

about the first 50 years, those payments didn’t amount to very 

much, really, in the broad scheme of things. 

It wasn’t until the early 1950s that the Forest Service became 

much more active in the timber sales arena, and those payments 

began to increase. They increased pretty much every year from 

about 1950 through 1969, and then they leveled off, and the Forest 

Service endeavored, in a pre-endangered species era, to keep those 

payments level. They were level from about 1970 until about 1990, 

and then, of course, they started to decline, precipitously, because 

of endangered species and other concerns. Now they’re starting to 

trend back up again, slightly. 

But, you know, the agreement in 1908 was never that the communities were going to be given x amount of money; it was always 

that they were going to be given x percentage of whatever the receipts were. We have now extended the highest level of receipts for 

a period of time 1990 to present as long as the high level of timber 

receipts that preceded that existed. 

Senator CRAIG. Yes. 

Mr. REY. So we do think that the communities in some cases 

have adjusted so that they’re not so dependent on it, and in other 

cases still need some time to adjust which is why we’re proposing 

an extension. 

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman, it’s an issue that, obviously, 

impacts greatly northern California especially, along with my 

State, Oregon, Washington, and then, of course, all timber or forested public land States and counties. 

Secretary Rey, I appreciate the history. I repeat it often to superintendents and chairmen of school boards only to have their eyes 

glaze over. 

Mr. REY. OK. 

Senator CRAIG. Because some of these transitions are difficult to 

come by. There is a dependency. 

Madam Chair, last year Senator Wyden and I crafted a new approach toward just in part exactly what Secretary Rey spoke of: a 
130 

scaling down. The community of interest, the association, the group 

that came together headed by a gentleman from your State understands that, accepts that. 

I would really hope that we could match with some money that 

which Secretary Rey has talked about that’s in this budget and 

possibly extend in at least a 4-year period, a similar formulation 

that we’ve talked about that takes us down and sends the message 

again to these communities that they really have to diversify and 

change as best they can, as rapidly as they can. 

This committee’s going to, I think, play a tremendous role in 

that. You’ve got school districts that are heavily impacted as do I, 

and very little ability to offset these losses without some emergency 

funding from the States. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If we’re having a discussion on this, I think 

we’re going to have to get together and do it in the emergency supplemental—— 

Senator CRAIG. I think you’re right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. That that’s going to be the only 

way to get this thing done this year. 

Senator CRAIG. Oh, I don’t think much else will be moving, yes, 

if we don’t do that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, I’d be more than happy, as would 

Senator Wyden and a good many others, including Senator Bennett 

to work with you on trying to accomplish something like that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I realize now. Good. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That would be my intent to try and put 

something in. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you 

Senator FEINSTEIN. In any event, I think we’re almost completed. 

I have one quick question, if I might. Mr. Rey, perhaps you’ll remember we met with the seven fire chiefs—— 

Mr. REY. Yes. 

TAHOE AREA COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION PLANS

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. Of Tahoe, and the community 

fire plans, and my understanding is Secretary Kempthorne put in 

the money to fund it. Have you had a chance to review that? Are 

they going well? Are they getting carried out? Is it worth continuing that effort? 

Mr. REY. I think it is worth continuing the effort. I think a lot 

of progress has been made since last summer, and we are getting 

a lot more of the implementation of those plans completed. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. All right, thank you very much. That 

completes my questions. 

Senator, do you have a question? 

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman, I do have several questions, 

if I might. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. I have to excuse myself. Would you 

take over and conclude this? 

Senator ALLARD [presiding]. I’d be glad to, and I’ll wrap it up as 

soon as—— 

Senator CRAIG. Can we set funding levels? 
131 

Senator ALLARD. We’ll not abuse the trust that you’ve put in—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I understand that. I understand that, thank 

you. 

GRAZING

Senator ALLARD. I want to bring up grazing permits. Senator 

Craig mentioned something on grazing permits in his opening comments, and I want to follow up a little bit on these grazing permits. 

As you will recall, there was the 1995 Recision Act that Congress 

put a schedule in place for the renewal of the grazing permits, and 

the schedule requires the National Environment Policy Act document to be completed on all allotments by 2010. That’s only 1 year 

after this budget’s completed. 

In the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill, the committee provided additional funds to address the backlog of allotments, and 

also at that time they provided a categorical exclusion from NEPA 

for grazing allotments that met certain conditions, and that cap 

was 900 allotments on this authority. 

By the end of this year, we have used 900 of these categorical 

exclusions. The answer is yes? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Has this been an effective tool in helping 

you catch up on the backlog of grazing permits that must be completed? 

Ms. KIMBELL. This has been a very effective tool, and it would 

be a great thing to have it extended, if that was possible. 

Senator ALLARD. How many short are you in meeting the 2010 

deadline as far as you can tell? 

Ms. KIMBELL. We expect to complete 460 this year, and 455 next 

year. We have been working to keep that schedule updated. We 

will be almost 1,800 short of having all of the allotments completed 

with environmental analysis by the end of 2010. 

Senator ALLARD. So if we extend these categorical exclusions, 

how far out do you think would be appropriate time on it? 

Ms. KIMBELL. We can provide that to you, Senator, with some 

real specifics region by region and project by project. But the categorical exclusion has been a very helpful tool and would be a real 

good thing to have to meet those. 

Senator ALLARD. We’ll have our staff work with you on that. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Great. Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. You’ll be able to complete the NEPA on these 

allotments consistent with the Recisions Act schedule, you think? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Consistent with the schedule, the previous language allowed for a readjustment of this schedule, and we have 

that prepared and ready to present. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Do you have a follow-up on that, Senator 

Craig? 

Senator CRAIG. I would like to follow up, because I had mentioned the issue out in Idaho as it relates to the conflict between 

domestic sheep grazing, in this instance, and the bighorns. 

I don’t question the need to create some kind of geographical 

buffer to keep these two different animals apart. But what happens 

is the inability of the Forest Service to operate in any timely fashion to make adjustments. You are, bureaucratically, tied up. 
132 

For example, you have a good many grazing allotments in Idaho 

that are underutilized or not grazed at all. You could propose moving the domestic sheep over to another grazing allotment and creating those buffers and those separations. But you can’t do it because you don’t have a plan, and it takes years, and that sheep 

man’s out of business. 

Yet, and, of course, these lawsuits have been brought by interests 

who want all grazing off public lands anyway, and you’re falling 

right into their game plan by your inability to move in a timely 

fashion. You just talked about how long it’s now taking you to 

bring about in a forest plan something that, while we need to be 

very observant of it and its impact on resource, it appears that the 

Forest Service really doesn’t seem to care about grazing anymore 

in a timely fashion. 

Of course, in many Western States, when you take that ranching 

community down, you take the community down. Again, I talked 

about that hostility of relationship or, shall I say, a growing indifference as to your value and your presence. That’s part of it. You 

no longer seem to be able to function. 

I guess my frustration is, okay, we’ve got a problem, the science 

is still out on the problem, clearly, definitively, so let’s avoid the 

problem by a separation. I know that’s what your regional forester 

in Missoula would like to do, but can’t do. How do we deal with 

that? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Senator, the agency remains very committed to our 

multiple use mission, and grazing is an important part of that mission. This is not an easy issue with the bighorn sheep and the domestic sheep, but we are working with the most current science in 

Idaho. 

With people working together, we really hope for a sheep plan, 

a sheep management plan, for the State of Idaho that is agreed to 

by all the many parties who have an interest in sheep grazing and 

in wild sheep populations. But we remain very committed to our 

multiple use mission. 

Mr. REY. What we’ve tried to impress on our Forest Service 

range management and line officers is that the importance of maintaining these ranches is crucial to not seeing them subdivided and 

converted into developments, subdivisions, and thereby increasing 

the environmental impacts associated with that, including the cost 

of firefighting. 

So we’ve gone a long way towards trying to instill in our folks 

the notion that ranching is a preferred land use as compared to the 

alternative that we’re seeing in large parts of the West. 

With the bighorn sheep, what we’ve got is a problem that’s 

maybe temporary, that’s a result of some of the success we’ve had 

in bighorn sheep reintroduction, and that may be solved, eventually, by the help of science as we learn more about how to prevent 

disease transmission between wild and domestic flocks. 

So we’ve got a little problem right now, but—— 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Secretary and Chief Kimbell, my only problem is time is not on our side as it relates to the life of that rancher. 

June turnout dates are critical; you don’t make them, they’re 

gone. There’s no other place to go. Once you sell down your sheep 
133 

and you’re gone, then guess what happens. We subdivide, we build 

the megahomes, because the last asset that goes is the base property that’s private. Then you’re going to be fighting fire to protect 

the megahome built on the private property adjacent to the forested land because you could not act in a timely way to make a decision. 

Time is not on anybody’s side on this issue, including the life of 

the rancher and possibly the life of the bighorn. 

TIMBER BUDGET

Senator ALLARD. Let me move on. I want to talk a little bit about 

the timber budget. It’s one of the few programs that were not cut, 

and within this budget you provided full funding for the Northwest 

Forest Plan, an increase of $16 million. Even though the regions 

encompassed by the plan were only capable to accomplish 60 percent of their targeted sales volume last year—now, I acknowledge 

there are promises that were made to the timber industry in the 

Northwest Plan—but I wonder whether such a large increase 

aimed primarily at two regions of the Forest Service, covering 

Washington and Oregon, is the most efficient use of timber dollars. 

I guess the question I have, aren’t there still some litigation 

problems with timber sales in Oregon and Washington which 

means they’ll not be able to spend the dollars we’re going to be providing them in the 2010 budget? 

Mr. REY. Well, first, they do have the capability to spend that increase wisely and in a way that does result in additional timber 

outputs. 

Second, you’re correct, there are still litigation challenges in that 

region, but then they’re not unique in that regard; that litigation 

challenge is elsewhere as well. 

Third, and I guess most importantly, the allocation of those dollars is something that we’ll work with the committee on to achieve 

whatever the most equitable result is. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, the point is that they only spent 60 percent of their dollars in the last budget. 

Mr. REY. They spent all their dollars; they only hit 60 percent 

of their accomplishments. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. REY. Much of the difference was a result of litigation. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. REY. Some of those were sales that were not offered, but that 

have been freed from litigation and appeals, and will come on line 

as they work their way through the lawsuits. 

Senator ALLARD. Since the overall budget, timber budget is flat, 

if you look at all the whole budget, you know, including the Northwest, large increases to this section of the country, isn’t that an expense to all of the other regions? 

Mr. REY. What we endeavored to do in our first allocation was 

to give that region the largest increase commensurate with our 

commitment to fully implement the Northwest Forest Plan without 

disadvantaging any of the other regions. They would be largely 

where they were at in 2008. 

Senator ALLARD. But, you know, we’ve talked about paying for 

some of the programs that we have in other parts of the country— 
134 

Colorado and Idaho and what not—and yet the response I’ve gotten 

back off the record was, you know, we get a large amount of 

money, it goes to the Northwest and it’s not available to you folks. 

So I’d like to know if you can quantify for us the cuts being imposed on other regions. Maybe they’re not cuts; maybe they’re lack 

of program dollars that need to be made available to meet their 

program objectives in a region. What is the dollar value to that? 

Mr. REY. We can break out the regional allocations for you. 

Senator ALLARD. We’d appreciate it. 

[The information follows:] 
135 

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

BLI Fiscal year final allocation R–1 R–2 R–3 R–4 R–5 R–6 R–8 R–9 R–10 Regional subtotal 

NFTM Forest Products ................................................................................................................ $21,877 $18,320 $9,157 $13,472 $26,416 $45,970 $24,763 $23,801 $14,519 $198,295 

SSSS Salvage Timber ................................................................................................................ 8,701 1,007 659 1,028 5,729 6,495 2,652 7,357 762 34,390 

CWK2 K–V Forest Products ........................................................................................................ 700 .............. 2,000 .............. 6,200 2,300 4,900 4,900 .............. 21,000 

WFHF Hazardous Fuels .............................................................................................................. 15,290 23,815 35,714 16,531 46,128 28,362 32,838 9,001 944 208,623 WFHF Emer. Supplemental/Omnibus Earmarks ......................................................................... .............. 800 2,600 .............. 42,000 .............. .............. .............. .............. 52,600 

PEP2 Sec. 423 Forest Health .................................................................................................... 2,921 3,011 1,463 1,545 804 910 1,779 2,567 .............. 15,000 

Total ................................................................................................................... 49,489 54,153 51,593 32,576 127,277 84,037 66,932 47,626 16,225 529,908 

Note.—PEP2 allocation is based upon fire condition class, insect and disease risk, as well as timber sale unit costs. 
136 

Mr. REY. We are deeply cognizant that the Congress has a role 

in making those allocations, so we’ll be working with you on that. 

Senator ALLARD. I understand. Okay, thank you. 

Let’s see, we’ve pretty well covered that. 

WILDLAND FIRE OUTLOOK

Now, on the wildland fire outlook for this year, I know you’re trying to project the severity of the upcoming fire season, and it’s pretty difficult at this point in time. But we’re likely to be marking up 

the supplemental appropriation bill later this month. 

With that in mind, can you give us some sense of how severe you 

might expect this fire season to be, based on what you know now? 

Mr. REY. Sure. 

Senator ALLARD. About snowfalls and those type of things. 

Mr. REY. Our initial predictions were for above average fire activity this year. We’re still in a drought situation in the Southeast, 

so we have predicted that we’d hit the fire season there earlier 

than normal. We have gotten near record amounts of snowfall in 

the Northern Rockies and in other parts of the West, so depending 

on how fast that melts that might modulate what we were predicting as above average fire year. 

But at least for right now, we think it’s going to be an above average fire year, comparable to the last couple. 

Senator ALLARD. So you think you’re going to have sufficient resources available to get you throughout the year without having to 

borrow any massive sums from other nonfire programs? 

Mr. REY. Past experience would say that that’s not likely. 

Senator ALLARD. Can you give us a figure? 

Senator CRAIG. I think he’s saying past experience with this committee would suggest that we’re going to help them. 

Senator ALLARD. I’m looking for a figure that we might be able 

to help you with. 

Mr. REY. That would be hard to project in anything but an arbitrary fashion this early in the season. If, you know, we get a cold, 

wet spring, kind of the same weather pattern that’s there now in 

the Northern Rockies, if that holds for awhile, we could have a relatively mild fire year in that part of the country. But, on the other 

hand, if we get a hot spell, and that snow just all melts really fast, 

we’ll get a flush of vegetation and that might prove to be a difficult 

fire year. 

POTENTIAL MOVE OF FOREST SERVICE TO DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Senator ALLARD. Mark, you’ve been with the Department of Agriculture now for 7 years, and I’d like to know what your assessments are on the pros and cons of some suggestion that the Forest 

Service might be moved to the Department of the Interior. I value 

your objective observations in this. I wonder if you could share 

those with the committee. 

Mr. REY. You know, we agreed to participate in the GAO study 

that the House Appropriations Committee asked for, and we’re 

going to do that in as honest a way as we can. 

What strikes me, generally speaking, is that most of the issues 

we’ve been discussing today aren’t issues that lend themselves to 
137 

structural solutions. So no matter where the Forest Service is, it’s 

still going to have problems that we’ve been discussing, and those 

problems aren’t going to change if we change the structure of the 

agency or who it reports to. 

So, what I look at in executive branch governance is the proposition that form ought to follow function, and if you’re still arguing 

about how well the functions are working or what some of the functions should be, you probably ought to resolve that first before you 

try to fiddle with the form. 

But—— 

Senator ALLARD. That was a nice nonanswer. 

Mr. REY. It was about as good as I could give you. What I think 

we’ll find as we get into this study, is: That one of the aspects of 

level budgets in discretionary spending have forced executive 

branch agencies to do as much together as they can. So what I 

think the GAO analysts are going to find is that we’re already 

doing a lot of things together with the Department of the Interior 

land managing agencies. 

We have a unified command firefighting system that’s not going 

to be materially improved by moving the Interior agencies to Agriculture or the Forest Service to Interior. 

We have a unified recreation reservation system. We have the 

Service First Initiative where we share staff with particular technical expertises. 

Similarly, if you look at the other direction between the Forest 

Service and the other USDA agencies, we’ve unified a lot of functions there. Just, for instance, we have all of the payroll work centralized, done in a centralized institution, the National Finance 

Center in New Orleans. We have a common computing environment. We have staff that we share with the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 

So what you’re probably going to find is that, yes, there are some 

efficiencies by making some changes, but there are going to be 

some offsetting inefficiencies that are going to be created. Should 

we decide at the end of that study, for instance, to move the Forest 

Service to the Department of the Interior, we’ll probably be having 

to figure out how to justify upwards of $100 million in computer 

expenses that have already been incurred to unify the computer 

systems throughout USDA agencies so that we can talk to one another. 

Senator ALLARD. Since we are waltzing around this question, I 

have a couple more for us to dance around. 

Mr. REY. Okay. 

Senator ALLARD. You know, the one thought that’s been expressed is that the Secretary of Agriculture is so busy with the 

farm programs and what not, he doesn’t have the time that he 

probably ought to be allocating to forest issues and land management issues. The Department of the Interior, Secretary of the Interior, is more experienced in land management issues because of 

their jurisdiction which they now cover. 

I’d like to have you respond to that question. Then the other argument that we hear out there is that, well, if you move from Agriculture to the Interior, you change the mission, where the mission 
138 

of the Interior—you subtlely change it—where the mission of the 

Interior has been more towards preservation. 

Then we get from the Department of Agriculture more of a multiple use concept, and I think, at least on this side of the aisle, 

most of the members would like to support the multiple use concept. So I wondered if you’d address those two questions. 

Mr. REY. Sure. At least as far as it involves the two incumbent 

secretaries, they actually have very similar backgrounds and a 

similar level of interest in natural resources management. They’re 

both Western Governors from States with a substantial amount of 

federally-owned land. It so happens that Secretary Schafer, being 

from North Dakota, is much more familiar with the management 

of the national grasslands, which are part of the National Forest 

System, because North Dakota has a very small national forest 

acreage. 

Secretary Kempthorne, obviously from Idaho, has a great deal 

more national forest acreage, but I think at least as far as the two 

incumbents are concerned, they’re both equally interested in natural resources management. It’s probably not an accurate summary 

to suggest that Secretary Schafer doesn’t have some background 

experience and interest therein. 

Both Secretaries, obviously have to focus on what’s before them 

at a particular point in time as far as their respective agencies are 

concerned. I don’t know that you can generalize and say that the 

Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture is more or 

less interested in natural resources management on a continuing 

basis. At least today, with the two incumbents, I’d say they’re 

equally interested in and pretty much equally versed in it in most 

respects. 

In terms of the agency missions, you know, those are pretty 

much set by the statutes. The BLM and the Forest Service are 

going to remain multiple use agencies because the organic legislation directs that as the way they approach the issues that they 

have to deal with. 

The Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have organic 

missions that are somewhat narrower. In the case of the parks, 

they have two main initiatives, and that is to preserve the resources that they’re entrusted with and to make them available for 

visitors. So it’s a preservation and recreation mission that’s somewhat narrower than BLM or the Forest Service. 

But I don’t think, unless you change those missions as they’re 

embodied in their organic statutes, that you’re going to much 

change the agencies by moving them from one department to another. Just my take on it. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. One last question. Did you have some 

questions? 

Senator CRAIG. I’ll only make one observation as to the Secretary’s evaluation of this proposal. If you stay in Washington long 

enough, I think there is a relatively standard axiom that you can 

accept that bad ideas continue to resurface. 

I think when I first got here in the early 1980s, we were talking 

about the bringing of the agencies together, and I think we did that 

in the mid-1990s. So you see, the House is really being very creative: They’re repeating a bad idea and will study it like mad. We 
139 

will not be able to break down all of the stakeholders of interest 

that, in part, determine the policy and most important, determine 

the politics of it. 

While I think, Senator Allard, there are some commonalities that 

the Secretary has already spoken to that we can bring together, we 

have a commonality that’s created a unifying resource group out in 

Idaho called the Interagency Fire Center which pools resources for 

a variety of broad public firefighting interests. That’s fine, but 

there are very distinctively different missions in some of these that 

are unique to the BLM and unique to the Forest Service, vis-a`-vis 

Agriculture and Interior. 

So when I first began to hear about it, I thought, well, it’s probably worth the analysis, but it will conclude in drawing nothing but 

dust on the shelves, and out of it may come some ideas that are 

implementable as it relates to cooperative interagency relationships. But beyond that I would seriously doubt that over the last 

decade a bad idea has become a good idea. 

Mr. REY. I can tell you from visiting with the GAO auditors that 

they are going to take a very thorough approach to the task, and 

their stated goal is to lay out a variety of alternatives for the Congress—most likely the next Congress—to consider because they’re 

planning on concluding their study sometime late this year. 

COHESIVE FUELS STRATEGY

Senator ALLARD. Well, GAO has been somewhat critical about 

having developed any cohesive strategy that allows us to look at 

long-term results and effects and what not. 

They have also found that the firefighting agencies have yet to 

develop a better process for allocating fuel reduction funds to the 

various regions. Despite these calls from GAO, the agencies— 

you’ve not developed any cohesive strategy that I’m aware of that 

would allow us to look at a long-term investment in hazardous 

fuels funding, for example, and their impacts on the costs of firefighting. 

Can you respond to that question? 

Mr. REY. Sure. We’ve been engaged in what I’ll call a fairly 

lengthy ongoing dialogue with GAO about what they think is lacking in our current cohesive fuel strategy which we developed jointly 

with the Department of the Interior. We are in the process of augmenting that strategy to meet some of the things that they have 

indicated they’d like to see. 

Where I think we still are struggling to reach an accord with 

GAO is in the question of how much sense it makes to try to 

project out fuels treatment priorities very far into the future and 

to put dollars around those priorities in out years. 

The reason we take a somewhat skeptical view of the benefit of 

that is that those fuels treatment priorities are going to change 

over time by necessity. We’re going to have new subdivisions develop in places where they aren’t now that’s going to elevate a certain area to a higher level of priority for treatment that we can’t 

necessarily predict right now. 

But I’d say that we’re probably pretty far along the way to closing out disagreement with them. The question isn’t whether we 

have a cohesive fuel strategy or not, we do; the question is whether 
140 

it meets all of the standards for information the GAO would like 

to see in it, and the answer is it doesn’t now, but likely will as we 

add components to it over the next several months. 

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL

Senator ALLARD. We’re on the issue of accountability. I’m also 

one who pays particular attention to the Government Performance 

and Results Act. It’s also known as PART, under the President’s 

plan. I’m going to let you off kind of easy on that question. 

I have noticed that there are four programs, I think, that fall on 

this budget that are classified as nonperforming. I would ask that 

you submit to the committee and also to my office your explanation 

of why they’re nonperforming. I know there may be some legitimate reasons, and I just want on the record for you to give an opportunity of why you don’t—if you don’t agree with them, fine; if 

you see that there are some shortfalls, what you’re doing to correct 

those. 

Those four programs—one’s the USDA Wildland Fire Management, and the other one is the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program; 

the third one is the Forest Service Invasive Species Program. Then, 

finally, one that’s very popular with Members of Congress but I 

think we need some explanation, and that is the Department of the 

Interior Land and Water Conservation Land Acquisition Fund. 

So those four, if we just have some explanation. 

Mr. REY. I think we can give you the information on three of the 

four. We’ll have to work with Interior on the last one. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. REY. Because it’s a joint program. 

[The information follows:] 

PART RATINGS THAT SEVERAL FOREST SERVICE PROGRAMS RECEIVED FOR

NONPERFORMANCE

WATERSHED CURRENT PART RATING—RESULTS NOT DEMONSTRATED

The Forest Service is responding to the Watershed PART Assessment by developing new policy, protocols, and tools to improve program delivery and effectiveness. 

The agency has identified a consistent approach for determining watershed condition on National Forest System (NFS) lands, supporting efforts to prioritize watershed improvement activities. The Forest Service has also developed aquatic inventory and monitoring protocols for NFS lands and GIS-based tools to help States 

identify and prioritize critical forest areas on non-Federal lands. Through these applications and others, the NFS and State and Private Forestry deputy areas are exploring meaningful ways to measure effectiveness of programs pertaining to watershed improvement. 

The agency is beginning to implement elements of the PART Improvement Plan 

to improve the program’s rating. These actions consist of (1) developing a nationally 

consistent methodology for determining watershed condition class as basis for 

prioritizing watersheds management and (2) developing a national approach to describe and monitor the status and trend of aquatic resources. Additionally, the Forest Service and OMB recently negotiated an ‘‘Action Plan for the Development of 

a Watershed Efficiency Measure and a National Watershed Condition Class Rating 

System,’’ establishing a process and timetable for improvement. 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE CURRENT PART RATING—RESULTS NOT

DEMONSTRATED

The PART process for Capital Improvement and Maintenance aligned the Forest 

Service with USDA and OMB’s Real Property Initiatives and Asset Management 

Plans. The performance measures developed as a result of the assessment have improved planning and assessment of the agency’s infrastructure, resulting in better 
141 

priority setting criteria and project selection. Better planning and assessment supports the agency’s effort to determine an optimal infrastructure level, keeping only 

what is necessary to implement the agency’s mission and meet public needs. To further inform infrastructure maintenance, the agency has adopted the industry standards for the Facility Condition Index. The Index is a general metric that tracks national trends in the condition of the agency’s portfolio with respect to the deferred 

maintenance backlog. The Index allows decision makers at the local level to 

prioritize individual assets for funding, repair, or disposal, based on relative conditions. 

The Forest Service is developing long-term outcome-based performance measures 

that fully cover the program, including safety, condition sustainability and environmental suitability, utilization, and mission dependency. It will also develop and implement a strategy to prioritize road, facility, and trail improvements that reflect 

investment strategies as common criteria for reducing the deferred maintenance 

backlog. Finally, the agency has used disposal authorities to convey excess or 

unneeded properties through the Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT CURRENT PART RATING—ADEQUATE

In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service addressed the following actions contained 

in the PART Improvement Plan: refining program delivery, improving procedures 

for allocating hazardous fuels reduction funds, and improving data to reduce the 

risk of catastrophic fire. 

The Forest Service developed a technical guide that identifies the items and strategic nature of discussions in land management plans in fiscal year 2007, and is currently developing a new Forest Plan template, which should be available by the end 

of fiscal year 2008. 

Several large fire cost containment audit reports were issued in fiscal year 2007. 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report containing 18 recommendations on cost containment needs. The Forest Service has completed actions on two 

recommendations, including development of a new Master Cooperative Wildland 

Fire Management Agreement template. Work is ongoing on all open recommendations. 

The Forest Service is working with a multi-agency taskforce to develop a cost 

management strategy formulation process to provide a better picture of fire suppression costs over the life of an incident, establish short-term cost plans for fire resource ordering and procurement, and reaffirm the regional and national role in 

pricing fire resources (Federal, State, and local, private contractor, and military). 

A post-incident recovery team is developing policy, guidance, and tools to provide 

rapid assessment of rehabilitation needs following fires and other events. These actions will enable the agency to prioritize the rehabilitation work, along with the regular program of work, to ensure the highest priority of work is funded and accomplished. 

INVASIVE SPECIES CURRENT PART RATING—ADEQUATE

As a result of the Invasive Species PART Assessment, the Forest Service has focused the program around outcome-based activities that reduce the impact of 

invasive species on priority Federal and non-Federal forests and grasslands and tie 

directly to the USDA and agency strategic plans. Performance measures track treatment prioritization based on risk, treatment efficacy, and implementation costs; development, delivery, and use of tools; and customer satisfaction with tools produced. 

The Forest Service is also implementing an improved system of tabular and spatial 

record keeping for all invasive species management projects. 

New performance measures tracking outputs, outcomes, and efficiencies—developed during the PART Assessment process—help the agency to better determine 

program success. Field units have been tracking these measures for the past 2 

years. 

ENERGY CURRENT PART RATING—ADEQUATE

In response to the PART assessment on the oil and gas energy resources program, 

the Forest Service refined performance measures to track compliance with agency 

strategic plan goals and objectives, emphasizing the agency’s ability to process lease 

applications in a timely manner. The new performance measures have helped the 

agency to direct funding and resources to reduce project processing times while assuring compliance with remediation measures. Also a result of the PART assessment, the Forest Service now holds regular coordination meetings with the Bureau 

of Land Management, with which it manages the energy minerals program. Regular 
142 

meetings have eased implementation of MOUs, facilitating more efficient program 

delivery. 

LAND ACQUISITION CURRENT PART RATING—ADEQUATE

The Forest Service has used the PART process to improve land validation, ensuring that land purchases and donations meet the agency’s strategic plan goals and 

objectives. The agency has adopted two new measures for land acquisition into the 

Performance and Accountability System and Workplan, systems that agency uses to 

manage and track project funding and performance. The Forest Service has also updated the Agency Land Purchase Digest system to include case-specific information 

for these performance measures, as well as three new efficiency measures. With 

these improvements, the agency will be able to more accurately assess program effectiveness. 

FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM CURRENT PART RATING—MODERATELY EFFECTIVE

Following its PART assessment, the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) developed 

seven performance measures and national strategic direction to further ensure that 

Federal dollars are spent on those projects of highest national importance. FLP revised its national scoring guidance for the annual project selection panel to increase 

the emphasis on protecting nationally important resources that fit within a larger 

regional or national conservation landscape level plan. In addition, FLP is reducing 

the average length of time it takes to complete a project. FLP is also working to 

ensure timely quality appraisals to reduce the average project completion time. 

RECREATION CURRENT PART RATING—MODERATELY EFFECTIVE

The Forest Service is using the PART assessment to focus business planning and 

improve cost accounting in the developed recreation sites program. The agency is 

currently going through a Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA) process to prioritize 

recreation site improvements, to reduce deferred maintenance, and improve cost 

analysis. Under this analysis, national forests weigh and compare facilities’ ability 

to serve public needs and wants with the forest’s capacity to operate and maintain 

existing structures at desired quality standards. One of the primary goals of RFA 

is to reduce recreation site deferred maintenance by 20 percent in 5 years on each 

national forest. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator ALLARD. Very good. Well, at least from your perspective 

on the last, if you would, and we’ll go to Interior and ask them for 

their side of it. 

There will be some additional questions which will be submitted 

for your response in the record. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

FIREFIGHTER RETENTION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Question. In your analysis, you acknowledge a morale problem among firefighters 

on these forests, but your analysis also claims that the ‘‘perceptions around recruitment and retention in southern California are hard to substantiate based on data.’’ 

Part of your claim is that the overall attrition rate is lower than the average attrition rate of all Federal employees, which is 13.4 percent. However, your analysis 

also showed that your attrition rate among southern California fire personnel was 

9.4 percent last year—49 percent greater than the agency’s overall firefighter attrition rate of 6.3 percent. On the Angeles National Forest, you report an attrition rate 

of 12.2 percent, which is double the Forest Service’s firefighter attrition average. It 

also showed that the Forest Service lost 46 percent of your entry-level firefighters 

last year in southern California—twice the agency’s overall attrition average. 

How did the agency compile the attrition rate data presented to the Committee? 

Answer. Rates for employees leaving the agency were compiled from a 10-year 

database of permanent workforce in California. The position series used were 0462 

and 0401 for both fire and non-fire positions since there is no way to isolate fire 
143 

positions based on the series. The data itself comes from the data warehouse maintained by the National Finance Center (NFC) 

Question. You use these data to represent trends in firefighting employment, but 

acknowledge that the data used in your analysis contain both fire and non-fire personnel. Is it appropriate to make decisions about firefighter retention using data 

that include an unknown number of other personnel? Did the agency conduct an 

analysis to see how many non-fire positions were included in the data? 

Answer. Because there is not a specific job series for wildland firefighters, it is 

not possible to easily isolate firefighters among the other job functions included 

within the 0401 and 0462 job series. However, in Region 5 the majority of employees 

in the 0401 and 0462 job series are fire employees. We believe using these job series 

provide the most accurate available data set which encompasses the entire fire organization. 

Question. Why did the agency choose to compare the attrition rate of firefighters 

against the attrition rate for all Federal employees as the basis of determining 

whether it has the appropriate retention level? Why and how did you decide that 

was the appropriate baseline? 

Answer. The agency did not utilize this comparison as the sole basis of determining whether it has the appropriate retention level. A number of factors were assessed in the report including the change in permanent fire workforce over the period from 1997–2007, which indicated an 82 percent increase in permanent Fire and 

Aviation Management staff. We also used 2007 data on retirements, resignations 

and transfers, which indicated a net gain of 68 employees an increase of 3 percent. 

In short, within Region 5 there are significantly more firefighters today than there 

were 10 years ago. The comparison to Forest Service wide and all Federal Service 

were used to illuminate the attrition of firefighters in California in context with 

broader attrition rates of natural resource professionals in the Forest Service and 

Federal Government. 

Forest Service leadership recognizes that some employees have left the agency 

and that this is most visible in the fire organization. As noted in the letter to Senator Feinstein from Under Secretary Rey, dated May 6, 2008, the Forest Service has 

a number of initiatives to address retention in the fire organization. 

Question. What are the trends over time for attrition rates of Forest Service firefighters, both in Region 5 and for the four southern California forests? Please provide the Committee with the annual attrition rate of all firefighting employees for 

each of the Region 5 forests for each of the past 10 fiscal years. 

Answer. Data for this question is readily available only from 1997 to 2006 and 

is based upon calendar years instead of fiscal years. Please see attachment 1. In 

general, the number of Region 5 permanent firefighters at the end of fiscal year 

2006 is more than 50 percent higher than the fiscal year 2000 levels, even assuming 

attrition. 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 

Question. What effect has this attrition had on the experience level and the institutional memory of the Region’s firefighting corps? 

Answer. The analysis indicates that the greatest numbers of employees leaving 

the agency are at the GS–04 entry level, where employees are in seasonal positions 

and are more likely to be at the beginning of their careers. Experience and institutional memory principally lie with permanent employees at grade levels GS–06 and 

above, and there is minimal attrition at that level. Further, because the overall 

number of firefighters in Region 5 remains over 50 percent above the number of permanent firefighters at the end of fiscal year 2000 even accounting for attrition, the 

amount of institutional and professional knowledge available to the Forest Service 

is greater than the pre-2000 levels. 

Even as the Forest Service has expanded its permanent firefighter workforce compared to the pre-2000 levels, we share the concerns about maintaining institutional 

memory and experience into the future and are committed to actions that provide 

a continuing qualified, knowledgeable, and safe firefighting cadre. Our current recruiting efforts and apprenticeship program are focusing on hiring entry-level employees, and increasing promotion rates into higher ranks and permanent positions 

by promoting as soon as they acquire the necessary skills and experience. This ensures that new employees have a tangible career ladder and thus create an incentive to remain with the Forest Service. These employees will become our future 

leaders and will gain experience and institutional knowledge as they continue their 

careers. 

Question. Though it claims that recruitment is outpacing retention, the analysis 

does not provide data on actual vacancy rates that are caused by attrition or other 

factors. Please provide data on planned versus actual firefighter employment, by 

pay-grade and by forest, for each of the Region 5 forests as of April 1, 2008. Please 

provide specific statistics for both permanent and temporary firefighters. 

Answer. Please see attachment 2. 

Question. Please provide data on planned versus actual firefighting personnel in 

Region 5, by forest, for each of the past 10 fiscal years. 

Answer. This data is not readily available on a forest by forest basis. Please see 

attachment 3 for a chart describing planned and actual hires for permanent, apprentice, and temporary employees 2000–2007. 
150 
151 
152 
153 

Question. How will the agency monitor hiring and retention to ensure that its firefighting positions are filled to capacity before the beginning of fire season? How 

many positions currently remain to be filled? By what date will staffing be complete? 

Answer. The agency’s goal is to ensure that we have the capacity to meet our 

wildland fire mission. In the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) the Forest Service 

has planned for 4,432 permanent, temporary, and apprentice positions for the 2008 

fire season. It is important to note that staffing in the firefighting organization will 

fluctuate throughout the season. As the fires season progresses, Forest Supervisors 

monitor staffing decisions to address the firefighting mission and if extreme fire 

danger warrants, have the ability to hire additional resources. There are currently 

363 vacant positions in Region 5. The region is planning to have another round of 

fire hiring in early July to fill these vacancies before the California fire season commences in earnest. 

Question. While the analysis provides a number of short-term recommendations 

that may be considered to improve firefighter morale, including retention bonuses, 

flexibility of scheduling and other quality of life improvements, it fails to provide 

concrete recommendations as requested by my directive in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 110–161). It is essential that your agency 

take action immediately to improve morale, and additional inducements may also 

be critical to your efforts to fully staff your firefighting positions for this fire season. 

What process will the agency use to determine which of these recommendations 

will be employed? How will you solicit input from local firefighters? 

Answer. Region 5 is taking the lead to address these issues. Four teams, each led 

by one or more Forest Supervisors and including one or more forest fire managers, 

have been established to develop recommendations, on four key areas: mission, pay, 

workplace improvement, and facilities. 

Region 5’s current recruiting efforts and apprenticeship program are focusing on 

hiring entry-level employees, where the attrition rate is greatest. The region is increasing promotion rates into higher ranks and permanent positions for these employees as soon as they acquire the necessary skills and experience. 

It is recognized that the high cost of living in California is an important factor 

affecting employees. Region 5 is working with local forests to determine if retention 

allowances can immediately assist with retaining employees. 

Question. When and by whom will a decision on to implement recommendations 

be made? 

Answer. The team’s recommendations will be completed by June 30. The Regional 

Forester will make a decision on the recommendations at that time and implementation will begin immediately. 

Question. What is the agency’s long-term plan for analyzing the agency’s firefighting mission, and for addressing firefighter pay and benefits issues, both in California and agency-wide? 

Answer. The agency has begun an assessment of mission related activities and 

workload within the wildland-urban interface and is assembling the appropriate information for analyzing mission related activities across the Nation, as well as functions that are less congruent with the agency’s land management mission. We will 

review the finding of this assessment and determine the need to make national or 

regional decisions based on this analysis. 

In terms of pay and benefits for fire fighters in California, the Regional Forester 

has created teams specifically focused on pay and workplace improvement. In addition the region is evaluating and implementing actions related to focused recruitment and retention bonuses ensuring that employees have a tangible career ladder. 

Beyond California there is currently no indication that significant issues exist agency-wide with firefighter pay and benefits. 

FUELS/USE OF HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT AUTHORITIES

Question. According to your agency’s Healthy Forests Report 2007, you have only 

treated 295,000 acres under HFRA Title I authorities over the past 3 years, while 

12.8 million acres were treated using other authorities. You treated 163,000 acres 

using HFRA authorities in fiscal year 2007, which is a fraction of the agency’s authorized HRFA limit of 20 million acres. 

Why is the agency still only treating a fraction its acres using HFRA authorities? 

Why is the pace of implementation so slow? 

Answer. Most of the acres treated are being carried out under pre-existing authorities. The planning authorities available under HFRA are important tools to 

help the agency achieve its goals for restoring forest and rangeland health, reducing 

hazardous fuels, and creating sustainable conditions to facilitate protection of com-
154 

munities and resources. Land managers and communities are often focused on outcomes and not on the use of a particular authority. While accomplishments achieved 

under other authorities do not count as ‘‘HFRA acres’’ they nevertheless contribute 

to the overall objectives of the act. 

Question. How many acres will the agency treat in fiscal year 2008 using HFRA 

authorities? How many acres are planned for treatment under HFRA in fiscal year 

2009? 

Answer. Each year the number of acres treated using HFRA authorities increases 

and we expect this trend to continue. In fiscal year 2007, a total of 163,000 acres 

were treated using HFRA, an increase of 65 percent above the 2006 level. Treatments using authorities under Healthy Forest Initiative accounted for an additional 

417,000 acres. 

In fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 we anticipate further expanding the use 

of HFRA authorities. The use of HFRA and HFI authorities has been on an increasing trend and lands treated under those authorities in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 

will meet or exceed the 580,000 acres treated using both HFRA and HFI in fiscal 

year 2007. 

Question. What specific steps has the agency taken to increase the number of 

acres treated under HRFA authorities in the past fiscal year? 

Answer. The Forest Service has taken several actions to support accomplishment 

of all vegetation treatments that contribute to the overall HFRA objectives. For example: —Increased Leadership at the National Office to support use of HFRA authorities.—The National Office has conducted an assessment of the impacts of the 

recent U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision declaring the Hazardous 

Fuels Reduction Categorical Exclusion (HFRCE) developed under the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative invalid. The Chief has directed the Forest Service to refrain from approving new projects using the HFRCE, and avoid advertising or awarding contracts to implement decisions made after October 8, 2004 

approved under the HFRCE. We expect additional use of HFRA authorities due 

to this direction. —Increased Focus on Improving Communication and Sharing Success Stories.— Considerable information about the requirements of HFRA, and tools to help in 

understanding its application are on the Washington Office intranet. One of 

these tools is a Web Guide that walks the reader through the decision process 

to determine whether HFRA authorities might be used in particular situations. 

Another is the Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

Interim Field Guide (Field Guide) providing a wealth of information on the 

law’s interpretation and application. —Increased Use of Strategic Assessments.—Regions are capitalizing on leadership 

of States and local government in the development of community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs). Nearly 5,000 communities are now covered by CWPPs. 

—Increased Focus on Training and Reviews.—Several regions are targeting training to Line Officers, Planners, and Resource Specialists on use of the entire 

suite of authorities to manage vegetative conditions in collaboration with communities. 

—Enhancing Stewardship Contracting to Build Collaborative Capacity and Accomplish Restoration.—Many of the successes in our use of stewardship contracting are a direct result of the development and implementation of projects 

through collaborative partnerships with groups of diverse interests. 

—Forest Restoration Framework and Policy.—The Forest Service has completed a 

strategic, science-based framework for restoring and maintaining forest and 

grassland ecological conditions titled the ‘‘Ecosystem Restoration Framework.’’ 

This framework has informed the development of an agency wide restoration 

policy—expected to be released late spring 2008. The policy addresses requirements to plan, implement, monitor, and evaluate ecological restoration activities 

in consideration of current and future desired conditions and the potential for 

future changes in environmental conditions, including climate change. 

—Release of the Forest Service Woody Biomass Utilization Strategy.—The strategy 

describes how Forest Service programs can better coordinate to improve the use 

of woody biomass in tandem with forest management activities on both Federal 

and private land. 

In addition, the following direction was included in the fiscal year 2007 and fiscal 

year 2008 program direction to the field: ‘‘Project planning and implementation associated with a Community Wildfire Protection Plan must take priority over other 

projects within the Region or Forest, unless prevented by extenuating circumstances.’’ A large number of community wildfire protection plans have been prepared under HFRA. The numbers climb each year as managers effectively facilitate 
155 

successful collaborative planning efforts, and this approach becomes the planning 

standard. 

Question. Does the agency evaluate each of its proposed fuel treatment projects 

for possible use of HFRA authorities? If not, how does the agency choose which 

projects to evaluate for possible HFRA use? 

Answer. Every project is evaluated for the suitability of utilizing an HFRA authority. The decision authorities provided by the HFRA are a tool that line officers 

consider when evaluating the most effective and efficient means of accomplishing 

their hazardous fuels reduction and ecological restoration objectives. 

Question. Your recent Healthy Forests report from December, 2007 indicates that 

only 16 percent of all acres treated with hazardous fuels dollars last year were mechanical treatments, while approximately 84 percent of acres accomplished were 

treated through prescribed fire. How does the agency decide how many acres to 

treat through mechanical thinning versus prescribed burns? Why isn’t the agency 

using mechanical thinning for a greater proportion of its fuels acres? 

Answer. Our total hazardous fuel reduction accomplishment includes acres treated by other program areas with a secondary benefit of reduced hazardous fuels, such 

as mechanical treatment, not just those acres treated with hazardous fuels dollars. 

When considering all hazardous fuels reduction from all funding sources, 38 percent 

of the 3 million acres treated in fiscal year 2007 were accomplished using mechanical methods. Accomplishing our hazardous fuel reduction objective includes use of 

all management tools available to us, including both prescribed burning and mechanical fuel reduction. Managers select the appropriate treatment method based on 

site conditions; opportunity for commodity recovery via timber sale or biomass removal; accessibility; proximity to wildland urban interface or other high valued resources; and the potential to use prescribed fire safely. Mechanical treatments can 

approximate the impacts of a natural disturbance regime through fire, but it cannot 

completely replace fire’s beneficial effects on the site which include nutrient cycling, 

preparation of the seed bed, and selection of fire-adapted plants. Fire must continue 

to be an important part of our management of fire-adapted ecosystems. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE

Question. What is the agency’s schedule for implementing the travel management 

rule, which calls for the agency to codify its cross-country motorized vehicle use? 

Who or what determined this schedule? 

Answer. The planned schedule has all administrative units identifying those 

roads, trails, and areas which are open to motor vehicle use and publishing a Motor 

Vehicle Use Map by December 31, 2009. The Chief of the Forest Service determined 

the planned schedule. 

Question. Is the agency preparing a travel analysis for each individual National 

Forest? 

Answer. Travel analysis is a pre-NEPA process explained in the 2005 Motor Vehicle Route and Area Designation Guide and in regional training sessions. Proposed 

directives published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2007 also included proposed direction regarding travel analysis. We expect final directives to be published 

some time this year. Currently, some national forests are conducting travel analysis 

as a part of travel management planning. 

Question. Is there a standard policy that each forest must follow in order to make 

travel management decisions? How is the Forest Service ensuring that its policies 

are being applied consistently? 

Answer. Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR 212 provides direction on how to identify routes and areas open for motor vehicle use. The Rule identifies the requirement for public participation; coordination with Federal, State, county and other local governmental entities, and tribal governments; and criteria which 

must be considered when making designation decisions. The proposed directives include a process for completing travel management planning. The 2005 Motor Vehicle 

Route and Area Designation Guide provides a process framework that may be used. 

To enable consistent interpretation of the Rule and its implementation, regional 

training sessions were conducted. 

Question. Is there a formal process that each forest will use to decide whether to 

add or remove additional routes? Who participates in this process? 

Answer. The Travel Management Rule identifies criteria that must be considered 

when making decisions regarding which roads, trails, and areas to designate for 

motor vehicle use. The Rule requires that the public be given the opportunity to participate, and requires coordination with governmental entities and tribal governments. 
156 

Question. Is there universal standard for public participation in the travel management decision-making process? What is that standard? 

Answer. The Travel Management Rule identified two specific requirements for 

public participation. First, that the public be allowed to participate in the designation process, and second, that advance notice be given to allow for public comment. 

Public notification, including publishing of the Motor Vehicle Use Map, is sufficient 

where motor vehicle use is already restricted to designated routes and areas. 

Question. How much funding has the agency spent to date on the travel management planning process? How much will the agency spend in fiscal year 2008 on this 

process? How much do you propose to spend in fiscal year 2009? 

Answer. Over the past 2 years the agency has spent an estimated $200,000 for 

national training on route designation, issuance of Forest Service manual and handbook direction, and implementation support. It is estimated that an additional $25 

million per year over 4 years will be spent on the full range of travel planning activities, although these costs are not clearly distinguishable from other program 

management costs and vary widely from forest to forest depending on the local situation and issues. Funding provided for travel management planning is used to: (1) 

assemble and review existing motor vehicle travel management information; (2) inventory, analyze, and complete the requirements established by the National Environmental Policy Act for travel management decisions; and (3) publish Motor Vehicle Use Maps. 

Question. How many miles of motorized trails do you anticipate that the travel 

management process will add to the National Forest System trails system nationwide? How many miles will be specifically added in California? 

Answer. Decisions on which trails to designate for motor vehicle use are made by 

local responsible officials. Since most national forests have not yet made their designation decisions, we do not have an estimate as to how many miles may be added 

to the National Forest System of trails. The same would be true for California. 

Question. How many miles of motorized trails have already been added to the National Forest System to date by this process? How many of these are in California? 

Answer. Between fiscal year 2006 and 2008 it is estimated that the total miles 

of National Forest System (NFS) trail open to motor vehicle use increased by 1,400 

miles. There are a number of factors which influence this figure. Changes to the 

miles of NFS trail open to motor vehicle use include both additions and subtractions, and may or may not be a result of route designation decisions. Many of the 

added miles represent the conversion of NFS roads to NFS trails. Currently no 

miles of trails open to motor vehicle use have been added for California during this 

same timeframe. 

Question. Do you have any estimates of what additional funding—construction, 

maintenance, enforcement—will be required for additional routes that have been or 

will be designated? Please provide the Committee with these estimates, if applicable. 

Answer. Implementation of the travel management rule is a Forest Service priority and available funding within the agency’s budget will be used to cover travel 

management decisions. Preliminary budget projections once route designations are 

completed are shown below. These projections do not include maintenance, decommissioning of routes, road route markers and signs, and law enforcement needs as 

they are not currently known at this time. 

—Route markers and junction signs for trails—$3–7 million (one time cost) 

—Forest Service Educational and Patrol Personnel—$9–$16 million/year 

—Volunteer Program Management—$8 million/year 

—Bulletin Boards and Kiosks—$15 million (one time cost) 

—Signs at entrance to forest areas—$6 million (one time cost) 

—National educational efforts—$1.5 million (one time cost) 

Question. What role do budget resource considerations play a role in determining 

what routes may or may not be added? 

Answer. The Travel Management Rule requires the consideration of the availability of resources for needed road and trail maintenance and administration. That 

consideration is one amongst a variety of other considerations including effects to 

natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision for recreation opportunities, 

access needs, and conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands. 

Question. What kind of analysis is the Forest Service preparing to ensure adding 

additional trails is not damaging the watersheds, wildlife habitat or other natural 

resource values? 

Answer. The Travel Management Rule requires the consideration of various criteria for designation of trails. The responsible official is required to consider effects 

to natural resources including, potential damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and 
157 

other forest resources, and harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats. 

OPM FIREFIGHTER CREDENTIALS

Question. What is the purpose or goal of transitioning your upper level fire managers to the professional GS–0401 classification series? 

Answer. This effort began several years ago as a result of wildland fire incident 

reviews. The death of 14 wildland firefighters on Storm King Mountain in 1994 was 

a turning point. These studies highlighted the fact that we needed more stringent, 

uniform qualification standards for employees in certain fire management positions 

to assure firefighter safety. The fire organizations worked with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to establish an appropriate series. The 0401 series is 

similar to other resource management professional series and stresses a positive 

education element that strengthens analytical skills and resource management fundamentals. These two elements are essential to both the safety of the workforce and 

Forest Service resource management mission. 

Question. Why did the educational requirements for upper-level firefighters 

change? 

Answer. The change was not the education requirements, rather it was the acceptable standard necessary for meeting the education requirement. This policy 

change was effective on February 15, 2005. 

Question. What was the agency’s initial plan to meet these requirements? Did you 

work with OPM on this? Was a supplemental qualification standard for your fire 

managers developed and approved by OPM? 

Answer. The plan to meet OPM requirements is the Interagency Fire Program 

Management (IFPM). Yes, OPM was involved in this effort. Among the components 

of the IFPM Standard is the Office of Personnel Management-approved Supplemental Qualification Standard for GS–0401 Fire Management Specialist positions 

which was originally issued in July of 2002. 

Question. What is the OPM policy change that excludes your in-house courses? 

When was it implemented? When and how did the agency first become aware of it? 

When were your field employees notified? 

Answer. The specific policy change that excluded our in-house coursework is the 

revision to Part E.4 (a) of the General Policies and Instructions, located in the Operating Manual for Qualification Standards for General Schedule Positions. This policy change was effective on February 15, 2005. The Forest Service became aware 

of the change in April, 2007 when an OPM representative, and numerous human 

resources personal attended an IFPM implementation meeting in order to discuss 

this change. Informal communication on this issue began almost immediately. A formal letter informing agency employees of this policy was signed and sent May 31, 

2007. 

Question. Did you request a waiver from OPM to allow your in-house courses to 

continue to count toward meeting the positive education requirement? If so, how did 

OPM respond to your request? 

Answer. Yes, the Forest Service requested a waiver from OPM asking us to continue using our in-house courses (Technical Fire Management (TFM) and the National Wildlife Coordinating Group (NWCG) classes) toward meeting the positive 

education requirement. We received an OPM response that stated they could not approve our proposal because that course of action would not resolve the fundamental 

issue that all Federal employees must meet the educational requirements prescribed 

by the qualification standard for the series to which their positions are classified, 

as specified by Title 5, Code of Federal Regulation, par 338, section 301. The OPM 

response stated the courses requested for waiver do not meet the requirement that 

all courses must receive credit from an institution with accreditation status from a 

body recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Education in order to be 

creditable when determining qualifications for Federal positions. 

Question. It is our understanding that the intent of the new OPM policy at issue 

here is to exclude credits bestowed by ‘‘diploma mills’’ from meeting positive education requirements needed to qualify for Federal employment. In your discussions 

with OPM, did OPM ever indicate that an analysis had been performed or criteria 

applied to determine that the exclusion of your in-house courses was consistent with 

this intent? 

Answer. No indication was provided. We defer to OPM regarding their analyses. 

Question. How many of your fire program managers have been or are scheduled 

to be converted to GS–0401 positions? How many have lost credits as a result of 

the OPM policy change? When will those who do not obtain the required academic 

credits be removed from their positions? 
158 

Answer. From the time of the new policy in May, 2007 a total of 820 employees 

from the 5 Federal agencies were identified for conversion within the IFPM GS– 

0401 management positions. We initially estimate 200 Forest Service employees 

have lost credits. OPM has offered to extend the removal date to October, 2010 for 

employees who do not meet the requirements. The agencies have requested written 

confirmation of this offer, given verbally April 11, 2008. 

Question. What is the estimated financial cost to the agency associated with assisting incumbent employees in replacing their lost credits? What are the estimated 

human capital costs, i.e., effects on morale and retention? 

Answer. The estimated financial cost is $1,000 per credit, and an average of 5.5 

credits required. The Forest Service has approximately 200 employees in this situation requiring an investment of about $1,100,000. This is an estimate of the average 

travel costs which employees may incur. This does not include university fees or employee time. Initial indications showed that this change had moderately to seriously 

affected employee morale. Over time the situation has improved. There has been no 

known indication of employee retention problems related to the IFPM program. 

Question. How many accredited colleges or universities award a BS in wildland 

fire program management or an equivalent field of study? 

Answer. Very few institutions award a specific Bachelor of Science in Wildland 

Fire Management degree. A handful of institutions offer minors in fire management. 

The 0401 series requirements may be achieved through a number of different 

science programs which may or may not include courses in Wildland Fire Management such as fire weather, fire behavior, and fire ecology. 

Question. How many accredited colleges or universities provide courses equivalent 

to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) courses originally envisioned 

as counting toward the GS–0401 basic education requirement? How does the cost 

of these courses compare to the cost of providing identical training in-house? 

Answer. Currently somewhere between 20 and 25 colleges or universities provide 

these types of courses. The additional expenses range from 20 to 100 percent more 

expensive than in-house training. 

Question. Are there any other barriers faced by employees seeking to meet the 

GS–0401 education requirement of which we should be aware? 

Answer. No, with the 1 year extension provided by OPM employees have both the 

time and institutional support to meet these requirements. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JUDD GREGG

Question. In fiscal year 2009, the President’s budget includes only $12.5 million 

for the Forest Legacy Program. This is more than a 70 percent cut in the program 

from the fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. In addition, there are only three projects 

recommended for funding nationwide. Yet, my understanding is that this year 45 

States submitted a total of 87 projects, including New Hampshire. Again, your budget request seems to contradict the Forest Service’s own research reports, ‘‘Forests 

on the Edge’’ and ‘‘Cooperating Across Boundaries.’’ These reports highlight increased development and the loss of open space as significant threats to America’s 

forests which provide substantial environmental and economic benefits to communities across the United States. When the Forest Legacy Program was reviewed by 

this administration, it received one of the highest scores for success agency-wide. 

Given the pressing need to prevent forest fragmentation, as your own agency well 

documents, and the fact that this program is clearly working well, can you please 

explain the dramatic drop in your funding request this year? 

Answer. The agency maintains high regard for the accomplishments of the Forest 

Legacy Program. We had to make very difficult choices in the fiscal year 2009 budget request and reduced or eliminated programs whose needs can be served using 

non-Forest Service funds. The administration’s proposal for the 2008 Farm Bill explicitly includes forests, forestry, and NIPF landowners and provides new funding 

for the same key programs for which many cooperators receive funding from the 

Forest Service. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Thank you very much. I don’t have any 

more questions and there are no other committee members here, 

so I declare the committee recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Thursday, April 1, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(159) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 

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

The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

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

Present: Senators Feinstein, Dorgan, Nelson, Allard, Craig, Stevens, Cochran, and Alexander. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, SECRETARY 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

JAMES CASON, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY SECRETARY 

PAM HAZE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. The meeting will come to order. This is the 

Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations, and we are having a 

hearing this morning on the Interior Department’s budget. 

The distinguished Secretary of the Interior has joined us, and I 

understand he has to be at the White House in the late morning 

and must be out of here by 11:30. So for all members’ advisement, 

please know that and we will try to move along as rapidly as possible. Question rounds will be 5 minutes and we will use the early 

bird rule. 

Testifying is the Secretary of Interior. Joining him is Jim Cason, 

the Department’s Associate Deputy Secretary, and Pam Haze, the 

Director of the Office of Budget. We would like to welcome all three 

of them. 

Mr. Secretary, with the change of administration set for next 

year, this will most likely be your last appearance before this subcommittee, and I want you to know—and I think I speak for all my 

colleagues when I say that we deeply appreciate the degree of dedication you have brought to your job. I have had the privilege of 

working with you, as had Senator Craig, as a Member of this body. 

I do not think Senator Alexander or Allard did. 

Senator ALLARD. I did. 
160 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You did? Well, let me speak for Senator Allard then, as well. 

Your collegiality is always very much appreciated. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Thank you very much. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You have brought a very distinct level of cooperation to us and our staff. We think you exemplify public service 

and we sincerely wish you the very best in all of your endeavors. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Turning now to your budget, though, this is 

a horse of another color. I want to thank you for retaining some 

of the programmatic increases the Congress provided in the 2008 

bill. The extra funding for park operations, for refuge operations, 

for maintenance of refuges, and for law enforcement on Indian 

lands are all critically important to us, and we think they will 

make a real difference in the field. 

But despite those successes, this proposal leaves us in a very difficult position, and I think the best I can offer is please work with 

us as we work on this budget. 

2009 BUDGET REQUEST

All in all, the Department’s 2009 request is a reduction of $189 

million, or just 2 percent from the current level. The real cut, however, we find is much larger when you factor in the $165 million 

in fixed cost increases that have to be covered and the additional 

$45 million needed to meet the 10-year average for fire suppression. Taking these costs into account, the request more realistically 

represents a reduction of nearly $400 million, or 4 percent below 

the 2008 level. 

Now, to be fair, there are two sizeable increases: the $160 million 

for park operations and an additional $45 million for fire suppression. But those increases are offset by hefty cuts. Consider construction at parks, refuges, and Indian schools cut $99 million, or 

21 percent; land acquisition at parks and refuges cut $51 million, 

or almost 60 percent; Bureau of Indian Affairs overall cut $100 million, down 4 percent; and Payments in Lieu of Taxes, fondly known 

around here as PILT, cut $34 million, or 15 percent; State and local 

historic preservation projects cut $25 million, or 19 percent; and 

State land acquisition grants cut $25 million. That is 100 percent. 

As we look at these cuts, it is clear to me that the budget is the 

product of some rather arbitrary decisionmaking at the Office of 

Management and Budget. Given the size of the backlog maintenance problem, for example, there is simply no way to justify a 21 

percent reduction in the construction programs, nor can a $100 million cut at the Bureau of Indian Affairs be explained away as good 

public policy. BIA may be a lot of things, but overfunded it is not. 

So I suspect that as we begin drafting this appropriations bill, 

members of the subcommittee will largely be in agreement that 

many of the proposed reductions are untenable and need to be 

fixed. 

Before turning to our distinguished ranking member for any 

opening comments, I want to thank you for your leading role in negotiating the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Agreement 

and the implementing legislation as well. I am one that believes 

that a negotiated settlement is much better than a judge becoming 
161 

master of this river, and I want you to know how much I appreciate your help in the outcome. I think it is going to be marked up 

in the Energy Committee in May or June of this year. So I am very 

pleased about that. 

I would now like to turn to my distinguished ranking member, 

Senator Allard, for any comments you may care to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and I 

would like to just reiterate your comments at the first of your opening statement about what a pleasure it has been to work with Secretary Kempthorne both as a colleague, as well as head of the Department of the Interior. 

I want to thank you, Madam Chairman, for calling this hearing 

today. 

I appreciate, Secretary Kempthorne, you joining us this morning 

to testify on the fiscal year 2009 budget for the Department of the 

Interior. Again, I know this will be your last year, most likely, at 

the helm of that Department, and you probably will not miss us 

much, but we will definitely miss you at Interior. 

I think I speak for all of us in saying that we, again, appreciate 

your leadership. It is not an easy job. It is a controversial job. You 

have handled the challenges exceptionally well despite those challenges. 

Your Department administers 507 million acres, or roughly onefifth of the land area of the United States. The most beautiful public lands you manage are in my State of Colorado. For example, 

Rocky Mountain and Mesa Verde National Parks rival anyplace in 

North America for their majestic scenery, as well as their cultural 

importance. 

Your Department also controls some of the most economically important public lands in Colorado, in particular, the oil and gas resources of the Roan Plateau which are under the jurisdiction of the 

Bureau of Land Management. There is vigorous debate among the 

people of Colorado about how best to manage the resources of the 

Roan. I think most people want responsible development of this 

area, but at the same time, they want it done in an environmentally sound way. I share this view and hope to discuss the development of the Roan Plateau with you further today and hopefully get a commitment from you to work together with me and 

others in delegation to address this issue that is so critical to my 

State. 

The chairman went through most of the budget numbers, so I 

will just mention a few that are of particular interest to me. The 

total request of the Department is $9.8 billion for the programs 

under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction, which is $199 million less, 

or 2 percent below the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. But most of 

the proposed cuts have come from the land acquisition and construction programs of the Department. 

NATIONAL PARKS CENTENNIAL

Similar to last year, the most significant increase in the Interior 

budget by far is $160 million for the National Park Service as part 

of the Centennial Initiative. There is also legislation pending before 
162 

the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that would provide 

an additional $100 million annually in mandatory spending on a 

matching basis for the Centennial Challenge Fund. 

Since the authorizers had yet to act on this proposal in fiscal 

year 2008, this subcommittee provided $25 million in matching 

funds to kick off the centennial matching funds initiative last year, 

and I understand that you will be announcing the recipients of 

those matching funds later this month. 

While I support providing these matching funds, it is my hope 

that we will not do that again this year. But do not get me wrong. 

I am a strong advocate of our national parks. However, in my view 

this subcommittee does not have the resources to fund the centennial matching fund initiative that is appropriately before the authorizing committee. If we continue to go down this path by funding what is intended to be a mandatory program each year out of 

our limited discretionary dollars, my fear is that in lean budgetary 

times, the centennial matching program may well come at the expense of the basic operations of our national parks. 

I will be interested in hearing today about your efforts to work 

with the authorizing committee to pass the centennial matching 

fund legislative initiative. 

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

There are a couple of cuts in your budget that I find especially 

disappointing. First, once again, I see that PILT has been reduced 

dramatically by $34 million. This is absolutely critical to many of 

our rural communities in the West that are dominated by Federal 

lands, as you are well aware of, I am sure, Mr. Secretary. 

NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES

Second, I cannot support the budget proposal to cancel $24.7 million of balances in the Naval Oil Shale Reserve site restoration 

fund account. You have been working with me on certifying this 

site so that the cleanup can commence, and I appreciate that. But 

if the Department had not taken so long to reach the point of certifying the site, then half of the money that is going into the fund 

from oil and gas production, which currently is about $2 million per 

month, would be going to the State of Colorado pursuant to the 

Mineral Leasing Act. It is my intention to work with the chairman 

to see that all these funds do not simply go to the Treasury, but 

that Colorado receives its rightful share of these royalties that 

were derived from oil and gas development in my State. 

That concludes my opening statement, and once again, I appreciate the Secretary appearing before the subcommittee today and 

I look forward to asking him some questions this morning. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate 

your testimony. 

It would be my intent to proceed directly to the Secretary because of his time constraints, unless members really want to speak. 

Is that agreeable with everyone? 

Senator ALLARD. Certainly. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, we will turn it over to you. 
163 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Madam Chairman, thanks very much 

and thank you for the very kind remarks which you made at the 

beginning of your statement. Senator Allard, thank you as well. 

Senator Allard, you said that I may not miss you. I would say 

that I know that I will miss all of you because when I made the 

conscious decision to leave the U.S. Senate to run for Governor, I 

left behind tremendous friendships, and this position has allowed 

me to reconnect and to work with you again. Madam Chairman, 

our friendship began when you were mayor of San Francisco and 

I was mayor of Boise and then to have had the great pleasure and 

honor of serving with Senator Allard, with Senator Cochran, Senator Craig, who is one of the great men of Idaho. Then, to have the 

friendship of Senator Alexander and Senator Nelson where we established that when we both walked the paths as Governor, you 

know about collegiality. I think that Senator/Governor Alexander 

and Senator/Governor Nelson would say that there is not quite the 

same collegiality between a Governor and his or her legislature. 

So I do enjoy this camaraderie. 

I want to thank you for your strong bipartisan support that this 

committee provided in enacting our budget request with fixed costs 

and our 2008 budget initiatives. I appreciate your leadership. 

In 2008, we charted a course of excellence for our national parks. 

We broadened our planning horizons to achieve Healthy Lands, 

while securing energy for the Nation, and we put the needs of Indian country center stage. 

2009 BUDGET

In 2009, we build on these commitments, but more challenges 

confront us, challenges that will require our action. We are proposing four new initiatives in 2009 to address water crises, manage 

our oceans, reverse the dramatic decline in wild birds, and protect 

our borders. Our 2009 budget also retains many of the increases 

that you provided in key areas, such as refuges. 

Our 2009 budget is $10.7 billion and it benefits every American 

each day in some way. This budget slightly exceeds our 2008 request. You will see that our budget includes strategic reductions 

primarily in construction, land acquisition, and for congressional 

earmarks. For programs under the purview of this subcommittee, 

the $9.8 billion budget is $199 million, or 2 percent, below the 2008 

enacted budget. 

OPERATING BUDGETS

Despite this overall decrease, we propose operating increases of 

4 percent over 2008 for our land management bureaus. Strong 

funding of base operations supports ongoing programs in conservation, recreation, and resource management on public lands. This 

budget will allow them to continue to serve America in continued 

and new ways through 2008 and through 2009. 

NATIONAL PARKS CENTENNIAL

Last year we announced our National Parks Centennial initiative. We held listening sessions across the country. We asked 
164 

Americans to tell us their vision for our parks. The public spoke 

and we listened. We are adding 3,000 seasonal park rangers this 

year to enrich visitor experiences. Our 2009 request for park operations is historic. We are requesting an increase of $161 million, 

or 8 percent. Together with 2008 funding, the 2-year increases total 

$283 million, or 14 percent. With these increases, the total park operating budget is $2.1 billion. 

Our initiative also proposes the National Parks Centennial Challenge, which would provide up to $100 million in mandatory funding to match philanthropic contributions to enhance our national 

parks in time for the 100th anniversary of the park system in 2016. 

I am particularly appreciative, Chairman Feinstein, that you and 

Senator Allard provided the first segment of funding for the National Parks Centennial Challenge matching projects. It is greatly 

appreciated by many. 

We are preparing to announce the projects that will be done with 

the $25 million appropriated in 2008. We have received 321 written 

letters of commitment from Americans across the country pledging 

$301 million of their money for centennial projects. Once Congress 

approves the Centennial Challenge matching fund legislation, those 

pledges and the matching Federal funds will be available to benefit 

parks all around the country. 

HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE

Interior’s responsibilities extend beyond parks to 258 million 

acres of public lands in the West, lands key to communities and 

economies of the West. In some of these areas, world-class wildlife 

habitat sits on top of world-class energy reserves. We must maintain healthy lands, sustain wildlife, and secure energy for this Nation. Our Healthy Lands Initiative launched in 2008 provides that 

holistic framework. It allows us to maintain wildlife corridors while 

providing continued access to significant energy resources. Our 

2009 budget proposes a $14 million, or a 200 percent, increase over 

the 2008 funding level. 

INDIAN INITIATIVES

Last year we also launched two initiatives in Indian country: one 

to battle the drug scourge from the drug cartels invading reservations; and the other to bring hope to Indian youth by improving 

their schools. Both of these initiatives received overwhelming support by this Congress. 

SAFE INDIAN COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE

Under the Safe Indian Communities Initiative, we proposed an 

additional $16 million last year to battle the scourge of methamphetamine that threatens an entire generation of Native Americans. Congress supported our proposal and added an additional $8 

million to this initiative. The bipartisan message is clear. We must 

get drug dealers off reservations and behind bars. 

In 2009, we sustain the full $24 million in funding increases provided in 2008, and we propose to add $3 million more for the initiative, for a total of $27 million. 
165 

IMPROVING INDIAN EDUCATION

In 2008 under the Improving Indian Education initiative, we proposed increases of $15 million to help Native American children 

reach their potential. Congress endorsed our vision for Indian education, funding our request and investing another $9 million, bringing our initiative total to $24 million in 2008. 

In 2009, we uphold our promise to Indian children. We sustain 

the 2008 funding and provide another $2 million, investing a total 

of over $25 million. The issues of safety and education go beyond 

the budget. They are at the very heart of the future of Indian country. We must act now to ensure that the dreams of today’s youth 

will become the realities of tomorrow. 

WATER FOR AMERICA INITIATIVE

As I mentioned earlier, we also have four new initiatives in our 

budget, initiatives that address some of the most critical issues facing this Nation. Last year the National Science and Technology 

Council reported that ‘‘abundant supplies of clean, fresh water can 

no longer be taken for granted.’’ Water scarcity is not just a problem of the West. It is a problem of this Nation. America increasingly faces water scarcities, particularly in areas of rapid population growth. We are seeing prolonged droughts and water conflicts in areas such as the Southeast where people are used to having unlimited water. 

We are proposing a Water for America Initiative to ensure that 

communities have reliable water supplies in this 21st century. 

Under this initiative, we will partner with States to conduct the 

first water census for this Nation in 30 years. The initiative includes $8 million for the U.S. Geological Survey. 

OCEANS AND COASTAL FRONTIERS INITIATIVE

Our second new initiative advances our knowledge of our oceans 

and protects spectacular ocean ecosystems. Under our oceans initiative, we are proposing an additional $8 million to support the 

President’s Ocean Action Plan. Our ocean initiative will broaden 

our knowledge, and we will undertake extensive mapping of our extended outer continental shelf. Coastlines are littered with marine 

debris ranging from soda cans and small plastic objects to derelict 

fishing gear and abandoned vessels. We are losing coastal wetlands 

that protect us from major storms, purify water, and serve as nurseries for marine fisheries. Through our oceans initiative, we will 

join with partners worldwide to embark on a global marine debris 

and coral reef campaign. 

BIRDS FOREVER INITIATIVE

Together we have another task before us, reversing the decline 

in bird populations across America. Our initiative addresses the 

sharp decline of many populations of wild birds. On average, populations of common birds have plummeted 70 percent since 1967. We 

add $9 million in 2009 for our Birds Forever initiative to help us 

reverse these trends. Our budget sustains $36 million in refuge increases funded in the 2008 budget. We will improve over 200,000 
166 

acres of vital stopover habitat for migratory birds, the equivalent 

of over 150,000 football fields. 

DUCK STAMP

We are also proposing the first increase in the sale price of the 

Duck Stamp in over 15 years. This increase will result in protections of an additional 17,000 acres of habitat. 

SAFE BORDERLANDS INITIATIVE

Our final new initiative addresses another issue in the Nation’s 

headlines, an initiative that I raised with you last year and I have 

witnessed firsthand, and that is border security. The Department 

of the Interior manages public lands along more than 40 percent 

of our southwestern border with Mexico. Our employees, residents, 

and visitors face daily dangers. In many locations, families can no 

longer live or recreate without fear of coming across drug smugglers. As urban borders become more secure, illegal activity is shifting to remote areas. Drug cartels run violent drug smuggling operations across the border, as evidenced by the nearly 3,000 pounds 

of cocaine and 740,000 pounds of marijuana seized in 2007. 

We are proposing an $8 million increase in the 2009 budget to 

aggressively confront this problem. Combined with increased funding in 2008, we will place additional officers along the border. 

ENERGY SECURITY

Another critical issue facing this Nation is energy security. With 

the price of oil rising ever higher, it is imperative that we continue 

to offer access to our energy resources. Our new 5-year plan for offshore energy development provides access to an additional 48 million offshore acres. The Minerals Management Service will invest 

over $8 million in preparations for new leasing activity as identified in the 5-year plan. Our recent lease sales in the Chukchi Sea 

and in the Gulf of Mexico generated $5.5 billion in bonus bids, historically high levels for lease sales. We will also help broaden the 

Nation’s energy mix by providing opportunities to implement renewable energy on public lands and offshore. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, Madam Chairman, it is a budget we place before you. I look 

forward to working with you for your good thoughts and ideas as 

we achieve some very fine things together. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE

Madam Chairman and members of this subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to present our 2009 budget priorities and to update you on our progress in 

implementing our 2008 programs. I thank this subcommittee for your support of our 

2008 budget request. Support by the chairman and members of this subcommittee 

for the Parks Centennial, Healthy Lands, Safe Indian Communities, and Indian 

Education initiatives resulted in significant funding to advance our goals. I look forward to continuing our collaborative relationship as we pursue these priorities and 

address emerging challenges of water scarcity, ocean management, declining bird 

populations, and borderland security. 
167 

INTRODUCTION

The Department of the Interior’s mission is complex and multifaceted. Our programs and mission stretch from the North Pole to the South Pole and across 12 time 

zones, from the Caribbean to the Pacific Rim. Our extensive mandate rivals any 

government agency in its breadth and diversity—and its importance to the everyday 

lives of Americans. In a recent poll of Federal agencies, the Department of the Interior received the highest rating for its public service. 

Nearly every American lives within a 1-hour drive of lands or waters managed 

by the Interior Department. With 165,000 facilities at 2,400 locations, Interior is 

second only to the Department of Defense in managed assets. The Department’s law 

enforcement agents, over 4,000, comprise the third largest civilian law enforcement 

presence in the Federal Government. 

Approximately 31 million people in the West rely on drinking water provided 

through water systems managed by the Department. Interior irrigation systems deliver water to farmers who generate over half of the Nation’s produce. 

The lands and waters we manage generate one-third of the Nation’s domestic energy production. Managing these areas, Interior generates $18 billion annually in 

revenues that exceeds Interior’s $10.7 billion appropriated budget. 

Interior fulfills special responsibilities to Native Americans as the manager of one 

of the largest land trusts in the world—over 10 million acres owned by individual 

Indians and 46 million acres held in trust for Indian Tribes. In addition to lands 

managed in trust, the Department manages over $3.3 billion of funds held in over 

1,800 trust accounts for approximately 250 Indian Tribes and over 370,000 open Individual Indian Money accounts. Interior also operates one of only two school systems in the Federal government, the Bureau of Indian Education school system. The 

Department of Defense operates the other. A total of $65.5 billion in revenues from 

offshore and onshore mineral leases collected from 2001 to 2007 provided resources 

for Tribes, States infrastructure and other Federal programs. 

OVERVIEW OF THE 2009 BUDGET

The 2009 budget request for current appropriations is $10.7 billion, $388.5 million 

or 3.5 percent below the level enacted by Congress for 2008, excluding fire supplemental funding, but $59.0 million above the amount requested in the 2008 President’s budget. 

Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of existing legislation without further action by the Congress will provide an additional $6.0 billion, for a total 

2009 Interior budget of $16.7 billion. Including permanent funding and excluding 

2008 fire supplemental funding, the 2009 budget for Interior is $83 million above 

2008 amounts. 

The 2009 request includes $9.8 billion for programs funded by this subcommittee. 

Excluding fire supplemental funding, this is a decrease of $198.9 million, or 2 percent, below the level enacted for 2008. The 2009 budget sustains and enhances funding for parks and public land health, the safety of Indian communities, and Indian 

education. The 2009 budget funds these initiatives and addresses other nationally 

significant issues within a budget that maintains the President’s commitment to fiscal restraint. 

We focus funding on these priorities while proposing reductions in construction 

and land acquisition, as well as programs that are duplicative or receive funding 

from alternative sources. We also propose to cancel some unobligated balances. 

THE CHALLENGES AHEAD

Interior’s responsibilities are expanding as the Nation looks to its public lands for 

energy, water, wildlife protection, and recreation. Since 2001, the Nation has created 13 new parks and 15 wildlife refuges. Population has grown dramatically near 

once-rural or remote public lands, increasing access to public lands and complicating 

land management. In the last 10 years, 60 percent of the new houses built in America were located in the wildland-urban interface. Changing land conditions, including the effects of a changing climate, have heightened threats from fire and other 

natural hazards, complicating land management. 

The Department is improving program efficiency, setting priorities, and 

leveraging Federal funds through partnerships and cooperative conservation to meet 

these challenges. Interior’s accomplishments have been many and varied, with noteworthy advances in management excellence. 

Interior has made progress on all dimensions of the President’s management 

agenda—a result achieved despite decades-long challenges in Indian trust management, a highly decentralized organization structure, and a highly dispersed work-
168 

force. In 2001, Interior had 17 material weaknesses reported in the annual financial 

and performance audit. With the annual audit just completed for 2007, we have 

eliminated all material weaknesses. Despite these successes, as public lands become 

increasingly important to the economy, national security, and the public, continued 

success will require a strategic focus of resources to address emerging challenges, 

achieve key priorities, and maintain current levels of success. 

INTERIOR’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The Department’s accomplishments exemplify Interior’s core values: Stewardship 

for America with Integrity and Excellence. Our achievements, in combination with 

an outstanding workforce, create a strong foundation for continued stewardship of 

the Nation’s resources. Since 2001, the Department has: 

—Restored or enhanced more than 5 million acres and 5,000 stream and shoreline 

miles through cooperative conservation. 

—Restored, improved, and protected wetlands to help achieve the President’s goal 

to protect, enhance, and restore 3 million acres by 2009. 

—Improved park facilities for visitors by undertaking over 6,600 projects at national parks and earning a 96 percent satisfaction rate from park visitors. 

—Reduced risks to communities from the threat of catastrophic fire, conducting 

over 8 million acres of fuels treatments on Interior lands through the Healthy 

Forests Initiative. 

—Enhanced energy security by more than doubling the processing of applications 

for permits to drill and increased the production of renewable energy with new 

wind, solar, and geothermal projects. 

—Awarded $9.8 million to 140 Preserve America projects involving public-private 

partnerships that serve as nationwide models for heritage tourism, historic 

preservation, education, and other Federal programs. 

—Leveraged a four-to-one investment through a water conservation challenge 

grant program, generating more than $96 million for 122 water delivery system 

improvements and conserving over 400,000 acre-feet of water to help meet the 

water needs of people across the West. 

—Completed planned lease sales and generated a new 5-year plan for 2007–2012 

that opens up an additional 48 million acres to leasing and has the potential 

to produce 10 billion barrels of oil and 45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over 

the next 40 years, enough to heat 47 million homes for 40 years. The October 

2007 Central Gulf of Mexico OCS lease sale generated $2.9 billion, $1.6 billion 

more than originally estimated. 

—Removed the American bald eagle from the endangered species list and put in 

place a set of management guidelines to secure the future of our Nation’s symbol. 

—Advanced protection of the Papaha ̈naumokua ̈kea Marine National Monument in 

Hawaii, the largest marine protected area in the world, with the publication of 

regulations codifying management measures. 

—Hosted over 464 million visitors to parks, refuges, public lands, and Bureau of 

Reclamation sites and increased the number of fishing programs on refuges by 

24 and the number of hunting programs on refuges by 34. 

—Established a new Recreation Reservation Service, a unified pass to public 

lands, and clarified entrance and recreation fees, in coordination with other 

agencies. 

—Distributed over $79 million to individual Indian money account holders whose 

whereabouts were previously unknown and archived 400 million pages of trust 

documents in a state-of-the-art facility. 

Our 2009 budget continues investments the Congress provided in 2008 for our top 

priorities. We continue our Centennial Initiative with record funding levels for park 

operations. We propose to augment funding for our landscape-scale Healthy Lands 

Initiative to protect wildlife and assure access to energy resources on public lands. 

We propose to sustain funding increases in 2008 to combat the methamphetamine 

scourge in Indian country and improve education programs for students in Indian 

schools. 

Fulfilling the President’s commitment to cooperative conservation, since 2001, the 

Department has provided $2.5 billion in conservation grants to achieve on-theground protection, restoration, and enhancement of lands and waters with partners. 

This commitment continues with $321.7 million requested for cooperative conservation in 2009 for challenge cost share and partnership programs that leverage Federal funding, typically more than doubling the Federal investments with matching 

funds. 
169 

We also propose four new initiatives. We request $21.3 million for a Water for 

America initiative that will enhance knowledge of water resources and improve the 

capacity of water managers to avert crises caused by water supply issues and better 

manage water resources to assist in endangered species recovery. We will advance 

efforts to improve the status of birds, including migratory birds, and avert further 

declines in bird populations with an increase of $9.0 million for a Birds Forever initiative. The budget continues the $35.9 million refuge funding increase provided by 

the Congress in 2008, which will restore 200,000 acres of bird habitat. The 2009 

budget seeks an increase of $7.9 million to collect data that is needed to define U.S. 

jurisdiction of the extended continental shelf under the Law of the Sea, protect wildlife and habitat in ocean environments from marine debris, and conduct high priority research to support coastal restoration. Lastly, the 2009 budget includes $8.2 

million to increase the protection of employees, visitors, lands and resources that 

are increasingly at risk from illegal activities at parks, refuges, public lands, and 

Indian lands along the border with Mexico. 

THE NATIONAL PARKS CENTENNIAL

Last May, we responded to the President’s charge to prepare for the National 

Park Service’s 100th anniversary. Our report to the President on the National Parks 

Centennial initiative encompassed the ideas and input from 40 listening sessions 

and 6,000 public comments. The report frames the 10-year effort to strengthen visitor services and other programs in parks in time for the National Parks Centennial. 

On August 23, 2007, we announced more than 200 centennial proposals eligible as 

potential partnership projects in national parks as part of the National Parks Centennial Challenge. 

The 2008 President’s budget set forth the initial investments to achieve the goals 

of the Centennial initiative, with $100.0 million in operating funds for the Parks 

Centennial initiative to fund new levels of excellence in parks. The President’s proposal received broad bipartisan support in Congress. With the 2008 funding, our 

parks will hire 3,000 seasonal national park rangers, guides and maintenance workers; repair buildings; enroll more children in Junior Ranger and Web Ranger programs at the parks; and expand the use of volunteers in parks. 

The administration also introduced Centennial Challenge Fund legislation that 

would authorize the use of $100.0 million per year of Federal mandatory funding 

to match $100 million or more in philanthropic donations to the National Park Service. Both the House and Senate introduced bills based on the administration’s legislative proposal. While the Congress continues to work on passage of the bill, the 

2008 appropriation included $24.6 million in discretionary funding to begin the Centennial Challenge and match private philanthropic contribution for signature 

projects. I appreciate the strong support of this Committee for these matching 

funds. 

In 2009, our budget continues the President’s commitment to the parks with a 

historic $2.1 billion budget request for the Operation of National Parks. This increase of $160.9 million, or 8 percent above the 2008 enacted level would provide 

the largest budget ever for park operations. Cumulatively over 2 years, park operations increase by 15 percent. This funding will allow the parks to preserve our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage, improve the condition of parks and park facilities, and prepare a new generation of leaders to guide NPS into the 21st century. 

The budget also supports the President’s proposed Centennial Challenge matching 

fund of up to $100.0 million annually. 

The 2009 budget will continue to build park operational capacity, including increases for core operations, facility management, U.S. Park Police operations, and 

youth partnership programs. The increase will improve the health of natural and 

cultural resources and continue to bring park assets into good condition using a predictive maintenance cycle. We will also develop a 21st century workforce with enhanced organizational capacity and employee development through a professional 

development program, performance management tools, and an expanded safety program. I am committed to addressing management issues raised in a recent report 

of our Inspector General on the U.S. Park Police. 

Complementing park operations, the 2009 budget includes a combined $25.0 million for Preserve America and Save America’s Treasures. Launched in 2003 by the 

President and First Lady, the Preserve America initiative encourages States and 

local communities to partner with the Federal Government to preserve the multitextured fabric of America’s story. The administration has submitted legislation to 

the Congress to permanently authorize the Preserve America and Save America’s 

Treasures programs. To date, 585 communities in all 50 States and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands have been designated as Preserve America communities. 
170 

Through $9.8 million appropriated to the National Park Service through 2007, the 

program has supported 140 projects in communities throughout America. The 2008 

appropriation will support an additional 95 projects. The 2009 budget request includes $10.0 million for Preserve America grants, an increase of $2.6 million over 

the 2008 enacted level. The budget also provides $15.0 million for Save America’s 

Treasures grants, $4.0 million more for competitive grants than what was appropriated in 2008. 

HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE

In 2007, the Department initiated the Healthy Lands Initiative—a major, longterm effort to improve the health of public and private lands in the West. Through 

the Healthy Lands Initiative, Interior agencies are working with State and local 

governments, private landowners and other interested groups to conserve and restore vital habitat. This Initiative will preserve our public lands for recreation, 

hunting and fishing, and for their significant habitat for species, while helping to 

secure energy for this Nation. The Healthy Lands Initiative takes, for the first time, 

a landscape-scale approach to restoration and land-use planning. The Initiative considers the health of the land from ridge-top to ridge-top instead of acre by acre. Using $3.0 million in 2007 as a model for our Healthy Lands Initiative, BLM 

funded improvements to 72,000 acres of BLM land. The investments improved wildlife habitat conditions on 45,896 acres of shrubs, grass and woodland; reduced 

woody fuels and improved the composition of herbaceous vegetation on 18,377 acres 

outside the wildland urban interface and 4,986 acres within the interface; and improved 580 acres of wetlands. BLM leverage this funding with partner investments 

to treat additional acres within the same critical watersheds on non-BLM lands. 

With Congress’s support for the initiative, in 2008 we will be expanding these efforts to $7.9 million and improving the health of Western landscapes impacted by 

drought, wildfire, weed invasions, and stresses associated with population growth 

and increased development and use of the public lands. The Healthy Lands Initiative will restore and maintain habitat for many species such as the sage grouse, a 

species almost entirely dependent on sagebrush ecosystems. Some 72 percent of sage 

grouse habitat is under Federal management. The current range of the greater sage 

grouse has declined an estimated 45 percent from the historically occupied range, 

prompting recent petitions to list the species under the Endangered Species Act. 

The Initiative will also focus on protecting wildlife corridors as we take a holistic 

perspective in our land use planning process for energy development and recreation. 

The 2009 budget provides $21.9 million for the Healthy Lands Initiative, an increase of $14.0 million over the 2008 enacted level, including an increase of $10.0 

million that BLM will deploy to accelerate and increase efforts at the original six 

geographic focus areas; expand one of the focus areas; and add a seventh focus area 

in California. The Initiative includes increases of $3.5 million for USGS and 

$492,000 for FWS to provide critical scientific support and complement BLM’s onthe-ground conservation and restoration efforts. 

SAFE INDIAN COMMUNITIES

In 2008, Interior proposed the Safe Indian Communities initiative to help Indian 

Country resist organized crime and foreign drug cartels. These cartels have taken 

advantage of the widely dispersed law enforcement presence on tribal lands to 

produce and distribute drugs, resulting in a violent crime rate in some communities 

that is 10 to 20 times the national average. 

The 2008 enacted appropriation provided increases totaling $23.6 million for the 

Safe Indian Communities initiative to increase our capacity to combat this growing 

epidemic. In 2009, we sustain this funding and request an additional $2.9 million, 

for a total Safe Indian Communities initiative of $26.6 million. With a cumulative 

investment of $50.2 million over 2 years, Interior will assist Tribes to suppress the 

production and distribution of methamphetamine by organized crime and drug cartels, address related effects including drug abuse, child neglect and abuse, and increase staffing at detention centers. 

In 2009, Interior will provide: (1) additional officers for law enforcement; (2) specialized drug training for existing officers; (3) public awareness campaigns for the 

Indian public; (4) additional resources to protect tribal lands located on the United 

States border; and (5) additional social workers. Combined, the 2008 and 2009 funding increases will put 193 additional law enforcement agents on the ground in targeted communities in Indian Country and invest in more training for the current 

force to more effectively combat the problem. The BIA will also expand the use of 

a mobile meth lab to train tribal police and others about methamphetamine labs, 

environmental and personal safety hazards, and interdiction and investigation strat-
171 

egies. Funding will target communities based on a needs analysis that looks at the 

violent crime rate, service population, and current staffing levels. 

IMPROVING INDIAN EDUCATION

In 2008, Interior proposed the $15.0 million Improving Indian Education initiative 

to enhance student performance in Bureau of Indian Education schools. As one of 

just two Federal school systems, the BIE system of 184 schools should be a model 

of excellence and achievement of the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. Student 

performance, however, has lagged. In 2006, just 30 percent of Indian schools were 

achieving their annual progress goals. Through this initiative, the Department is 

implementing a set of education program enhancements to increase the number of 

schools reaching adequate yearly progress goals to 33 percent by 2009. Though we 

still have much work to do, our assessment for 2007 shows 31 percent of schools 

now achieving Annual Yearly Progress. 

The 2008 appropriation provided an increase of $24.1 million over the 2007 level 

for programs to improve student achievement. Our 2009 budget continues the increased funding Congress provided for these programs and adds another $1.4 million over 2008 for certain activities for a total of $25.5 million. This request includes 

$5.2 million for Education Program Enhancements to restructure schools under the 

No Child Left Behind Act and for reading programs, tutoring, mentoring, and intensive math and science initiatives. In 2008, Congress provided $12.1 million for these 

enhancements. With the 2008 boost in funding and the continued $5.2 million in 

2009, BIE will focus on improved student achievement. The budget also includes a 

$6.3 million increase in funds allocated to all schools to improve per student funding. Funding allocated by formula is the primary source of funding for BIE’s 170 

elementary and secondary schools and 14 dormitories. This funding directly supports all schools for core costs of operating education programs such as salaries for 

teachers, aides, administrators, and support staff; supplies; and classroom materials. 

The 2009 budget increases funding for four new initiatives: Water for America, 

Birds Forever, Ocean and Coastal Frontiers, and Safe Borderlands. 

WATER FOR AMERICA

In 2007, the National Science and Technology Council reported that ‘‘abundant 

supplies of clean, fresh water can no longer be taken for granted.’’ The Council of 

State Governments echoed this concern, concluding that ‘‘water, which used to be 

considered a ubiquitous resource, is now scarce in some parts of the country and 

not just in the West. The water wars have spread to the Midwest, East, and South, 

as well.’’ 

Competition for water is increasing because of rapid population growth and growing environmental and energy needs. These water needs are escalating at a time 

of chronic drought and changes in water availability resulting from a changing climate. 

In 2009, our budget includes a Water for America initiative to help communities 

secure reliable water supplies through information, technologies, and partnerships. 

This collaborative effort, which involves the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey, will help address the water needs of the Nation. 

Knowing how much water is available—and how much we consume—lies at the 

foundation of good water management. Yet this Nation has not completed a water 

census in over three decades. Our Water for America initiative will fill this void. 

The U.S. Geological Survey request of $8.2 million will fund the first water census 

in 30 years. USGS will begin a nationwide assessment of water availability, water 

quality, and human and environmental water use. The census, planned for completion by 2019, will generate information to assist others in managing water in a context of competing demands. The census will provide a national groundwater information system, new technology that integrates surface and groundwater information, and better measurements that result in better management of water resources. 

In addition to the census, through our Water for America initiative, we will modernize the Nation’s 7,000 streamgages. In the first phase of modernization, USGS 

will upgrade 350 streamgages and reinstate 50 streamgages that were shut down 

previously. 

BIRDS FOREVER

In June 2007, the National Audubon Society issued a report, Common Birds in 

Decline, based on analysis of the Society’s Christmas bird counts and breeding bird 

surveys performed by the U.S. Geological Survey. The report indicated significant 
172 

declines occurring in 20 common species. On average, populations of common birds 

have plummeted 70 percent since 1967. 

As manager of one-fifth of the Nation’s lands, Interior, working with a Nation of 

citizen stewards, can help reverse these declines. Since 2004, Interior has improved 

the status of five migratory bird species. Current efforts focus on ensuring that more 

than 62 percent of the Nation’s migratory bird species thrive at sustainable levels. 

On October 20, 2007, the President announced a new effort to conserve migratory 

birds. This effort included cooperative conservation with Mexico to protect birds that 

know no border, expanded migratory bird joint ventures, and production of a State 

of the Birds report. The Department’s Birds Forever initiative builds upon the President’s initiative. 

Madam Chairman, we appreciate your strong support for the Nation’s National 

Wildlife Refuges. Our budget sustains the FWS refuge budget increase of $35.9 million provided by Congress in 2008. Conserving migratory birds is a primary goal of 

the Refuge System and the increased funding in 2008 will support migratory bird 

conservation and habitat protection. More than 200,000 acres of habitat will be improved, some of which will directly benefit migratory birds. 

Our 2009 budget also proposes to improve the status of wild birds, including migratory birds, and avert further declines in populations with $9.0 million in increased funding for FWS joint venture partnerships, inventory and monitoring, and 

habitat restoration programs and the U.S. Geological Survey’s strategic habitat conservation and monitoring efforts such as the breeding bird survey. These funds, together with refuge increases, will help reverse the decline in bird populations by focusing on species of greatest concern and leveraging Federal investments through 

partnerships. 

The initiative targets 36 species that are part of the FWS Focal Species Strategy. 

By emphasizing these priority species, benefits will accrue to other species as well 

because they often have similar conservation needs and utilize the same habitats. 

Employing this strategy, FWS and USGS will improve understanding of these species, restore habitat, and monitor species status and trends. Through collaborative 

projects with States and others, these efforts will lead to improved protection of 

habitats that are important to these bird species. Interior will complete action plans 

for 30 focal species and coordinate them with State Wildlife Action Plans. 

Interior collaborative efforts with nonprofit organizations, State, and Federal programs through Joint Ventures will set conservation priorities and increase investments through extensive leveraging. Interior will focus on Joint Ventures along the 

coasts and central flyways including the Atlantic Coast, Texas and Gulf Coast, and 

Prairie Potholes and Playas. Working in coordination with these programs through 

the Birds initiative, States will be able to leverage their funds against Federal grant 

program dollars to target multi-state bird conservation priorities. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service has signed Urban Bird Treaties with cities such as New Orleans 

and Houston to preserve bird habitat in urban environments. With five treaties in 

place, FWS will sign up more cities and promote partnerships that will conserve 

parks and tree islands for bird habitat and engage the citizens in conservation activities. 

OCEAN AND COASTAL FRONTIERS

Healthy and productive oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes waters are vital to America’s prosperity and well-being. The President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan sets forth 

a pioneering vision for ocean management premised on regional partnerships, State 

leadership, and Federal coordination. 

Interior has extensive ocean and coastal responsibilities, managing 35,000 miles 

of coastline, 177 island and coastal refuges, 74 park units comprising 34 million 

acres, 92 million acres of coral reef ecosystems that include 3.5 million acres of coral 

reefs, and 1.8 billion underwater acres of Outer Continental Shelf lands. Interior 

also assists the U.S. Territories and Freely Associated States in the management 

of 3.6 million square miles of oceans in the U.S. Territories and Freely Associated 

States. The Department also conducts the science needed to guide better decisionmaking in managing these resources. 

The 2009 budget request includes $7.9 million to support the Department’s diverse ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes program activities and to implement the highest priorities of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. Included is an increase of $4.0 million 

for mapping the extended continental shelf to assure that the United States defines 

the boundaries for these areas potentially rich in energy and mineral resources. 

Our budget also funds partnerships to reverse the trend of marine debris accumulating in waters and coasts of Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge and conserve 

coral reefs and improve ocean science at the Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. 
173 

Marine debris kills marine life, interferes with navigation safety, negatively impacts 

shipping and coastal industries, and poses a threat to human health. 

SAFE BORDERLANDS INITIATIVE

The Department’s land management bureaus manage lands along 793 miles, or 

41 percent, of the southwest border. This includes seven national wildlife refuges, 

six national parks, lands managed by the Bureau of Reclamation along 12 miles of 

the border, and public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management along 

191 miles of the border. In addition, five Indian reservations are on the international boundary with Mexico. 

These remote, once pristine landscapes are home to many unique plants and wildlife, some of which are endangered species. However, the situation along our international border with Mexico has changed. In some locations, our employees, residents, or visitors are facing significant risks from illegal activities and portions of 

the public lands are closed to visitors. Employees who live on site and residents of 

Indian communities contend with the potential threat of vandalism, theft, and confrontation with illegal activities. Wildlife populations and their habitats and cultural 

resources are affected and damaged by these activities. 

Increased border enforcement in urban areas has resulted in a shift in the flow 

of illegal drugs and unauthorized people to rural areas and the lands managed by 

the Interior Department. The number of illegal entrants crossing public lands has 

increased 11-fold since 2001. Narcotic traffickers, smugglers, and other criminals, 

who operate extensively near the border, impact public lands and resources. 

There has been loss to human life. National Park Service Ranger Kris Eggle was 

shot and killed in 2002 at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument by a drug runner. 

At San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, drug smugglers threatened an officer 

and his family at his home if he didn’t return a load of marijuana seized earlier 

in the day. These are not isolated incidents. Interior employees are concerned that 

they are under constant surveillance by drug smugglers who establish observation 

posts on our lands and are equipped with assault weapons, encrypted radios, night 

vision optics, and other sophisticated equipment. Employees cannot go to some areas 

of some of the parks, refuges, and other public lands without an escort. The impacts 

to lands and resources are extensive, including abandoned vehicles and personal 

property, roads and trails through sensitive areas, and elevated threats to at-risk 

species. 

The Department is requesting an $8.2 million increase for our Safe Borderlands 

initiative to enhance safety of public land visitors, residents, and employees and reduce the impacts affecting Interior-managed lands along the southwest border. The 

Safe Borderlands initiative targets resources toward multiple bureaus and high-priority areas. The Department will coordinate border efforts among the land management bureaus and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, deploying additional law enforcement personnel into five high-priority areas with the highest safety risks. We propose to focus on Interior borderland responsibilities, including public lands management and visitor and employee safety. 

We also propose to mitigate environmental damage along the southwest border. 

Trails and illegal roads made by smugglers are destroying cactus and other sensitive vegetation impacting the ecological health of many of the national parks, wildlife refuges, national monuments and conservation areas Interior manages. Projects 

include repairing and maintaining roads and trails on BLM lands; improving signage for visitors; assisting with environmental compliance for border infrastructure 

projects; removing tons of abandoned personal property such as vehicles from bureau and tribal lands; and closing abandoned mine lands on BLM lands in New 

Mexico and California where illegal aliens hide. 

SUPPORTING THE DEPARTMENT’S MISSION

The 2009 budget aligns resources to achieve these and other high-priority goals 

guided by the Department’s integrated strategic plan. The Department’s strategic 

plan links the Department’s diverse activities into four common mission areas: Resource Protection, Resource Use, Recreation, and Serving Communities. A fifth area, 

Management Excellence, provides the framework for improved business practices, 

processes, and tools and a highly skilled and trained workforce. 

Key to attaining these strategic goals is our 2009 request for fixed costs. Pay and 

benefits for the Department’s 70,000 employees are a significant cost component of 

Interior’s core programs, comprising 51 percent of operating budgets. The proportion 

of Interior’s budget committed to personnel costs places it among the top three Federal agencies. This workforce composition largely reflects the need to maintain staff 
174 

at the geographically dispersed locations that serve the public including 391 parks, 

548 refuges, and 71 fish hatcheries. 

Interior’s programs by their very nature require staff. Interior continues to utilize 

the services of over 200,000 volunteers and extensive seasonal employees. However, 

the workforce capacity of the Department’s programs is an essential ingredient for 

the uninterrupted delivery of programs and services to the American public. 

The 2009 budget includes $142.5 million to keep apace with most increased costs 

in pay and benefits and other fixed costs. The pay and benefits component is $128.6 

million, including a 3.5 percent 2008 pay raise, a 2.9 percent 2009 pay raise, and 

a 3.0 percent increase in health benefits. A total of $22.5 million in pay and health 

benefits costs is absorbed. There is a reduction of $16.9 million for one less pay day 

in 2009. The request fully funds nondiscretionary bills from others, including space 

rental costs and associated security charges; workers compensation and unemployment compensation; and centralized administrative and business systems, services, 

and programs financed through the Working Capital Fund. 

OTHER BUDGET PRIORITIES

In addition to the initiatives already highlighted, the 2009 budget includes funding for programs key to achieving the Department’s goals and objectives. 

Cooperative Conservation Programs.—Through partnerships, Interior works with 

landowners and others to achieve conservation goals across the Nation that benefit 

America’s national parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands. The 2009 budget 

includes $321.7 million for the Department’s cooperative conservation programs, 

$10.4 million more than the 2008 enacted level. These programs leverage Federal 

funding, typically providing a non-Federal match of 50 percent or more. They provide a foundation for cooperative conservation to protect endangered and at-risk species; engage local communities, organizations, and citizens in conservation; foster innovation; and achieve conservation goals while maintaining working landscapes. 

Challenge cost share programs in FWS, NPS and the Bureau of Land Management are funded at $18.1 million. These cost share programs provide resources to 

land managers to work with adjacent communities, landowners, and other citizens 

to achieve common goals through conservation and restoration of wetlands, uplands, 

riparian areas and other projects. 

The 2009 cooperative conservation budget incorporates the Department’s $21.9 

million Healthy Lands initiative. Building on the $7.9 million enacted in 2008 for 

Healthy Lands, the 2009 budget increases resources for this multi-agency initiative 

to enlist States, local and tribal governments, industry and non-government entities 

to restore habitat on a landscape scale. 

The 2009 budget for FWS cooperative conservation programs proposes $14.9 million for the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures program, including an increase of $4.0 

million to focus on improving the status of focal species of birds as part of the Migratory Bird initiative. The 2009 budget also includes $13.2 million for the Coastal 

program, $48.0 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, $4.9 million 

for the Fish Passage program, and $5.2 million for the National Fish Habitat Action 

Plan. 

The 2009 request for cooperative conservation programs includes $195.9 million 

for FWS grant programs, an increase of $1.9 million. This includes $42.6 million for 

the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, an increase of $666,000 above 

the 2008 enacted level. The 2009 budget for the Cooperative Endangered Species 

Conservation Fund is $75.5 million (including $80.0 million in new budget authority 

reduced by a cancellation of $4.5 million in unobligated balances). This request is 

an increase of $1.7 million above the 2008 level. The 2009 budget includes $4.0 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird program, a reduction of $470,000 from the 

2008 level, and $73.8 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program, sustaining the 2008 funding level. 

Enhancing Energy Security.—The Interior Department helps to meet the Nation’s 

energy needs and ensure energy security. Roughly one-third of the energy produced 

in the United States each year comes from Federal lands and waters managed by 

Interior. Interior’s 2009 budget enhances energy security with a program that seeks 

to increase production while achieving important environmental protections, attaining energy conservation goals, and expanding the use of new technologies and renewable energy sources. The 2009 budget provides $528.1 million for energy-related 

programs, an increase of $15.1 million over the 2008 enacted level. 

The BLM will continue to support implementation of Section 349 of the Energy 

Policy Act to address the environmental risks posed by legacy orphaned wells. The 

2009 request includes an increase of $11.2 million for the remediation of the Atigaru 
175 

site on the Alaska North Slope. In addition, BLM will increase its capacity for conducting oil and gas inspections in 2009. 

In 2009, as in 2008, legislation is proposed to repeal the permit processing fund 

and the prohibition on charging cost recovery fees for processing applications for 

permits to drill. Estimated cost recovery collections for Applications for Permit to 

Drill are $34.0 million in 2009, an increase of $13 million from the 2008 proposed 

level. The 2009 budget relies on permanent legislation to allow cost recovery for 

APDs, rather than the $4,000 APD fee included in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. 

In 2009, MMS will apply $8.5 million to increase environmental studies, resource 

assessments, and leasing consultations in areas of new leasing activity in Alaska 

and the Gulf of Mexico as identified in the 2007–2012 Five Year Plan. These lease 

sales could produce as much as 10 billion barrels of oil and 45 trillion cubic feet 

of natural gas over the next 40 years, enough energy to heat 47 million homes for 

40 years. With an additional $1.0 million, MMS will implement its alternative energy responsibilities by funding environmental work and permitting for offshore alternative energy projects. This increase builds on the increased funding level provided in 2008 for alternative energy and provides a total funding level of $6.6 million. 

The MMS will also use a $1.1 million increase to improve its information technology system to keep pace with industry’s use of geoscientific analysis of resources 

and ensure that lease bids meet their fair market value; provide $2.0 million for 

improvements to mineral revenue compliance operations; and apply $1.7 million to 

implementing automated interest billing, allowing MMS to streamline and expedite 

interest invoicing, enhance internal controls, reduce manual intervention, allow the 

closure of audit cases sooner, and redirect staffing to other high-priority projects. 

Climate Change.—With lands that range from the Arctic to the Everglades, Interior’s managers are observing the sometimes dramatic effects of a changing climate, 

including melting permafrost and melting glaciers, apparent long-term changes in 

precipitation patterns, dust storms, and sea level rise. In this dynamic context, Interior managers need the information, tools and resources to understand on-theground landscape changes and develop strategies to adapt to these changes. As one 

of the largest land managers in the world, Interior is positioned to pioneer adaptive 

management approaches to address the effects of climate change. 

Interior’s science agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, has been an active participant in the Federal Global Climate Change Science project. In 2008, the Congress 

provided an increase of $7.4 million to expand high-priority research and establish 

a National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center. 

Work has begun to examine the most pressing issues faced by land managers, including the impacts of melting permafrost on energy and other infrastructure, modeling of watersheds to better manage timing and delivery of water by taking into 

account changing precipitation patterns, and investigation of the potential for geologic formations to sequester carbon. Interior has also undertaken habitat restoration to promote carbon sequestration and has pioneered use of alternative energy 

and energy conservation in its facilities and transportation systems. Approximately 

18 percent of Interior’s facility electricity comes from alternative energy technologies, a ratio six times greater than required for the Nation in the Energy Policy 

Act. 

The 2009 budget for the U.S. Geological Survey continues its climate change program of $31.4 million, sustaining $5.0 million of the increases enacted in 2008 by 

the Congress. The 2009 budget will focus on priority climate change needs to fill 

critical information gaps. The 2009 budget and the Department’s climate change 

management priorities will benefit from the results of the Secretary’s Task Force 

on Climate Change. The three subcommittees that comprise the task force will guide 

Interior’s comprehensive approach to the study and modeling of the impacts of climate change on lands, waters, and wildlife, as well as guide adaptive management 

programs for the Department’s land managers. 

Indian Trust.—From 1996 through 2008, the Department will have invested $4.4 

billion in the management, reform, and improvement of Indian trust programs. 

These investments have allowed Interior to better meet fiduciary trust responsibilities, provide greater accountability at every level, and operate with staff trained in 

the principles of fiduciary trust management. The 2009 budget proposes $482.3 million for Indian trust programs. This amount includes a net program increase of $2.9 

million over the 2008 enacted budget. The 2009 Unified Trust Budget reflects savings from the completion of certain trust reform tasks as well as new investments 

in probate services. 

The 2009 budget of $482.3 million for Indian trust programs includes $181.6 million in the Office of the Special Trustee and $300.7 million in the Bureau of Indian 
176 

Affairs. The budget for Office of the Special Trustee includes $125.2 million for operation of trust programs, an increase of $1.2 million above the 2008 level. The 2009 

budget proposal includes $56.4 million to support the Office of Historical Trust Accounting. The Office of Historical Trust Accounting, which is included in the Unified 

Trust Budget, plans, organizes, directs, and executes the historical accounting of 

365,000 Individual Indian Money and Tribal Trust accounts. The OHTA expects to 

allocate approximately $40 million to historical accounting for individual Indian accounts, with the balance used for tribal trust accounting. 

The remainder of the funding supports work on tribal trust cases, for a total of 

$16.4 million. At present, there are 102 tribal trust lawsuits, including a class action case seeking certification of a class of over 250 Tribes. The workload associated 

with these cases includes tribal reconciliation reports, document production, data 

validation, litigation support, analyses of mismanagement claims, historical accountings, and settlement negotiations. 

The 2009 BIA budget provides $300.7 million to meet the requirements outlined 

in the Fiduciary Trust model and continue trust reform initiatives, including a funding increase of $10.6 million that will address a number of priority activities including the probate backlog. 

The 2009 budget also includes an increase $2.6 million for BIA and OST to meet 

the ongoing demand for probate services, while continuing to reduce the excess probate caseload. This funding increase will also support the Office of Hearings and Appeals and their role in resolving probate cases. 

The 2009 budget reduces funding by $9.8 million and eliminates the Indian Land 

Consolidation program. Although the program is terminated in 2009 the Department will explore other options for addressing the critical issue of fractionation. 

Financial and Business Management System.—The Financial and Business Management System, an enterprise-level, integrated, administrative management system, is replacing the Interior Department’s existing legacy systems. When fully implemented, the project will support the business requirements of all Interior bureaus 

and offices including core accounting, acquisition, personal property and fleet, travel, real property, financial assistance, budget formulation, and enterprise management information. 

In 2006, the Minerals Management Service and the Office of Surface Mining were 

successfully migrated to the Financial and Business Management System. These bureaus are now conducting financial and accounting operations on this new system. 

In 2007, the acquisition module was deployed to MMS and OSM. In 2008, the Department anticipates that it will deploy core financial, acquisition, property, and 

grants components of FBMS to BLM. The 2009 budget request of $73.4 million includes an increase of $33.3 million for additional deployments that will eventually 

allow the Department to retire duplicative legacy systems currently in operation, including 27 acquisition systems, 16 finance systems, 43 vendor databases, and 107 

property management systems. 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes.—PILT payments are made to local governments in 

lieu of tax payments on Federal lands within their boundaries and to supplement 

other Federal land receipts shared with local governments. The 2009 budget proposes $195.0 million for these payments, an increase of $5.0 million over the 2008 

President’s budget, reflecting an adjustment to keep abreast of inflationary cost increases. 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

The 2009 budget is accompanied by legislative proposals that will affect receipt 

or spending levels in 2009 or in future years. These proposals will be transmitted 

to the Congress for consideration by authorizing committees. 

Many of these legislative changes were presented in the 2008 President’s budget, 

including proposals for: full payment of bonuses on all new coal leases at the time 

of lease sale, modification of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, net receipts sharing for energy minerals, discontinuation of the mandatory appropriation 

from the BLM Range Improvement Fund, reallocation of the repayment of capital 

costs for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, and authorization for the San Joaquin River Restoration settlement. 

The budget also assumes the enactment of legislative proposals to repeal provisions of the Energy Policy Act related to permit processing, geothermal revenues 

and geothermal payments to counties, and ultra-deepwater research. The budget assumes enactment of legislation that would open the 1002 area of the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge to exploration with lease sales to begin in 2010, generating estimated bonus bids of $7 billion in 2010 and future streams of revenue from royalty 

collection once production commences. 
177 

The 2009 budget assumes enactment of legislation to provide a new, dedicated 

source of funding for the Centennial Challenge providing up to $100.0 million per 

year for 10 years of mandatory funding to match contributions for projects and programs that will fulfill the commitment to prepare parks for their next century. 

The 2009 budget also assumes enactment of legislation to authorize an increase 

in the price of the Federal duck stamp. The price of the stamp has remained at 

$15.00 since 1991. At the same time, the price of land has increased significantly 

in the past 17 years. The Duck Stamp fee increases will generate more revenues 

to support the acquisition of fee title and easement areas that would provide 17,000 

additional acres of important breeding, migration resting, and wintering areas for 

birds. 

The 2009 budget proposes to cancel $5.0 million from multiple accounts, as the 

balances have remained unused for some time. The budget proposes to cancel $24.7 

million of balances in the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Account that are excess to the 

estimated remediation costs and to cancel $4.5 million in the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund for uncommitted funding that was recovered from funds surplus 

to project needs. 

The 2009 budget proposes $34.0 million in increased cost recovery fees for the Bureau of Land Management oil and gas program and estimates an increase of $11.0 

million in offsetting collections from rental receipts and cost recovery fees by the 

Minerals Management Service’s OCS program. 

CONCLUSION

Our 2009 budget will—in its entirety—make a dramatic difference for the American people. We will continue efforts to improve our national parks, protect our wildlife and its habitat, and make investments in Indian Country for safe communities 

and Indian education. In addition, we will help communities address water supply 

needs, conserve wild birds and ocean resources, improve the safety of public lands 

along the border for employees and visitors, and continue to address other ongoing 

mission priorities. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on these 

challenges this year. Just as we did in 2008, I feel confident that we can collaboratively craft a 2009 budget for this Department that will address all of the priorities I’ve discussed. This concludes my overview of the 2009 budget proposal for the 

Department of the Interior and my written statement. I will be happy to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me see. The order will be after my questions, Senator Allard. Then it will alternate. Senator Nelson, Senator Craig, Senator Alexander, and Senator Cochran. 

RURAL FIRE ASSISTANCE

I think one of the things that I find really objectionable in the 

budget is the zeroing out of the $6 million for the wildland fire 

grants. When I left the office, Mr. Secretary, CNN was on my television, and it said a wide swath of the United States is under 

threat of catastrophic fire. I think to cut these grants right now is 

really a mistake. 

My understanding is you are taking that money and you are putting it in the Healthy Lands initiative. You are proposing a Birds 

Forever by taking money away from initiatives to protect native 

fish, and we have just had the entire salmon run collapse in Oregon and California. 

So why are you singled out for the elimination of rural fire assistance grants? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Madam Chairman, it is a very fair question. We do have a very close cooperative working relationship with 

the U.S. Forest Service where they provide many of the same programs. We do retain grants that help us with the training. We utilize funds from the preparedness budget to do so. 

You are right about the devastation of these fires. You experienced them firsthand when I called you in October and we talked 
178 

about the Santa Ana winds that were whipping up, and where we 

were able to anticipate that, pre-deploy our assets, rolling stock, 

aircraft, and personnel and were able to make the best of a very 

bad situation. 

We do use it for the Healthy Forest initiative because if we can 

continue to thin these forests, if we can remove the fuel load, that 

is going to save not only acreage but lives and certainly lives of the 

fire fighters. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, but for me it is a catch 22. I want the 

Healthy Lands money, but I also want the wildland fire protection 

money. So if you take one from the other, you essentially diminish 

both. At least, that is my view on it. So I just want you to know 

up front that is a real problem for me. 

ABANDONED MINES

Another problem in California is we have roughly 47,000 abandoned mines, and 13,000 are on lands managed by the BLM. Thousands have safety or water quality hazards. Last month I introduced a bill, the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act. It created an 

abandoned mine cleanup fund, but unlike the House bill, it has 

three sources of revenue for that cleanup. I added $1.9 million in 

the 2008 bill to help BLM and the National Park Service identify 

and remediate hazardous abandoned mines in California. Your 

budget request removes this funding. 

My first question is, does your Department have a prioritized list 

of abandoned mine sites on public lands? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. This is a critical issue for us. I will get 

back to you if, in fact, there is a prioritization of mines. The categorizing and the inventorying of abandoned mines has been occurring 

by the BLM and by the National Park Service. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I would like to ask you to do a 

prioritized list, and I would like you to share it with this committee. I mean, I think we are entitled to know where abandoned 

mines on public lands create real hazards for people who use those 

public lands. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. Madam Chairman, the National 

Park Service—I believe it was five abandoned mines they addressed based on funds that you provided in the current budget 

last year. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. But you removed the funding. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Why is that? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. In most cases, Madam Chairman, where 

there were additions by Congress, we had to remove those earmarks. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Why? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. To remain within the budget that was 

given as the guidance by the administration. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, you know, I feel if the administration 

is not going to regard our concerns of priorities, I do not know why 

we should observe theirs. I mean, the fact of the matter is we have 

got 13,000 abandoned mines on Interior properties in California, 

and people use those lands and we need to do something about it. 

So I am really concerned about that, and you will be hearing more. 
179 

U.S. PARK POLICE

Let me go to the Park Police. The IG’s report stated, ‘‘Park Police 

have failed to adequately perform either mission, either protecting 

the national monuments or functioning as an urban police department.’’ So this has resulted in deficient security at national icons 

and monuments. 

My understanding is you do have money in the budget for that, 

for additional police officers. Your current staffing is 590. You request an additional $4.7 million so you can increase staffing by 36. 

How many of those 36 will be sworn officers, and how many are 

administrative? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. I believe, Madam Chairman, that those 

officers will be sworn officers. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So all 36 of your new people will be sworn 

officers. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. I will tell you that it will take a little bit of time to achieve this. We are adding 12 new officers this 

month. We are then putting 15 more in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The goal is that by the end of 2009, we will 

have 630 sworn officers. Our objective is to reach 639 sworn officers, which we believe can be accomplished at the beginning of 

2010. 

SALMON

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. If I can quickly, I would like to go 

to the Pacific Fisheries Council recommendation for a complete closure of the Oregon and California salmon fishery for the first time 

in 150 years. News articles suggest that part of the problem may 

be deteriorating ocean conditions caused by climate change. 

What is your finding? What is the cause of this? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Well, Madam Chairman, we have been 

working with NOAA and the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

which has jurisdiction for this. There has been an identification at 

this point that conditions in the sea which provide the food source 

for the salmon are one of the key factors. There is continuing discussion as to what may be the reason for all of that, but it is the 

jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. We will continue to work with them. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would hope you would. I would hope you 

would take a major role. I mean, fishing on our coasts is an important industry. It is estimated that this disaster is $150 million. 

People lose their homes. They lose their boats. They lose everything 

because they cannot make payments. They have no job. So I would 

just like to request that Interior play a role in really delving into 

this and coming up with some solutions—— 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. Or I think we are in deep trouble with respect to fish. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. It is very serious, and I am very familiar 

with it, as Senator Craig would be as well from the State of Idaho, 

because we too have the salmon fish runs. It is an issue that we 

have been working on for some years. 
180 

U.S. PARK POLICE

Madam Chairman, perhaps before we leave this hearing, I could 

address a little further about the Park Police. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Certainly. My time is expired. Let me turn 

to the others and then on the second round, if it is agreeable with 

you, we will go to the Park Police first up. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. That would be great. I appreciate it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Senator Allard. 

NAVAL OIL SHALE

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I 

would like to go first to the Naval Oil Shale question. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. In the President’s budget, you requested a proposal to cancel $24.7 million of balances in the oil shale reserve. 

Now, this is money over and above what it would take to clean up 

the Anvil Point area and cleanup costs in that particular area. I 

oppose it. In my view, those funds are—at least the half that represents the royalties that would be paid under the Mineral Leasing 

Act belongs to the State of Colorado. This has been provided for in 

legislation that was passed by the Congress. 

The Naval Oil Shale restoration account fund is growing at the 

rate of $2 million per month, and royalties are not being paid to 

the State only because the Department of the Interior has dragged 

their feet in the certification of those funds to clean up the site. I 

believe that everyone now acknowledges that there are more than 

enough funds in the account to do the cleanup. 

I would like to have you tell me when you would expect to be 

able to certify this site so that Colorado can start collecting its fair 

share of royalties being generated at the Naval Oil Shale Reserve, 

which we also share with the Federal Government, by the way. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator Allard, I appreciate working 

with you on this issue. As you know, there was a key point in January this year when the State of Colorado agreed with the cleanup 

proposal by the Federal Government, by the Bureau of Land Management. I sent you and Senator Salazar and Governor Ritter letters on this. It allows us to now move forward. 

We anticipate that by June of this year, we can have a contract 

let that would then allow us to go forward with the actual cleanup. 

We believe that in this fund will be sufficient monies to cover that 

cleanup. 

I must say specifically to the $24 million that you are referencing, the Solicitor’s interpretation of the law passed by Congress does not provide for that to be distributed to the State of Colorado because it is to begin distribution of funds to Colorado once 

certification begins on prospective collection of monies. That is the 

determination of what the law currently reads. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, we have had some discussion on their interpretation on certification, and we will probably continue to have 

that discussion. I think if you look at the intent, I think the intent 

of the legislation is pretty clear. I frankly feel that their interpretation does not match with the rest of the language. 
181 

I guess I still need an answer. You have let the contract—you are 

letting out in June. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. So then does this immediately lead to certification once that contract is let? When does certification occur after 

the contract is let? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. There would be additional elements, details that would have to be worked out, but we are going to move 

expeditiously so that we can achieve that certification. 

Senator ALLARD. So you cannot give us a time specifically when 

you think they would. So you are saying that letting the contract 

is the first step. There are several steps after that, and we do not 

know what is going to happen on those steps. That is my concern. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Right. Senator, I would say letting the 

contract is probably not the first step. The identification of the 

game plan of how to clean this up, and then to have the State of 

Colorado agree in January with that proposed cleanup was a huge 

step. I believe we can now move expeditiously and get you to the 

point that you have certification. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, we will continue to push you on that particular issue, Mr. Secretary. I will continue to make a nuisance of 

myself I guess. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Well, it is no nuisance because I can understand where you would be coming from. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you. 

As you know, there is a planned lease sale by BLM on the Naval 

Oil Shale Reserve this summer that could bring in as much as $1 

billion in bonus bids. If certification has not happened by that 

point, the State of Colorado, in effect, will lose $500 million, and 

this is simply not acceptable. I just want to have your assurances 

from the Department that you will continue to work on this issue 

so that we can get this resolved prior to the lease sale. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, you have my assurance. 

Senator ALLARD. There is a good bit of urgency here. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. I fully respect that and understand it. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL

On the backlog of applications for permits to drill, I have been 

hearing from many energy companies throughout the interior of 

the West that it is taking longer and longer to get their applications for permits to drill approved by the BLM. This is particularly 

frustrating to me. I do not like increasing fees particularly, but we 

increased fees, allowed that to $4,000 last year, and we have put 

this in place. Now with the increase in fees, they are complaining 

that they are getting slower and slower service and things are 

being dragged out, which I think the anticipation was that if you 

increased the fees, there would be more employees and there would 

be a quicker processing of their permits. 

What are you doing to address this backlog that is happening? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, your characterization of dragging their feet I would not concur with. BLM is doing everything 

that it possibly can. I will give you a sense. Over the last 7 years, 

BLM has processed over 47,000 APD’s and approved over 39,000 
182 

APD’s. APD’s processed have increased from a low of 2,300 in 1999 

to an all-time high in 2007 of nearly 9,000. It is a sheer number 

of APD’s that we are dealing with as opposed to just a static line 

that remains flat. It is the increased APD’s, but we are doing all 

that we possibly can. 

The 2009 budget seeks cost recovery of a higher fee. Funding will 

be retained by BLM for these APD’s. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. Okay. 

Now, how many people are you anticipating that you are going 

to be needing to handle the workload that you have now? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. I do not believe, sir, that we are adding 

any personnel. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you need to? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. We will examine that again, but at this 

point we are not requesting that. 

Senator ALLARD. So how can we speed up the process if we are 

not hiring more people? What is being done by the Department to 

have that happen? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. It would be possible to make modifications in the information that is provided and look at what the longterm plan would be. We can evaluate information on the employees 

at BLM. 

Senator ALLARD. I would assume that you have some offices that 

are facing a greater workload on applications than other offices. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. We are. 

Senator ALLARD. So it is a difference in having personnel on 

hand to process in those cases, is it not? So for those offices that 

are being pushed so hard because of oil and gas, just changing the 

processing and everything else does not seem to help them. How 

do you help them out? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Well, we will examine that, but again, 

at this point from BLM, I have no request for additional personnel. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, we would like to talk to you about that 

so we fully understand how these applications are being processed. 

My time is expired. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Nelson. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you. I would like to have you confirm that in your position, you get to hunt and fish anywhere in 

the country on company time. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. As long as I buy a license. 

Senator BEN NELSON. As long as you buy a license. All right. 

PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY PROGRAM

Last fall, the Senate passed what is called the Consolidated Natural Resources Act, which contained the Platte recovery implementation program. I am hopeful that the House is going to be able to 

pass it soon and that the President will sign the bill so that we can 

begin to move forward with this program. If it gets signed into law 

soon, it authorizes over $157 million for the Department to carry 

out its provisions, whereas I believe in the Department’s budget, 

there were only about $11 million provided. 
183 

So my question is, in terms of priority, if this bill is signed into 

law, will the Department be able to aggressively pursue the content 

of the legislation on behalf of this recovery of a very important and 

vital river in our country, the Platte River? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. Senator, that is our full intent. We 

have been very supportive of the agreement that had been reached. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Including the invasive species, as well as 

water flow issues and hydrologic issues as well? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. 

Senator BEN NELSON. The entire picture of the recovery that we 

would like to see. We hope that that is a high priority within the 

Department. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. Senator, again, when you speak of 

invasive species, that is critical. The proliferation of these species 

and then the loss of habitat, the loss of the native plants, native 

aquaculture. 

Senator BEN NELSON. The consumption of water that the 

invasive species involve as well. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Correct. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Okay. Well, we will be watching. It may 

not all happen under your watch because of the time frame, but we 

certainly hope it gets started under your watch. 

SPECIES CONSERVATION ON PRIVATE LANDS

Last year, regarding the species conservation on private lands, 

the landowner incentive program was eliminated. The focus of that 

program was to help landowners become involved in species conservation on their lands, and while eliminated, the committee did 

direct the Department to work with the States to develop a new 

grant program as part of State and tribal wildlife grants that 

would direct funding to species conservation projects on these private lands. 

Now, the Fish and Wildlife Service requested flat funding in 

their fiscal year 2009 budget for State and tribal wildlife grants. 

Obviously, that concerns me that while we directed the Department to move on these private conservation matters, Fish and 

Wildlife seems to have taken a different approach or at least have 

not provided funding that would satisfy, in my opinion, that they 

take this seriously or that it is a priority for them. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, it is taken seriously because it 

is a good program. In the Department’s budget, we have a variety 

of grants which we believe through other programs, we can still 

provide the objectives of the program. It is just a different set of 

funding sources. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Well, but is it a bigger pie or is it just the 

same pie that is going to be cut into smaller pieces now? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. I would say that it is at the same level. 

We have been able to at least hold the same level in a time of 

budget constraint, but without loss. 

Senator BEN NELSON. What assurances can we have that we will 

see the money directed to the States and to the tribal lands or 

whether the grant requests that are put in will truly have that 

high priority that this committee has given them? 
184 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Well, Senator, I would be happy to work 

with you on determining how you would like to have that communique. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Because you can say that the money is 

available. Then, of course, the other priorities will prevail. Unless 

this is given a high priority, we cannot be sure that there will be 

that priority by the bureaucracy. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, I understand what you are saying. Just to affirm, it is a good program. It is achieving some very 

fine results. These are competitive grants among the States, but 

the funds are there. I would be happy, again, Senator, with your 

experience as Governor, to work with you on this. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Well, with our experience as Governor, we 

understand the bureaucracy. The we be’s. We be here when you 

come. We be here when you go. 

That is what we want to overcome and make sure that this does 

have that high priority. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Right. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Very good, Senator. Thank you very much. 

Senator Craig. 

Senator CRAIG. In fact, Madam Chair, I would suggest that oftentimes the Senate says that of administrations. We be here when 

you come. We be here when you go. 

INITIATIVES

Let me approach it from a slightly different angle because I love 

the artistry of your words, Mr. Secretary. Here with your budget 

you call these initiatives. In fact, you speak of four new initiatives, 

and you fund them from what were once Senate earmarks. Might 

we call those administrative earmarks, those new initiatives? 

I think, Madam Chair, we ought to turn our phrase a bit and 

suggest that we have a variety of initiatives. In fact, many of us 

who lecture on this issue might suggest that we only gave you the 

authority to be here and present a budget less than 40 years ago, 

and constitutionally that responsibility rests solely with the Congress and not with the executive branch of Government. 

So we do appreciate your initiatives and the artistry of your 

words, but we have noted that you have funded them by defunding 

Senate initiatives. Now, that is simply rhetoric, Mr. Secretary. I 

want to be kind to you for the balance of my time, but I was sitting 

here listening to the artistry of those marvelous words and not in 

any way questioning the validity of the concepts and the programs 

as it relates to oceans, as it relates to birds, certainly as it relates 

to the kinds of initiatives you have launched in Indian country. 

This committee has not disagreed with any of them. 

So may I suggest, Madam Chair, that there is so much to do and 

so little money? What we have is, on the other hand, the taking 

from the other hand. That in itself is a bit of a frustration. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. May I respond? 

Senator CRAIG. Well, okay. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Before you do, Mr. Secretary, do you see the 

sensitivity of this? 
185 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Of course. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. We feel we are equals in the budget. 

Senator CRAIG. Oh, no, that is not true constitutionally, Madam 

Chair. Uphold your responsibility. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So it is very difficult when this kind of thing 

happens. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. You can, I hope, appreciate that I used 

to sit up there and I remember asking an administration about the 

budget, so I understand where you come from. 

EARMARKS

On the part of earmarks, this process is as you described it to 

be. We do not have the opportunity to add earmarks after the process. Many of the earmarks that you have provided—for example, 

on the initiatives of 2008, you plused-up Indian country. The administration retained those and is now recommending additions to 

that. With regard to the parks, the $25 million, that was tremendous. The refuges which, Madam Chairman, you referenced. We 

have retained those because it was a committee process, and it was 

building upon a budget which the administration had proposed to 

you. I do not believe that we are taking from your earmarks and 

simply putting on it the name ‘‘administration earmarks.’’ These 

are initiatives that we are placing properly before the committee 

for your deliberation and your good counsel. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I appreciate that. I think our frustration remains when you propose, as you do, in your budget four new initiatives in a relatively flat or declining budget. That money has to 

come from somewhere. 

PREPAREDNESS

Now, for example, in the area that the chairman has already approached, I would guess that you and the Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service and BLM, did not sit down and do this 

with your fire money because if you had, you would have both recognized substantial cuts in both Departments as it relates to preparedness. 

You were out, as was I, and traveled over one of the largest fires 

in the grasslands of southwestern Idaho this last summer. Following that, I spent a good deal of time with all of the parties involved. There is no question in my mind and in the locals’ and the 

State’s mind that had we prepared a little better, had local people 

been a little more involved, had the teams been in place a little 

more, that that fire might not have been as bad as it was. Nearly 

a quarter of the land burned in the country last year. A near unprecedented fire season happened in our State of Idaho. So preparedness is critical. 

The Forest Service has slashed its budget. You have cut yours 

substantially. You are the two primary fire agencies of our Federal 

Government. We have that cooperative tool in Idaho known as the 

National Interagency Fire Center, and yet, I am not quite sure I 

can go back to Idaho not yet knowing what the fire year will be— 

we do not yet—and suggest that we are going to be better off this 

year than we were last year. 
186 

Take us through that scenario a little bit, if you would, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Sure. Our strategy is to attack fires. We 

have a 97 percent success rate of attacking fires so that they do 

not get out of hand and become the enormous fires that begin to 

go. 

We are entering a new phase of fire behavior, much of it because 

of the 10 years of drought, and the bug infestation. The fuel load 

is there. As you know, Senator, it is not unusual during the summer that you may get 2,000 lightening strikes in a day, and to have 

as many resources as we have, but there are some fires that are 

going to get away. 

I would also point out that part of the budget is based upon the 

10-year average of the fire costs. Because of the nature of the fires 

that are getting so much larger, that 10 years still keeps some of 

the low numbers included. A 5-year view would be a different number. 

Senator CRAIG. I was just going to say you ought to average on 

5 years now versus 10 because—— 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. It would be a different number. 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. The landscape has changed dramatically. 

SALMON

My time is up. Madam Chair, let me make another comment as 

it relates to salmon and your concern and expression. 

I will get you the address of probably one of the leading fish scientists in the University of British Columbia’s Marine Biology Center who a decade ago said quite simply at a time when Idaho and 

Oregon and Washington were embattled over salmon on the Snake 

and Columbia system. He said it quite simply. Because of the 

change of temperatures and ocean waters and, therefore, the biota 

and the food sources for fish, no matter how many young fish you 

send us, meaning the ocean, it will not send them back because the 

habitat has changed dramatically in the oceans. 

The problem is the take has not, and you have to couple it. We are spending as much as $300 to $400 a fish on the Snake and the 

Columbia system by ratepayers paying their power bills so that the 

fish industry can continue to fish. There is a subsidy. You are just 

not putting it in your budget. It is in the ratepayers’ base of the 

public power systems of those States. 

Now, that is a reality that nobody wants to deal with because we 

are so frantically trying to save these fish, and yet we must. I suspect the science is now going to suggest that our oceans simply 

cannot sustain those populations if the take continues to be as 

large. 

I will come back for a second round. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Alexander, you are up. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

STEWARDSHIP

Mr. Secretary, you have had a very effective stewardship. I compliment you on it. I especially want to give you credit for the con-
187 

ceptual design of—I will give the President the credit for the proposal, but the Centennial Challenge. It is a brilliant idea. We welcome you as you are coming back to the Great Smokey Mountains 

area on April 28 to the Governor’s Sustainable Tourism Conference 

for Gateway Communities. I think it is your third visit to the Great 

Smokeys in a relatively short period of time. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALEXANDER. We appreciate a westerner recognizing the 

importance of eastern national parks. 

I have two areas I would like to discuss briefly. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Twenty years ago, I was chairman of President Reagan’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. One of our recommendations was 

that we use money from offshore drilling to fully fund the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund. We have never done that. 

I notice in your testimony that you talk about MMS doing studies in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico that might produce 10 billion 

barrels of oil, 45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Even if you take 

the Alaska part out, that is a lot. It provides, it seems to me, an 

opportunity here because 2 years ago, thanks to Senator Domenici’s 

leadership, when we approved a new lease for Lease 181 in the 

Gulf of Mexico, we created the conservation royalty really for the 

first time to give funding to the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund from offshore drilling. Fifty percent went to the Feds; 37.5 to 

the States; 12.5 percent to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

My goal is that we get the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

up to $450 million Federal, $450 million State. There is a lot, particularly in the East, city parks, open space, greenways, communities that could use that. 

My question to you is would it be possible that a part of the planning by the Department of the Interior could identify those areas 

where the so-called Domenici one-eighth, the 12.5 percent, of the 

proposed new drilling for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico especially, or anywhere else, could go to fully fund the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator Alexander, in fiscal year 2009, 

the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund will begin to receive revenue from that source. 

Senator ALEXANDER. From Lease 181? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Correct. It is a little over $6 million. 

That will continue to grow now because of this new formula that 

has been put in place. It does give us for the first time, as you have 

stated, an identified source of funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, I would hope that in your planning, 

you could include this concept, and I would say to the chairman of 

the subcommittee that as we look ahead at the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, here may be a source of royalties for it. In a 

way, we have the worst of both worlds because some of the environmentalists do not like any drilling, and some of the western Senators do not like any more Federal land. But in the East, we have 

a need for that. Perhaps we can resolve that. 
188 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, to highlight what you are saying, I think it makes a great deal of logical sense that when you 

extract a natural resource, that a portion of the benefit of that is 

reinvested back into nature. 

Senator ALEXANDER. That was the concept really 40 years ago 

when the Land and Water Conservation Fund was created, that 

there would be an environmental burden and an environmental 

benefit. 

GREAT SMOKEY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

Now, my last question would be about base funding for the Great 

Smokey Mountains National Park, which you have been very attentive to, and we appreciate it very much. Take four of our major 

parks that we all admire: the Smokeys, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite. The Smokeys has twice as many visitors as 

Grand Canyon, three times as many as Yellowstone, about three 

times as many as Yosemite. It has about the same number of trails 

and roads as Yellowstone and Yosemite and more than the Grand 

Canyon. Yet, when we add all the dollars together, fees and Federal funding, we spend three times as much on Yellowstone, two 

times as much on Yosemite, one and a half times as much on 

Grand Canyon as we do on the Great Smokeys. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Be careful, Senator. Be careful where you are 

going. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I know. 

If the Senator from California were—she is an eminently fair 

person. She would want all these four grand parks to have—it is 

hard for me to understand how there could be three times as much 

spending on one of these parks. 

Now, one part of the answer is the fees that the other three 

parks have. The Smokeys, of course, were given to the Federal Government by the States and the people under the express agreement 

there would not be an entrance fee. That was the deal in the 

1930’s. But even when you take the fee out, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite have more of a base operation than the 

Smokeys. 

I am aware of the increase this year. We are very grateful for 

that. I have talked with Ms. Bomar about that. I would urge you 

to continue to look as an element of fairness. I do not want to hurt 

the other three parks, but the most visited national park by far in 

America is the Great Smokeys. For us to be spending three times 

as much and two times as much and one and a half times as much 

on other grand parks as we do on the Smokeys does not seem right 

to me or the people in Tennessee and North Carolina that I represent. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, you represent an absolutely 

beautiful part of the country. The Great Smokeys, I believe, has the 

highest visitorship of any of our national parks. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Twice as much. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. In the base budget for the Great Smokey Mountains, other than the Grand Tetons, it actually gets more 

than Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite, slightly more than 

Yosemite. These are the 2009 increases. 
189 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, that might be increase. Madam Chairman, I know my time is up, but my information is—you can correct 

me—in fiscal year 2008, the Smokeys get $18.6 million; Grand 

Canyon, $21 million; Yellowstone, $33 million; Yosemite, $27 million, and that is before any of the fees. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Right. Being cognizant of that, that is 

why in the 2009 base we propose beginning to raise funds to the 

Great Smokeys. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I thank you, and I hope that interest continues. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Thank you. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator. We will have more to 

comment on that later. 

Senator Cochran. 

Senator COCHRAN. Madam Chairman, thank you. 

HURRICANE KATRINA BARRIER ISLAND REBUILDING

Mr. Secretary, Hurricane Katrina dealt a very serious blow to 

the State of Mississippi and other gulf coast States. Since that hurricane hit, we have seen no construction undertaken to replace 

structures, shaded areas in the Mississippi coastal area on the barrier islands and on previously very popular sites for sunbathing, 

fishing, and just access to the beautiful outdoors in that gulf coast 

area. 

It is my hope that someone can be designated by the Department 

to get with Governor Haley Barbour and try to map out a plan for 

restoration and repair and rebuilding an appropriate number of facilities that would restore that area to its previous popular vacation, boating, and fishing area. I do not have a specific suggestion, 

a dollar amount of money, but there is no request for funding in 

this budget from the Department, and I would hope we would look 

at it and see what you think would be a fair amount to designate 

for that purpose. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator Cochran, I appreciate that you 

have identified that. I have had conversations with Governor 

Barbour. One of the things, too, that we are working with the U.S. 

Geological Survey on is to get what had been the footprint of the 

barrier islands in 1917, which is our baseline, because there has 

been a dramatic, as you know, loss of much of those barrier islands. That would be part of this whole restructuring. 

Senator COCHRAN. Well, I appreciate the fact that you are aware 

of the challenge we face there, and we look forward to working 

with you. We will be glad to help, through the appropriations process, provide the funds that we agree ought to be spent there. 

HERITAGE AREAS

One other issue I wanted to raise was the National Park Service’s National Heritage Program. This is a program to identify 

areas where Federal funds could be used to protect, restore, enhance the appreciation within the National Park Service of sites 

that are important to preserve and protect for the benefit of future 

generations. I had introduced legislation specifically creating two 

heritage areas in our part of the country, but there is nobody at 
190 

the Department we have been able to talk with or find to be interested in working with us. 

I would like to ask you to see if there could be some administrative staff of the Department designated or given the responsibility 

of helping us with this program, at least discussing what we could 

use and what would be consistent with the administration’s policy 

on the National Heritage Area program. 

We had hoped that we would have more money. Instead of more, 

we are getting a decrease of $8 million from last year’s enacted 

level, and that is a problem as far as we are concerned. We do not 

think we are going to see any progress at all made if we do not 

appropriate some money. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator Cochran, as you stated, the administration’s process, is to do an analysis, a survey, and a study. 

We would be happy to work with you on that. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. 

Senator Stevens. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Good morning. 

MARINE MAMMALS

Senator STEVENS. I am a little disturbed about the reduction in 

funding for the marine mammals program off our coast. For instance, there is a reduction in the monitoring of walrus along the 

Chukchi Sea coast. Yet, we have an enormous proposal out there 

to start producing oil and gas, which we support. But I do not know 

why we would reduce, actually eliminate, funding for the Pacific 

walrus. 

Can you tell us why that happened? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, there is a reduction in the Fish 

and Wildlife, but the Minerals Management Service continues a 

study and then NOAA is also doing a study on the mammals in 

that area. 

Senator STEVENS. All right. Well, I will check with NOAA then 

to make sure that is the case. 

REVENUE SHARING

I am concerned that as we go forward now with the Chukchi Sea 

development, that Alaska has not received the same type of revenue sharing as other coastal States have. We have provided revenue sharing for Florida even for Lease Sale 181 that is 140–150 

miles off their shore. We have got revenue sharing for Louisiana 

and Texas, and Alaska has two-thirds of the outer continental shelf 

of the United States and no development primarily because there 

continues to be opposition since there is no funding that would 

come to the State from development off our shores. 

Can the Department change its position on revenue sharing? It 

seems to me if we had revenue sharing, we would have a greater 

support base from Alaskans for development off our shores. 
191 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator Stevens, I think it is a sound 

concept, which you have identified. With the revenue sharing that 

currently takes place in the Gulf Coast, I think that continues to 

incentivize the States. As you know, in the 5-year plan, we have 

now included the State of Virginia. I think absent revenue sharing, 

I do not know that Virginia will pursue offshore development, but 

with revenue sharing, I think it does provide a great incentive. I 

think it also, as Senator Alexander has pointed out, is an opportunity for funds that can be directed toward the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. 

Senator STEVENS. We would be pleased to have some direction 

over the funds, and I personally would like to see part of it directed—the State’s share of revenue sharing be directed to indigenous people along the coast who face the greatest risk and really 

need funds. If you are not going to manage the walrus and keep 

track of the walrus, they would. They certainly would keep track 

of all the mammals since they depend on them so heavily. 

But I would hope that you speak up as a member of the cabinet 

for revenue sharing for the State of Alaska. I do not think you are 

going to have oil and gas development off our shores until we get 

it. Frankly, there are so many people up there opposed to oil and 

gas development, with the risks involved and based upon their 

memories of the Exxon Valdez spill, that it is just a built-in situation. Why go forward and have a risk unless there are some funds 

that are built up to help offset that risk? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate your point. 

ENERGY COSTS

Senator STEVENS. I do not know how much time I have got, but 

I am really worried about the basic problem of keeping up with the 

increased cost of energy in our State. You know, we pay really substantially more than the rest of the United States for oil and gas 

and yet we produce substantial amounts of oil and gas. I really 

wonder somehow if there is not some way we can make the country 

understand and maybe some of the people at this table understand 

that the problem we have in the country, as we continue to import 

so much oil—and now I understand we are going to start importing 

natural gas. They told me last week 40 percent of our natural gas 

will come to us from offshore by 2013. Now, that is an enormous 

cost. At $100 a barrel, the 7 million barrels a day, day in and day 

out, sending money out of the country. That is what is causing the 

price of gasoline to go up. There is no investment in the United 

States in domestic resources. 

I see the President has an item in the budget for proceeding with 

ANWR. I really do not see much of a drive from the administration 

to fulfill that item in the budget. How are we going to get the support we need for development of alternative and renewable resources unless we have a cash flow from our own resources? Why 

has there not been more talk from the administration about this? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. About ANWR in specific? 

Senator STEVENS. Well, about the concept of domestic production. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, I believe that in a variety of forums, it is discussed. I know that I discuss it. I know that Sec-
192 

retary Bodman, the Secretary of Energy, discusses it, and I know 

that it is discussed often at the White House. 

Senator STEVENS. It is headlines today that Russia’s production 

is declining and they are going to face a financial crisis because of 

it. Well, ours is gone and we face a financial crisis. I do not think 

anyone has connected our financial crisis here at home to the fact 

we are sending so much money out of the country to buy oil and 

gas we could produce. 

ALASKA FUNDING

I see my time is over. I do not want to speak beyond the time. 

I have questions here concerning the allocations to our State from 

the various functions here. From national parks, we have 51 million of the 78 million acres. Yet we get 2.4 percent of the budget. 

We have 76 million acres or 85 percent of the wildlife refuge lands. 

We get 8 percent of the budget. In terms of wildlife refuge lands, 

the overall concepts of the Federal lands, we have more than half 

of the Federal lands in every category and we have more than twothirds of every category that are reserved Federal lands. Yet, we 

get less than 10 percent of the money in every category. 

Why is that? Why do you allocate the budget based on population 

instead of acreage? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Well, I understand from your perspective why you would be concerned about that. 

Senator STEVENS. My perspective. It is the people of the United 

States that go see those lands. They cannot get into them. There 

are no roads. There is no access. You have to fly into most of these 

places with a twin engine float plane. Do you know how many commercial twin engine float planes are left in my State? Three. There 

is no access. With the increased cost of flying, it is going to disappear entirely. I do not understand it. I think you have got to find 

a way to start working out ground access to all of this land that 

has been reserved for the public, but the public cannot get there. 

You are a great friend. I hate to speak that way to you. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. That is all right. I have gotten used to 

it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I did before. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I do speak that way, but I do not lose 

friendships, I hope. 

Thank you. 

REVENUES

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, if I could just respond to that. 

When you consider the last sale that we had—and I believe it was 

Sale 206 in the gulf coast last month—it brought in record bonus 

bids, the highest ever in United States history. The Chukchi Sea, 

which we went forward with, which OMB had scored at $68 million, we actually brought in $2.66 billion. The 205 back down in the 

gulf coast, we brought in over $9 billion in the last 6 months, moving us toward further energy development. 

The concerns which Senator Allard has raised about the Roan, 

but we believe that there are tremendous oil resources there. 

In the State of New Mexico, we believe that there—excuse me, 

North Dakota. We believe that there are tremendous resources. 
193 

Part of it is we are being criticized by the pace by which we are 

proceeding with this, but we are using technology that has been 

learned from offshore oil and gas drilling. Now, onshore what traditionally used to be 10 acres for a wellhead, we are now down to 

a footprint of half an acre. We have learned from Alaska the use 

of ice roads so that in the spring, when the ice disappears, there 

is no footprint on the land in getting out to those wellheads. We 

are now doing the same thing with wooden pallets as roads onshore 

and then removing those wooden pallets once the construction is 

done. There has been no disturbance. We really are, I believe, moving as aggressively as we can on oil and gas development because 

of both our national security, our energy security, and our economic 

security. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, our State alone can produce more oil 

than Iraq, and we spent a hell of a lot of money to protect the oil 

in Iraq, but none to make our oil available from Alaska. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Dorgan. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being 

here. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Thank you. 

BAKKEN SHALE

Senator DORGAN. Last Thursday, we announced the USGS assessment of 3.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken 

shale formation. Some of us have worked to open up Lease 181. We 

got less of that opened up than we should. The greatest resource 

in the outer continental shelf is in the Gulf of Mexico first, California second, and Alaska third. We do need to do more production, 

and I have legislation to open up more of Lease 181. 

But, Mr. Secretary, let me ask you. You and I talked some a 

while ago. I am going to ask you about some Indian issues. 

DETENTION CENTERS

There is an Indian jails report that you paid for by Shubnum 

Consulting. It is done, and I cannot get it. I called you about it, 

and the BIA says it is not available. We had testimony in the Congress last year, almost a year ago now, saying that it was going to 

be available in a matter of a month or 2. Then they said Christmas. Yet, the taxpayers have paid for that. If it is available, I want 

to see it. Have you been able to check on that and tell me why we 

are not able to access it? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. Senator Dorgan, as late as yesterday, I have checked on this. The report, while it is bound, and it 

looks like it is a final report—there are still questions that are now 

being answered and added to this report. 

Also, it is a snapshot of the situation, but it does not have an 

implementation plan. It does not have what is the next step. What 

should we be doing in 2009, 2010, and 2011? That is what they are 

working now to identify. What does this mean, and therefore, what 

can we bring to Congress and say, here is the game plan. 

Senator DORGAN. But, Mr. Secretary, I think the Indian jails are 

in desperate condition, and I think this report probably is going to 
194 

upset somebody. But if there is not a follow-on plan with it, why 

was that not part of the consulting contract? 

Whatever the consulting contract is and has been paid for, why 

not share it with this committee, with the Indian Affairs Committee? I mean, we are in the process of trying to evaluate what 

kind of resources we should allocate to Indian jails. Yet, I am told 

by the head of the BIA and you and others, well, this is kind of 

done, but for whatever reasons, we cannot see it. We paid for it. 

I would like to see it, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. 

Senator DORGAN. I would like to see it soon. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, again, I will send a team up 

here. 

Senator DORGAN. Just send the report up. I forget what Senator 

Stevens said. You are a great friend of mine. But you know, you 

sent people up before. I do not want people. I want the report. We 

paid for the report, and you have it. The BIA and the Department 

of the Interior, I think, should give it to us. So I will wait by the 

mailbox for the next several days. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Bring your lunch. 

Senator DORGAN. We are great friends. I think he is going to 

send it this week. 

UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

Mr. Secretary, let me ask you a question about what is judged 

to be one of the finest Indian schools in the country. The United 

Tribes Technical College serves Indians from about 34 States, and 

it has been authorized by the Congress. It has always been funded 

up until this administration took office, and then it fell out of the 

budget. I remain disappointed by that again this year. I mean, it 

is zero funding for that college. It is judged to be one of the really 

terrific Indian colleges in the country. 

I know you cannot do much about that. This goes to OMB, and 

they do their grading or whatever they do with budgets. Then they 

send it up to the White House, and then it gets some cosmetics and 

is sent down here. Everybody says how beautiful it is, at least to 

those that sent it. 

But I really think that zeroing out funding for the United Tribes 

Technical College makes very little sense. I mean, I feel the same 

way about the Johnson-O’Malley program, which is so important to 

Indian children across the country. So I understand that you have 

to come up here. 

The last time we had a fellow named Mike Parker come up to 

the Hill, and in a fit of uncommon candor, when asked by Senator 

Bond in another appropriations subcommittee, do you not think 

these programs are underfunded, the former Congressman Mike 

Parker said, yes, I do. I think that they are underfunded. The next 

morning he was fired. So I understand the answer you must give 

me at this point. 

But I do not want the moment to pass without telling you that 

we will almost certainly fund this tribal college. We are going to 

try to do everything we can to improve the situation of the tribal 

jails and other things. But I do regret that somehow in this budget 

process the priorities get somewhat skewed with those issues. 
195 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. If I may, Senator Dorgan. You have 

been a champion for Indian country. I acknowledge that. You are 

a pleasure to work with. 

You and Senator McCain, a little over a year ago, when I met 

with you, asked if we would come forward with an administration 

number to try to settle the Cobell case. As you know, that was difficult, but we, at least for the first time ever, came forward with 

a number, which was $7 billion, in response to you. 

You mentioned the Johnson-O’Malley. There is also the tribal 

technical colleges program. There is the housing program. JohnsonO’Malley—we believe there is a funding source in the Department 

of Education that will cover that. 

We believe that on the housing, it would help 200 families, but 

that there is a program in HUD identified that would help them. 

We have made a real effort with regard to the classrooms of the 

schools, and that is why that plus-up, which you made, we have retained and added to that. It is $27 million to help in the classroom 

so that these kids are ready for higher education. 

The methamphetamine. Indian leaders say this is the second 

smallpox epidemic to hit Indian country, and so that is why we 

have made it a priority. 

We truly are addressing, with limited resources, but Indian country is critical. Of our four initiatives in 2008, two of them were for 

Indian country because I too believe in our role to help the Indians. 

Senator DORGAN. Madam Chairman, in just 30 seconds, let me 

just say this, however, about the United Tribes Technical College. 

It is a great disappointment to see, once again, zero funding for it 

because it is judged to be a remarkable and an effective institution 

that all of us should celebrate. All of us ought to say this is a great 

place. They are graduating and giving opportunities to so many 

young men and women. So my hope is this is the last year where 

we will have this complaint, and this wonderful school will receive 

the funding Congress has always insisted upon providing this 

school. 

I have overstayed my welcome here. 

2009 BUDGET

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, you have not. Thank you. I think members of this committee agree with you. I think this is an unacceptable budget. I think it is going to receive change, and I think that 

we are going to work our will on this budget. So thank you. 

I just want to take this opportunity, because I know you have to 

leave. We will try to get as many people in as we possibly can. I 

think most people do not realize that now in the end of 2008, 72 

percent of the monies spent went for entitlements and interest on 

the debt. Seventy-two percent. Twenty percent went for defense, 

and everything else was 18 percent of the money that was spent. 

Now, in many respects, Mr. Secretary, you have the crown jewels 

of this country, the beauty of our parks, our wilderness, all of the 

things that people love to go to, care about that makes this country 

particularly great. My feeling is that people do want to spend the 

money that is necessary to protect those things. 

But we have to come to grips clearly. I hear candidates saying, 

oh, you know, I will cut all discretionary spending. Well, only 18 
196 

percent of what is spent is discretionary. Defense really is not. 

Ergo, you can cut 18 percent of everything and not solve the budget 

problem that this Nation faces. So we have got to come to grips 

with it. 

A quick question, if I might. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Madam Chairman, for those who wish 

to remain, I am happy to respond to your questions. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. We can take some additional time? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Absolutely. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. Excellent. 

MMS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INCREASE

Oil and gas royalties. In the 2008 appropriation, we provided 

$2.3 million for systems improvements, and that is the recommendations of Kerrey-Garn, the Mineral Revenue Committee. 

Your 2009 request includes increases of $3.7 million to continue 

these ongoing enhancements and develop a risk-based automated 

compliance tool for use. 

My question to you is, does this $3.7 million complete it? Will it 

be functioning? Because $6 million seems to me is an awful lot of 

money to spend for this. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Madam Chairman, can I get back to you 

with a response on that? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Sure. Would you please do it before we do 

the budget, though? 

[The information follows:] 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE—MINERALS REVENUE MANAGEMENT

The Department’s fiscal year 2008 and 2009 requests for MRM encompassed not 

only a risk-based compliance tool, but three additional system components and 8 additional FTE as summarized in the table and the bullets below. 

Fiscal 

year Initiative FTE request 

FTE 

amount 

System 

amount 

Total 

request 

2008 Adjustment Line Monitoring ............................................ 4 $520,000 $420,000 $940,000 

2008 Interactive Payment Reconciliation and Billing .............. .................... .................... 1,450,000 1,450,000 

2009 Implement OIG Compliance and Audit Recommendations including a risk-based compliance tool ............ 4 480,000 1,520,000 2,000,000 

2009 Improve Automated Interest Billing to Companies ......... .................... .................... 1,700,000 1,700,000 

2008–2009 Total ................................................ 8 1,000,000 5,090,000 6,090,000 

In relation to the requested ongoing enhancements, the Minerals Revenue Management Support System (MRMSS) was designed and implemented between 1998 

and 2001; therefore some of its design elements and underlying technology are approaching a decade old. Spending $5 million over a 2-year period on system enhancements to a major integrated financial system is not out of line with government and industry benchmarks. 

The enhancement initiatives requested for 2008 and 2009 address three areas of 

system improvement: 

1. Technology enhancements that were not yet mature or economically feasible in 

the late 1990’s. 

—Interactive Payment Reconciliation and Billing Initiative.—These system improvements will automate MMS’s interface with its customer base on numerous 

activities, and enhance online reporting and verification capabilities, as well as 

enforcement efforts. The funding will address an area of concern in the Bureau’s 

financial audit, as well as provide a strong return on investment. 

—Improved Automated Interest Billing to Companies Initiative.—This initiative 

continues MRM’s commitment begun in 2007 and 2008 to improve the timeli-
197 

ness and efficiency of the interest assessment to payors by implementing system 

enhancements to the MRMSS interest module. 

2. Implementation of new legislation that was not an initial priority in the design 

of the new system in the late 1990’s. 

—Adjustment Line Monitoring Initiative.—The requested systems improvements 

and staff to perform this function are required to ensure company adjustments 

are made only within allowable time frames. 

3. Address new mission requirements and recommendations. 

—Implement OIG Compliance and Audit Recommendations Initiative.—This proposal ensures MRM’s ability to address recommendations by the OIG in its December 2006 report regarding MRM’s Compliance Review activities. The requested funding will allow MMS to increase the audit staff by 4 FTE, to expand 

company and property compliance coverage, and to develop and implement a 

risk-based automated compliance tool for use in targeting audit and compliance 

resources. 

MMS expects that the funding requested for these improvements will be sufficient 

to ensure full functionality and complete these initiatives. 

ROYALTY POLICY REPORT

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. May I add? You mentioned the 

Garn-Kerrey report. They made 110 recommendations to us, and 19 

have been implemented. We are now moving on a large number of 

others. Twenty-two of those 110 mirrored what the Inspector General had recommended. I think out of all of that, there will be three 

that we will have to come and ask for legislative help, but we are 

moving because it was a very fine report by former members of this 

institution and other talented people who work with them. I think 

it really has helped us. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

POLAR BEARS

One other quick question. Is the polar bear on its way to a finding of endangerment? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. I cannot answer that. I will tell you that 

we are proceeding with a decision on the issue of the polar bear. 

I will tell you, Madam Chairman, that January 2007 the Fish and 

Wildlife Service issued a proposed listing with regard to the polar 

bear. I asked the U.S. Geological Survey then to take a significant 

portion of that and examine the science. They came back with nine 

different reports, all peer-reviewed. We knew then, upon receipt of 

this new science and data by USGS, that it was going to cause us 

to have to take additional time. We knew that at that point. 

We also felt it was incumbent upon us, based on this data from 

USGS, to now reopen the public comments and even to extend that. 

We have 670,000 comments that we have received. It is a tremendously critical, important issue. I want to ensure that we do it 

properly with the right science and the right legal input. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So what you are saying is the decision will 

likely be made by the next administration. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. No. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, you are not. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. No. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So the decision will be made this year. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Absolutely. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 
198 

Senator Allard. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just a couple 

things I want to follow up on. 

CANYON OF THE ANCIENTS

Also in the Canyon of the Ancients down in southwestern Colorado, there is a draft resource management plan that was kicked 

out. It is a national monument. There is a resource management 

plan that has been kicked out. It seemed to deemphasize the importance of oil and gas development on the management plan. 

There are a lot of cultural resources down there, and I support 

that. But my impression is with the current technology we have 

and everything, that we can accommodate both without injuring 

the other. 

The question I have is, does the BLM have an obligation to ensure that oil and gas exploration can coexist with culturally rich 

areas? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, I do not believe that they are 

by their very nature mutually exclusive. They have to be done with 

all sensitivity. We have to find the balance so that we do not overlook our responsibility with regard to the cultural and historic values. 

Senator ALLARD. That is a very sensitive area on the cultural. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. It has to be done carefully, but our 

attitude is to find the means that you can do it. That is why, as 

I have said earlier, you have world-class habitat sitting right above 

world-class energy resources. They are not mutually exclusive, but 

you have to do it holistically. You have to find the sensitive balance 

to this. 

ROAN PLATEAU

Senator ALLARD. I would like to go back to the Roan Plateau 

again. These are parochial issues. We have a lot of oil and gas development in Colorado, as you are aware, because we have huge reserves there. 

There is an estimate of about 8.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 

within the area known as the Roan Plateau, and obviously, with 

that much reserve, it would play a vital role in our country’s energy security and being less dependent on foreign oil. 

Now, it is my understanding that the resource management plan 

for this area, which was released by the BLM in 2006, is the most 

restrictive in the agency’s history. I appreciate what your Department, specifically Steven Allred, has done in working with the Governor of Colorado and other existing parties on this management 

plan. 

Now, two of the most unusual parts of the plan is the surface occupancy restrictions and the unitized operator approach. Now, 

under the BLM plan, the surface occupancy on top of the plateau 

would be limited to 1 percent at any one time. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Correct. 

Senator ALLARD. Which means that about 350 acres can be disturbed, and before you can disturb any more, you have to reclaim 

all that, which seems reasonable to me. 
199 

Now, it is my understanding the Governor’s primary outstanding 

concern is the request for phased leasing rather than selling all the 

leases at once as the Department plans to do. 

Can you tell me why the Department decided against the approach of phased leasing? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Senator, the thoughts of the BLM are 

that the phased leasing would lead to a greater disturbance on the 

surface. Again, the objective is to keep the disturbance to a minimum. 

Senator ALLARD. Can you tell me whether you feel this would 

have any effect on the length of the process to develop the Roan 

management plateau plan and what kind of time line you might 

have on that in your plans? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. On a time line, really, I would rather 

get back to you with a very accurate, detailed response on that. 

[The information follows:] 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT—ROAN PLATEAU

The Department does not recommend phased leasing to develop the Roan Plateau. 

Under the BLM’s plan for phased development all leaseholders participate in a 

single federal unit and there are strong incentives for minimizing disturbance and 

reclaiming lands more quickly and efficiently. The sooner one phase is developed 

and reclaimed, for instance, the sooner the next phase can begin. All leaseholders 

have a financial stake in this profit-sharing Federal unit. Under the phased leasing 

approach, the financial incentive to ensure timely development—and especially reclamation—is not nearly as strong. Because each lease is issued competitively, the 

lessee may not be a part of the profits in the next ‘‘phase.’’ The phased leasing approach provides no incentive in this instance for minimizing disturbance or hastening reclamation efforts. Phased leasing and reclamation standards would significantly extend the timeframe for leasing the Roan Plateau. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, that is fine. You have worked a lot with 

local governments and local governments have been having their 

input in there. The State has had input working with the BLM, 

and we all appreciate the fact that everybody has worked together 

on that. 

COLORADO OIL AND GAS RULES

Now, there has been some discussion about the new draft rules 

regulating oil and gas development in Colorado which has been 

proposed by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Have you 

had a chance to review the proposed rules? If you have, can you 

share with the subcommittee some of the rules and how they would 

affect your Federal activities? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. What I would ask you is if I could have 

Steve Allred provide an evaluation of that. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, very good. We will have some questions 

on that when you get a chance to follow up on it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Excuse me, Senator. 

Senator ALLARD. Go ahead. My time is expired. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If you have another question, go ahead. 

NATIONAL PARKS CENTENNIAL

Senator ALLARD. Just one thing briefly, if I might. We provided you with $25 million in the matching grant funds for the centennial initiative. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. 
200 

Senator ALLARD. You will be announcing those awards shortly. 

However, the legislation you sent up last year to the authorizing 

committee, which would set up the annual $100 million mandatory 

matching grant fund for the centennial, has not been acted upon. 

Can you tell us where this legislation stands? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. We now have legislation that has 

been introduced both in the House and in the Senate. In the 

House, the issue thus far has been the offset. There seems to be 

bipartisan agreement on the concept, but it is what is the offset for 

the $100 million mandatory spending each year leading up to 2016. 

There have been five different proposals that have been placed on 

the table. For a variety of reasons, there has not been consensus 

on any of the five. 

Senator ALLARD. You are continuing to pursue this vigorously 

with the authorizing committee? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes, we are. 

Senator ALLARD. Because it is important because if we have a 

limited amount of resources here and then they need to pick up 

their burden on this. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. I agree. We are very actively working 

with both Members in the Senate and in the House and also actively having discussions with OMB. 

Senator ALLARD. Oh, good. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Craig, you have another question? 

SAFE BORDERLANDS INITIATIVE

Senator CRAIG. One last question, Madam Chair, because I know 

the Secretary, from his very first days in office, expressed frustration. It is a commonality that you and I share and have worked 

very closely on, Madam Chair, as it relates to providing a legal foreign national workforce for our country. In fact, the chairman and 

I are now engaged in trying to save American agriculture’s workforce that is dramatically diminishing, in part because of our successes along the border and effective enforcement. 

You have added to your budget about $8.2 million for 2009 as it 

relates to the DOI’s management of the 793 miles of southern border. Would you visit us with that issue a little bit about the safe 

borderlands initiative that you are working on and where we are 

with that? 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes, thank you. 

With regard to the border security, as the country has become 

more successful and effective at closing illegal crossings of drugs 

and individuals at the urban centers, it has caused them to go to 

the remote areas, and that is where our properties come into play. 

We work closely with the Department of Homeland Security. There 

are significant areas along the border that are not safe for American families to visit, to spend an overnight camping opportunity 

because of the drug smuggling that is taking place by the national 

drug cartels. So as the efforts continue that include personnel, that 

include radio interoperability, and that include the fencing, it will 

help us to then have a safe border that meets the responsibility 

and the goals of this country. 
201 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I thank you for that. 

Madam Chair, I had the Mexican Government in last week to 

talk about the joint initiative between the United States and Mexico in relation to drug apprehension. The Ambassador made the 

most stark statement that sticks in my mind. They apprehended a 

fellow who was a major sourcer of the input of meth, the product 

coming out of China, interestingly enough, coming through a major 

port in California and then moving through to Mexico to be processed. They discovered in one room in this apprehension $210 million in $100 bills that this one man had stacked up in a room. In 

fact, it was a room, they said, about the size of my office at the 

time and it was stacked about 5 feet deep. That was sourced out 

of China through a California port into Mexico to be processed and 

back into the United States. I know our Presidents are working on 

that initiative now. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If you would excuse me just for a moment because I did this precursor chemical bill, and I have got to take a 

look at exactly what that is because those precursors, even in transit should not be coming in. 

Senator CRAIG. You are right. They should not be and there is 

every effort to stop it. But that was a pretty stark reality of the 

phenomenal organizational effort and the money involved in this. 

We have got Organ Pipe I think is one of the areas that you 

talked about where it is no longer safe for the citizen to be even 

out on our national lands. So I appreciate the effort underway here 

by BLM and the Park Service as a part of the total. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. This was a congressional add that we added. 

Senator CRAIG. Yes, that is right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. This was an earmark. 

Senator CRAIG. It is now an initiative. It is a good idea. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. I love your initiatives. 

U.S. PARK POLICE

Senator FEINSTEIN. In any event, you wanted to speak about the 

Park Police. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. I would like to, Madam Chairman, just 

very briefly. This is an organization that goes back to 1791. The 

officers, the men and women, that proudly carry the badge of the 

U.S. Park Police are not properly reflected in some of these items 

that have been brought to our attention, management issues. It is 

management issues. It is not the officers. With regard to the issue 

of qualifications of weapons, the safety equipment such as their 

Kevlar vests, we now are correcting that, and we put an urgency 

on that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. San Francisco and—— 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Absolutely. 

Also, though, Madam Chairman, I would just say that when you 

add all of the law enforcement that we have within the Department 

of the Interior, we are the third largest law enforcement entity in 

the Federal Government. I am using the information from the Inspector General to go across the entire Department with regard to 

qualifications, safety equipment, interoperability of equipment. 

I will have a meeting this month with my assistant secretaries, 

the bureau directors and the chiefs of our respective law enforce-
202 

ment entities so that they know this is a priority. It is not lip service. These officers deserve our full support and backing. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. We certainly will support them any way we 

can. 

Let me make one other point about drug money in your budget. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. 

MARIJUANA IN PARKS

Senator FEINSTEIN. You know, I met with DEA, FBI, everybody 

that was working on marijuana in the parks. I think we put what? 

$18 million. Oh, we did it in the Forest Service. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But Interior is also part of that. 

It is really very important that these surges continue and that 

you clean out the parks because California parks are riddled with 

marijuana growth, and it is run directly by Mexican cartels and 

foreign nationals. They carry weapons and it is very problematic. 

I will not get into your weapons policy, but as you know, I really 

worry about people walking into these parks with weapons and you 

have got cartels with weapons and what might happen. So you 

need to help clear the parks out. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. I agree with you, Madam Chairman. As 

you have identified, we have used the surge of BLM, National Park 

Service, BIA, and Fish and Wildlife Service in a concerted effort 

going into these areas. We have been successful. We appreciate 

your help on that. 

You are correct. Those that are tending these gardens have been 

told that they are to defend those gardens with their life. It is all 

being driven by the national drug cartels. Some of those individuals, it is our understanding, that are tending those gardens are 

themselves—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It is more than gardens. Gardens means 

small. These sometimes are huge. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. Plats. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, with millions of plants. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. But under threat that if they do not defend it with their life, members of their family, their children, will 

be executed back in Mexico. We are dealing with ruthless, ruthless 

thugs that are peddling this poison. 

That is why both in the Indian initiative, Safe Indian Communities, the Border Patrol—you mentioned Senator Craig Organ 

Pipe. We estimate that $1 million a day of illegal drugs are going 

through that national park. That is where Chris Eggle, one of our 

law enforcement rangers, was shot down and killed in 2005. We 

cannot send our staff to carry out normal functions in these refuges, parks, and Bureau of Land Management and reservations 

without two armed officers with them. That is how tough this area 

is. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I tell you, we will put in what you 

need. 

Secretary KEMPTHORNE. That is greatly appreciated. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So, I mean, forget OMB. I mean, we are not 

going to see our parks get loaded with drugs. That is just the way 
203 

it is going to be. If they want to come up and arm wrestle us, so 

be it. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

We will leave the record open for questions from other committee 

members. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BEN NELSON

Question. Last year, unfortunately the Landowner Incentive Program was eliminated. As you know the focus of this program was to help landowners become involved in species conservation on their lands. While eliminated, the committee did 

direct the Department to work with the States to develop a new grant program as 

part of State and Tribal Wildlife Grants that would direct funding to species conservation projects on private lands. 

Excerpt from the fiscal year 2008 Interior Appropriations report 110–91 as adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee and carried as part of the fiscal year 

2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act: 

In fiscal year 2008, the Committee accepted the Department’s decision to discontinue the private stewardship and landowner incentive grants programs but recognizes the need for species conservation efforts on private lands to continue. The 

Committee urges the Service to work with the States to develop a new subset of 

funding under the State and tribal wildlife grant program that can direct grants toward species conservation projects on private lands. The Committee is receptive to 

ideas from the Service and the States on how best to accomplish the goal of continued Federal support for conservation on private lands within the framework of the 

State and tribal wildlife grant program 

Question. What has the Fish and Wildlife Service thus far accomplished with respect to creating this new subset of funding for directed grants toward species conservation projects on private lands? 

Answer. The Service is currently working with States to review draft criteria for 

a competitive program developed as a subset of funding under the State and Tribal 

Wildlife Grants program. The grants will be awarded to the highest ranking cooperative conservation projects that are in State Wildlife Conservation Plans. Priority 

will be given to cooperative conservation projects with an emphasis on performance 

and outcomes. At this time, one of several proposed ranking criteria is directed at 

species conservation projects on private lands. 

Question. The Fish and Wildlife Service requested $74 million in their fiscal year 

2009 budget request for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. Of that amount, how 

much is going to be used for this new subset of grant funding for species conservation projects on private lands? 

Answer. Presently, there is no subset of State and Tribal Wildlife Grant funding 

being directed exclusively towards species conservation projects on private lands. 

However, such projects could be eligible for the State apportioned funding and possibly some of the competitive funding if identified as a strategy in the State’s Wildlife Action Plan. 

Question. When do you anticipate this new grant program being implemented? 

Answer. The Service anticipates that the competitive program of the State and 

Tribal Wildlife Grant program, authorized in fiscal year 2008, will be implemented 

by no later than September 30, 2008. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITED BY SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE/PARK POLICE

Question. Recently, the Department’s Inspector General (IG) did a report on the 

U.S. Park Police and found many disturbing problems. He found low morale, many 

key positions at headquarters are vacant, and the number of officers is at a 20 year 

low when the force is charged with many additional anti-terrorism responsibilities 

in the aftermath of September 11th. 

Can you update us on what you are doing in response to the IG’s report? 
204 

Answer. The Secretary of the Interior established a Management Oversight Team 

(MOT) to address the recommendations contained in the IG’s report. The members 

of the MOT include Associate Deputy Secretary James Cason; Assistant Secretary 

for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Lyle Laverty; and National Park Service Director Mary 

Bomar. These individuals are being assisted by Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law 

Enforcement, Security and Emergency Management, Larry Parkinson; Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, David Verhey; and National Park Service Deputy Director, Dan Wenk. The MOT established a Command 

Management Team (CMT) to take responsibility for the daily operations of the 

United States Park Police and to finalize and implement an Action Plan to address 

19 of the 20 recommendations contained in the report. The MOT is responsible for 

addressing the 20th recommendation. 

Question. The CMT, led by Salvatore R. Lauro in the position of Acting Assistant 

Chief of Police, has been in place since March 3, 2008. The CMT has been aggressively addressing the OIG recommendations, with priority being given to matters affecting officer safety, icon protection and staffing. The MOT meets weekly with the 

CMT to review progress and provide guidance. The MOT also provides the Secretary 

of the Interior with regular project updates. 

Can you assure the public that the many icons the Department is responsible for 

like the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, and the Washington Monument are adequately protected? 

Answer. In the aftermath of 9/11, as a result of increased emphasis on homeland 

security and icon protection, the U.S. Park Police (USPP) has reallocated its resources from some of its more routine and patrol enforcement activities to icon protection. The USPP have also employed a number of efforts to protect the icons while 

ensuring these national treasures remain open and accessible to the public, including utilizing USPP officers and security personnel to provide 360 degree coverage 

on a 24-hour basis at the Statue of Liberty and the three National Mall icons; constructed physical security barriers to prevent vehicle-borne threats; using Closed 

Circuit Television cameras to monitor activities within and around the Statue of 

Liberty and the three National Mall icons on a 24-hour basis; employing magnetometer and x-ray machines to screen visitors entering the Washington Monument; 

partnering with public and private research entities to test and evaluate emerging 

security technologies at the Statue of Liberty, where three screening facilities are 

utilized to screen all persons and packages traveling to Liberty Island and/or entering the Statue; employing USPP explosives detection canines to screen ferry boats 

transporting visitors, staff, and supplies to the Statue; maintaining a 150-yard maritime restricted security zone around the Statue (efforts are currently underway with 

the U.S. Coast Guard to expand this security zone in the waters between Liberty 

and Ellis Islands to further divert vessel traffic away from the Statue); and, assigning USPP officers or commissioned NPS rangers to the Washington Field Office 

FBI—Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Washington Field Office FBI—Fairfax 

County Regional Intelligence Center, the Department of Homeland Security Operations Center, the New York Office FBI—JTTF, and the NYPD Counterterrorism 

Unit. 

Question. I see that your budget proposes a $7.6 million increase for the Park Police, will part of this be used to recruit new officers? 

Answer. In addition to the fixed costs request of $1,909,000 and $1,000,000 for 

Inaugural related activities the budget proposal for the USPP includes funding of 

$4.8 million to increase the number of sworn officers. Anticipating average attrition, 

this reoccurring funding will allow us to recruit, hire, train and equip a total of 630 

officers by the end of 2009. 

Question. What do you believe is the necessary number of officers? When will you 

reach that level, and what will it cost? 

Answer. In December 2004, the Department completed a comprehensive review of 

the mission, priorities, and responsibilities of the Park Police. This effort was coordinated with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), which undertook two major reviews of the Park Police. Using a methodology developed by 

NAPA, the Department assessed and prioritized each function performed by the 

Park Police—including monument security and all local law enforcement responsibilities—and concluded that a targeted staff of 639 sworn law enforcement officers 

was appropriate. 

If the $4.8 million increase requested in the 2009 President’s Budget is appropriated, we anticipate approaching the 639 officers during fiscal year 2010. 
205 

KERR MC GEE CASE/DEEPWATER OFFSHORE LEASES

Question. We held a hearing earlier this year with the Assistant Secretary for 

Lands and Minerals, Steve Allred, about several issues relating to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing program. I wonder if you might update us on a few 

things we discussed then. For example, last October, in the Kerr-McGee litigation, 

the district court held that price thresholds are not permitted in any leases under 

the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act. 

Can you tell us the status of this litigation? 

Answer. On December 21, 2007, the Department of Justice filed a timely notice 

of appeal with the Federal District Court to protect the interests of the United 

States in the Kerr-McGee litigation. 

Question. Given the Kerr McGee case, is there anything that the Department is 

doing or that it can do to encourage more companies to come to the table and pay 

royalties on the 1998–1999 leases that were issued by the Minerals Management 

Service without price thresholds? 

Answer. We remain open to discussing resolution of this issue with the companies 

that hold Deep Water Royalty Relief Act leases from sales held in 1998 and 1999. 

We do not believe that any additional lessees will agree to price thresholds until 

they see the outcome of the Kerr-McGee case. 

Question. What is happening with respect to royalty collection from companies 

holding leases from 1996, 1997, and 2000? Have any of them indicated that they 

will not continue to pay? 

Answer. In a March 10, 2008 ‘‘Dear Reporter’’ letter to industry, MMS issued 

guidance regarding companies royalty payments in light of the October 30, 2007, decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in 

Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. v. Allred. Because the Kerr-McGee decision may be the 

subject of additional litigation, we advised all affected payors and lessees to make 

no adjustments regarding their prior or ongoing royalty payments until there is a 

final, non-appealable judgment entered in the case. 

Question. As you know, there have been legislative efforts to force the oil companies with these leases to renegotiate their contracts. You have had several recent 

sales in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska that have generated close to $3 billion 

each in bonus bids—would forcing companies to renegotiate jeopardize these revenues because the leasing program might be enjoined altogether? 

Answer. The most prominent effort to force companies to negotiate royalty payments involves barring companies that refuse to come to terms from participating 

in future lease sales. It certainly seems likely that these companies would sue the 

government to determine if this is a legal remedy or not. It is not unreasonable to 

expect that it could take several years to resolve this issue. If such a suit were to 

delay leasing for 3 years we estimate that the government would lose approximately 

$13 billion over a 10-year time period. 

Question. If the Kerr-McGee case is upheld on appeal, what is the potential loss 

to the Treasury? 

Answer. If Kerr-McGee is successful in their lawsuit, we estimate that the total 

royalties at stake could range from about $23 billion to $32 billion. Our original estimate, reported by GAO, was $60 billion. Since that time we have updated that work 

and have reported the updated estimates to Congress in 2007 in two installments. 

The first installment applied only to those DWRRA leases sold in 1998 and 1999, 

and was reported in June 2007. This work indicates that the future royalty potential, as of January 1, 2007, from the 1998–1999 DWRRA leases ranges from $5.3 

billion to $7.8 billion. 

The second installment, reported in February 2008, applied only to those DWRRA 

leases sold in 1996, 1997, and 2000. This work indicates that the future royalty potential, as of October 1, 2007, from the 1996, 1997, and 2000 DWRRA leases ranges 

from $15.7 billion to $21.2 billion. 

Looking backward, as of the end of fiscal year 2007, we estimate that $1.37 billion 

would have been paid on DWRRA leases issued in 1998 and 1999 had price thresholds been in place. In addition, over $1.1 billion in royalties have already been paid 

on DWRRA leases issued in 1996, 1997, and 2000. 

Question. Do you have any recommendations for what Congress should do if the 

government loses the case on appeal? 

Answer. The legislation to address this situation that was passed by the House 

had a high potential for causing litigation by modifying existing contracts. We believe that efforts to recoup these moneys should not jeopardize our nation’s energy 

security or the future revenues from upcoming OCS sales. 

Applying fixes that could result in litigation could easily cost the United States 

billions over the next decade and result in reduced annual production levels. We 
206 

still remain committed to the sanctity of our contracts; companies need to know that 

the United States negotiates in good faith. We are also still committed to working 

with Congress to try to resolve this issue as long as any effort to recoup royalties 

is fully thought through and protects the integrity of the government and energy 

security for the American people. 

ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ON ONSHORE LEASES

Question. The fiscal year 2008 Interior bill authorized the Bureau of Land Management to charge a fee this year of $4,000 on Applications for Permits to Drill. It 

is my understanding that the Administration is proposing an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that would authorize the Department to issue a rule making 

these fees permanent and also to raise them. This concerns me if it creates a disincentive for increased domestic production and does not take into account differences in the costs of production in different States. 

In Colorado, the costs of production are very high. Will this rule take into account 

the differences among the States in terms of the cost of production when setting 

fees? 

Answer. At this time, we do not anticipate the rule taking into account the differences among the States in terms of the cost of production when setting the fee. 

The proposal is for a cost recovery fee that takes into account the BLM’s cost to 

process an application for permit to drill (APD). If it is determined that the costs 

for processing an APD vary from State to State, then the final cost recovery fee 

may, likewise, vary from State to State. The proposed interim fee represents a very 

small fraction of the development and production costs for any new well. 

Question. Won’t charging higher fees upfront to process these applications hurt 

smaller producers? 

Answer. No. The proposed fee represents a very small fraction of the development 

and production costs for any new well, so the effect of the fee on small producers 

should be negligible. The fee may cause all operators to be more prudent when applying for drilling permits, so that they only apply for permits for those wells that 

they actually intend to drill. 

Question. How long will it take the BLM to issue this rulemaking? 

Answer. At the latest, we expect to release the final rulemaking by the end of calendar year 2009. To avert any shortfall in funding for APD processing, in the event 

that the cost recovery rulemaking has not been implemented for all of fiscal year 

2009, the legislation submitted by the Administration will impose, by statute, an interim fee of $4,150, to ensure the estimated $34.0 million in fees are collected. 

Question. How much in fees does the agency plan to collect if it is implemented? 

Answer. As noted in the preceding response, we estimate that we will collect $34 

million in fiscal year 2009, either solely through cost recoveries, or through some 

combination of cost recoveries and a statutory interim processing fee. 

BLM/NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM

Question. One of your predecessors, Secretary Babbitt, created the so called National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) out of many of the most significant 

BLM lands, including the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and the 

Headwaters Preserve. There are currently legislative efforts in the house to codify 

this NLCS system. 

Can you tell me what your position is on these legislative efforts? 

Answer. The administration supports the House and Senate bills that codify the 

NLCS. 

Question. Could activities that are currently allowed on these lands like grazing 

be curtailed if this system is codified into law? 

Answer. No. Both the House and Senate bills propose to establish in statute the 

current administrative structure of the NLCS—the bill would not alter the management of individual units. There is a multiple-use component to the NLCS, and the 

proposed codification will not change this. Existing management policies and restrictions would remain in effect. 

WILDLAND FIRE OUTLOOK FOR THIS YEAR

Question. We recently had the Chief of the Forest Service here and I asked this 

question and I think it’s relevant for you as well. I know that trying to predict the 

severity of the upcoming fire season at this point in the year is difficult at best. 

However, we are marking up a supplemental appropriations bill later this month. 

With that in mind, can you give us some sense of how severe you expect this fire 

season to be based on what you know now? 
207 

Answer. The Wildland Fire Outlook for the period June 2008 through September 

2008 reveals that significant fire potential is forecast to persist or increase in portions of California, the Southwest, Western Great Basin, Rocky Mountain and 

Northern Rockies. Significant fire potential will decrease across Florida, eastern 

New Mexico, western Texas, Alaska, and southeastern portions of the Rocky Mountain Area. The primary factors influencing this outlook are: 

—Even with a rather wet period during the latter half of May, most of the West 

has been drier than normal this spring. 

—Drought conditions continue over portions of the West and Southeast. However, 

improvement is expected in the Southeast and to a lesser degree over Texas and 

New Mexico. 

—Abundant fine fuels across portions of the Southwest, southern California 

deserts and Front Range of the Rockies may lead to an above normal fire season 

in these areas. 

—Fire potential should begin to wane over the Southwest and Florida in July due 

to the onset of the Southwest monsoon and increasing humidity and showers 

in the Southeast. 

Would additional funds on the supplemental be helpful to the Department? 

Answer. It is still too early in the fire season to tell whether or not additional 

suppression funds will be needed. In addition, DOI and FS are actively implementing cost containment measures to help constrain suppression spending. Even 

if fire conditions are extreme, funds will be available for ongoing suppression operations, as DOI has unobligated funds in its non-fire accounts that are available 

under current law if wildfire activity is unexpectedly high and suppression funds 

become exhausted. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE/ESA POLAR BEAR LISTING

Question. The current focal point of the global warming debate is the polar bear. 

The environmental community is using the Endangered Species Act to make the 

bear the face of global warming. I understand that the January 9th deadline came 

and went without any decision on the listing of the Polar Bear, and that subsequently a law suit was filed in Federal court to force a decision. 

Would you please explain where the Department is in this process of listing the 

polar bear and why this particular listing decision may require more time than others that you deal with? 

Answer. On January 9, 2007, (72 FR 1064) the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed 

to list the polar bear as threatened, citing loss of habitat resulting from receding 

sea ice. In September 2007, USGS scientists supplied new research to the Service, 

updating population information on the Southern Bering Sea polar bear population. 

USGS also provided additional data on arctic climate, sea ice trends and effects to 

polar bear populations throughout the species’ range. 

As a result of the new USGS research findings, the Service reopened and later 

extended a second comment period to allow the public time to review and respond 

to the USGS findings. The Department asked for additional time to complete its listing decision on the polar bear in order to examine the thousands of comments on 

the new research findings submitted in September 2007 by USGS. As a result of 

this review, the decision to list the bear as threatened was made on May 14, 2008. 

Question. I know you may not be able to comment on this, but it seems to me 

that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not designed to handle situations like we 

have with the polar bear. From what I understand, any decline in the bear’s population is because of the loss of ocean ice pack. There is nothing that the ESA can 

provide in the form of a remedy to resolve that, unless we are going to expand ESA 

to be used for regulating all carbon emissions in the economy. This is not, in my 

view, what the law was intended for, nor is it a sound basis for doing so. All the 

factors that would go into such a far reaching regulatory scheme have simply not 

been debated by the Congress. 

Answer. On May 14, 2008 Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne made the 

decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss 

of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss 

of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, 

the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species. 

The listing will be accompanied by administrative guidance and a rule that defines the scope of impact the decision will have. While the legal standards under 

the ESA do not provide discretion not to list for economic or other social considerations, the listing will not stop global climate change or prevent sea ice from melting. A real solution to climate change requires action by all the world’s major econo-
208 

mies. The ESA was never intended to regulate global climate change. The ESA is 

not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM/IMPACTS ON COLORADO REFUGES

Question. The total fiscal year 2009 budget request for the National Wildlife Ref- uge System is $434.1 million, a $5.3 million decrease from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The budget request proposes significant program decreases from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level in Wildlife and Habitat Management (¥$930,000), Visitor Services (¥$1.7 million), and Refuge Maintenance (¥$2.4 million). 

With such a large cut to maintenance, will the agency be able to keep up with 

regular cyclical maintenance on schedule? Will we see an increased backlog of deferred maintenance projects? 

Answer. The President’s budget request for the National Wildlife Refuge System 

is essentially level funded with the 2008 appropriated level when 1.56 percent 

across-the-board reduction in section 437 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act is 

included. The President’s request of $136.2 million for refuge maintenance 

prioritizes funding for the most critical health and safety maintenance needs. This 

represents the highest budget request in the history of the Refuge System and the 

Service believes that the request supports its priority maintenance needs. The request provides funding for 280 deferred maintenance projects identified in the Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). 

The Refuge System maintains an inventory of deferred maintenance and capital 

improvement projects and maintains a deferred maintenance five year plan to guide 

the allocation of funding. New projects are added to the SAMMS each year and others are removed as they are addressed. The Service uses the Facility Condition 

Index (FCI), a measure of the ratio of the repair costs to the replacement costs for 

each asset, as one factor in the prioritization of the use of maintenance funding. In 

addition, an Asset Priority Index (API) is utilized to indicate the relative importance 

of an asset to accomplishment of the Refuge System’s mission. The Refuge System 

continues to prioritize these maintenance needs through improved data that 

underlies development of five-year budget plans. The Service’s five-year deferred 

maintenance plan for the National Wildlife Refuge System for fiscal years 2009– 

2013 contains 1,882 projects for an estimated total of $211.2 million. 

Question. I am specifically concerned that this proposed funding decrease for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System will not provide sufficient funding for the Rocky 

Flats, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, and Baca wildlife refuges in my home State of Colorado to remain fully staffed and operational in fiscal year 2009. Would you please 

provide me the specific funding breakdown for these three refuges in the fiscal year 

2009 request compared to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level? 

Answer. These three refuges are funded as complexes, funding for the two complexes is: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 

2008 2009 

Rocky Mt. Arsenal NWR, Rocky Flats NWR, Two Ponds NWR ..................................... 1,657 1,657 

Alamosa NWR, Monte Vista NWR, Baca NWR ............................................................ 1,265 1,265 

Question. I understand that the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge 

clean-up and remediation is on target for completion by 2011. As the remediation 

process comes to an end, the Fish and Wildlife Service must begin the process of 

standing-up the refuge. Is the necessary funding in place for this transition and for 

the Refuge Visitor Center that the regional office is in the process of designing? 

Answer. An initial 4,930 acres of lands of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal were officially transferred to the FWS in 2004; in 2006 an additional 7,266 acres were transferred to the FWS. Upon completion of cleanup in 2011, roughly 3,000 additional 

acres will be transferred to the refuge. 

The Refuge Visitor Center is in the planning and design phase. The Service has 

$4,690,100 from the proceeds of the sale of some of the Arsenal land, pursuant to 

the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Act of 1992. These funds are 

set aside for the visitor center. The Service will use $150,000 of these funds this 

year for a conceptual plan for the center. Currently, the majority of refuge operations funding is provided through reimbursable agreements with the U.S. Army, 

Shell Oil Company, and Environmental Protection Agency. These agreements will 

expire when cleanup is complete in 2011. The fiscal year 2009 President’s budget 

provides sufficient funds for operation. 
209 

Question. The Department of Interior directed that bison be reintroduced to the 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge in March 2007; however, no additional funding or facilities were provided to the refuge for the herd (21 to date) at 

that time. Does the fiscal year 2009 budget request include the resources necessary 

to properly maintain the bison on this refuge? 

Answer. Yes, the 2009 budget provides sufficient funding, $56,000, for managing 

the bison herd. 

SAFE BORDERLANDS

Question. The Refuge Law Enforcement budget request includes a $1 million increase to provide six Refuge Law Enforcement Officers along the southwest border 

for increased security in relation to illegal border crossings and other illegal activities on refuges. Recently, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary 

Chertoff invoked his authority under the REAL ID Act of 2005 to waive Federal law 

in order to build the southwest border fence through the Lower Rio Grand National 

Wildlife Refuge in Texas. 

I know you have visited the southern border many times; how does the Department of Interior address border enforcement, illegal immigration and wildlife issues 

on the public lands it manages along the southwest border? 

Answer. The Department’s land management bureaus manage 793 miles, or 41 

percent of the Southwest border. These lands include seven national wildlife refuges, six national parks, 12 miles managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, and 191 

miles of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, five 

Indian Reservations span the international boundary with Mexico. 

The impacts of illegal border crossings on Interior and tribal lands are startling. 

As an Administration, we have taken aggressive steps to add resources to reduce 

the flow of illegal drugs and aliens across the border into the United States. Our 

initial focus to control traffic through urban ports of entry has resulted in substantially improved control in those areas. However, it has also resulted in a migration 

of illegal traffic to more rural, less populated areas along the border. As a result, 

Interior’s 793 miles of border are being impacted to a greater degree. 

The Safe Borderlands Initiative provides a holistic approach to the growing problems caused by the increasing illegal border crossings, with resources targeted to 

multiple bureaus and high-priority areas. We propose to coordinate border efforts 

among the Department’s land management bureaus, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

and the Office of Law Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Management. The initiative was developed through a collaborative process that involved representatives 

from each of the bureaus. The additional law enforcement officers will protect employee housing areas, recreational areas, and other high-use sites in an integrated 

fashion. The initiative includes $5.2 million for the National Park Service; $1.0 million for the Bureau of Land Management; $1.0 million for the Fish and Wildlife 

Service; and $1.0 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

A significant component of the initiative is a $2.0 million increase allocated between the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service to mitigate 

environmental damage on lands near the southwest border. Trails and illegal roads 

made by smugglers are destroying cactus and other sensitive vegetation, impacting 

the ecologic health of many of the national parks, wildlife refuges, national monuments and conservation areas Interior manages. This causes a disruption of wildlife 

and their habitats and the destruction of cultural and historic resources. Projects 

will protect and restore habitat for species, as well as improve safety by closing 

some abandoned mines on BLM lands. 

Question. Does the Department of Interior (DOI) have sufficient law enforcement 

presence for adequate coordination with the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS)? 

Answer. The Safe Borderlands Initiative includes an additional $5.8 million to improve safety, which includes providing 52 additional law enforcement personnel on 

public lands along the border. These officers, in addition to 11 new officers funded 

with a $3.2 million investment in 2008, will patrol campgrounds, recreational areas, 

and other lands where smuggling activities threaten visitors. They will also deter 

illegal activity in employee housing areas and provide security for employees conducting field work, such as biologists conducting wildlife surveys and monitoring activities. Additionally, they will educate visitors and employees on border security 

risks and safety measures and coordinate with partner agencies to enhance Interior’s efforts. The funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs will support additional 

law enforcement officers to address illegal smuggling of drugs and immigrants on 

reservations on or near the Mexican border. These efforts will assist law enforcement agencies who have jurisdiction at the international borders. 
210 

Question. What type of working relationship does DOI have with DHS? 

Answer. Through the Safe Borderlands Initiative, Interior proposes to enhance coordination with DHS by placing an Interior employee in DHS offices funded by DHS 

to represent Interior issues as DHS implements its Secure Borders initiative. Already, the Interior Department has signed an agreement with DHS to secure cooperating agency status in environmental reviews. Additionally, the Department 

will enhance coordination with the Department of Justice on drug smuggling and 

cross-border interdiction efforts through a Memorandum of Understanding with the 

Drug Enforcement Agency. 

FWS LAW ENFORCEMENT/IMPORT AND EXPORT OF THREATENED SPECIES

Question. The total fiscal year 2009 budget request for Law Enforcement is $57.4 

million, a $3.3 million decrease from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. This request 

eliminates $3 million in unrequested funding, better known as Congressionally directed funding. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Law Enforcement office is charged with protecting 

plants and animals native to the United States that have been listed as endangered 

or threatened from illegal trade or any harmful activity that threatens the species 

or its habitat; enforcing wildlife trade laws on companies that import and/or export 

wildlife to ensure safety, fairness and efficiency in the legal wildlife trade; and to 

combat illegal trafficking in wildlife that is not only a threat to the survival of numerous species, but may also be a catalyst for other illegal smuggling activities. 

Question. Can law enforcement officials maintain a level of inspections and investigations necessary to accomplish these numerous and varied tasks with the limited 

resources provided in the budget? 

Answer. The President’s budget provides sufficient funding for Service Law Enforcement investigations and inspections focused, among the numerous and varied 

tasks, on activities to address issues of the greatest conservation concern, including 

protecting Federal trust species. 

Question. What percentage of inspections of imports and exports does this budget 

request support on an annual basis? 

Answer. The Service’s target physical inspection rate for shipments is 25 percent; 

document inspections (examining declarations, shipping invoices, airway bills, bills 

of lading, permits, licenses, etc) are conducted for shipments not subject to physical 

inspection. 

Our target physical inspection rate reflects both workload realities (i.e., the size 

of our wildlife inspector workforce; our shipment-to-inspector ratio, which stood at 

approximately 1,615 shipments per inspector in fiscal year 2007; and the time required to conduct physical inspections) and the need to balance inspector effort between compliance inspections of declared shipments (which help facilitate legal wildlife trade) and proactive efforts to intercept smuggled wildlife (which target global 

wildlife trafficking). Higher physical inspection rates would not necessarily translate 

into larger numbers of seizures since the majority of declared imports/exports are 

in compliance with Federal wildlife laws and violations can often be detected based 

on document inspections. 

Declared shipments are selected for physical inspection based on Service enforcement priorities (which are designed to ensure that we make the most effective use 

possible of our staff resources) and the assessment of such risk factors as violation 

history of the importer or exporter; known or suspected trafficking in the past involving the particular species or commodity; and past problems with shipments from 

the same country of origin or re-export. 

Question. How many investigations lead to criminal convictions each year? Would 

increased funding lead to additional convictions? 

Answer. Service special agents and wildlife inspectors worked on 12,755 cases in 

fiscal year 2007; most investigations undertaken by the Service eventually result in 

some type of legal action, including civil, or administrative penalties, or criminal 

convictions. We believe this has a deterrent effect on illegal conduct. Increased funding would not necessarily lead to additional convictions as there are many factors 

outside of the Service’s control that contribute to convictions. 

Question. What initiatives has law enforcement undertaken to dissuade people 

from engaging in illegal activities pertaining to wildlife trafficking or other activities 

harmful to species and habitats? 

Do you have the resources necessary to be proactive in preventing illegal activities? 

Answer. In addition to investigative and enforcement activity, Service Law Enforcement continues to support ‘‘Suitcase for Survival’’—a recently revamped public 

education initiative to teach the public about the threat of illegal wildlife trade. 
211 

Service officers conduct training programs for importers/exporters, brokers and 

other groups and staff public outreach displays at events across the country (including Earth Day celebrations and sportsmen’s shows) to promote compliance with 

wildlife laws. Service brochures such as ‘‘Buyer Beware’’ target international travelers. Current and requested budgets provide adequate funding to support such initiatives. 

FWS/UPPER COLORADO RIVER ENDANGERED FISH RECOVERY PROGRAM AND SAN JUAN

RIVER BASIN RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

Question. Partners of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, including 

the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, have been working cooperatively to recover endangered Colorado River fish species and improve 

water quality, while striving to meet the growing energy and water needs of the 

Intermountain West. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $697,000 for the 

Upper Colorado and $200,000 for the San Juan recovery programs, which is greatly 

appreciated. 

Public Law 106–392 requires the Secretary to submit recommendations to Congress regarding the continued use of power revenues to support the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery and San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation programs. It is my understanding that continued use of power revenues is supported by the programs’ participants, including the power customers. 

What is your position regarding use of power revenues? 

Answer. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the 

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program have made progress toward achievement of their objectives since 2000 , in part through the use of power 

revenues pursuant to Public Law 106–392. The Department will be able to determine its position on the use of power revenues after the completion and release of 

the report required under Public Law 106–392. 

Question. When may we expect to see your recommendations and report? 

Answer. The report is currently being reviewed and should be available for release 

in the near future. 

These programs have greatly streamlined and reduced the cost of the administration of the Endangered Species Act for the government and the regulated community, while full compliance is achieved. Small water users achieve compliance without having to hire lawyers, biologists and engineers. 

Question. How is the Department using this experience to improve administration 

of the Endangered Species Act nationwide? 

Answer. The Department believes that cooperative solutions are the best way to 

implement the Endangered Species Act. We are continuing to foster partnerships 

between Federal and non-Federal entities to help protect endangered species. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY/WATER FOR AMERICA INITIATIVE

The USGS budget request includes an increase of $9.5 million for the Water for 

America Initiative, for a total of $29.8 million in fiscal year 2009. This is in addition 

to the $31.4 million provided within the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget request. 

For the first time in over 30 years, the Department proposes to initiate a Water 

Census in order to collect information about our Nation’s water resources and track 

changes in our water availability, water quality, and water use by 2019. 

The budget request indicates that you intend to track changes through 2019. Will 

the requested funding in fiscal year 2009 support these activities over the next 10 

years, or will there be annual funding requests for each of the subsequent fiscal 

years through 2019? If so, what level of funding is anticipated for each fiscal year? 

Answer. The estimate for completion of the Water Census in 2019 assumes that 

base funding will remain constant over the next 10 years. This projected timeframe 

is a preliminary estimate, and will depend on funding priorities within the Department. 

Question. In most of the West water is considered property, the ownership of 

which is passionately guarded. In fact, there is an old saying that ‘‘whiskey is for 

drinking and water is for fighting!’’ Do you anticipate that this Census could have 

any effect on water rights in States where such rights exist? Will the Department 

work with States to ensure that all parties are comfortable with what the Federal 

Government is doing? 

Answer. Authority to manage water resources is largely delegated to States, 

Tribes, and municipalities. The water census will not change this. To effectively address water-supply challenges, Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments must 

collaborate to find out how much water we have, expand, conserve, and protect sup-
212 

plies to meet increasing demands, and plan for the Nation’s water future. The Department will continue to work through existing partnerships that include 1,400 

State and local water agencies, State geological surveys, State Water Resources Research Institutes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Science Foundation. 

Question. Do you see the Water Census becoming a cyclical event like that conducted by the Bureau of the Census at the Department of Commerce every 10 

years? Would a 10 year cycle be often enough in order to maintain an accurate analysis of our Nation’s water resources, or would it need to occur more frequently? 

Answer. A cyclical water census is a promising idea, but to date there has not 

been a detailed analysis on the appropriate timing for such an approach. The Department’s current priority is to conduct a Census over the next 10 years that will 

provide crucial baseline information on the nation’s water resources. 

Question. Who are the intended end-users of the information collected? How will 

the information be used? How will it be useful to the average citizen in his or her 

daily life? 

Answer. The intended users include water managers at the local level, water districts and utilities, State and local governments, Tribes and water users such as 

fishers and farmers and other irrigators. A census will provide information on the 

current status of water in aquifers and reservoirs, rivers, lakes, groundwater and 

surface water, water quality and water use. The information will be used to provide 

objective methods to quantify environmental flows needed for aquatic life; improve 

the ability to predict the impact of regional water development on the flow, temperature, and chemical quality of rivers; and improve our understanding of the effects 

of climate variability and potential changes on water resources. 

BIRDS FOREVER INITIATIVE

Question. The USGS budget request includes an increase of $1 million for the 

Birds Forever Initiative, for a total of $1.25 million in fiscal year 2009. This is in 

addition to the $8.1 million increase included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

budget request. The USGS will use this increased funding to expand its monitoring 

and surveillance of migratory birds through the Breeding Bird Survey. Given that 

some of our most common bird species have declined by as much as 70 percent in 

the last 40 years, this seems like a critical activity. 

Is the Birds Forever Initiative a one-time increase, a permanent increase to the 

program base, or an ongoing, multi-year program that will require continued funding for a number of years until reaching the ‘‘end’’ of the initiative? 

Answer. The Birds Forever Initiative in the USGS and Fish and Wildlife Service 

will improve understanding of 36 focal species, restore habitat, and monitor species 

status and trends. Many factors will influence funding decisions in the future for 

this initiative such as accomplishment of the initiative goals and future National, 

Department, Service, and program goals and priorities. 

Question. One of the proposed objectives of the initiative is to expand the geographic scope of the Breeding Bird Survey into Mexico, since birds don’t recognize 

borders and can’t be stopped by the wall we are building along the Southwest Border. What is required in terms of an agreement with Mexico to conduct this work 

south of the border? 

Answer. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides the authority for the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work cooperatively with the 

Mexican government on migratory bird surveys. Existing agreements are sufficient 

to allow this work. 

Question. Since funding for the Birds Forever Initiative is included in the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s budget request as well, are the activities within each agency 

so linked that one increase is dependent upon the other? 

Answer. The Birds Forever Initiative was developed as cross bureau, cross program initiative involving the U.S. Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The most effective and efficient means of accomplishing the initiatives goal is 

through linked efforts and is how we have designed the initiative. 

HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE

Question. The USGS budget request includes an increase of $3.5 million for the 

Healthy Lands Initiative, for a total of $5 million in fiscal year 2009. This is in addition to the $2 million requested through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

$14.9 million requested through the Bureau of Land Management, for a total Department-wide program funding level of $21.9 million. This is a $14 million increase 

over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 
213 

The budget request defines the Healthy Lands Initiative as a ‘‘long-term sciencebased effort’’. For the purposes of this initiative, how have you defined ‘‘long-term’’? 

Is there a projected end to this program? 

Answer. There is no projected end to this program, as the challenges to maintain 

and enhance land health will continue into the future. The partnership among 

USGS, BLM, FWS, and others is a long-term science-based effort to assess and enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitats at a landscape scale to maintain and improve 

habitat to prevent species from being listed so that we can continue to provide access to the public lands for multiple uses, including responsible energy development. 

Tools and technologies developed in this effort will be transferable to other areas 

in the Nation for many years where there are similar issues of energy development 

and impacts to wildlife habitat. Results of these effort and completion of ecological 

assessment in future years will provide the information and knowledge for decisionmakers to build and implement adaptive management solutions to ensure the longterm viability of wildlife and habitats in these areas. 

Question. What type of data and information has been gathered to date that will 

be beneficial to future energy development? 

Answer. Healthy Lands Initiative activities focus on projects that focus on land 

resource rehabilitation, protection, and management for multiple land uses. Some 

project planning actions in the USGS to date include highly detailed mapping and 

assessment of the sagebrush habitat; evaluation of the cumulative effects of development; identification of key drivers of landscape change, including effects of climate 

change; identification of the most effective and needed restoration, reclamation, and 

mitigation activities; and detailed species habitat needs assessments and monitoring 

studies. The USGS will assemble all available data and information into a clearinghouse that will be accessible by all the Federal, State, and local partners in this 

activity. 

Question. How will this initiative reduce resource conflicts between the environmental community and industry? 

Answer. The Healthy Lands Initiative (HLI) is an approach to land management 

that increases the pace of and more effectively implements land health treatments 

across multiple jurisdictions. It has already had great success in bringing together 

partners with a shared interest in protecting, restoring, and enhancing our multiresource ecosystems. HLI funding is leveraged with funding provided by other Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, philanthropic organizations, advocacy groups, and industry partners. In 2008, BLM has initiated on-the-ground 

work in several emphasis areas (UT, NM, Southwest WY, Southeast OR-Southwest 

ID-Northern NV, South-central ID, and Western CO), and has begun working with 

USGS, FWS, and other partners to implement projects based on the highest priority 

integrated science identified through workshops and meetings with stakeholders. 

For example, in the Southwest WY Landscape Conservation Initiative Area, in order 

to strengthen the collaboration, a coalition of Interior bureaus along with the U.S. 

Forest Service, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the Wyoming Department of Agriculture has formed a partnership called the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative. The partners are extending the existing Memorandum of Understanding to include additional local stakeholders such as county commissioners 

and conservation district managers. Together, these partners participate in strategies and actions to maintain and improve area landscapes. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY/OCEAN AND COASTAL FRONTIERS INITIATIVE

Question. The USGS budget request includes an increase of $7 million for the 

Ocean and Coastal Frontiers Initiative, for a total of $16.1 million in fiscal year 

2009. This is in addition to the $900,000 increase included in the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s budget request. The USGS will also work in partnership with numerous other Federal Government agencies including: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Minerals Management Service (MMS), National Park Service (NPS), and the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA). 

Given that the Ocean and Coastal Frontiers Initiative cross-cuts so many agencies, is there one centralized programmatic control mechanism in place to ensure 

that there aren’t any duplications of effort or funding? 

Answer. As part of the formulation of the fiscal year 2009 President’s Budget, the 

Department reviewed each bureau’s participation in the Ocean and Coastal Frontiers Initiative, to ensure there is no duplication of effort. 

Question. Are the agency’s activities so intricately linked that the funding streams 

are dependent upon one another? Does it make sense to provide $7 million to USGS 
214 

for this initiative if NOAA doesn’t receive its share of funding through the Department of Commerce budget? 

Answer. USGS will coordinate with the other Federal agencies in implementing 

the Ocean and Coastal Frontiers Initiative to ensure the most effective use of Federal funds. NOAA has already received $8.0 million in 2008 for ocean exploration 

efforts related to this work. The geological data collection by USGS, when combined 

with the bathymetric data collected by NOAA, will form the basis for successful establishment of the U.S. continental shelf. 

Question. One of the tasks of the USGS is mapping the geology and boundaries 

of the extended continental shelf to determine the increase of public lands for which 

the Department would have regulatory responsibility ($4 million of the $7 million 

increase is for this activity). How long do you anticipate that it will take USGS to 

complete this activity? 

Answer. Full delineation of U.S. ECS boundaries would require both bathymetric 

and seismic/geophysical mapping in several regions. Current funds are for focused 

mapping in the Arctic, which may take several years depending on ice conditions, 

which are highly variable. Estimates for mapping the Atlantic will be better defined 

after an Atlantic workshop takes place in July, 2008 bringing together Federal and 

academic expertise to identify outstanding issues and data requirements. Furthermore, there may be additional seismic data required in the Pacific Islands. 

Question. Will additional funds be required in future fiscal years? 

Answer. Funding for future ECS mapping activities will respond to the President’s budgetary priorities, which will take into account recommendations the Interagency Task Force on the Extended Continental Shelf in the context of Departmental needs and activities. Additional factors affecting future funding for ECS 

mapping will include progress on current data collection, as well as needs for legal, 

analytical, and other costs associated with the mapping. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY/LANDSAT PROGRAM

Question. Within the Land Remote Sensing program, the fiscal year 2009 budget 

request includes an increase of $2 million for the National Land Imaging Program. 

USGS will act as the lead agency in this multi-agency initiative to begin planning 

for an operational program to collect images of the Earth’s surface. The USGS budget justification says that implementation of this new program will ‘‘require significant additions, upgrades, and changes to the staffing and facilities of the Department’’. 

Who made the determination that USGS was the most qualified to be the lead 

agency for this next generation of Land Remote Sensing? Why wouldn’t NASA or 

the Department of Commerce’s NOAA satellite office be the more appropriate lead 

agency? 

Answer. The Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a plan for the U.S. 

National Land Imaging Program (NLIP) in August of 2007, which called for NLIP 

to be established in the Department of the Interior. The current budget allocation 

for NLIP does not create a long-term program within Interior, but rather is meant 

to initiate an assessment of needs related to the next Landsat satellite. The Administration has not made a final determination on the role of USGS in the next 

Landsat, which will entail significant out year funding commitments. Instead, the 

current funding will lay the groundwork for future planning. 

Question. What is USGS’s current working relationship with these other land imaging users? 

Answer. USGS has a good working relationship with the other land imaging 

users, and has frequent meetings with them on both specific topics and broad issues 

relating to Landsat. We will be consulting them in our upcoming efforts. 

Question. What kind of ‘‘additions, upgrades, and changes’’ will be necessary to 

support this new program? What costs are associated with these changes? Will this 

require the addition of a construction budget for USGS? 

Answer. The Department has not made any final determination on the need for 

future upgrades. If USGS is designated the appropriate entity for future Landsat 

satellites, arrangements could be parallel to NOAA’s funding stream for operational 

oceanic and atmospheric satellites. In this case, recurring satellite-development 

funding would be over $100 million per year. Additional funding determinations will 

consider planning and partnership efforts developed in 2009. 

Question. What exactly will the $2 million requested for fiscal year 2009 buy us? 

That isn’t much money when you are talking about satellite programs, so I’m very 

curious about the out-year costs associated with the National Land Imaging Program. Does the Department have a long-term budgetary plan for this activity? 
215 

Answer. The $2 million is to initiate planning and design efforts by assessing 

needs related to the future of Landsat satellites. This activity may support long 

term budgetary plans at the Department or within other agencies. 

Question. Although NASA and NOAA are the preeminent Federal Government 

agencies when it comes to satellites, those programs have been plagued with problems and are consistently behind schedule and over budget. Why should we create 

another satellite program within an agency that has neither the structure nor the 

expertise to handle such an activity? 

Answer. As previously stated, no final determination on the ideal agency to procure and operate Landsat has been made by the administration. The recommendation by the Office of Science and Technology Policy that NLIP be established within 

the Department of the Interior is reflective of a number of factors, including the success USGS has achieved in its Geographic Research, Investigations and Remote 

Sensing program. 

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TRUSTEE/INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION

Question. The process of Indian Land Consolidation was begun in 1999 and to date the Department has spent nearly $170 million and purchased over 360,000 

fractionated Indian lands in an attempt to consolidate them into more manageable 

land holdings for accounting purposes. 

Given that the Department continues to stress how costly it is to manage the 

ever-growing fractionation of the Individual Indian owned land, why is the Indian 

Land Consolidation program proposed for elimination in the fiscal year 2009 budget 

request? 

Answer. Since 1999, the Indian Land Consolidation Program has spent nearly 

$170 million to purchase over 360,000 interests, yet this has done little to reduce 

fractionation or decrease the costs for managing the trust. Most of these ownership 

interests were less than two percent of the entire parcel. In addition, provisions in 

the American Indian Probate Reform Act have greatly reduced the rate of fractionation for these small interests. It is clear that purchasing interests, one at a time, 

will not result in a satisfactory solution to fractionation. 

Question. The issue of accounting for the land holdings does not disappear with 

the elimination of funding for this activity. What alternatives to outright purchase 

of the land interests have been considered? 

Answer. The Special Trustee Advisory Board which includes one former and three 

current tribal leaders have suggested using a model similar to the Rosebud Tribe’s 

Tribal Land Enterprise whereby individual fractionated interest holders can contribute their interest to the Enterprise in exchange for an equity interest equal in 

value to their land interest. We have asked ITMA to begin a consultation project 

with Indian Country to discuss the fractionation problem and advise us on solutions 

developed from tribes and individual interest holders prior to the Department advocating any particular solution. 

INDIAN TRUST LITIGATION/COBELL VS. KEMPTHORNE

Question. In 1994, Congress passed The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, requiring the Secretary of the Interior to ‘‘account for the 

daily and annual balance of all funds held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or an individual Indian which are deposited or invested pursuant to the Act of June 24, 1938 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 4011(a)). ’’ In July of 2001, the 

Office of Historical Trust Accounting (OHTA) was created by Secretarial Order to 

plan, organize, direct, and execute the historical accounting of Tribal Trust Fund accounts and Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts. 

The Department and OHTA are involved in the Cobell vs. Kempthorne class action lawsuit, which has been ongoing for 12 years, to determine whether or not the 

Department has unreasonably delayed the completion of the Historical Accounting. 

On January 30, 2008, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia, in his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated 

that ‘‘it is now clear that completion of the required accounting is an impossible 

task’’. 

Given that the Judge has deemed the Historical Accounting an ‘‘impossible task’’, 

why is it necessary to continue to fund the Office of Historical Accounting at $56.4 

million in fiscal year 2009? 

Answer. The Department remains committed to seeking an appropriate resolution 

of the case in concert with Congress and other interested parties. The Budget request of $56 million for historical accounting includes approximately $36 million for 

the accounting related to Individual Indian Money (IIM) account holders with the 

remainder dedicated to accounting for tribes and Special Deposit Accounts. The 
216 

judge did not relieve us of the requirement to continue the historical accounting for 

IIM accountholders, which we estimate under our current plan, will require approximately $108 million over the next 3 years to complete, for a total of $271 million 

since the implementation of the original 2003 plan. The judge said while the statute 

would require an accounting of ‘‘all funds held in trust by the United States’’ he did 

not believe that Congress would ever appropriate sufficient money to pay for such 

an accounting. The judge did, however, recognize the need for a solution. At a hearing on March 5, 2008, the Court scheduled a trial to begin on equitable 

disgorgement of funds allegedly held back from IIM account holders by the Government. Interior continues to work with the Justice Department to evaluate the 

Court’s findings and conclusions. 

Question. What do you see as the next major milestones in this litigation? 

Answer. There are several ways in which this case can be resolved: a judicial settlement as decided by the Court; congressional action to narrow the scope of the historical accounting requirements that could realistically be completed; or funding in 

the billions of dollars sufficient to conduct the historical accounting, as interpreted 

by the courts, under the current law. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS/DETENTION FACILITIES

Question. I understand that several adult and juvenile detention facilities constructed on Indian reservations nationwide over the past several years are either 

sitting empty or are staffed and operated at levels far below the intended effective 

capacities. Tribal communities need these detention facilities operating at full capacity to address their growing law enforcement needs. Offenders that should be detained in these new federally-financed units are now scattered widely, across several 

States. The many juvenile offenders involved are now detained in places where no 

treatment and rehabilitation is possible, creating future difficulties both in terms of 

public safety and long term correctional and social costs that will be borne largely 

with public resources. 

Please provide the subcommittee with a detailed accounting of where and in what 

amounts Indian Affairs allocated funding to the staffing and operations of tribal 

adult and juvenile detention facilities in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008, and 

where anticipated funding would go if the fiscal year 2009 requested funding is provided. 

Answer. The fiscal year 2009 budget request for Detention and Corrections is 

$64.6 million, an increase of $5.6 million over the fiscal year 2008 level. The increase includes fixed costs. Increased funding is essential to address staffing needs 

for newly constructed detention facilities, as well as existing facilities within the corrections program. The proposed funding increase will allow the Division of Corrections to staff its detention centers to safe and secure levels in line with National 

Institute of Corrections guidelines. Funding allocations for 2009 will not be completed until the funding has been enacted. 

In 2007 and 2008 funding was distributed across Indian Country to increase staffing in order to meet minimum safety requirements and to fill positions at recently 

opened facilities. The attached chart details the funding that was provided to each 

facility in 2007 and 2008. 

BIA CORRECTIONS FUNDING 

Corrections Program Funding 

Fiscal year 

2007 

2008 funding with 

operational in- creases/decreases & paycost 

District. CO 

K0L400 CORRECTIONS—Contract Bed Space ................................................ 6,564,956 7,935,837 

District. CO ................................................................................................................. 6,564,956 7,935,837 

District.—1: 

A0L400 DISTRICT I CORRECTIONS .................................................................. $279,304 $306,504 

A0L410 WINNEBAGO DETENTION ..................................................................... 64,763 299,658 

A0L430 STANDING ROCK DETENTION .............................................................. 401,850 2,135,021 

A0L460 TURTLE MOUNTAIN DETENTION .......................................................... 321,433 922,815 

A0L470 FT TOTTEN DETENTION ....................................................................... 286,549 785,444 

A0L480 LOWER BRULE DETENTION ................................................................. 2,071,069 2,506,340 

A0L490 YANKTON DETENTION ......................................................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 
217 

BIA CORRECTIONS FUNDING—Continued 

Corrections Program Funding 

Fiscal year 

2007 

2008 funding with 

operational increases/decreases & 

paycost 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................... 5,424,968 8,955,782 

District.1—638 Tribal Programs: 

KLA002 CHEYENNE RIVER ............................................................................... 1,238,973 1,238,973 

KLA003 OGLALA SIOUX .................................................................................... 3,015,890 3,015,890 

KLA004 ROSEBUD ........................................................................................... 1,942,977 2,018,247 

KLA005 OMAHA ............................................................................................... 183,954 205,284 

KLA015 MENOMINEE ....................................................................................... 365,400 374,344 

KLA022 THREE AFFILIATED .............................................................................. 2,620,564 2,620,564 

KLA024 SISSETON–WAHPETON ........................................................................ 95,429 98,436 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................... 9,463,187 9,571,738 

Total Corrections Funding for District 1 ....................................................... 14,888,155 18,527,520 

District.—3 BIA Programs: 

H0L400 DISTRICT 3 CORRECTIONS ................................................................. 275,614 317,712 

H0L410 EASTERN NEVADA DETENTION ........................................................... 1,801,336 2,379,952 

H0L430 UINTAH & OURAY DETENTION ............................................................ 80,000 233,899 

H0L440 HOPI DETENTION ................................................................................ 672,860 1,235,016 

H0L490 TRUXTON CANON DETENTION ............................................................ 2,020,594 2,868,410 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................... 4,850,404 7,034,989 

District.—3 638 Tribal Programs: 

KLH001 COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES ..................................................... 273,903 300,677 

KLH002 FORT MOJAVE INDIAN TRIBE .............................................................. 44,880 59,992 

KLH003 WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE ...................................................... 634,621 643,435 

KLH004 TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION OF ARIZONA ........................................... 2,504,307 2,534,931 

KLH008 SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE ............................................................. 2,672,645 2,737,206 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................... 6,130,356 6,276,241 

Total Corrections Funding for District 3 ....................................................... 10,980,760 13,311,230 

District.—4: 

M0L400 DISTRICT 4 CORRECTIONS ................................................................ 354,465 385,466 

M0L450 UTE MOUNTAIN UTE DETENTION ....................................................... 1,592,091 2,064,568 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................... 1,946,556 2,450,034 

District.—4 638 Tribal Programs: 

KLM005 PUEBLO OF LAGUNA .......................................................................... 239,339 246,162 

KLM014 PUEBLO OF ZUNI ............................................................................... 734,559 753,760 

KLM016 NAVAJO NATION ................................................................................. 2,654,807 2,785,633 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................... 3,628,705 3,785,555 

District.—4 Self-Governance Programs: 

D4 Pueblo of Taos .......................................................................................... 29,450 29,450 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................... 29,450 29,450 

Total Corrections Funding District 4 ............................................................. 5,604,711 6,265,039 

District.—5: 

C0L400 DISTRICT 5 CORRECTIONS ................................................................. 275,905 340,899 

C0L410 CROW DETENTION .............................................................................. 360,648 634,391 

C0L420 NORTHERN CHEYENNE DETENTION .................................................... 1,803,484 1,931,064 

C0L430 WIND RIVER DETENTION .................................................................... 400,034 633,628 

C0L450 SPOKANE DETENTION ......................................................................... 355,299 562,452 
218 

BIA CORRECTIONS FUNDING—Continued 

Corrections Program Funding 

Fiscal year 

2007 

2008 funding with 

operational increases/decreases & 

paycost 

C0L480 BLACKFEET DETENTION ...................................................................... 345,941 670,765 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................... 3,541,311 4,773,199 

District.—5 638 Tribal Programs: 

KLC001 BLACKFEET TRIBAL BUSINESS COUNCIL ........................................... 243,437 250,101 

KLC002 FT. BELKNAP COMMUNITY COUNCIL .................................................. 77,724 79,618 

KLC003 ASSINBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBE FORT PECK ...................................... 1,700,579 1,743,130 

KLC004 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COLVILLE ............................................... 2,452,778 2,500,260 

KLC006 CHEHALIS BUSINESS COUNCIL .......................................................... 7,967 7,967 

KLC010 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF WARM SPRINGS ..................................... 201,432 206,858 

KLC018 YAKAMA TRIBAL COUNCIL .................................................................. 404,092 404,092 

KLC021 SHOSONE BANNOCK (Fort Hall) ......................................................... 360,208 372,407 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................... 5,448,217 5,564,433 

District.—5 Self-Governance Program: 

D5 Nisqually .................................................................................................... 350,000 350,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................... 350,000 350,000 

Total District 5 Corrections Funding ............................................................. 9,339,528 10,687,632 

District.—6 638 Tribal Program 

KLS016 MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS ......................................... 2,316,574 2,316,574 

Total District 6 Corrections Funding ............................................................. 2,316,574 2,316,574 

Total Corrections Funding ............................................................................. 49,694,684 59,043,832 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Question. Three years post-Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf Islands National Seashore 

is still suffering from a lack of facilities. It has come to my attention that fewer 

funds are being directed to this area, and that the Mississippi Gulf Coast is subject 

to downsizing facilities, rangers, and equipment. It is troubling that no construction 

has begun to replace shade areas or restrooms for Ship Island, which despite maintaining few temporary structures, continues to be a popular tourist spot on the Gulf 

Coast. Why does the Park Service feel it necessary to downsize Mississippi’s presence within the Gulf Islands National Seashore? 

Answer. Recovery work following Hurricane Katrina continues to this day in multiple parks throughout the southeast. The project on Ship Island has undergone several changes since it was initiated. In the aftermath of the hurricanes in 2005, initial estimates were used to guide the planning for replacement facilities. As planning and design progressed, estimates have been firmed-up. 

In addition, in accordance with the DOI and NPS regulations and governmentwide policies, a value analysis study was conducted on multiple Hurricane Katrina 

projects, including West Ship Islands Buildings. Efficiencies discovered allowed for 

a reduction of more than 4,500 square feet from the original complex. We do not 

believe we are downsizing our presence but rather taking this opportunity to address needs in the most efficient manner possible. 

The final project including scope modifications was permitted by the Regional Office, and was presented to the NPS Director’s Advisory Board in November 2007. 

The board recommended approval. 

The scope of the project includes 10 structures totaling 9,580 square feet at a cost 

of $2,876,695. The project is currently being reviewed for approval by the Development Advisory Board. 

Question. The National Park Service’s National Heritage Area program is proposed to decrease by $8 million, from last year’s enacted amount. I have introduced 
219 

legislation creating two Heritage Areas recently, and I understand there are very 

few administrative staff assisting this program. How is the National Park Service 

working to improve this program, with far fewer funds than necessary? 

Answer. The administration requested a reduction of funding to support national 

heritage areas based upon the lack of comprehensive heritage program legislation 

that contains clear criteria for designating new areas and establishes clear timelines 

for phasing out Federal support for long-established areas. Without such legislatively enacted parameters, there may be as many as 15 newly authorized heritage 

areas by October 1, 2008, and perhaps as many as 100 areas within the next few 

years. The Service will provide technical assistance and advice to heritage areas, 

with priority given to assistance with cooperative agreements, site visits to established areas, management planning, and liaison between the National Heritage 

Areas and other National Park Service staff, including planners and park staff in 

adjacent National Park System units. The Service will also distribute available 

funding based on a merit-based system, after ensuring new areas have sufficient 

funds to complete their management plans. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee 

will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Tuesday, April 15, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(221) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 

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

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The subcommittee was unable to hold hearings 

on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and letters of those 

submitting written testimony are as follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALAMO NAVAJO SCHOOL BOARD, INC. 

Honorable Chairman: Please accept this expression of our concerns about the information circulated by the Department of Interior related to the fiscal year 2009 

budget requests in a brochure entitled Bureau Highlights-Indian Affairs (no date) 

(BH–79 to BH–88). Our specific interests are in the budget requests for Indian Education listed by Interior as 31 percent of the operation of Indian Programs. Having 

reviewed the document carefully, we are significantly disappointed; we will be adversely served, if the plan is implemented as described; and we are quite confused 

by contradictions, illogical statements, and poorly framed reasons for some proposed 

actions. For example, the Interior Department proposed ‘‘. . . to dedicate $5.2 million to enhance education programs at lower performing schools.’’ (p. BH–82) These 

funds would not be distributed through the Indian School Equalization Formula 

(ISEF). However, their source is not evident. Is it a budget increase, or a transfer 

of funds from other accounts? If these funds, or any portion of them are taken from 

ISEF, it would lower the per-student amount for distribution, thus adversely affecting contract and grant schools’ basic funding as well BIE schools. Any loss of basic 

school operational funding is unacceptable. Additionally, if BIE dedicates $5.2 million as supplemental aid, for hiring education specialist, tutoring, et cetera, because 

certain BIE operated schools have not achieved Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), it 

would be appropriate if a proportionate ratio of similar funds were requested for 

contract and grant schools because they have the same kinds of needs and for the 

same reasons. 

In the mission statement, Interior asserts that, ‘‘The mission of BIE is to provide 

quality education opportunities from early childhood through life.’’ (p. BH–79) Yet, 

in the section discussing ‘‘Improving Indian Education (p.BH 81–82), the request for 

funding tribal scholarships is reduced by $5.9 million in order to shift focus to its 

core responsibility of operating the BIA school system. Students that graduate from 

our high school already have to compete for tribal scholarships. Any reductions in 

scholarship funds means that more graduates in the Class of 2009–2010 will be denied the opportunity to attain higher education goals. It makes the phrase ‘‘from 

early childhood through life’’ ring very hollow. 

The BIE estimates that five tribes will apply for grants to operate their own 

schools in fiscal year 2009. Additional funding of $1.5 million was added to its request as a result. However, their presentation goes on to explain that ‘‘. . . the increase will be used primarily for the costs associated with the displacement of employees who do not continue to work at the school... .’’ No mention is made of 

how the additional administrative costs, that each new grant will incur, will be 

funded. If no new funding is requested by BIA for these new grant schools for administrative purposes, current contract and grant schools, such as Alamo Navajo 

School, will face additional shortages for their administrative costs, already insuffi-
222 

cient at 72 per cent of need. Information relayed to us from reliable sources suggests 

that BIE already knows that the funds to supply administrative costs grants to all 

schools fully are insufficient. 

As it has for the past few years, the administration calls for the elimination of 

Johnson O’Malley (JOM) funding of $21.4 million, describing these grants as 

‘‘. . . duplicative of grants available to Tribes from the Department of Education.’’(p. BH–83) Their attempt to eliminate the JOM program in fiscal year 2008 

met Congressional resistance and congress continued to fund it. The House Committee report reprimanded the Administration by saying, ‘‘The feckless justification 

for the termination of this program—that Department of Education programs can 

take the place of these grants—has never been substantiated or explained to any 

level of adequacy. The Committee implores the Administration to include this program in future requests.’’ (emphases added) (HRpt. 110–187, p. 70). At Alamo Navajo School, JOM funds provide salaries for a home/school community liaison who 

plays a key role in improving students’ school attendance; in keeping parents and 

the community-at-large informed about school policies, activities, and special events; 

in providing valuable cultural/traditional instruction and learning opportunities; 

and in assisting instructional staff in group activities, such as field trips. The funds 

also provide 3- and 4-year-old children with radio programs of an educational nature, such as Sesame Street, with booklets for parents and follow-up activities, 

which address the mission statement of the program and of the BIE. Without JOM 

funding, we would be forced to discharge a valuable local staff member and would 

experience a severe impact on our radio programming for young children in those 

most formative years and parents who benefit from the help in preparing their children for kindergarten and beyond in language acquisition and multi-cultural understanding. 

Concomitantly, Early Childhood Development Programs are to be reduced by 

$2,754 million and limited to Family and Child Education (FACE) for pre-school 

children. From ANSB’s perspective, this request appears to be shortsighted and inadequate because it does not take into account the long period of time that this successful program, FACE, has been funded. The FACE program goes well back in to 

the 1990s and, through all of these years, its funding level has been relatively flat. 

Year after year, ANSB received practically the same amount each year, regardless 

of the significant changes and influences to be dealt with, such as requirements for 

more highly trained, licensed personnel; increased numbers of participants necessitating more materials and additional staff. The pre-school target population presents one of the best opportunities for reaching developing children’s capabilities. 

Funding levels to support such opportunities and potential development should be 

increased in proportion to changes in socio-economic conditions, to technological advances, and to increased knowledge of health and human development. 

The BIE requests $46,912 million for Student Transportation for fiscal year 2009, 

a reduction of $932,000 from the fiscal year 2008 enacted budget. The cause for concern here is that the rate-per-mile formula and procedure historically has not provided sufficient funding to operate and maintain our school’s buses, which results 

in ANSB having to use regular ISEF program funds to supplement its transportation budget. It seems ironic that the cost of getting students to the school results 

in having fewer or reduced learning opportunities when they get there. Our hope, 

realizing that it is unlikely that an increase in the school transportation budget can 

be obtained, is that the fiscal year 2008 level of funding can be maintained for fiscal 

year 2009. 

Thank you for your attention and for your consideration of our concerns. We know 

that, as you have demonstrated to us so many times in the past, you will act in 

the best interests of our children, of our State, and of our Nation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALEUTIAN/PRIBILOF ISLANDS ASSOCIATION, INC. 

The principal concern of the Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. (APIA) 

with respect to the Indian Health Service (IHS) proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 

is the continued significant underfunding of both program and administrative costs 

for the operation of the St. Paul Health Center, which was completed in the fall of 

2005. Our request is: 

—IHS funding for the St. Paul Health Center of $555,957 of which at least 

$253,541 must be available to pay indirect costs of operating the health center. 

—A significant increase in IHS contract support dollars. 

—Provision that the increase in contract support dollars be available to address 

the contract support requirements of new and expanded programs. 
223 

St. Paul Island is located, as this subcommittee knows, in the Bering Sea and it 

is almost 1,000 air miles away from our nearest referral center in Anchorage. It is 

also the only Health Center in the most dangerous fisheries area in the country. 

APIA must serve a huge influx of seasonal fisheries workers and our staff must be 

of a caliber to handle major disasters with no ready assistance. Our population balloons to over 2,000 during the fishing seasons. Due to the dangerous nature of fishing in the Bering Sea, many of our cases are of an emergency nature—for instance, 

we have provided emergency response services for shipwrecks, explosions, and fishing-related injuries. In addition to the large numbers of persons—Native and nonNative—who fish in our waters, we also attend to emergency health needs of the 

many people who visit our area for bird watching. We are, in fact, ‘‘the only act in 

town’’ when it comes to health care, and thus we need to be as self-sufficient as possible in the provision of health care. 

As noted in our testimony submitted to this subcommittee on March 18, 2005, the 

Indian Health Service, in preparing the budget for fiscal year 2006, made a mistake 

as to when the health center would be completed and ready to operate. APIA had 

been notified by our IHS project manager in a letter dated February 17, 2005, that 

the center would be completed and ready to operate by September 30, 2005. However, when submitting the budget for fiscal year 2006 IHS assumed that the center 

would operate for only one quarter in fiscal year 2006 and asked only $260,000 in 

program funds as against $1.4 million required for a full year. We are grateful that 

the Indian Health Service responded to our request by providing some one-time 

funds in fiscal year 2006 to help bridge this gap until funding was provided in fiscal 

year 2007. However, the lack of the additional funding to cover contract support 

costs has had a remarkably devastating impact on our ability to provide the services 

envisioned when planning and construction of this facility first occurred. This has 

had a demoralizing affect on the staff and community of St. Paul Island. 

The failure to fund contract support costs for the health center in full has a com- plex history. During fiscal year 2006 IHS was able to locate $1,097,584 to allocate 

for additional program funds to permit the operation of the new center. APIA has 

expressed its gratitude already to IHS for the effort it took to locate these funds 

and permit the opening of the center. However, before releasing the program funds 

to APIA, IHS insisted that we amend our fiscal year 2006 funding agreement (Funding Agreement 58G950030, Amendment 5) under the Alaska Tribal Health Compact 

to agree that we would not be entitled in 2006 to any contract support funding to 

support administrative costs of the new facility. 

We feel that this seemingly draconian demand by IHS violates both the letter and 

the spirit of Title V of the Indian Self-Determination Act (ISDA) under which our 

IHS-funded health program operates. We understand that the IHS lead negotiator’s 

position on this issue was one that he felt he could not compromise without compromising the agency; likewise we felt that we needed to agree to this language in 

order to receive the limited funding appropriated for our staffing package. As a result of IHS’s refusal to provide for the administrative overhead at St. Paul, as well 

as the failure to fund the full program funding planned ($1.4 million), we have been 

able to open the center but not to provide the level of service for which it is designed. Our 23.1 percent overhead rate negotiated with the Department of Health 

and Human Services must be paid from the amount of funding provided to programs 

in the clinic which results in a real reduction of $253,541 below the reduced program funding. Thus we have for operation of the clinic $555,957 less than we should 

have. As a result, in the new center we provide to the people of St. Paul about the 

same level of service which was provided in the old, outdated facility, it just looks 

better. 

Specifically, we have not been able to: fill two FTE midlevel provider staff positions, fill one FTE Contract Medical Services Director, expand Dental Health access 

by two visits/year, provide case management for our chronic care patients, provide 

travel access funds for patients requiring specialty services and emergency medevac 

transport, pay for biomedical support for new equipment, expand our IT capacity for 

the new health center, and provide administrative support necessary to ensure quality care is provided. 

Most of the funds received have first gone to support increased facilities expenses 

including heat and other utilities, routine maintenance, benchstock, specialty subcontract facilities operations and engineering expenses. Very little is left over for actual provision of medical services to optimize the use of this beautiful new facility. 

In fact, we have had to seek and rely on non-recurring non-IHS grant funds to meet 

some of our short-term needs for this new facility. 

Continuing litigation on the question of whether the ISDA requires the payment 

of contract support funds by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and IHS and the present 

IHS position that it will pay no contract support funding appropriated by Congress 
224 

(even where the fiscal year 2008 appropriation statute states that up to $5,000,000 

of the amount appropriated to IHS may be expended for new or expanded contracts) 

leaves it very uncertain as to whether APIA is barred or not from receiving full contract support funding. IHS has told APIA that its contract support deficiency will 

be alleviated by allocating all shortfall funding to ongoing contracts and nothing to 

a program expansion either for fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008. It has not 

worked out that way so far. The effect of fiscal year 2007 funding distribution of 

contract support funds based on IHS’ own figures was to reduce APIA’s level of contract support need funded from 75.12 percent in fiscal year 2006 to 70.96 percent 

in fiscal year 2007. The total amount of our funding agreement was reduced by 

$105,694 from 2006 to 2007. Now in fiscal year 2008, APIA is renegotiating its indirect rate to be at 39.1 percent based on increased costs, most of which relates to 

facilities costs and higher energy expenses. This creates an even greater shortfall 

that will need to come out of program dollars. 

We therefore turn to the Congress to address this injustice at least in fiscal year 

2009 by (1) appropriating a significant increase in contract support dollars and (2) 

providing that the increase will be available to address the contract support requirements of new and expanded programs, including programs like APIA’s new St. Paul 

Health Center which came into operation in fiscal year 2006. This action will require the IHS to correct the gross injustice which it inflicted on the Native Village 

of St. Paul by requiring the health services budget for the new center to absorb all 

administrative costs based on APIA’s negotiated indirect cost rate. Congress made 

very clear its intent that such costs should be paid for over and above the sums 

which would be used by APIA to provide the same services. See 25 U.S.C. § 450 j– 

1. IHS claims that it is unable to treat APIA fairly in accordance with this statute 

because Congress has failed to provide appropriations consistent with the wording 

of the statute. We are left with no alternative therefore but to appeal to you to make 

it possible for the new health center to provide the level of services which the IHS 

and Congress intended it to provide when its construction was approved. 

We have brought this particular matter to your attention as it is a high priority 

of our organization and of the Native Village of St. Paul. In addition, we support 

the testimony of the Alaska Native Health Board on the need to increase funding 

for health services in Alaska, especially to fully fund contract support. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY TREES; AMERICAN FOREST

FOUNDATION; AMERICAN FORESTS; AMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION; THE HARDWOOD FEDERATION; MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS; NATIONAL PLANT BOARD; THE OHIO

STATE UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY; PURDUE UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY; SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS; THE NATURE CONSERVANCY; UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; AND THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, CENTER FOR INVASIVE SPECIES & ECOSYSTEM HEALTH

We urge the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to appropriate adequate funding for the USDA Forest Service to manage non-native insects and plant diseases that threaten America’s forests. We recommend an fiscal 

year 2009 appropriation of $123 million for the USDA Forest Service Forest Health 

Management Program. This level is about $44 million above the administration’s request and approximately equivalent to the current level of funding. We appreciate 

your leadership in past years in securing funding for this vital program at levels 

significantly above the administration’s request. 

Our proposed funding level would maintain the program’s current level. Under 

the administration’s request, funding for programs vital to protecting America’s forests from such highly damaging introduced insects and diseases as the emerald ash 

borer, sudden oak death, hemlock woolly adelgid would be reduced by two-thirds or 

more; funding for the Asian long-horned beetle would be eliminated altogether. 

Funding targeting the Sirex woodwasp and gypsy moth would be reduced by almost 

two-thirds. The Forest Health Management program also counters other introduced 

insects that have attracted less attention, but that still cause significant damage to 

America’s forests. These include Laurel wilt, which is killing redbay and sassafras 

trees in coastal Georgia and South Carolina; and several insects and pathogens on 

the islands of Hawaii and Guam. 

Maintaining current funding levels would also enable the USDA Forest Service 

to continue vital support for the pest eradication and containment programs carried 

out by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Forest Service expertise in the pests’ biology and detection and management methodology is crucial to 
225 

the success of these programs. Failure to complete eradication of the Asian 

longhorned beetle will expose to destruction hardwood forests reaching from New 

England into Minnesota and smaller areas of the West. Particularly threatened are 

the hardwood timber, maple syrup, and autumn foliage tourism industries of the 

Northeast, and street trees across the Nation valued at $600 billion. 

The threat posed by the emerald ash borer is particularly critical. If its spread 

from the upper Midwest to the rest of the country is not prevented, it is will cause 

losses of urban trees worth as much as $60 billion. Losses to the timber industry 

would be $25 billion in Eastern states. It is vitally important that the Forest Service 

effort targeting this insect not be reduced. 

The USDA Forest Service has the lead responsibility for detecting and responding 

to any outbreaks of sudden oak death in the hardwood forests of the East. These 

detection programs must not be halted as the risk of this pathogen being spread 

by infected nursery plants has not been eliminated. Furthermore, greater vigilance 

is needed to prevent introductions from Europe or elsewhere of other pathogens 

threatening to cause similar levels of damage. 

Finally, the Forest Health Management Program needs adequate funding to expand its Early Detection project. This program has been responsible for detecting 

more than a dozen introduced insects, including two which threaten the economically important pine forests of the Southeast: the Sirex woodwasp and Mediterranean pine beetle. Steady or increasing funding is necessary to expand this program 

to cover all states and to develop and deploy methodologies to detect the highly 

damaging wood-boring beetles. 

We recommend an increase of $3 million above the President’s request for the 

‘‘Invasives R&D’’ line item within the Forest Service Research program. This would 

permit maintaining at approximately current levels research aimed at improving detection and control methods for the Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, 

sudden oak death (also called the phytophthora leaf and stem blight pathogen), 

gypsy moth, and other non-native forest pests and diseases. Funding at our recommended level would also allow expanded research on the Sirex woodwasp, which 

poses a serious threat to pine resources across the continent. 

The agency bearing the principal responsibility for eradicating newly introduced 

forest pests is not the USDA Forest Service, but rather the USDA Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS), an agency under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee. The USDA Forest Service plays a critical support role by providing both management expertise and critical research. Nevertheless, the subcommittee cannot achieve its goal of protecting the Nation’s forests’ 

health as long as funding shortfalls undermine USDA APHIS eradication programs. 

We encourage the subcommittee to work with the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to find ways to increase funding for forest pest line items in the USDA 

APHIS Emerging Plant Pest account. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY

The Alliance to Save Energy (‘‘the Alliance’’) is a bipartisan, nonprofit coalition 

of business, government, environmental, and consumer leaders committed to promoting energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier economy, a cleaner environment, and greater energy security. The Alliance, founded in 1977 by Senators 

Charles Percy and Hubert Humphrey, currently enjoys the leadership of Senator 

Mark Pryor as Honorary Chairman; Duke Energy President and CEO James E. 

Rogers is the Co-Chairman; Representatives Ralph Hall, Zach Wamp, Steve Israel, 

and Ed Markey, and Senators Jeff Bingaman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig and Byron 

Dorgan serve as Honorary Vice-Chairs. More than 145 companies and organizations 

support the Alliance as Associates. 

The Alliance is submitting this testimony in support of funding for the Energy 

Star Program within the Climate Protection Division of the Office of Air and Radiation at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We are requesting 

that the subcommittee approve funding in the amount of $100 million for the EPA 

Energy Star Program in fiscal year 2009, for the benefits set forth below. 

I am pleased to submit testimony in support of one of the most successful voluntary Federal programs which has achieved a market transformation by enabling 

consumers to find and purchase energy-efficient products, buildings and services by 

awarding the well recognized ‘‘Energy Star’’ label. Energy Star is a completely voluntary partnership program which has successfully removed marketplace barriers 

to existing and emerging technologies, provided information on technology opportunities, generated awareness of energy-efficient products and services, and educated 

consumers about life-cycle energy and cost-savings. The Energy Star program is 
226 

working with companies, States, utilities, and others to deliver energy efficiency into 

our homes, commercial buildings, and industry The program helps consumers understand the benefits through lower energy bills of paying a modest additional cost 

for purchasing more efficient, smarter technologies. 

Energy Star’s voluntary partnership program—which includes Energy Star Buildings, Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Small Businesses, and Energy Star Labeled 

Products—has made a significant contribution to reducing consumer energy use, 

however a wide array of important, additional opportunities to use the program to 

promote energy efficiency remain unfulfilled. Considering the rapidly escalating energy prices and concerns about electricity reliability, natural gas supplies, and air 

pollution and global warming, it makes little sense to decrease funding for a successful program that makes a significant down payment every year in reducing the 

carbon footprint. 

Increased investment by the Federal Government in the Energy Star Program 

will translate to increased energy savings. The EPA has estimated that every Federal dollar spent on the Energy Star Program results in an average savings of $75 

or more in consumer energy bills, the reduction of about 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide 

emissions, an investment of $15 in private sector capital and the contribution of 

over $60 to the economy. That’s an impressive return on investment for $1 in Federal spending. 

The Alliance to Save Energy has consistently advocated doubling the funding for 

Energy Star over the next 5 years, to enable the program to label additional products, update its criteria, increase consumer education campaigns, and address energy efficient home improvements nationwide. This year, at a very minimum, we 

strongly urge you to reject the recommended cut in funding for EPA Energy Star 

and fund the program at last year’s appropriated level. But we strongly urge you 

to go beyond merely keeping the program level funded. 

The Alliance urges the Subcommittee to consider the following program areas 

where we recommend increased funding: 

—Expanded program on energy-inefficient existing homes. 

—Expanded energy performance ratings systems to all building types 

—Expanded program for medium and small manufacturing and small business; 

—Expanded program at the K through 12 level; 

—New program for emerging utilities and other energy efficiency program sponsors in energy efficiency program development and implementation 

—Expanded outreach to State and local governments 

—Exploring new technologies and practices 

Specifically, the Alliance to Save Energy recommends that our requested $55 mil- lion in increased funding (over the administration-requested funding level of $44.2 

million in fiscal year 2009) be directed at the following programs: —Expanded program on Nation’s energy-inefficient existing homes (beyond products).—Homeowners can save 10 to 20 percent on their home energy bills— 

which now average $1,900 a year—with a set of new ENERGY STAR programs 

that go beyond the labeling of efficient products. [$12.5 million] These include: 

—Home Performance with ENERGY STAR.—A whole home retrofit program— 

that can be offered by a State, utility or other local program sponsor in partnership with EPA—that provides homeowners with trained building professionals, information on the best home improvement projects for their home, 

and QA/QC on the work performed in their home. This program is being offered in a dozen locations around the country and is providing homeowners 

with 20 percent savings on average on their home energy bills. Additional 

funding would bring this program to many more cities and homeowners 

around the country and help improve the building envelopes (going beyond 

the products in the home) of millions of post-1950 homes, among others, that 

were built prior to building codes and other energy efficiency policies. 

—Quality Installation of Heating and Cooling Equipment.—EPA and its partners would expand its program to improve the installation and maintenance 

of heating and cooling equipment, in concert with utilities and other program 

partners. Many air conditioners are oversized and improperly installed so 

that consumers receive low efficiency and pay high bills even with a high efficiency unit. Energy demand for air conditioners is a high cost for consumers 

and drives the need for new power plants. Programs to effectively address installation and maintenance have just been developed and piloted. Additional 

funding would spread these program models broadly across the country. 

—Expanded Energy Performance Rating Systems for the Nation’s Buildings.—Information on energy use per square foot is powerful in motivating energy efficiency improvements for buildings. EPA has established an energy performance 

rating system that offers standardized, consistent measurement that applies to 
227 

more than 60 percent of U.S. commercial building space, and this system has 

already been used to assess the energy use of about 10 percent of U.S. building 

space. Additional funding could expand this system to apply to the vast majority 

of the Nation’s buildings and help EPA partner with States, local governments, 

builders and other organizations in its use. [$7.5 million] —Expanded Focus on Medium and Small Manufacturing and Small Business.— EPA has developed a sector approach for working with medium-sized manufacturers and an approach for providing assistance to diverse small businesses. 

These efforts could be greatly expanded. ENERGY STAR could enlist many 

small businesses as partners in the proper delivery/installation of high efficiency services and products since small businesses constitute about half the 

economy and consume about half the energy. [$10 million] 

—Outreach to Utilities, States, Local Governments, Elementary and Secondary 

Education and Other Energy Efficiency Program Sponsors in Program Development and Implementation.—EPA already partners with hundreds of utilities, 

States, local governments and other organizations as they run efficiency programs. There is growing interest at the State level in funding organized energy 

efficiency programs when energy efficiency costs less than new generation. The 

ENERGY STAR energy efficiency platform can assist these emerging program 

sponsors in developing programs quickly and based on existing best practices 

for overall greater effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. There should also be expanded outreach for programs at the K through 12 level of elementary and secondary education. [$10 million] 

—Expanded Outreach to State and Local Governments.—State and local governments can save significantly through energy efficiency. State and local governments could dramatically enhance attractive investments in energy efficiency 

through expanded outreach and sharing of best practice policies and programs, 

including improving the efficiency of water and wastewater treatment facilities, 

alternative financing approaches, effective school energy efficiency programs, 

etc. Matching funds for innovative State programs could be established. [$10 

million] 

—Exploring new Technologies and Practices.—Technologies are advancing quickly 

in many areas and offer new opportunities to improve the efficiency of new 

homes, buildings, and products. There are large benefits to achieve by increasing EPA’s ability to look at emerging technologies and focus earlier in the technology development process on how best to bring them into the ENERGY STAR 

program and deploy them in the marketplace. [$5 million] 

Energy efficiency is the quickest, cheapest, and cleanest way to address the linked 

issues of energy prices, energy security, air pollution, and global warming. With 

strong public policies and adequate Federal funding, this resource can be more widely and quickly deployed to help address the critical energy and environmental imperatives the United States faces today. The EPA Energy Star program is a shining 

example of a voluntary Federal partnership program that works and produces quantifiable benefits for consumers in terms of lower energy bills, and to our beleaguered 

planet in terms of the promotion of clean technology and products. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget fails to provide the funding necessary to match the national imperative to create a sustainable energy future. Once 

again, we must rely upon the Congress to provide adequate funding for proven initiatives like the EPA Energy Star Program. On behalf of the Alliance to Save Energy, I strongly urge the subcommittee to approve $100 million in funding for the 

EPA Energy Star Program in fiscal year 2009. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS

To the Chair and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for this opportunity 

to provide testimony on behalf of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 

(AAPG) about the importance of the geological programs conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

AAPG, an international geoscience organization, is the world’s largest professional 

geological society representing over 33,000 members. The purpose of AAPG is to advance the science of geology, foster scientific research, promote technology and advance the well-being of its members. With members in 116 countries, more than 

two-thirds of whom work and reside in the United States, AAPG serves as a voice 

for the shared interests of energy geologists and geophysicists in our profession 

worldwide. Included among its members are numerous CEOs, managers, directors, 

independent/consulting geoscientists, Federal and State regulators, educators, researchers and students. 
228 

AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial role that the geosciences, 

and particularly petroleum geology, play in our society. The USGS is crucial to 

meeting these societal needs, and several of its programs deserve special attention 

by the Subcommittee. 

GEOLOGIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS

Energy Resources Program 

The USGS Energy Resources Program (ERP) conducts both basic and applied geoscience research focused on geologic energy resources (both domestic and international), including oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed methane, gas hydrates, geothermal, oil shale, and bitumen and heavy oil. ERP also conducts research on the 

environmental, economic, and human health impacts of the production and use of 

these resources. This research provides both the public and private sectors with 

vital information. 

An urgent problem that the ERP is currently working on is the preservation of 

geological and geophysical data. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005, Public 

Law 109–58) includes section 351 Preservation of Geological and Geophysical Data. 

This program is designed to preserve geological, geophysical data, and engineering 

data, maps, well logs, and samples. It further envisages creating a national catalog 

of this archival material, and providing technical and financial assistance related to 

the archival material. As the act stipulated, the USGS has developed a plan to conduct this program, and is ready to go. It awaits sufficient appropriated funds to 

achieve the goals and objectives set forth in EPACT 2005. 

Why is preservation important? Responsible management and efficient development of natural resources requires access to the best available scientific information. Over many years industry, such as petroleum and mining companies, has invested billions of dollars to acquire geological and geophysical data. Because of 

changing company focus and economic conditions this data may no longer have 

value to the company that acquired it, and is in jeopardy of being discarded. 

But this data still has value to society. The data is valuable for further natural 

resources exploration and development, and can be applied to basic and applied 

earth systems research, environmental remediation, and natural-hazard mitigation. 

It is the type of data that will enable future generations of scientists and policy 

makers to address the Nation’s energy, environmental, and natural-hazard challenges of the 21st century. 

The EPACT 2005 section 351 program was authorized at $30 million from fiscal 

year 2006 through fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year 2008 allocation for this program 

is $1 million, just over 3 percent of authorized levels. Funding for previous fiscal 

years was even lower. These funding levels are insufficient to achieve this program’s 

objectives. 

AAPG urges the subcommittee to fund existing Energy Resources Program activities at a minimum level of $26.6 million as the Administration requested, and to 

additionally appropriate $30 million authorized by EPACT 2005 for the preservation 

of geological and geophysical data, bringing the total Energy Resource Program 

budget to at least $56.6 million. 

Mineral Resources Program 

The USGS Mineral Resources Program (MRP) is the only Federal source for comprehensive information and analysis of mineral commodities and mineral materials. 

The United States is the world’s largest consumer of mineral commodities, and processed materials of mineral origin accounted for over $575 billion of the U.S. economy 

in 2007. 

It is therefore essential to this Nation’s economic and national security that the 

Federal Government understands both the domestic and international supply and 

demand for minerals and mineral materials. This data is used throughout government (Departments of Commerce, Interior, Defense, and State; the Central Intelligence Agency; the Federal Reserve) and the private sector. There is no other 

source for this data and information. 

Yet, the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request calls for a $24.5 million cut 

in the MRP budget, reducing it by nearly 50 percent. The impact of such a dramatic 

reduction would be the elimination of 210 of the 334 currently occupied scientific 

and technical positions in the program. At a time when we are seeing dramatic 

growth in demand for mineral commodities, such action is unwise. 

AAPG urges the Subcommittee to reject the Administration’s proposed funding cut 

and appropriate funds for the Mineral Resources Program at fiscal year 2005 appropriated levels of $54 million. 
229 

GEOLOGIC LANDSCAPE & COASTAL ASSESSMENTS

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program 

AAPG supports the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP). 

This unique partnership between the Federal and State governments and the university community further demonstrates of the importance of geoscience to society. 

The geologic maps produced by this program are used for natural resource management, natural hazard mitigation, water resource management, environmental conservation and remediation, and land-use planning. 

NCGMP deserves special commendation for its EDMAP initiative. This university 

partnership enables students, working in a close mentoring relationship with faculty, to produce maps while learning essential mapping skills. As such, the program 

delivers an immediate return on the Federal investment in terms of beneficial maps, 

as well as a future return in the form of a trained and competent next generation 

workforce. 

AAPG supports the President’s fiscal year 2009 request for $27.4 million for the 

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, and urges the Subcommittee to 

consider further increases to this program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the Subcommittee. 

And thank you for your leadership and support for the geosciences. As you deliberate appropriate funding levels for these USGS programs, please consider the important public policy implications these choices entail. 

If you would like additional information for the record, please contact me at 

AAPG’s Geoscience and Energy Office—Washington, D.C. at 202–684–8225, fax 

703–379–7563, or 4220 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22302. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION

On behalf of the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), I am pleased to 

submit the following testimony regarding the fiscal year 2009 Forest Service budget. 

AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest products industry, representing forest landowners, pulp, paper, paperboard, and wood products manufacturers. Our companies are in the business of producing products essential for everyday life from renewable & recyclable resources that sustain the environment. 

The forest products industry accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total 

U.S. manufacturing output and employs more than a million people with an estimated annual payroll exceeding $50 billion. The management of the National Forests, key research programs, and programs which promote the management of the 

Nation’s private forests are vital to the sustainability of our Nation’s forests. The 

forest products industry is vitally interested in ensuring that these programs are 

funded at levels that reflect the high priority that forests should have as this nation 

grapples with challenges like climate change, mounting wildfire suppression costs, 

and major economic concerns facing the wood products sector. We recommend the 

following priorities as you build a budget for fiscal year 2009: 

FIX THE FIRE FUNDING PROBLEM

We believe firmly that a sound forest management program for the National Forests should be the foundation of the Forest Service budget. In order to achieve this, 

Congress must find a better way to fund fire suppression costs. We are encouraged 

by efforts in the House to establish an ‘‘emergency’’ account that can be managed 

separately from the rest of the Forest Service budget, and urge the Senate to take 

similar action. Without that separation, it is extremely unlikely that the agency will 

be able to meaningfully implement a forest management program that restores forest health, prevents emissions of significant amounts of greenhouse gases, and 

maintains a strong forest products infrastructure. 

The USDA Forest Service is in serious danger of becoming the National Fire Service. While firefighting is an important part of the agency’s history and core mission, 

the way it is currently funded causes severe disruption in the delivery of every resource management program. Fire transfers have resulted in the diversion of over 

$2.2 billion between 1999 and 2003, with over $450 million of that amount never 

repaid. The Knutson-Vandenberg (K–V) fund lost over $2.3 billion since the mid1980s, with over $150 million transferred from K–V in fiscal year 2006 and not repaid. 

Fire suppression costs now make up almost half of the discretionary budget for 

the Forest Service, and many other important programs are suffering as a result. 

We look forward to working with you to enact changes in funding large fire costs 

in a manner which does not raid important land management programs. Cost con-
230 

tainment measures taken by the agency, while critical and needed, are clearly not 

enough to achieve this goal. 

INCREASE FUNDING FOR THE FOREST PRODUCTS PROGRAM AND BEGIN RESTORING

DEPLETED TRUST FUNDS

AF&PA views active forest management as vital to reducing hazardous fuel loads 

and preventing long-term forest health and wildfire disasters. Fuels reduction programs are much more effective and cost-efficient over the long term when there is 

a strong forest products industry presence. An integrated program that at once addresses fuels reduction and stand resilience to disturbance while providing a reliable 

and sustainable supply of wood and fiber is critical to sustaining current industry 

infrastructure. We therefore suggest that at least a 5 percent ($16 million) increase 

over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level in the forest products line item is needed to 

implement an integrated and sustainable program as called for in forest plans in 

all regions of the country. 

The volume of fiber sold through timber sales is well below sustainable harvest 

levels, and is insufficient both ecologically and economically. With Forest Service 

data indicating that growth exceeds harvest five-fold, the lack of active management 

is exacerbating the already dire situation regarding wildfire threats and insect and 

disease epidemics. Economically, diminished industry infrastructure hampers the 

ability of the agency to conduct needed work. While several budget line items contribute to the agency’s ability to conduct active management, the forest products 

line item is the most significant. Sufficient funding for this program would help return the Forest Service to a ‘‘forest management’’ agency, not a ‘‘fire service’’ agency. 

We appreciate the language that was included in the current fiscal year’s appropriations omnibus that placed a high priority on regional capability in the distribution of forest products funding, and would encourage similar language in this year’s 

spending bill. We also value this committee’s past attention to accountability within 

the Forest Service, and encourage similar language this year directing the agency 

towards greater efficiencies and adherence to performance standards. 

The Forest Service is currently facing significant depletion of its trust funds, such 

as K–V and the Salvage Sale fund. This depletion, as well as the agency’s growing 

reforestation backlog, is the direct result of wildfires. Reforestation following timber 

harvest is paid for out of receipts from the timber sold. Wildfires, however, create 

immediate reforestation needs and no source of funds to pay for them. Over 1 million acres are in need of reforestation because of this. Congress can take some initial 

steps to implement important reforestation, rehabilitation, and habitat work by repaying the $159 million in K–V funds that were transferred for fire borrowing. 

The administration proposes continued reductions in Washington Office and Regional Office administrative expenses. We urge the committee to hold the agency accountable for these cuts, which have been promised in prior years but have, to our 

knowledge, not materialized. Currently, fully 30 percent of forest products funds are 

not reaching the field. If the agency is directed to reduce 25 percent of the fiscal 

year 2009 forest products Washington Office and Regional Office funds, this frees 

up $30 million for program implementation at the field level. 

We are also extremely concerned about the language included in the Forest Service’s budget justification regarding timber markets. The Forest Service must not 

base projected accomplishments on the volatile market for lumber, but instead must 

focus on forest health and sound management of its forest lands, and be aware that 

failure to deliver a forest health timber sale program will lead to further mill closures. Ultimately, the agency will find itself faced with fewer customers and higher 

costs for land management when the industry infrastructure contracts even further. 

The Congress should direct the agency to maximize program outputs given the 

available budget, while integrating hazardous fuels reduction more fully into the 

program. 

INTEGRATE HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION WITH OTHER LAND MANAGEMENT GOALS

The hazardous fuels reduction program is a critical component to restoring forest 

health on federal lands. We therefore support a 15 percent increase ($45 million) 

over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level to the hazardous fuels reduction budget. 

Where hazardous fuels reduction is the primary goal of land management efforts, 

the Forest Service must have the flexibility to use hazardous fuels funds to complete 

projects, including those requiring timber sales to meet management objectives. The 

forest products industry can play a key role in reducing hazardous fuels from federal 

lands. The costs of mechanical hazardous fuels reduction are frequently significantly 

lower in regions with a substantial forest products industry presence. The agency 

must take advantage of these synergies. 
231 

It is also critically important that the agency move away from using ‘‘acres treated’’ as the sole metric of accomplishment in the hazardous fuels reduction program. 

Continued focus on this measure incentivizes the agency to treat low priority acres 

repeatedly, and discourages them from treating higher priority forested acres in condition class 3. More aggressive pursuit of mechanical treatments, including greater 

use of Healthy Forest Restoration Act authorities, will result in treatments that 

produce usable wood fiber and longer-lasting and more meaningful positive impacts 

on the long-term fire problem. 

MAINTAIN PROGRAMS TO PROTECT PRIVATE FORESTS: 

We are concerned about the proposed reductions for key programs such as Cooperative Forest Health, Cooperative Fire Assistance, Forest Legacy Roads, Forest Stewardship, and Forest Legacy. We understand the budgetary pressures that produced 

the President’s budget proposal, but we cannot support these reductions. With ongoing droughts, invasive species infestations, and significant forest health problems in 

many corners of the country, these cuts leave valuable private forest resources vulnerable to damage from pests or fires that do not respect boundary lines between 

public and private lands. Similarly, deteriorating roads in upper watersheds on national forest land will ultimately deposit the problem on downstream private lands 

and streams unless corrective actions are funded and applied to all affected areas. 

We urge you to provide funding for these important programs at the current level 

of spending, which represents a minimum need to ensure the health of these productive timberlands. Private timberlands provide the bulk of the Nation’s wood fiber 

supply, while also sequestering huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, providing millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and supplying clean drinking water for 

millions of Americans. These programs protect these resources from threats that are 

beyond the capability of small landowners to effectively combat. 

FUND CRITICAL RESEARCH ON FORESTS, FOREST PRODUCTS

Targeted research and data collection is needed to support forest productivity, forest health, and economic utilization of fiber. Increased funding for the Research and 

Development budget area is needed in order to allow the agency to focus on several 

critical priorities. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is the backbone 

of our knowledge about the nation’s forests, and is a critical tool that allows us to 

assess their sustainability and health. We are concerned about the reduced budget 

proposed in the President’s request and urge you to provide funding at the fiscal 

year 2008 enacted level. This level is needed to allow the Forest Service to cover 

100 percent of U.S. forest lands and expedite data availability and analysis. 

We also recommend increased funding within the Forest Service R&D program in 

support of the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance. Working in partnership with universities and the private sector, Forest Service funding for the Agenda 2020 program supports research to develop and deploy wood production systems that are ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable, and economically viable, in order to enhance forest conservation and the global competitiveness of forest product manufacturing and biorefinery operations in the United States. Finally, we encourage greater support for research on forest products and utilization at the Forest Products Lab 

and Research Stations. Innovative wood and fiber utilization research, including 

nanotechnology research, contributes to conservation and productivity of the forest 

resource. The development of new forest products and important research on the efficient use of wood fiber directly address the forest health problem through exploration of small diameter wood use and bioenergy production. 

CONCLUSION

Congress must use this year’s Forest Service budget as an opportunity to create 

a clear division between fire suppression funding and critical natural resource management programs. Congress has recognized that catastrophic wildfires are a land 

management problem, but now the next step must be taken. Programs such as hazardous fuels reduction and timber management must be protected from raids to pay 

for catastrophic fires. Forest management that reduces fuel loads and improves condition class must be a top priority. Forest products programs must focus on managing for forest health, not just in fire prone forests but in other forest types that 

benefit from periodic harvest. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the 

fiscal year 2009 Forest Service budget. 
232 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE

Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geological Institute’s perspective on fiscal year 2009 appropriations for geoscience programs within the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. We ask the subcommittee to support conservative and fiscally responsible increases relative to proposed cuts by the administration for the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Park Service within the 

Department of the Interior (DOI). The President’s request for fiscal year 2009 for 

DOI is $10.7 billion, which is almost the same as the enacted budget of $10.675 billion in fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, DOI continues to suffer from flat to decreasing funding over too many years and cannot sustain vital work to understand and 

manage natural resources without wise investments now. 

If the President’s request were enacted, the USGS would receive a total budget of about $969 million, a nearly 4 percent decrease compared to last year’s funding. 

Regrettably, the request proposes significant cuts to mineral resources, water programs and hazards investigations. The Mineral Resources Program would be cut by 

more than $24 million, Earthquake Hazards would be cut by $5 million and water 

programs would be cut by more than $17 million. If enacted, these reductions would 

hamper the Survey’s ability to carry out its important objectives to monitor environmental conditions and provide resource assessments for economic development and 

national security. Specifically, we ask the subcommittee to restore funds to the Mineral Resources Program as well as several hazards and water programs and to support a $1.3 billion overall budget for USGS. Such a moderate budget increase of almost $300 million would allow essential, but consistently under funded, programs 

throughout the agency to fulfill their basic mission. Such a request is robustly supported by the 70 organizations of the USGS Coalition as well as other stakeholders. 

AGI is a charter member of the USGS Coalition. 

We also seek support for fiscally responsible increases relative to proposed cuts 

for water programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and research at 

the Smithsonian Institution as well as support for the Geologic Resources Division 

of the National Park Service. For the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 

proposed fiscal year 2009 is $7.1 billion, continuing a steady decline from a budget 

of $8.4 billion in fiscal year 2004. The budget would cut more than $318 million for 

the clean water programs, brownfields programs, healthy ecosystems and watershed 

grants. The proposed budget would also cut more than $11 million from the Smithsonian Institution’s budget for public programs, exhibitions and research. 

AGI is a nonprofit federation of 44 geoscientific and professional associations that 

represent more than 100,000 geologists, geophysicists, and other earth scientists 

who work in industry, academia and government. The institute serves as a voice for 

shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience 

education, and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role that the geosciences play in society’s use of resources and interaction with the environment. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

For the sixth year in a row, the USGS faces cuts in the administration’s request. 

AGI thanks the subcommittee for its record of restoring critical funds and recognizing the Survey’s essential value to the nation. The USGS is a critical Federal 

science agency and it should receive increased funding like the proposed increases 

in the America COMPETES Act for the National Science Foundation and the Office 

of Science within the Department of Energy. The USGS performs complementary 

research, analysis and education and should be part of competitiveness initiatives 

to advance innovation in energy, climate change, water resources and hazards mitigation, assess natural resource needs, which are the foundation of a strong economy, 

and ensure American competitiveness in science and technology through basic geologic and geographic research. 

Virtually every American citizen and every Federal, State, and local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from USGS products and services. As was made 

clear by the National Research Council report Future Roles and Opportunities for 

the U.S. Geological Survey, the USGS’s value to the nation goes well beyond the 

Department of the Interior’s stewardship mission for public lands. USGS information and expertise address a wide range of important problems facing this Nation: 

earthquakes and floods, global environmental change, water availability, waste disposal, and availability of energy and mineral resources. At the same time, the Survey has a responsibility to provide scientific support for its sister land management 

agencies at Interior; an important mission that needs to be well executed if land 

management decisions are to be made with the best available scientific information. 

AGI asks the subcommittee to continue its efforts to help the administration better 

understand the Survey’s value to the nation as a whole. 
233 

Mineral Resources Program.—The value of domestically processed nonfuel mineral resources is estimated to be about $542 billion in 2006 and growing. The USGS 

Mineral Resources Program is the only entity, public or private, that provides an 

analysis and assessment of the raw materials and processed minerals accessible 

from domestic and global markets. This highly regarded research program is the nation’s premier credible source for regional, national and global mineral resource and 

mineral environmental assessments, statistics and research critical for sound economic, mineral-supply, land-use and environmental analysis, planning and decisionmaking. AGI urges the subcommittee to reject the Administration’s requested cuts 

to this program and to fund it at the fiscal year 2005 appropriated level of $54 million. The huge cut, leaving the program with less than $30 million in fiscal year 

2009 would decimate the program. It would cost about 200 of 380 full time positions 

and would eliminate or reduce global mineral resource assessments of mineral commodities, research on industrial minerals, research on inorganic toxins, materials 

flow analyses, and the Minerals Resources External Research program. 

The data and analyses of the MRP are used by the Department of the Interior, 

Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of State, 

the Federal Reserve, other Federal, State and local government entities, foreign governments, private companies and the general public. We urge the subcommittee to 

restore the Mineral Resources Program to its fiscal year 2005 level of $54 million 

so that it may perform its core missions effectively and efficiently. 

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program.—AGI is encouraged by the administration’s continued requests for small annual increases for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and values Congress’ past support for much larger increases. This important partnership between the USGS, State geological surveys, and universities provides the Nation with fundamental data for addressing 

natural hazard mitigation, water resource management, environmental remediation, 

land-use planning, and raw material resource development. The program was authorized (Public Law 106–148) to grow from a starting level of $28 million in fiscal 

year 1999 to $64 million in fiscal year 2005, but did not receive even 10 percent 

of the annual funding level in any given year. AGI strongly supports re-authorization of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program at $64 million per year 

over the next 5 years. 

Natural Hazards.—A key role for the USGS is providing the research, monitoring, 

and assessment that are critically needed to better prepare for and respond to natural hazards. The tragic earthquake/tsunami in the Indian Ocean, hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita striking the gulf coast and the massive earthquake in Pakistan, 

remind us of the need for preparation, education, mitigation and rapid response to 

natural hazards. A 2006 National Academies report, Improved Seismic Monitoring, 

estimates that increased seismic monitoring leads to increased future savings from 

the damaging effects of potential earthquakes. With great forethought, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–503) called for 

a significant federal investment in expansion and modernization of existing seismic 

networks and for the development of the Advanced National Seismic System 

(ANSS)—a nationwide network of shaking measurement systems focused on urban 

areas. ANSS can provide real-time earthquake information to emergency responders 

as well as building and ground shaking data for engineers and scientists seeking 

to understand earthquake processes and mitigate damage. ANSS has been allocated 

about 10 percent of its authorized funding level per year, which is not nearly enough 

to deploy the 7,000 instruments called for in the law. 

We would like to commend the subcommittee for your leadership in securing previous increases for ANSS and ask for full funding in fiscal year 2009. The National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) was reauthorized in 2004 (Public 

Law 108–360) and AGI supports the appropriation of full funding of $88.9 million 

for the USGS component of NEHRP in fiscal year 2009 with not less than $36 million of these funds for the continued development of ANSS. 

Water Programs.—AGI applauds the proposed increases for a National Water 

Census to be conducted by the USGS as part of the Water for America Initiative. 

Increases for the National Streamflow Information and Ground-Water Resources 

programs as part of the census and to meet core mission objectives is excellent. We 

do request that the proposed termination of the State Water Resources Research 

projects and cuts to the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and the Hydrologic Research and Development programs be opposed by the Subcommittee. In 

particular, the NAWQA program has for more than a decade provided the Nation 

with critical information on status and trends in surface and ground water quality. 

Such information has been extremely valuable to policymakers at local, state and 

national levels in areas such as identifying emerging contaminants, the effectiveness 

of policies and regulations, and the impact of land-use changes on water quality. We 
234 

also support the restoration of funding to water research programs conducted by 

State Water Resource Research Institutes and within the USGS. Research is critical 

to expanding the knowledge base to improve the design and implementation of assessment programs like NAWQA, to build the next generation of world-class water 

scientists, and to ensure that the Nation is conducting insightful and effective water 

monitoring. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The President’s budget proposal would cut more than $274 million from the Clean 

and Safe Water Goal and more than $36 million from the Healthy Communities and 

Ecosystems Goal at the Environmental Protection Agency. AGI opposes these proposed cuts and instead asks for modest increases for these programs to deal with 

rising costs and help the EPA carry out its mission of monitoring water quality, assuring safe drinking water, cleaning up contaminated waters, protecting and maintaining water infrastructure, monitoring and protecting watersheds and cleaning up 

superfund and brownfield sites. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History plays a dual role in communicating the excitement of the geosciences and enhancing knowledge through research and preservation of geoscience collections. AGI asks the subcommittee to 

build up Smithsonian research with steady increases that are a tiny fraction of the 

overall budget, but would dramatically improve the facilities and their benefit to the 

country. We support increased funding for Smithsonian research in fiscal year 2009 

and request that proposed cuts of more than $11 million (with a loss of more than 

100 full time employees) for research, public programs and exhibitions be removed 

from consideration. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The national parks are very important to the geoscience community as unique national treasures that showcase the geologic splendor of our country and offer unparalleled opportunities for both research and education of our fellow citizens. The National Park Services’ Geologic Resources Division was established in 1995 to provide 

park managers with geologic expertise. Working in conjunction with USGS and 

other partners, the division helps ensure that geoscientists are becoming part of an 

integrated approach to science-based resource management in parks. AGI would like 

to see additional support for geological staff positions to adequately address the 

treasured geologic resources in the national parks, especially as the National Parks 

approach their 100th anniversary. AGI supports funding for the National Parks 

Centennial Initiative, but is disappointed by the overall decrease of about 2 percent 

for the National Park Service in the President’s request. The Service needs steady 

increases in order to keep pace with rising costs, to hire new staff and to carry out 

their core missions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY

American Hiking Society fiscal year 2009 trail and recreation funding recommendations include: 

USDA Forest Service (FS): 

—Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness: minimum of $285 million 

—Capital Improvement and Maintenance—Trails: minimum of $85 million, including $10.345 million for National Scenic and Historic Trails 

—Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program: $75 million 

National Park Service (NPS): 

—Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program: $12 million 

—National Trails System (NTS), Operations: $14.546 million; NTS Construction: 

$2.095 million; NTS Feasibility Studies and Planning: $1.061 million; NTS GIS: 

$1.253 million; NTS Challenge Cost Share: $1.5 million 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): 

—National Landscape Conservation System: $70 million 

—National Trails System: $6.0 Million to a new subactivity, or, failing that, distributed amongst Recreation Management 1220, Cultural Resources 1050, Annual Maintenance 1652, and Challenge Cost Share 1770 Subactivities 
235 

—Recreation Management: $70 million, including Travel and Transportation Management: $15 million; Field Staff for Trail Maintenance: $5 million; Public Outreach, Information Management, and Education: $1 million 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: 

—National Wildlife Refuge System: $514 million 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): 

—Stateside LWCF (NPS): $125 million 

—Federal LWCF: $220 million, including National Scenic and Historic Trails as 

follows: Appalachian NST: $10.645 million (FS), 4.275 million (NPS); Ice Age 

NST: $4.75 million (NPS); Florida NST: $7 million (FS); Nez Perce NHT (BLM): 

$2 million; North Country NST: $2 million (NPS), $8.25 million (FS); Oregon 

NHT (BLM): $5 million; Overmountain Victory NHT: $1 million (FS); Pacific 

Crest NST: $16.25 million (FS) 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, American Hiking Society 

is the only national nonprofit organization that promotes and protects foot trails and 

the hiking experience. We represent thousands of individual members, more than 

285 member organizations, and speak for the 75 million Americans who hike. Our 

nation’s trails provide unparalleled opportunities for hiking, enjoyment and appreciation of natural and cultural resources, healthy physical activities, and economic 

development for local communities. Hiking can also motivate people to protect the 

places they love and preserve them for posterity. We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee’s past support for trails and recreation and urge you to support strong 

funding in fiscal year 2009 that will keep our trails open, safe, and enjoyable today 

and for future generations. Despite the growing importance of recreation and our 

treasured lands and waters to the American people, the federal investment for 

trails, recreation, and land conservation has not increased accordingly. This lag has 

resulted in high maintenance backlogs, deteriorating infrastructure, loss of open 

space, and negative impacts to resources. In order for Americans to enjoy the outdoors, experience our rich natural heritage, and find healthy places to recreate, we 

need well-maintained trails and protected open spaces. We recommend the following 

appropriations to protect resources and ensure high-quality recreational experiences 

for future generations: 

USDA Forest Service, Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness: minimum 

of $285 million 

Although recreation makes up the greatest use of National Forest System lands, 

recreation remains severely underfunded and understaffed. Facilities deteriorate 

faster than upgrades and maintenance can be accomplished, and the dire shortage 

of recreation staff on-the-ground means obligatory agency functions—resource protection, provision of information and assistance to visitors, enforcement of laws and 

regulations, and performance of routine maintenance—often go unfulfilled or unsatisfactorily accomplished. Funding is also required for travel management planning 

for completion of motorized road and trail designations by 2010 in accordance with 

the 2005 travel management rule. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 proposed funding level, excluding any cost of living increases or inflationary pressures, would result in a RMHW program reduction 

of $25.6 million and 296 FTEs from fiscal year 2008. The Forest Service requires 

increased funding for recreation management and wilderness to protect critical resources; upgrade recreation facilities; reduce the $200∂ million deferred maintenance backlog; augment on-the-ground recreation and wilderness staff; improve 

recreation resource analyses and planning; and more effectively utilize partnerships 

and volunteers. We urge the subcommittee to prioritize Forest Service funding and 

ask for your continued strong support of the world-class recreation heritage of our 

National Forest System. 

Forest Service, Capital Improvement and Maintenance—Trails: minimum of $85 million 

The Forest Service manages 140,000 miles of trails. Visitor safety, protection of 

natural resources, provision of public access, and supporting economic growth all depend on a greater commitment of funds to trails. The Forest Service requires increased funding to restore, maintain, and improve its thousands of trail miles; reduce the $224 million deferred maintenance backlog; prevent and mitigate resource 

impacts; and provide safe, high-quality recreational experiences for millions of 

hikers and other trail enthusiasts. The President’s fiscal year 2009 proposed funding 

level, excluding any cost of living increases or inflationary pressures, would result 

in a program reduction of $26.3 million (34 percent decrease) and 249 FTEs from 

fiscal year 2008. American Hiking is a member of the Partnership for the National 

Trails System (PNTS) and endorses the specific funding requests for the individual 
236 

national scenic and historic trails submitted by the PNTS totaling $5.49 million for 

operations and $4.855 for construction. 2008 marks the 40th Anniversary of the National Trails System Act, and we urge your continued strong support for these national treasures as we embark on the Decade for National Trails leading up to the 

50th Anniversary in 2018. 

National Park Service 

American Hiking supports increased funding for national park operations, as in- cluded in the administration’s fiscal year 2009 request of $2.132 billion and also 

strongly urges increased funding for key NPS recreation and conservation programs 

including the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program and national scenic and historic trails. 

NPS, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance program (RTCA).—$12 million 

The RTCA program implements the natural resource conservation and outdoor 

recreation mission of the NPS. Through technical assistance and partnerships, 

RTCA helps communities and agencies across America restore rivers and habitat, 

develop trail networks, preserve open space, and revitalize communities—all contributing to improved quality of life and close-to-home recreation. RTCA is a highly 

successful program, but its funding has remained relatively flat during the last decade and lagged well behind the rate of inflation, resulting in significant cuts to staff 

and reduced participation in on-the-ground projects. Current demand greatly exceeds the program’s capacity. The administration fiscal year 2009 request calls for 

a $492,000 decrease, which would be a devastating hit to this small, yet extremely 

worthy, results-oriented NPS program. RTCA requires at least a $12 million appropriation to remedy the program’s continued erosion, compensate for losses due to inflation, and enable the program to respond to growing needs and opportunities in 

communities and with national parks throughout the country. 

NPS, National Trails System (NTS): Operations: $14.546 million; Construction 

$2.095 million 

For most of the twenty national scenic and historic trails administered by the 

NPS, barely one-half of their congressionally authorized length and resources are 

protected and available for public use. At least $14.546 million for operations is 

needed in fiscal year 2009 for resource protection, trail maintenance, interpretation, 

and volunteer coordination and support. We endorse the individual requests for national scenic and historic trails submitted by the PNTS for administration and construction for the NPS-administered trails. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Landscape Conservation System: $70 

million 

We request at least $70 million for the National Landscape Conservation System 

in fiscal year 2009—a modest increase over historic funding levels, accounting for 

the growth of the System, increased visitation, inflation and uncontrollable costs. 

We urge Congress to allocate at least $6 million of this total NLCS increase, a permanent base increase of $3.456 million over the permanent base shown in the President’s request, to accomplish the objectives of BLM’s National Trails Plan and provide for the continuing maintenance and operation of the BLM’s National Trails. 

This funding should be permanently established in a new National Scenic and 

Historic Trails Subactivity account, without which BLM cannot plan for, achieve, or 

report upon objectives related to national trails. If this new subactivity is not created, the equivalent increase could be applied to the Recreation Management 1220, 

Cultural Resources 1050, Annual Maintenance 1652, and Challenge Cost Share 

1770 Subactivities for use specifically related to BLM’s national trails. Generally, 

we urge the NLCS office to prioritize Recreation Management Subactivity funding 

to fund planning, establishment, and maintenance of hiking trails on-the- ground 

throughout the Conservation System. 

BLM, Recreation Management.—$70 million 

The BLM manages 261 million acres of lands in the fastest growing states in 

America, with use in some areas increasing by 300 percent. Unfortunately, BLM receives barely sustainable funding to provide the rapidly increasing number of visitors safe and convenient access to the public land recreation resources they demand. 

Our request focuses on several areas of greatest need: 

Travel and Transportation Management: $15 million.—BLM is committed to travel management planning for its hundreds of thousands of miles of primitive roads 

and trails, a process crucial to ensuring that recreational trails are sustainable and 

safe. Additionally, adequate signage and maps are frequently unavailable on BLM 

trails, precluding safe access for many user groups. 
237 

Field Staff for Trail Operations: $5 million.—Ninety percent of BLM recreation 

staff is primarily office-based, with little opportunity to directly maintain and protect trails. As a result, many BLM areas have few publicly available trails, and 

users face increasing threats from migrant traffic, methamphetamine manufacture, 

and poorly maintained and unmarked trails. Increased funding in this area would 

enable BLM to hire and train law enforcement and recreation technician staff to 

complete needed inventory, repair, and maintenance functions. Public Outreach, Information Management, and Education: $1 million.—BLM is 

far behind the other land management agencies in informing the public about the 

recreational resources available on its lands. Many BLM field offices are unable to 

provide accurate information about trail resources, and many of the BLM recreation 

websites are nonfunctional. Increased funding is crucial to give BLM basic abilities 

to communicate recreational opportunities to the public.’’ 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System: $514 million 

The National Wildlife Refuge System protects myriad species and critical habitat 

and provides recreational opportunities on approximately 2,500 miles of land and 

water trails for nearly 40 million visitors annually. The operations and maintenance 

backlog for the system totals more than $3 billion, and approximately 200 refuges 

do not have any staff. Without adequate staff, important management activities 

such as trail maintenance, habitat restoration, and educational programs will be diminished or eliminated. A minimum increase of $15 million is necessary to prevent 

‘‘no net loss’’ for the system, meet cost of living increases and inflationary pressures, 

and keep refuges from cutting public use programs. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): $125 million Stateside; $220 million 

Federal 

The LWCF provides and protects hiking opportunities nationwide through federal 

land acquisition and State recreation grants. More than 40,000 LWCF projects have 

been completed in virtually every county across America. Authorized at $900 million 

annually, the fiscal year 2009 administration request represents one of the lowest 

proposed funding levels in the program’s history. LWCF is critical to the future protection of our public lands, national trails, and provision of close-to-home recreation 

opportunities. We strongly oppose the administration’s recommendation to zero out 

the stateside LWCF program. 

CONCLUSION

American Hiking is dedicated to building, maintaining and protecting hiking 

trails and their natural corridors so that current and future generations can experience the many joys and benefits of hiking and are inspired to protect this legacy. 

Through our Volunteer Vacations and National Trails Day® programs, we engage 

thousands of volunteers in trail projects every year. Volunteerism is essential to 

trails and recreation; however, volunteerism on public lands must not be perceived 

as a panacea to declining agency budgets. We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee’s 

past support for trails and recreation and look forward to continued strong support. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for considering our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM

REQUEST SUMMARY

On behalf of the Nation’s Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), which comprise 

the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2009 Appropriations recommendations for the 

26 colleges funded under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance 

Act (Tribal College Act), our two tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions, the two Bureau of Indian Education postsecondary institutions, 

and the Institute of American Indian Arts. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, administers these programs, save for the Institute of 

American Indian Arts, which is funded directly by the Interior Department. In fiscal 

year 2009, TCUs seek $70.7 million to fund all of the programs under the Tribal 

College Act; and a total of $7.0 million for our two tribally controlled postsecondary 

career and technical institutions. 

Under the Tribal College Act, we seek $68.1 million for institutional operations 

grants; of which, $50.4 million would be for Title I grants (funding 25 TCUs) and 

$17.7 to fund Title II (Dine ́ College). This request is an increase of $6.2 million for 

Title I grants and a $5.8 million increase for Dine ́ College over fiscal year 2008 levels and a total of $12.1 million over the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request 
238 

for institutional operations funding. Additionally, we seek funding for the technical 

assistance contract authorized under the Act [25 USC 1805] at the same amount 

as available in both fiscal year 2008 and the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget and 

$2.0 million to help establish and fund endowments under Title III of the act. 

Tribal Colleges ask that Congress reject the administration’s latest recommendation to eliminate Department of the Interior funding for United Tribes Technical 

College and Navajo Technical College and to appropriate funds at $4.5 million and 

$2.5 million, respectively. AIHEC’s membership also includes three other TCUs 

funded under separate authorities within Interior Appropriations, namely: Haskell 

Indian Nations University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; and the Institute of American Indian Arts. AIHEC supports the independently submitted requests for funding the institutional operations budgets of these institutions. 

Forward Funding of Institutional Operations Grants: For the past several years, 

basic institutional operations funding has not been available to the TCUs until well 

after October 1 of the relevant fiscal year. 

—In fiscal year 2006, despite the early August enactment of the Interior spending 

bill, almost 2 months prior to the start of the fiscal year, funds were not distributed to the TCUs until late November, 2 months into the new fiscal year—3 

months into the school year. 

—In fiscal year 2007, due to the protracted appropriations process, TCUs did not 

receive operating funds until mid-March; 5 months into the fiscal year and 6 

months after the academic year began. 

—This year (fiscal year 2008), TCUs did not gain access to their initial partial 

payment, made in order under the first continuing resolution, until December 

13—a month into the second continuing resolution. TCUs were 2 months into 

the new fiscal year, and 3 months into the academic year, and unable to access 

even a partial payment toward their basic day-to-day operating budgets. 

Securing a one-time payment of $60 million to transition to a forward funded program for TCU institutional operations would correct this unfortunate cycle of delayed payments, expensive short-term loans, and lay-offs that perennially plague 

TCUs and—for the first time—would give these institutions the resources they need 

at the start of each academic year. Forward funding is authorized under the Tribal 

College Act and is consistent with the existing funding practices of other Indian 

education operating accounts within the Department of the Interior. Recognizing the 

fiscal constraints that this Congress is laboring under, TCUs recommend an incremental approach aimed at securing the funds necessary to transition the TCU 

grants program to forward funding over the next 3 years. We request an additional 

$20 million be appropriated each year for the next 3 fiscal years (2009–2011), resulting in the $60 million necessary to finally establish the TCU institutional operating 

grants program as a forward funded program. 

BACKGROUND AND FUNDING DISPARITIES

Today there are 36 TCUs located in 14 States, which were begun specifically to 

serve the higher education needs of American Indians. Annually, these institutions 

serve students from more than 250 federally recognized tribes, more than 80 percent 

of whom are eligible to receive Federal financial aid. 

TCUs are accredited by independent, regional accreditation agencies and like all 

institutions of higher education, must undergo stringent performance reviews on a 

periodic basis to retain their accreditation status. In addition to college level programming, TCUs provide much needed high school completion (GED), basic remediation, job training, college preparatory courses, and adult education. 

Title I of the Tribal College Act authorizes funding for the basic institutional operating budget of one qualifying institution per federally recognized tribe based on a 

full-time American Indian student enrollment formula. Despite the much appreciated increases that Congress has appropriated over the last several years, TCUs 

remain chronically underfunded. Today, 27 years after the act was first funded, the 

TCUs are receiving $5,304 per Indian student, still below the authorized level. If 

you factor in inflation, the buying power of this appropriation is $1,270 LESS per 

Indian student than it was in the initial fiscal year 1981 appropriation, which was 

$2,831 per Indian student. While the other TCUs’ operations funding is not enrollment driven and therefore the disparity is not as easily illustrated, they too suffer 

from a lack of adequate basic operating funds. This is not simply a matter of appropriations falling short of an authorization; it effectively impedes our institutions 

from having the necessary resources to grow their programs in response to the 

changing needs of their students and the communities they serve. 
239 

JUSTIFICATIONS

(a) TCUs provide critical access to vital postsecondary education opportunities. 

Tribal Colleges and Universities provide access to higher education for American Indians and others living in some of the Nation’s most rural and economically depressed areas. The average family income for a student first entering a TCU is approximately $14,000, which is 33 percent below the Federal poverty threshold for 

a family of four ($21,200). In addition to serving their students, TCUs serve their 

communities through a variety of community outreach programs. 

(b) TCUs are producing a new generation of highly trained American Indians as 

teachers, tribal government leaders, engineers, nurses, computer programmers, and 

other much-needed professionals. By teaching the job skills most in demand on their 

reservations, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for tribal economic growth, with 

benefits for surrounding communities. In contrast to the high rates of unemployment on reservations, graduates of TCUs are employed in ‘‘high need’’ occupational 

areas such as Head Start teachers, elementary and secondary school teachers, and 

nurses/health care providers. Just as important, the overwhelming majority of tribal 

college graduates remain in their tribal communities, applying their newly acquired 

skills and knowledge where they are most needed. 

(c) TCUs meet the strict standards of mainstream accreditation boards offering 

top quality academic programs and serve as effective bridges to 4 year institutions 

of higher learning. A growing number of TCUs have attained a 10 year accreditation 

term, the longest term granted to any higher education institution. While most 

TCUs are 2 year institutions offering certificates and associate degrees, their transfer function is significant. A survey of TCU graduates conducted by Harder ∂ Company Community Research, San Francisco, CA for the American Indian College 

Fund, indicated that more than 80 percent of respondents who attended a mainstream college prior to enrolling at a tribal college did not finish the degree they 

were pursuing at the mainstream college. The rate of completion markedly improved 

for those who attended a tribal college prior to pursuing a degree at a mainstream 

institution. After completing tribal college coursework, less than half of respondents 

dropped out of mainstream colleges, and nearly 40 percent went on to obtain a bachelor’s degree. This suggests TCUs have a profound impact on the persistence of 

American Indian students in pursuit of baccalaureate degrees. The overwhelming 

majority of respondents felt that their tribal college experience had prepared them 

well for further education and noted that it had a very positive impact on their personal and professional achievements. 

SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS

(a) Enrollment Gains and New TCUs.—Compounding existing funding disparities 

is the fact that although the numbers of TCUs and students enrolled in them have 

dramatically increased since 1981, appropriations have increased at a disproportionately low rate. Since they were first funded, the number of tribal colleges has quadrupled and continues to grow; Indian student enrollments have risen by over 300 

percent. In fiscal year 2005, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College (Michigan) and 

Tohono O’odham Community College (Arizona) became eligible to receive funds 

under the Tribal College Act. In fiscal year 2007, Ilisagvik College (Alaska) became 

eligible for funding, and White Earth Tribal and Community College (Minnesota) 

will be eligible in fiscal year 2009. TCUs are in many ways victims of their own 

successes. The growing number of tribally chartered colleges and added students 

has forced TCUs to slice an already inadequate annual funding pie into even smaller pieces. 

(b) Local Tax and Revenue Bases.—TCUs cannot rely on local tax base revenue. 

Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax, high reservation poverty rates, 

the trust status of reservation lands, and the lack of strong reservation economies 

hinder the creation of a reservation tax base. On reservations where TCUs are located, the unemployment rate can well exceed 60 percent. In comparison, the current national unemployment rate is 4.8 percent. 

(c) Trust Responsibility.—The emergence of TCUs is a direct result of the special 

relationship between American Indian tribes and the Federal Government. TCUs 

are founded and chartered by their respective American Indian tribes, which hold 

a special legal relationship with the Federal Government, actualized by more than 

400 treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior Congressional action, and the 

ceding of more than one billion acres of land to the Federal Government. Beyond 

the trust responsibility, the fact remains that TCUs are providing a public service 

that no other institutions of higher education are willing, or able, to provide by helping the Federal Government fulfill its responsibility to the American people, particularly in rural America. Despite the fact that only students that are enrolled mem-
240 

bers of a federally recognized Indian tribe are counted when determining an institution’s share of the operating funds, TCUs have open enrollment policies. Approximately 20 percent of TCU enrollments are non-Indians. They are simply and effectively removing barriers that have long prevented equal access to higher education 

for reservation community residents. 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget includes level funding at $56.0 million for 

institutional operating grants for 26 TCUs. Over the past few years several new 

TCUs have become eligible for funding under Title I of the Tribal College Act. In 

fiscal year 2009, White Earth Tribal and Community College in Mahnomen, MN 

will join the list of eligible institutions. We are hopeful that Congress will build on 

the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget. Additionally, the fiscal year 2009 budget 

once again recommends eliminating Department of the Interior funding for the two 

tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions, we trust that 

Congress will again reject the President’s recommendation and adequately fund 

these two vital institutions. 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

TCUs respectfully request a total appropriation of $70.7 million for all of the programs authorized under the Tribal College Act [25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.]. Specifically, 

TCUs seek $68.1 million for operating grants under, of which, $50.4 million would 

be for Title I grants (funding 25 TCUs) and $17.7 to fund Title II (Dine ́ College). 

This request is an increase of $6.2 million for Title I grants and a $5.8 million increase for Dine ́ College over fiscal year 2008 levels and a total of $12.1 million over 

the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request. Additionally, we seek funding for 

the technical assistance contract [25 USC 1805] at the same amount as available 

in fiscal year 2008 and in the President’s request. These funds help address technical assistance needs of TCUs in securing and maintaining their accreditation and 

to fund data collection and analysis necessary to comply with Congressional and Department data requests. Additionally, we request $2 million for Title III of the Act, 

which helps our institutions to build endowments. The President’s budget reduces 

this program to just $109,000. Lastly, we request an additional $20 million be appropriated each year for the next 3 fiscal years (2009–2011), resulting in the $60 

million necessary to finally establish the TCU institutional operating grants program as a forward funded program 

For our two tribally controlled career and technical institutions, we support $4.5 

million for United Tribes Technical College; and $2.5 million for Navajo Technical 

College to restore and expand the funding for these programs that the fiscal year 

2009 President’s budget once again recommends eliminating. 

CONCLUSION

Tribal Colleges and Universities provide quality higher education to many thousands of American Indians who might otherwise not have access to such opportunities. The modest Federal investment that has been made in TCUs has paid great 

dividends in terms of employment, education, and economic development. Continuation of this investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense. 

We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the Nation’s Tribal Colleges and Universities and your serious consideration of our fiscal year 2009 appropriations requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) encourages the committee to 

provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with at least $646.5 million for 

the Office of Research and Development (ORD) for fiscal year 2009. Within this 

amount, we encourage you to provide at least $181 million for human health and 

ecosystem research. We also support additional funding for important programs 

within ORD, such as research in endocrine disruptors and global change. 

AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to advancing biological research and education for the welfare of society. Founded in 1947 as a part of the 

National Academy of Sciences, AIBS became an independent, member-governed organization in the 1950s. AIBS is sustained by a robust membership of some 5,000 

biologists and nearly 200 professional societies and scientific organizations; the combined individual membership of the latter exceeds 250,000. AIBS advances its mission through coalition activities in research, education, and public policy; publishing 
241 

the peer-reviewed journal BioScience and the education website 

ActionBioscience.org; providing scientific peer review and advisory services to government agencies and other clients; convening meetings; and managing scientific 

programs. 

As EPA’s scientific division, ORD performs valuable research needed to solve the 

environmental challenges facing the United States today and potential challenges 

in the future. EPA’s environmental research plays an integral role in pollution prevention and protecting human health. 

Scientists in EPA’s human health research program uniquely incorporate many 

environmental science disciplines to build a strong foundation for risk assessment 

and improve understanding of toxic chemical exposure and health effects. For instance, EPA scientists have conducted research on the chemical atrazine, an agricultural herbicide in use since the late 1950s, to understand its effects on human 

health. 

The EPA’s Ecological Research Program is responsible for improving and protecting ecosystem services, such as clean air and water, rich soil for food and crop 

production, pollination, and flood control, which are often taken for granted. Research conducted by the Ecological Research Program provides scientific data, methods, models, and tools needed by states, communities, and tribes to understand the 

cost and benefits of using ecosystem services. 

The Endocrine Disruptor Research Initiative enhances our understanding of the 

effects of endocrine disruptors; the initiative determines how exposure to endocrine 

disruptors affects human and wildlife populations, and is developing tools to screen 

and test for disruptors. Funding for the initiative is imperative as it was identified 

as one of the ORD’s top six research priorities in 1996 and continues to be a vital 

research program at the EPA. 

Funding for research programs at the EPA has steadily declined since fiscal year 

2004, when ORD was funded at $646.5 million. The President’s budget request for 

fiscal year 2009 would allocate $540.7 million for the ORD, which is approximately 

$7 million less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted amount and is over $100 million 

less than what was appropriated in fiscal year 2004. Consequently, research in 

human health and ecosystems within the ORD would be allocated $144.7 million, 

$8.3 million less than fiscal year 2008 enacted funding and $36.5 million less than 

funding enacted in fiscal year 2004. 

Over the past several years, the EPA Science Advisory Board has made multiple 

requests to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson for a revitalization of ecosystem 

research and increased funding for ecological research. Dr. M. Granger Morgan, 

Chair of the Science Advisory Board, wrote to Administrator Johnson in March 2006 

expressing concerns about funding declines and ‘‘systematic bias against ecosystem 

research’’ stating that ecosystem research at the EPA has ‘‘sustained a decrease of 

nearly 26 percent since 2004.’’ Dr. Morgan stated that the Board was distressed that 

instead funding has been cut and work has declined. 

We urge Congress to consider the Board’s concerns and advice and provide the 

EPA with at least $646.5 million for the ORD for fiscal year 2009 and at least $181 

million for human health and ecosystem research. Providing these amounts to the 

ORD, human health and ecosystem research, and other important biological science 

research will restore them to fiscal year 2004 levels, thus allowing vital research 

in ecosystem services and healthy communities to continue productively. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY, CROP SCIENCE

SOCIETY OF AMERICA, AND SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA

Chairwoman Feinstein, ranking member Allard and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society 

of America, Soil Science Society of America (ASA–CSSA–SSSA), we are pleased to 

submit comments in strong support of enhanced public investment in the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey as critical components of Federal appropriations for fiscal year 2009 and beyond. With more than 25,000 members and practicing professionals, ASA–CSSA–SSSA are the largest life science professional societies in the United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop and soil sciences. ASA– 

CSSA–SSSA play a major role in promoting progress in these sciences through the 

publication of quality journals and books, convening meetings and workshops, developing educational, training, and public information programs, providing scientific 

advice to inform public policy, and promoting ethical conduct among practitioners 

of agronomy and crop and soil sciences. 
242 

SUMMARY

ASA–CSSA–SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight budget for fiscal year 2009. 

We also recognize that the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill has many 

valuable and necessary components, and we applaud the efforts of the Subcommittee to fund the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey. 

The U.S. Forest Service sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. 

Soils are a vital component of forest management, and their understanding is essential to achieve the agencies strategic goals. The Societies are concerned with the 

overall 8 percent decrease in the fiscal year 2009 President’s budget for USFS. Vital 

programs that are essential for improved soil quality have been consistently underfunded. We urge the subcommittee to increase discretionary funding for the U.S. 

Forest Service budget to $4,800,000,000, about a 7 percent increase over the fiscal 

year 2008 enacted levels ($4,448,428,000), thus putting the agency back on track towards properly managing the 749 million acres of forests in the United States for 

the services they provide: clean water and air; recreational opportunities; hunting; 

fishing; forest products; and, scenic values. 

The U.S. Geological Survey is an essential agency for the United States, providing 

reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss 

of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological energy, and 

mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. For fiscal year 2009, 

we urge the subcommittee to fund the U.S. Geological Survey at $1.3 billion, about 

an 8 percent increase over the recommended funding level in fiscal year 2008 ($1.2 

billion). This growth rate is similar to the annual growth rate the President originally proposed for science agencies in the American Competitiveness Initiative order 

to double their budgets in 10 years. 

U.S FOREST SERVICE

Forest and Rangeland Research 

The Forest Service Research (FSR) soils program examines key environmental 

issues: nutrient cycling, impact of acid rain on soil function, management impacts 

on soil productivity, plant nutrition, soil moisture, plant growth relationships, soil 

microbial functions and soil quality concepts. Past investments in soils research 

have yielded great benefits to the Nation, e.g. Research soil scientists described the 

environment-plant-soil carbon relations in the very carbon-rich black spruce forests 

needed to assist forest managers in understanding how to manage the soil carbon 

pool after fire disturbance, which is predicted to increase in a warming climate. 

ASA–CSSA–SSSA recommend increasing funding for Forest and Rangeland Research by 7 percent to $306,000,000 in fiscal year 2009. Within Forest and Rangeland Research, we urge the subcommittee to fund Resource Management and Use 

at $91,759,990 for fiscal year 2009, a 7 percent increase above fiscal year 2008 enacted budget. If these funding increases do not occur, the Forest Service will be unable to replace recently retired research soil scientists, and there will also be a loss 

of capability to maintain measurements on the national Long Term Site Productivity study that guides Forest Service sustainability requirements. 

National Forest System 

Fresh water is a critical resource that is becoming scarce in many regions. It is 

essential that we continue to manage our forests to promote healthy watersheds, 

through effective monitoring. ASA–CSSA–SSSA are concerned with the President’s 

proposed steep cuts to Inventory and Monitoring (¥11 percent), Vegetation and Watershed Management (¥5 percent), Establish Forest Vegetation (¥6 percent), Maintain and Improve Watershed Conditions (¥7 percent) and Minerals and Geology 

Management (¥15 percent) programs within NFS for fiscal year 2009. ASA–CSSA– 

SSSA recommend 7 percent increases for each of these programs for fiscal year 2009 

as follows: Inventory and Monitoring ($178,240,600), Vegetation and Watershed 

Management ($189,857,590), Establish Forest Vegetation ($41,942,930), Maintain 

and Improve Watershed Conditions ($55,676,380) and Minerals and Geology Management ($90,033,000). Within Minerals and Geology Management, we urge a funding level of $10,374,720 for the Manage Environmental Risk program. Soil is the 

natural filter, often overlooked, vital for healthy watersheds. Past investments in 

NFS have yielded enormous benefits to society including: Soil scientists annually 

provide critical soil resource information to Burned Area Emergency Response 

teams evaluating the environmental effects and developing rapid management responses for of hundreds of wildfires. Unless funding is restored to NFS, USFS will 

be unable to start a resource inventory of the remaining 59.7 million acres of Na-
243 

tional Forest land currently scheduled; adequately continue monitoring the effects 

of land management activities on forest and range sustainability as required by the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976; and maintain a viable scientific knowledge base when retiring soil scientists are not replaced. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Water Resources Investigations 

Water is a limiting resource for many regions of the United States; certain regions have been in a sustained drought for several years. The additional $9,500,000 proposed by the Bush administration will help the Water for America Program map 

future water availability. The President’s fiscal year 2009 proposed a $10,645,000 

cut for the National Water-Quality Water Assessment (NAWQA) program will seriously affect ground water monitoring capacity in USGS. Aquifers are the leading 

source of fresh water across the country and it is essential we monitor and maintain 

this ecosystem service. Nutrient loading of the Mississippi River has been linked to 

the hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico. January 2008, NSF released a press release 

(08–010) that concluded agriculture is changing the chemistry of the Mississippi 

River due to increased carbon and water loading. As more farm acreage is converted 

to biofuels, there is increasing potential for these systems to load major river systems. The Societies recommend an increase of $6,080,000 (9.5 percent) over fiscal 

year 2008 enacted ($63,912,000) for National Water-Quality Water Assessment program which will allow for annual monitoring at the 113 active sites, demonstrating 

the government’s commitment to providing clean available water under increasing 

demands. ASA–CSSA–SSSA request a funding level of $8.8 million for the Water 

resources research institutes which assist Federal and State agencies in promoting 

and facilitating the research and technology transfer they need to carry out their 

missions to protect human health, environmental resources, and economic sustainability. 

Climate Change 

Climate change is a major focus for many agencies in fiscal year 2009, as well 

as an important focus for the Societies. With increasing attention focused on climate 

change, ASA–CSSA–SSSA are interested in the role agriculture can play to mitigate 

climate change. The Societies applaud the reorganization of the separate areas focused on climate change into a single program; however we are concerned that some 

programs may not be transferred over. The new budget activity for USGS Global 

Climate change activities shifts focus from research to data collection and assessments. While data collection and assessments are essential for land management 

decisions, potential improvements in management will remain undiscovered without 

adequate funding for research. The continual proposed decline in research regarding 

climate change will severely inhibit the United State’s ability to create new innovative management systems. Funding for Biological Research in fiscal year 2009 

should be increased ($6,000,000) from 2008 enacted ($5,007,000), not cut by 

$5,007,000 (100 percent reduction) as the President proposes. The $1,071,000 proposed reduction in funding for the Geographic research program will adversely affect the United States’ ability to affectively reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture. The Geographic research program contributes to the Carbon 

Research Program, carried out by USGS, USDA, and other international partnerships. We recommend increasing funding levels for terrestrial carbon to $2,000,000 

rather than reducing them. There are many factors that affect terrestrial carbon sequestration and continual United States support of these programs will enhance our 

knowledge of these factors, as well as develop potential new management practices. 

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing 

Land use and change are major issues of concern for the Nation. Satellite imagery 

is used by a variety of stakeholders: government agencies such as USGS, EPA, NSF, 

and USDA; Universities-land grants and private; as well as the private sector environmental managers and planners. These images have become essential tools for 

land managers to assess land change, as well as, more effectively develop management plans. Precision agriculture utilizes remote sensing, in combination with GIS 

and GPS, to develop farm-specific management maps reducing over-application of 

nutrients and loss in sensitive areas. ASA–CSSA–SSSA feel that a 35 percent cut 

in funding for Geographic Analysis and Monitoring (GAM) would cause huge setbacks to many important programs. Within GAM, the Societies do commend the 

president’s budget proposal that increases funding for the Remote Sensing Missions 

and Data Acquisition program, which funds Landsat. The $2.1 million increase will 

continue to fund this vital program, encouraging further utilization of these data by 

land managers to help increase their ability to manage lands more effectively. How-
244 

ever, ASA–CSSA–SSSA do not support the proposed $984,400 cut to the educational 

support for remote sensing which would eliminate affordable access to remotely 

sensed data at the State level to educational institutions. Of great concern to ASA– 

CSSA–SSSA is the proposed $1,013,000 cut to the Geographic Research program 

under Geographic Analysis and Monitoring which would effectively eliminate funds 

for continuing partnerships with other Department bureaus and the USDA for identifying the amount of carbon currently stored in ecosystems of the United States 

and select ecosystems around the world. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our requests. For additional information or to learn more about the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America (ASA–CSSA–SSSA), please 

visit www.agronomy.org, www.crops.org or www.soils.org or contact: 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY

The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit the following 

statement on the fiscal year 2009 appropriation for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) research and education programs. The ASM is the largest single 

life science organization with more than 42,000 members. The ASM mission is to 

enhance the science of microbiology, to gain a better understanding of life processes, 

and to promote the application of this knowledge for improved health and environmental well-being. 

The EPA relies on sound science to safeguard both human health and the environment. The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) sponsors innovative research that provides the solid underpinning of science and technology for EPA regulatory and public outreach activities. ORD conducts research on ways to prevent pollution, protect human health, and reduce risks from a variety of hazardous chemicals and microbes. The work at ORD laboratories, research centers, and offices 

across the country helps improve the quality of air, water, soil, and the way we utilize resources. ORD’s mission is to: (1) Perform research and development to identify, understand, and solve current and future environmental problems; (2) Provide 

responsive technical support to EPA’s mission; (3) Integrate the work of ORD’s scientific partners (other agencies, nations, private sector organizations, and academia); and (4) Provide leadership in addressing emerging environmental issues and 

in advancing the science and technology of risk assessment and risk management. 

The ASM is very concerned with the diminishing budget for EPA’s research and 

development programs. Optimal EPA oversight clearly depends upon the agency’s 

access to scientific expertise and its ability to respond quickly to our changing environment. Investments in research and development programs support both access 

to expertise and development of the best responses to environmental demands. The 

fiscal year 2009 budget request for the ORD is $541 million, a 1.3 percent, or a $7 

million, decrease from fiscal year 2008, and a 3 percent decrease from fiscal year 

2007. These decreases are part of a longer term pattern of erosion that is deteriorating the scientific foundation that is essential for EPA to make decisions on and 

formulate regulations designed to protect human health and the environment. The 

ASM urges Congress to provide at least $595 million for the ORD in fiscal year 

2008, the same as the funding level provided in fiscal year 2006. 

STAR GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS

The proposed budget decreases for ORD include a reduced level of spending for 

the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. The ORD budget proposes only $61 

million for STAR, a 2 percent reduction from fiscal year 2008, which is substantially 

less than the fiscal year 2002 level of $102 million, even without correcting for inflation. The proposed decreases would continue seven consecutive years of cutting this 

important program. The funding request for STAR includes $55 million for the 

STAR Grants, and $6 million for the STAR Fellowships. The ASM urges Congress 

to increase funding for the STAR grants program to at least the fiscal year 2002 

level of $102 million. 

The STAR Grants fund research in numerous environmental science and engineering disciplines through a competitive solicitation process and independent peer 

review. The program engages the Nation’s best scientists and engineers in targeted 

research that complements EPA’s laboratory research and research conducted by 

our partners in other Federal agencies. 

Reductions in the STAR program will severely limit the ability of EPA to draw 

upon critically needed scientific expertise from the academic community, a valuable 

source of research insights and personnel for EPA programs. Reductions will also 
245 

limit U.S. competitiveness in the areas of environmental research, training, and development of new technologies for solving environmental problems. 

The STAR program revitalizes all areas of EPA research and fosters workforce development in environmental science and technology through fellowships. In December 2006, EPA reported results from several STAR funded studies on biomarkers, 

which are substances or processes that can be measured in biological samples, such 

as blood, that indicate toxic exposure or predict disease. Extramural researchers 

confirmed that easy to collect saliva can be used to assay pesticide exposure in children and adults; other grantees used biomarkers to demonstrate that specific insect 

management techniques effectively reduce prenatal pesticide exposure. STAR recently supported a grant that will potentially provide managers with both an enhanced forecast of harmful algal blooms and information needed to formulate bloom 

management and prevention strategies. Such forecasts are important because the 

frequency and intensity of toxic cyanobacteria blooms has increased in recent decades, causing a plethora of acute, chronic, and fatal illnesses in animals and humans. 

CLEAN AND SAFE WATER

Congress has mandated that the EPA ensure the safety of our drinking and recreational waters, an enormous regulatory and assessment task that relies on sufficient EPA funding and personnel resources. The ASM is concerned with the proposed 2.8 percent cut to the Drinking Water and Water Quality programs at ORD. 

The Drinking Water Program suffers the greatest, with an 8 percent proposed decrease from fiscal year 2008. Cutting the research program for safe drinking water 

is unacceptable at a time when more than 10 percent of the U.S. population served 

by community drinking water systems does not receive drinking water that meets 

all applicable health-based standards. 

The potential for health problems from microbial contaminated drinking water is 

demonstrated by localized outbreaks of waterborne disease. Many of these outbreaks 

have been linked to contamination by bacteria or viruses, probably from human or 

animal wastes. For example, in 1999 and 2000, there were 39 reported disease outbreaks associated with drinking water, some of which were linked to public drinking 

water supplies. 

The ASM supports the following priority research areas included in the fiscal year 

2009 budget request for drinking water and water quality: (1) Studies on aquifer 

storage and recovery on the safety of drinking water and the impacts of subsurface 

carbon dioxide (CO2) storage on drinking water quality; (2) Revising aquatic life 

guidelines, recreational water criteria, the effects of emerging contaminants, nutrients, biocriteria, and multiple stressor effects on stream biota; (3) Watershed management work that supports diagnoses of impairment, mitigations, and pollutant 

load reduction from headwater streams and isolated wetlands; and (4) Improving 

the control of microbial releases from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) during periods of significant wet weather events. It is also imperative that the EPA 

continue to develop analytical methods for accurately measuring contaminant levels 

in drinking water and surface water; ensure proper certification and assessment of 

laboratories that analyze drinking-water samples; and conduct research that 

strengthens the scientific basis for standards that limit public exposure to contaminants. Topics of growing concern include, among others, the dissemination into the 

environment through water and wastewater treatment systems of diverse anthropogenic compounds, such as pharmaceuticals and estrogens or estrogen-like compounds. These compounds are now ubiquitous, but their fates in the environment 

and impacts on humans and other organisms are inadequately known. 

The ASM supports the proposed $1 million increase for the Water Quality program. Continued investment in this area can build upon the successful outcomes already obtained. Increased research is needed to protect the Nation from waterborne 

illnesses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

Cryptosporidium, a protozoan parasite causing gastroenteritis in humans, has become the leading cause of recreational water associated outbreaks of gastrointestinal 

illness. In 2003–2004, this parasite accounted for 61.1 percent of gastrointestinal 

outbreaks associated with disinfected swimming venues such as swimming pools 

and water parks. This is likely due to its high resistance to free chlorine, the main 

barrier to infectious disease transmission in pools. Since 2005, cryptosporidiosis reporting has increased substantially. 

EPA researchers have aggressively sought improved techniques for water quality 

assessment, building ‘‘toolkits’’ of assays and computational models that can be used 

by local and State public health officials. Recent examples include a new rapid DNA 

analysis test to quantify Enterococci and Bacterioides bacteria in water. This new 
246 

test reduces the time for detecting these sewage contaminants from 24 hours to just 

two hours and makes possible same day decisions on beach warnings or closings. 

Other current ORD research efforts include developing laboratory cell lines and assays to measure chemical interactions with human hormone receptors and using 

new genomics technologies to assess risks from widely used conazole fungicides. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE

The EPA is a stakeholder in ensuring a sustainable environment, meeting the 

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet 

their own needs. Renewable energy research is essential to ensuring sustainability. 

The ASM encourages EPA to pursue collaborative efforts with the National Science 

Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

In order to provide safe and secure drinking water for its citizens, the Nation 

must improve the sustainability and energy efficiency of its water distribution systems from sources to end users. Energy efficiency is an important but often overlooked consideration. At present, the Nation’s water distribution infrastructure consumes approximately 5 percent of total electricity use. The development of non-fossil 

fuel energy sources to work water distribution systems cannot only contribute to a 

more secure water supply, but can also contribute to the Nation’s energy security. 

Coupling microbial activity during wastewater treatment to electricity generation 

provides one example for increasing energy efficiency. 

Researchers, supported by the NSF and the USDA, have made great strides in 

advancing the technology of microbial fuel cells to benefit wastewater treatment 

plants. Microbial fuel cells work through the action of bacteria, which can produce 

electricity in fuel cells. In the process, the bacteria consume organic matter in the 

wastewater and improve water quality. This approach uses the bacteria that naturally occur in wastewater, requiring no special bacterial strains or unusual environmental demands. The benefit of microbial fuel cell applications is that while they 

generate electricity, they purify wastewater, a goal of wastewater treatment facilities that usually requires the consumption of energy. 

The ASM urges Congress to support a collaborative relationship between the EPA, 

DOE, NSF, and USDA to explore energy production from waste treatment, and to 

develop mechanisms for improving energy efficiency in water distribution. 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change affects all of earth’s life, including microbes that often dominate 

the living mass of many ecosystems. Extreme temperatures can lead directly to loss 

of life, while climate-related disturbances in ecological systems, such as changes in 

the range of infective parasites, can indirectly affect the incidence of serious infectious diseases. In addition, warm temperatures can increase air and water pollution, 

which in turn harm human health. The impact of these changes on microbial activities is often unpredictable, but microbes play major roles in water quality, environmental integrity and human health, it is essential that the EPA retain and expand 

its ability to support research on climate change and subsequent impact on both 

beneficial and pathogenic microorganisms. 

The ASM is concerned with the proposed 15 percent cut to the Global Change research program at ORD because it is clear that certain diseases and pathogens are 

sensitive to climate changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report in 2007 that noted that the global population at risk from vectorborne malaria would increase by between 220 million and 400 million in the next 

century. Other ‘‘vector-borne’’ diseases, such as dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis, carried by mosquitoes and other insects serving as biological reservoirs 

and vectors are also projected to spread into new areas due to global warming. 

While most of the increase is predicted to occur in Africa, some increased risk is 

projected in Britain, Australia, India, and Portugal. Climate change may increase 

the risk of other infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that appear in warm 

areas and are spread by pathogens having a water habitat. Warming of U.S. costal 

waters in recent years has caused shellfish-borne outbreaks of gastroenteritis 

caused by the aquatic bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus to become an increased 

risk to humans by consuming these infected shellfish. In addition, algal blooms 

could occur more frequently as temperatures warm, particularly in areas with polluted waters, potentially causing diseases such as cholera that tend to accompany 

algal blooms to become more frequent. 
247 

CONCLUSION

Sound science is necessary for the protection of human health and the environment. The ORD is an integral component for conducting research needed to answer 

many of the challenges we face, such as climate change, renewable energy, and 

clean and safe water. The ASM urges Congress to provide at least $595 million for 

the ORD and $102 million for the STAR program in fiscal year 2008. 

The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony and would be 

pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers the fiscal year 2009 appropriation 

for the EPA. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) respectfully requests that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies appropriate a total of 

$37.1 million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) including an additional 

$33.1 million to increase and expand activities of the Office of Law Enforcement 

($26 million for special agents, $3.1 million for ports of entry, $4 million for the 

Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory) as well as $4 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. The President’s fiscal year 

2009 proposed budget falls far short of providing the funds needed by agencies within the Department of the Interior to protect, preserve, recover and manage America’s wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, as required by law and 

by their public trust obligations to the American people. AWI also asks Congress 

to reign in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by including language preventing funds to be used for the implementation of the BLM’s wild horse program’s 

sales authority language. 

OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

A seeming increase for this function in the President’s budget is actually a decrease when higher uncontrollable and fixed costs are taken into account. AWI requests that an additional $33.1 million be allocated to the FWS to increase and expand the activities of its Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) in its critical role of combating wildlife crime. The OLE investigates both domestic and international wildlife 

crimes that involve the transgression of over a dozen federal wildlife and conservation laws. Though it is well known that the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife 

products is second only to the trade in narcotics in terms of revenue generated globally, and despite the fact that the United States remains a source of or destination 

for much of this contraband, the OLE has consistently been underfunded and understaffed and, thus, shortchanged in its efforts to combat this illegal trade. 

The FWS has cut its covert wildlife crimes investigation unit in half. Yet, given 

the severity of the illegal wildlife trade problem and the inherent underground nature of the trade, covert investigations are essential for enforcing wildlife laws and 

identifying, capturing, and prosecuting those responsible for wildlife crimes. The 

OLE and its employees cannot effectively enforce federal wildlife laws without a covert investigations unit. Congress must direct the Secretary of the Interior to reinvigorate the OLE, including its covert investigations unit and provide the funding necessary to restore the OLE as the preeminent wildlife law enforcement organization 

in the world. 

FWS Special Agents.—Wildlife law enforcement agents perform what is consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous jobs as they attempt to fulfill their mandate to protect our wildlife heritage. In fiscal year 2007, FWS agents pursued over 

12,000 investigations resulting in over $14 million in fines, 32 years of jail time for 

the perpetrators, and 557 years of probation. FWS cases documented illegal trafficking in U.S. leopard sharks, coral reef organisms, live reptiles, and paddlefish. 

On the global front, agents broke up smuggling rings dealing in sea turtle skins and 

products from Mexico and sea turtle shell from China. They snared smugglers dealing in over $540,000 worth of sperm whale teeth and sent individuals trafficking 

in endangered live eagle owls eggs to prison. 

Despite these impressive statistics, the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products continues to imperil wildlife species in the United States and around the world. 

The ability of the OLE to expand its efforts to combat this trade requires far greater 

funding than what has been proposed in the fiscal year 2009 budget. 

Currently, there are only 191 FWS agents responsible for the enforcement of federal wildlife laws throughout the entire United States. This number is 11 fewer 

than in fiscal year 2007, which was 16 fewer than existed in 2006. There are 70 

agent vacancies. Filling these vacancies is essential to protecting wildlife and stem-
248 

1 (‘‘Imports of exotic animals mean health risks,’’ AP, Nov. 27, 2006). 

ming the increasing threat of illegal trade. AWI respectfully requests an additional 

$14 million ($200,000 each) to fill these 70 agent vacancies and an additional $12 

million to ensure sufficient operational funds for the existing agents and for those 

hired in the future. 

Port Inspectors.—Given the events of September 11, 2001, and the recent scrutiny 

applied by Congress on the security of U.S. ports, the value of FWS inspectors 

should be indisputable. In addition to being the first and only line of defense against 

the illegal import of protected wildlife and wildlife products into this country, FWS 

inspectors along with their colleagues from the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security, and other agencies involved in port inspections, represent 

America’s best hope of intercepting bioterrorism agents or items that may represent 

a security threat to America. Often contraband is hidden in the body cavities of 

wildlife or in their transport containers; who except FWS wants to look inside the 

box of a poisonous snake or other dangerous animal? 

Though it may be hard to see that thwarting an illegal shipment of wildlife is as 

important as thwarting an illegal shipment of weapons, wildlife pose much greater 

risks to America due to the potential for the wildlife to be vectors for non-native 

diseases or insects that could pose a threat to public health (e.g. avian flu), domestic 

wildlife health, domestic livestock health (e.g. Newcastle’s disease, foot and mouth 

disease), or to our native flora. A recent news report noted that ‘‘five of the six diseases the [CDC] regards as top threats to national security are zoonotic. . . .’’ Because legal shipments, which amounted to 650 million animals in the last 3 years, 

are not screened properly, Americans are left ‘‘vulnerable to a virulent disease outbreak that could rival a terrorist act.’’ 1 Couple the threats from the legal trade with 

those from the illegal trade, including the surge in the amount of bushmeat entering 

the country, and the potential for catastrophe is mind boggling. 

The North American Free Trade Agreement has exacerbated the problem through 

increased movement of wildlife and wildlife products across the U.S. border with 

Mexico. Such contraband includes highly endangered neotropical parrots, cacti, reptiles, and exotic wildlife leather products. The U.S. border with Canada is a conduit 

for the illegal import of a variety of international species including the Asian 

arowana fish, the rare Madagascar radiated tortoise, and protected corals and domestic species including black bear gall bladders, bald eagle parts, and other wildlife products. The current lack of sufficient operational funds for the FWS port inspection program weakens FWS efforts to promote the conservation of species of 

international concern, to protect all natural resources, and to sustain biological processes. The virtually unregulated smuggling of parrots not only has put new pressure 

on Western hemisphere parrot species, 30 percent of which are already on the brink 

of extinction, but also presents a disease transmission risk to the U.S. poultry industry and native U.S. birds. The illegal import of parrots into California has been 

linked to an outbreak of Newcastle’s disease in that state. Moreover, smugglers are 

dealing in both illegal wildlife and illegal aliens. For example, a cooperative investigation by FWS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Coast 

Guard documented the smuggling of illegal aliens and live Clarion angelfish from 

Mexico. A Los Angeles man was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and ordered to pay a $60,000 fine. 

In fiscal year 2007, Service wildlife inspectors processed over 179,000 wildlife 

shipments entering or leaving the United States. An example of how understaffed 

the FWS port inspection staff may be can be found at the U.S./Canada border crossing at Blaine, Washington, where a single inspector is responsible for inspecting all 

imports even though that point of entry has experienced a 45 percent increase in 

the number of wildlife shipments in the past decade. Clearly, then, to protect domestic and international wildlife and to secure our borders, Congress must provide 

the funding to hire and train a sufficient number of FWS inspectors to ensure 

round-the-clock coverage at each designated U.S. port of entry. $3.1 million is requested for the ports of entry. 

The Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory.—The FWS 

forensic laboratory is a key resource used by FWS investigators and inspectors for 

prosecuting wildlife crimes. It uses complex tests and tools to identify wildlife products as to species, determine cause of death, and make other findings critical to a 

successful legal case. All such findings must adhere to exacting evidentiary standards to be used in court, thus increasing the cost of testing each sample. Due to 

an increasing backlog of samples, the lab is running several months behind in its 

casework, causing FWS investigators, inspectors, and federal prosecutors to wait 

longer to continue their investigations or initiate prosecutions. Analysis of newlysubmitted computer cases is backlogged 7 to 8 months and the analysis itself takes 
249 

another 4 to 5 months to complete. The new protocols that will be needed in the 

crackdown on shark finning will only worsen this problem. This lab is the only such 

facility in the world and it has historically aided the fish and game departments 

of all 50 States and the 162 CITES countries. But the backlog jeopardizes this cooperation and has forced it to stop accepting samples from state and international 

wildlife investigators, weakening the longstanding partnerships supporting cooperative conservation efforts in this country and around the world. The backlog is largely a product of staffing shortages. These shortages, combined with a loss of expertise 

when seasoned veteran forensics experts retire before new experts are trained, 

threaten our ability to help solve wildlife crimes. To reduce both these staffing 

shortages and existing analytical workload and backlog, $4 million is requested for 

the lab. Such funds would allow for the construction of a new 8,000 square feet 

building to house the lab’s critical comparison standards collection ($1.1 million), 

the hiring of six forensic scientists (forensics branch chief, senior plant morphologist, and four forensic examiners in the areas of birds, reptiles, plants, and analytical chemistry), four new technicians, and much needed spending on training, travel, 

equipment and supplies. 

WILD HORSE AND BURRO ACT

With more wild horses and burros now in captivity than on the range, the BLM 

continues to use virtually its entire budget simply to remove and warehouse wild 

horses and burros without the scientific data to justify its actions. This, despite the 

fact that numerous herds have already been eliminated and many others are currently managed at population targets that seriously jeopardize their genetic health 

and viability. 

To make matters worse, the BLM has embraced the devastating ‘‘Burns’’ amendment, which altered the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 to require 

the sale of certain wild horses and burros without restriction. With no legal authority to protect these horses once sold under the changed law, they can be re-sold for 

slaughter—the very thing that prompted Congress to act to protect wild horses over 

30 years ago. 

AWI therefore respectfully requests that Congress instruct the BLM that, until 

such time as the agency either finds qualified adopters for those animals now being 

held and/or returns significant numbers of animals to suitable herd areas (particularly those from which all wild horses and burros have been removed or whose populations are not self-sustaining), that no funds be used to conduct further roundups, particularly in the absence of sound census data to support such actions. 

In addition, we request that Congress instruct the BLM to use its statutory authority to explore the potential for further designating and maintaining specific 

ranges on public lands as sanctuaries for the protection and preservation of wild 

horses and burros as provided in the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 

1971. 

Finally, we urge Congress to insert into the fiscal year 2009 Senate Interior Appropriations bill the following language: 

‘‘None of these funds shall be used to implement or carry out Sec. 1333(e)—Sale 

of excess animals—of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971’’. 

YELLOWSTONE BISON

The National Park Service/Yellowstone National Park (NPS/YNP) is the lead 

agency in a failed cooperative state/federal bison management plan that, since 2000, 

has resulted in the unnecessary killing of nearly 3,000 park bison. Yellowstone 

bison represent the last continuously free-roaming herd of bison in the United 

States. They are of immense scientific, aesthetic, and spiritual value to millions of 

people from around the world. The current bison management plan has cost the 

American taxpayer up to $3 million per year since it was implemented in 2000 yet 

the three-step plan has failed to progress beyond step 1. In addition, though based 

on the concept of adaptive management, the plan has not been substantively adapted despite compelling new evidence documenting the existence of at least two genetically distinct bison subpopulations in the park. By ignoring this new evidence, 

the agencies, led by the NPS, may be permanently and adversely impacting the genetic health and viability of park bison as a result of their relentless lethal management efforts. During the current winter, nearly 1,300 bison have been killed or are 

awaiting slaughter. Of this total, nearly 940 have been captured inside YNP by the 

NPS. To prevent the ongoing misuse of federal taxpayers’ dollars and to protect 

park bison from the very agency that is mandated to conserve and protect park 

wildlife, AWI respectfully requests that Congress include language in the fiscal year 
250 

2009 Interior Appropriations bill to specify that no federal funds are to be used by 

the NPS for the purpose of killing or participating in the killing of YNP bison. 

MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

Since 1988, the U.S. Congress has made clear its commitment to global conservation efforts through the passage of a number of funds to benefit specific species. 

These funds include the African Elephant Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant 

Conservation Fund, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, and the Great 

Ape Conservation Fund. To address these problems, AWI respectfully requests that 

Congress appropriate an additional $4 million above the President’s request for each 

of these funds. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION TO PRESERVE CAPE COD

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony in support of an appropriation of $2 million from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 

Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2009. 

The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) is the largest and most prestigious 

environmental advocacy organization on Cape Cod, with more than 5,200 families 

comprising its membership. APCC’s mission is to promote programs and policies 

that protect the natural resources of Cape Cod. As such, APCC has been in the forefront of all of the most important efforts to protect Cape Cod’s rich natural heritage 

for four decades. 

APCC is particularly interested in the Cape Cod National Seashore, which we 

consider to be the shining star of Cape Cod and emblematic of all that our organization seeks to safeguard. Cape Cod has a simple geography—it is a land of sand and 

of water. Nowhere is this simplicity and grace more apparent than at the Cape Cod 

National Seashore. Thus, when APCC learned that the National Park Service 

(NPS), which manages the Seashore, has the opportunity to acquire the 57-acre 

North of Highland Campground, a family-run private campground within the Seashore’s congressionally authorized boundary in Truro, we began working with The 

Trust for Public Lands and our U.S. congressional delegation, Senators Kennedy 

and Kerry and Congressman Delahunt, to advocate for purchase of this land by the 

NPS. 

The Cape Cod National Seashore, designated by Congress in 1961 to preserve its 

precious resources for future generations, includes 40 miles of coastline and boasts 

some of the world’s most beautiful white sand beaches. With over 4 million visitors 

a year, the Cape Cod National Seashore is one of the most heavily visited places 

in the National Park system, with peak visitation occurring during the summer 

months. 

There are many recreational opportunities at the seashore, including six swimming beaches—including the popular Head of the Meadow Beach that provides some 

of the most exciting body-surfing available in the area. The seashore has more than 

11 miles of self-guided nature trails, a variety of picnic areas, scenic overlooks, historic building tours and many fishing opportunities. The seashore also maintains 

three bicycle trails that wind through forests and past sand dunes, marshes and 

kettle ponds. 

Nestled in the pines with trail access to the nearby Head of the Meadow Beach, 

the 57-acre North of Highland Campground, is a seashore in-holding completely surrounded by National Park Service lands. It has been owned and managed since 1954 

as a family-oriented campground. The campground operates from mid-May through 

mid-September and includes four bathhouses, a camp store, two dwellings and 237 

sites for camping. The property also contains seven acres of wetland habitat. Preferring not to sell the land to a developer who would likely build houses, the owners 

of the campground have been working with the NPS to place the campground in 

NPS ownership to ensure that it is not developed and remains open to the public. 
251 

In fiscal year 2009, an appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will provide the final funding needed to protect this property, helping to ensure that the campground remains open to the public, thereby maintaining 

affordable recreational opportunities for the public in one of most heavily visited national parks in the country. Thanks to your efforts, Congress has already provided 

nearly $4 million for this public acquisition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in sup- port of the appropriation of $2 million for Cape Cod National Seashore. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CONSERVANCY

In behalf of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, for reasons described below, I am 

requesting a fiscal year 2009 appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund in the amount of $4.525 million for the National Park Service and $10.645 

million for the USDA Forest Service for the acquisition of lands and interests in 

lands surrounding or bordering the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST) in 

the States of Virginia, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and North Carolina. 

BACKGROUND

The Appalachian Trail (A.T.) is America’s premier long-distance footpath. Initially 

established between 1923 and 1937 as a continuous footpath extending from western Maine to northern Georgia, the trail gained Federal recognition in 1968 with 

the passage of the National Trails System Act. Amendments to that act in 1978 expanded the authorization for Federal and State land acquisition to establish a permanent, publicly owned right-of-way as well as a protective corridor or ‘‘greenway’’ 

along the trail. Since 1978, with the strong support of the subcommittee and the 

Congress as a whole, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail land-acquisition program of the National Park Service and USDA Forest Service has become one of the 

most successful land-conservation efforts in the Nation’s history with the acquisition 

of more than 187,000 acres, more than 3,360 parcels, in 14 States. Today, only approximately 7 miles of the 2,176-mile Appalachian Trail remain to be protected 

through public ownership. 

RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

The Appalachian Trail is a 2,176-mile footpath extending along the crests and valleys of the Appalachian Mountains through 14 States from Maine to Georgia. Often 

characterized as a ‘‘string of pearls,’’ the trail, a unit of the National Park System, 

connects eight National Forests, six other units of the National Park System, and 

approximately 60 State parks, forests, and game-management units. With an estimated three to 4 million visitors per year, it ranks among the most heavily visited 

units of the National Park System and also ranks among the top 10 natural resource park units. Based on inventories conducted in the 1990s, more than 2,000 

occurrences of rare, threatened, and endangered flora and fauna have been identified at more than 500 discrete sites within the trail corridor. 

The Appalachian Trail is equally well known as a remarkable public/private partnership. Since the initial construction of the trail in the 1920s and 1930s, volunteers 

affiliated with the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) have constructed, reconstructed, and maintained the footpath as well as a system of more than 250 shelters 

and associated facilities such as privies, improved campsites, bridges, signs, and 

parking lots. In 2007, for example, more than 6,000 volunteers contributed approximately 200,000 hours of labor along the trail. As an outgrowth of a 1984 agreement 

between the National Park Service and ATC, the Conservancy has accepted management responsibility for more than 110,000 acres acquired by that agency along 

the trail. ATC, through its network of 30 club affiliates, is now responsible for virtually all phases of ‘‘park’’ operations, ranging from trail and facility maintenance 

and construction to land and resources management to visitor education and services. Overall, working with other public agencies, ATC provides ongoing, volunteerbased stewardship for trail-related lands totaling more than 250,000 acres. 

NEED FOR APPROPRIATIONS

As noted previously, while the Appalachian National Scenic Trail protection program represents one of the most successful land-acquisition programs in the history 

of the conservation movement in the United States, that program is not yet complete. Although our hope had been to complete the program by the year 2000, escalating land values coupled with diminished administrative capacity in the affected 

agencies have conspired to delay full program completion. Nowhere are those trends 
252 

more apparent than in the southeastern region, in the National Forests of Virginia, 

Tennessee, and North Carolina. Nevertheless, a number of critical parcels are now 

‘‘ripe’’ for land acquisition and we are seeking fiscal year 2009 LWCF appropriations 

to secure those properties. A brief description of each of those critical parcels follows. More detailed descriptions, along with maps and photographs of each of the 

referenced properties, were provided earlier this year to subcommittee staff. 

NEW RIVER, VIRGINIA/JEFFERSON NATIONAL FOREST

For more than 30 years ATC and the USDA Forest Service have sought to establish a final alignment for the Appalachian Trail adjacent to the New River in Giles 

County, Virginia. The current route crosses a property owned by Celanese LLC immediately adjacent to a busy highway (US 460) directly across from a large Celanese 

industrial facility offering no real scenic or recreational value. After many years of 

negotiations, Celanese representatives have expressed an interest in selling—potentially at a bargain-sale price—a 400-acre parcel in fee and an additional 25-acre scenic easement that will permit a relocation of the footpath to a much improved location along a more remote and scenic portion of the property. Additional scenic-easement interests also are being sought along the back portions of approximately a 

dozen private lots bordering the eastern edge of the property. Due to limited landacquisition capability on the Forest, ATC has requested the National Park Service 

to assist with the acquisition of this property and pre-acquisition work, such as title 

research and appraisal work, has been initiated. While total project costs are estimated to be $1.6 million, ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2009 LWCF appropriation 

of $1.25 million for the National Park Service. 

TILSON FARM, VIRGINIA/JEFFERSON NATIONAL FOREST

This 170-acre property is situated near the northern boundary of Smyth County 

on the Smyth/Bland county line near the town of Ceres, Virginia. The property is 

adjacent to a narrow Appalachian Trail corridor that was acquired many years ago. 

Acquisition of the property will provide an important scenic buffer along the A.T., 

conserve the headwaters of the North Fork of the Holston River, provide an opportunity to develop a 5-mile loop trail, conserve the site of an early settler cemetery 

on the property, and consolidate Forest ownership. The current property owner has 

expressed an interest in selling the tract at a favorable or bargain-sale price. Due 

to limited land-acquisition management capability on the Forest, ATC has asked the 

National Park Service to acquire the property. An appraisal has been ordered. Total 

project costs are estimated at $400,000. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2009 

LWCF appropriation of $300,000 for the National Park Service. 

MAHOOSUCS GATEWAY/SUCCESS TOWNSHIP, NEW HAMPSHIRE

This project, involving 4,772 acres, is part of a larger conservation and economicdevelopment focus area involving a consortium of conservation organizations as well 

as several local communities. The Mahoosuc Mountain Range is one of the most remote and rugged areas along the Appalachian Trail. Straddling the border between 

New Hampshire and Maine, it provides a scenic gateway to both States. In partnership with a timberland owner an opportunity exists to conserve a 6-mile corridor 

along the northern edge of the narrow Appalachian Trail corridor there, including 

two of the most prominent mountain peaks in the area: Bald Cap and North Bald 

Cap. Conservation of the property would provide protection for a number of existing 

side trails in the area as well as the watersheds of numerous streams flowing into 

the Androscoggin River. The property also includes a number of ecologically significant features and natural communities. While total project costs are estimated to 

be $4.8 million, ATC and The Conservation Fund are requesting an fiscal year 2009 

LWCF appropriation of $2.75 million for the National Park Service. 

ROCKY FORK, TENNESSEE/CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST

The Rocky Fork property is a 10,000-acre property in eastern Tennessee situated 

midway between Johnson City and Asheville, North Carolina. It represents the largest privately owned in-holding within the southern National Forest System and is 

the number one land acquisition priority of the USDA Forest Service nationwide. 

Named for the cool waters of one of several prominent streams that pass through 

the property, it is adjacent to 22,000 acres of designated wilderness or inventoried 

road-less areas. For many years, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency has 

leased the property for its game and non-game wildlife values, including 16 miles 

of ‘‘blue-ribbon’’ trout streams and outstanding black bear, white-tailed deer, and 

wild turkey habitat. The property also contains a number of Federal species of con-
253 

cern or state-listed species in need of management. The property includes 1.2 miles 

of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail with no protected right-of-way. 

The Rocky Fork property is readily accessible from Interstate 26 and has been 

marketed for primary- and second-home development. However, in 2007, 

Timbervest, in behalf of the property owners, entered into a purchase and sales 

agreement with The Conservation Fund (TCF). ATC is working closely with TCF, 

the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, and a number of other conservation and sportsmen organizations to secure the property. Total estimated costs are 

approximately $43 million. However, ATC and its partners already have secured financial support from the State of Tennessee and through a number of private-sector 

donations. ATC and The Conservation Fund are requesting an fiscal year 2009 

LWCF appropriation of $8 million for the USDA Forest Service. 

SHOOK BRANCH, TENNESSEE/CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST

This 20-acre property is situated in eastern Tennessee in the Cherokee National 

Forest. The Appalachian Trail currently follows a dangerous road-walk and crosses 

US 321 at a location with limited site distances to on-coming traffic. A proposed new 

route has been identified and a number of parcels have been acquired by the Forest 

Service to establish the route. The Shook Branch property is necessary in order to 

complete the proposed relocation. The current property owner has expressed a willingness to sell the property. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2009 LWCF appropriation of $500,000 for the USDA Forest Service. 

WESSER BALD, NORTH CAROLINA/NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST

This 82-acre property is situated in western North Carolina in the Nantahala National Forest. The A.T. passes within 100 feet of the property and affords a number 

of outstanding scenic views at several locations along the northern portion of the 

property and from a viewing platform atop the Wesser Bald fire tower with 360- 

degree views encompassing the Great Smoky Mountains skyline, the Nantahala 

Mountains, and northern Georgia. The upper 35 acres was acquired in fee in 2007 

by the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy with the aid of a bridge loan 

from The Conservation Fund and the requested LWCF appropriation will be used 

to repurchase that portion of the property at a bargain-sale price with ownership 

transferred to the Forest Service. SAHC also has secured a conservation easement 

affecting an additional 41 acres of the property. The total value of the fee and easement interests is $950,000. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2009 LWCF appropriation in the amount of $270,000 for the USDA Forest Service. 

ROAN HIGHLANDS, NORTH CAROLINA/PISGAH NATIONAL FOREST

The 442-acre Roan Highlands tract rises to an elevation of 5,200 feet above the 

Roaring Creek Valley along the North Carolina/Tennessee border within the proclamation boundary of the Pisgah National Forest. Its spectacular open summit is visible for miles along the Appalachian Trail and the property borders The Nature Conservancy’s Big Yellow Mountain Preserve. The Trust for Public Lands in partnership 

with the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy and ATC has obtained a letter of intent from the owner to protect the property through a combination of 290 

acres in fee-simple ownership and 150 acres under a conservation easement to be 

held by SAHC. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2009 LWCF appropriation in the 

amount of $1.875 million for the USDA Forest Service. 

With the acquisition of the above-described properties, ATC hopes to complete a 

substantial portion of the remaining land-acquisition needs in the Appalachian National Scenic Trail program. Again, we respectfully request an fiscal year 2009 Land 

and Water Conservation Fund appropriation of $4.525 million for the National Park 

Service and $10.645 million for the USDA Forest Service. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and for your consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB

Madame Chair and honorable members of the committee: On behalf of our almost 

90,000 members, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) is honored to present this 

testimony in support of much needed funding for conservation programs in the fiscal 

year 2009 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, including: 

—$120 million for the USDA Forest Service Forest Legacy Program, 
254 

—$403 million for the Department of the Interior Land and Water Conservation Fund (including $278 million for federal-side and $125 million for state-side programs), —$11 million for the Department of the Interior Highlands Conservation Act, and 

—$12 million for the National Parks Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance program (RTCA). 

These programs provide tremendous economic, ecological and recreational benefits 

across the country. Land conservation and recreational program support are vital 

to maintaining the health and well being of the Nation’s lands and our citizens. As 

you know the demands on these programs are great and funding in recent years 

has diminished alarmingly. There are a number of extremely important projects in 

the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic alone. 

The AMC is the Nation’s oldest recreation and conservation organization. Founded in 1876, our mission is to promote the protection, enjoyment, and wise use of 

the mountains, rivers and trails of the Appalachian region. With 12 chapters from 

Maine to Washington, DC, AMC is proud of our long tradition of stewardship and 

engagement in the outdoors. 

Open space conservation in the East is a vital investment that ensures clean air 

and water, a sustainable supply of timber products produced from private and public forests, local food and farm products for millions of people, and diverse recreational opportunities including hiking, cross-country skiing, wildlife viewing, and 

paddling. Conservation of these resources is needed now more than ever. According 

to the recent Forests on the Edge report published by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 

over 44 million acres of private forests will be developed in the next 30 years. 

PRIORITY FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM NEEDS IN THE NORTHEAST

For fiscal year 2009, we have assembled a list of exemplary Forest Legacy projects 

in the Northeast. Some of these projects, like the Katahdin Forest Expansion in 

Maine, Southern Monadnock Plateau II in Massachusetts, and Crotched Mountain 

in New Hampshire, need this funding to be completed. Others, such as the 

Metacoment-Monadnock Forest and Westfield Heritage Woodlands projects in Massachusetts, Lake Waubeeka in Connecticut, and Tree Farm #1—Mount Hope Tract 

in Pennsylvania, are new priorities that would protect unique and critical forests 

in the eastern United States. 

Congress should fund the Forest Legacy program at no less than $120 million in 

fiscal year 2009. The Forest Legacy Program has protected over 1.5 million acres 

of forestland since 1990. However, despite this subcommittee’s best efforts, funding 

for this program has decreased in recent years. While we are grateful for the inclusion of the Katahdin Forest Expansion project in the administration’s fiscal year 

2009 budget, we are disappointed that the budget recommends only $12.5 million 

for 3 projects nationwide. These projects total only 300 acres. For fiscal year 2009, 

82 conservation projects were submitted (by 41 States and three territories) for Forest Service considerations, representing a total of $202 million in Forest Legacy Program need to protect 400,000 acres of forestlands valued at almost $400 million. 

For fiscal year 2009, the AMC supports funding requests for the following Forest 

Legacy projects: 

State Project 

ME ............................................................................................. Katahdin Forest Expansion 

ME ............................................................................................. Machias River Phase III 

NH .............................................................................................. Crotched Mountain 

MA ............................................................................................. Metacoment-Monadnock 

MA ............................................................................................. Westfield Heritage Woodlands 

MA ............................................................................................. Southern Monadnock Plateau II 

CT .............................................................................................. Lake Waubeeka 

NY .............................................................................................. Fishkill Ridge-Hudson Highlands State Park 

NY .............................................................................................. Route 28 Corridor 

NJ ............................................................................................... Passaic Ramapo Watershed II 

PA .............................................................................................. Tree Farm #1—Mount Hope Tract 

PRIORITY FISCAL YEAR 2009 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM NEEDS

IN THE NORTHEAST

While the AMC believes strongly that the Land & Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) program should be funded fully as authorized by Congress, we recognize 

the budget pressures you face this year, and so we request that the Federal program 

be funded at $278 million with an additional $125 million for the LWCF state-side 
255 

grants. These figures obviously fall far below LWCF’s $900 million annual authorization, but they represent the minimum required to secure crucial in-holdings that 

might otherwise be lost to private sale and development this year. 

The LWCF will provide critical protection to the Appalachian Trail Corridor— 

Mahoosucs Range in New Hampshire and Maine; the Lake Umbagog Wildlife Refuge in New Hampshire and Maine; the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge for 

projects in its four-state region of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and 

Connecticut; two projects in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the Wallkill National Wildlife Refuge in New 

Jersey. 

In fiscal year 2009, the AMC supports the following LWCF projects in our region: 

State Federal Land Unit 

NH/VT/MA/CT ............................................................................. Silvio O. Conte NWR 

NH/ME ........................................................................................ Lake Umbagog NWR 

NH/ME ........................................................................................ Appalachian Trail Corridor—Mahoosucs Range 

PA/NJ ......................................................................................... Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area 

NJ ............................................................................................... Wallkill NWR 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION ACT NEEDS

The Highlands Conservation Act (HCA), passed in 2004, is landmark legislation 

authorizing land conservation partnership projects and open space purchases from 

willing sellers in the four-state Highlands region of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New 

York, and Connecticut. The Act includes authorization of $10 million in annual 

grants to the Highlands states and nonprofit conservancies from the Department of 

the Interior for land acquisition and easements. It also includes $1 million annually 

in technical assistance from the USDA Forest Service to work with Highlands states 

and local municipalities to implement the conservation strategies outlined in the 

three comprehensive Forest Service studies of the region completed in 1992, 2002, 

and 2008. 

Unfortunately, this program has received only $3.75 million since it was initiated 

4 years ago. While we greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s efforts to support this 

program, we are in dire need of additional funds so that the purposes of the HCA 

can be fulfilled. According to a study by the USDA Forest Service, open space in 

New York and New Jersey alone is disappearing at a rate of 5,000 to 6,000 acres 

a year. The 4-State Highlands Region is the backyard for the more than 25 million 

people living in or around the large cities of the Mid-Atlantic States, and provides 

critical drinking water, wildlife habitat, and abundant and accessible recreation opportunities. We strongly urge the subcommittee to fund this program at its authorized level of $10 million in fiscal year 2009 for land protection projects, and an additional $1 million per year to support research and technical assistance in the Highlands by the USDA Forest Service. Current projects in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 

New York, and Connecticut share strong local support, commitments from State and 

private sources to provide matching funding, and will protect important water supplies, forests, farmland, recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat. 

In fiscal year 2009, the AMC supports funding for the following HCA projects: 

State Project 

CT .............................................................................................. Ethel Walker II 

NY .............................................................................................. Great Swamp 

NY .............................................................................................. Greater Sterling Forest 

NJ ............................................................................................... Wyanokie and Farny Highlands 

NJ ............................................................................................... Ramapo Mountains 

PA .............................................................................................. Cooks Creek Watershed 

PA .............................................................................................. South Mountain 

PRIORITY FISCAL YEAR 2009 RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS NEEDS

In addition to the important land conservation projects from the Machias River 

in Maine to the Cooks Creek Watershed in Pennsylvania, the AMC respectfully 

urges the subcommittee to ensure the viability of programs that support outdoor 

recreation in America. The AMC echoes the testimony of the American Hiking Society in support of diverse and strong funding levels for important recreational priorities. 
256 

One of the most effective programs supporting human-powered recreation and 

community-based conservation planning is the National Park Service (NPS) Rivers, 

Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program. AMC is currently receiving 

technical assistance from this program as we work to create a network of trails 

throughout the thirteen-county Pennsylvania Highlands. This trail project will create recreational opportunities for the millions of rural, suburban and urban families 

living throughout the Pennsylvania Highlands. The AMC endorses the testimony of 

the Rivers and Trails Coalition, of which we are a member, and supports funding 

of $12 million for the NPS RTCA program in fiscal year 2009. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF APS A SUBSIDIARY OF PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORPORA- TION, COLORADO RIVER DISTRICT, CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, DENVER WATER, THE JICARILLA APACHE NATION, NORTHERN COLORADO WATER

CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, PUEBLO BOARD OF WATER WORKS, SAN JUAN WATER

COMMISSION, SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE, SOUTHWESTERN WATER CONSERVA- TION DISTRICT, PNM/SAN JUAN GENERATING STATION, TRI-COUNTY WATER CON- SERVANCY DISTICT, THE NAVAJO NATION, AND THE UTAH WATER USERS ASSOCIA- TION

I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2009 to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, consistent with the President’s recommended budget. 1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds within the $45,147,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery Operations’’ to support the ongoing operation of the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah. 3. Allocation of $200,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet FWS’s Region 2 expenses in managing the San 

Juan Program’s diverse recovery actions. 

We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee’s past support and request your assistance for fiscal year 2009 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation 

in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER

ADMINISTRATORS

Who We Are.—James D. Taft, Executive Director, on behalf of the Association of 

State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), is pleased to provide testimony to 

the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee on fiscal year 2009 Appropriations 

for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ASDWA represents the State drinking water programs in each of the 50 States and territories and the Navajo Nation 

in their efforts to ensure the provision of safe drinking water to more than 275 million consumers nationwide. ASDWA’s primary mission is the protection of public 

health through the effective management of State drinking water programs that implement the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 

SUMMARY OF REQUEST

ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 2009, the Subcommittee appropriate funding for three State drinking water programs at levels commensurate with 

Federal expectations for performance and at levels that continue to ensure appropriate public health protection. Specifically, ASDWA requests an appropriation of 

$124 million for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program; $1 billion 

for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) program; and $7 million for State drinking water program security initiatives. A more complete explanation of the needs represented by these requested amounts and a further explanation of these particular requested levels follows. 

HOW STATES USE FEDERAL FUNDS

States Need Increased Federal Support to Maintain Overall Public Health Protection.—State drinking water programs strive to meet their public health protection 

goals through two principal funding programs: the Public Water System Supervision 

Program (PWSS) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) 
257 

Program. These two programs, with their attendant State match requirements, provide the means for States to work with drinking water systems to ensure that 

American citizens can turn on their taps with confidence that the water is both safe 

to drink and that the supply is adequate. In recent years, State drinking water programs have accepted additional responsibilities to work with all public water systems to ensure that critical drinking water infrastructure is protected and that 

plans are in place to respond to both natural and manmade disasters. 

The PWSS Program.—To meet the requirements of the SDWA, States have accepted primary enforcement responsibility for oversight of regulatory compliance 

and technical assistance efforts for 160,000 public water systems to ensure that potential health-based violations do not occur or are remedied in a timely manner. 

Going beyond these longstanding core responsibilities, since 1996, State drinking 

water programs have participated in the development and implementation of over 

25 new Federal regulations and strategic initiatives designed to enhance the protection of public health. States are also implementing an array of proactive initiatives 

to protect public health from ‘‘source to tap.’’ These include source water assessments and controls; technical assistance with water treatment and distribution; and 

enhancement of overall water system performance capabilities. State activities go 

well beyond simply ensuring compliance at the tap. 

The DWSRF Program.—In a little over 10 years, States have leveraged Federal 

and State funding for the DWSRF program into more than $11 billion in loans to 

thousands of communities as a means to help them improve the quality and quantity of the water they drink. State drinking water programs have also used DWSRF 

funds to support the technical assistance and training needs of small drinking water 

systems and to help these water systems obtain the technical, managerial, and financial proficiency needed to meet the requirements of the SDWA. 

State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.—Since the events of September 

2001, as well as the more recent experience of Hurricane Katrina, States have taken 

extraordinary measures to meet the security and emergency response-related needs 

of the drinking water community. State drinking water programs have responded 

to a significant number of requests for assistance, training, information, and financial support from the water systems under their purview as well as supported utility-based ‘‘mutual aid’’ networks. States have also been instrumental in providing 

support and assistance to systems in assessing whether a contamination event has 

occurred and, if so, evaluating the magnitude of the public health implications as 

well as the steps needed to recover. States have devised training and technical assistance programs, initiated new communications structures, and begun the work of 

integrating the concepts of enhanced security concerns throughout all aspects of the 

drinking water program. 

WHY INCREASED FUNDING IS URGENTLY NEEDED

State Drinking Water Programs are Hard Pressed.—States must accomplish all of 

the above-described activities and take on new responsibilities while responding to 

escalating pressures to further cut their budgets, streamline their workforces, and 

operate with less state-provided financial support. State drinking water programs 

have always been expected to do more with less and States have always responded 

with commitment and ingenuity. However, State drinking water programs are now 

in crisis. Congress and the executive branch, through EPA, have implemented national program guidance calling for both States and water systems to continually 

improve their contaminant rule compliance rates. However, many States are now 

experiencing declining compliance rates in the face of declining or stagnant financial 

resources. Decreases in available Federal dollars increase the likelihood of a contamination event that puts public health at risk. 

State Funding Gap Continues to Grow; States Cannot Keep Up.—Although the 

1996 SDWA Amendments authorized the PWSS Program at $100 million per year, 

appropriated amounts have only recently reached or come close to that originallyauthorized level. ($97.55 million [after rescissions] was appropriated for the PWSS 

program in fiscal year 2008.) Since August 1996 (the date of reauthorization of the 

SDWA), States have been denied over $250 million in funds for the PWSS grant program that were called for by the authorized levels. However, even the fully authorized level of $100 million annually is now, 11 years after enactment, woefully inadequate for the enormity of the task faced by State drinking water programs. In fiscal year 2006, State drinking water program administrators identified an annual 

shortfall nationally of approximately $360 million between available funds and 

those needed to administer their programs. That gap only continues to grow and has 

consequences. Many States are simply unable conduct complete the timely implementation of major provisions of the newer regulations, leaving the work undone or 
258 

ceding the responsibility back to EPA where it is likely to languish because of their 

own resource constraints and lack of ‘‘on the ground’’ expertise. This situation could 

create a significant implementation crisis in several regions of the country and ultimately delay implementation of several critically needed public health protections. 

Similarly, for the DWSRF, the authorized level of $1 billion per year has never been 

appropriated. States have received less than 80 percent of the $12 billion authorized 

for the DWSRF program since 1996. The underfunding of these programs, coupled 

with the decline in the spending power of these dollars due to inflation and cost of 

living increases, has severely hampered State drinking water programs’ ability to 

fulfill their mission and provide critically needed support to drinking water systems. 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REQUEST LEVELS AND SDWA PROGRAM OBLIGATIONS

The PWSS Program.—The State PWSS program request level in the administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget is $99.1 million. This reflects an alarming downward 

trend from prior year administration requests and the enacted budget high point of 

$101.9 million appropriated just 5 years ago—in fiscal year 2004. The eroding effects of inflation have further eaten away at these inadequate funding levels. State 

drinking water programs are hard pressed to understand a justification for the decreased funding since this is the year when they must begin critical phases of implementation of the LT 2/Stage 2 Rule cluster—two very sophisticated and complex initiatives as well as prepare to implement the recently promulgated Ground Water 

Rule and changes to the Lead and Copper Rule. States want to offer the flexibilities 

allowed under these and other rules; however, fewer dollars mean less opportunities 

to work one-on-one with water systems to meet their needs. Looking ahead, States 

expect that new rules for contaminants on EPA’s Contaminant Candidate List will 

be forthcoming. Revisions to the Total Coliform Rule and possibly, a new distribution system rule are planned over the next few years. The number of regulations 

requiring State implementation and oversight as well as performance expectations 

continue to grow while, at the same time, Federal funding support necessary to 

maintain compliance levels and meet expectations is in decline. 

ASDWA, therefore, respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2009 funding for the 

PWSS program be appropriated at $124 million. This figure represents a baseline 

of $101.9 million, as appropriated in fiscal year 2004, plus an additional 3.5 percent 

increase over the past 5 fiscal years and into fiscal year 2009 to adjust for inflation. 

The DWSRF Program.—The fiscal year 2009 DWSRF program request in the 

President’s budget is ‘‘flat-lined’’ at $842 million, reflecting no change from the fiscal 

year 2008 request and continues the downward funding trend of the three previous 

years—an $8 million decrease. The primary purpose of the DWSRF is to improve 

public health protection by facilitating water system compliance with national primary drinking water regulations through the provision of loans to improve drinking 

water infrastructure. Water infrastructure is needed for public health protection as 

well as a sustainable economy. For instance, industries have opted not to move to 

locations with inadequate electricity, water, and/or wastewater capacity to meet 

their needs. States have very effectively and efficiently leveraged Federal dollars 

with State contributions by turning over $11 billion from the DWSRF into well over 

$13 billion in water infrastructure loans since 1997. In so doing, States have provided assistance to almost 5,000 projects improving health protection for over 100 

million Americans. Nearly 72 percent of projects and 39 percent of assistance has 

been provided to small communities (serving less than 10,000 people). However, 

EPA’s most recent National Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (2003) indicated that water system needs total $276.8 billion over the next 20 years to comply with SDWA mandates. Despite these indicators of success and documented 

needs, the maximum amount requested by the administration for the DWSRF has 

been $850 million and Congress has always appropriated less than those requested 

levels. Without reasonable increases, the DWSRF will never be able to meet the 

SDWA compliance and public health protection goals for which it was designed. 

ASDWA, therefore, respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2009 funding for the 

DWSRF program be appropriated at authorized level of $1 billion. 

Security Responsibilities: The administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $4.9 million for State drinking water programs to continue to expand their 

security activities, particularly for small and medium water systems and support 

utility-based mutual aid networks for all drinking water systems. While States are 

appreciative of the funding, once again it is difficult to understand why the request 

level is decreased from previous years. Given the realities exemplified by ongoing 

Homeland Security initiatives, the anticipation of metrics under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita, State drinking water programs are working more closely than ever with their 
259 

1Section 106 states the funds are ‘‘for grants to State and to Interstate Agencies to assist 

them in administering programs for the prevention and elimination of pollution.’’ The funds are 

Continued 

water utilities to evaluate, assist, and support drinking water systems’ preparedness 

and response capabilities. Beyond the mandates of the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, 

States are being directed to expand their efforts to reflect an ‘‘all hazards’’ approach 

to water security and to focus their efforts toward smaller water systems not covered by the act. These systems are much less likely to have the organizational or 

financial wherewithal to better secure either their physical or cyber infrastructures 

and rely on the States to help them meet their needs and identify potential funding 

sources (DWSRF). There is no dedicated fund to support or assist these smaller systems. 

ASDWA therefore respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2009 funding for the 

State security initiatives program be appropriated at $7 million. This figure represents a very modest increase over the security grant received over the past few 

years (i.e., on average, this would represent an increase of less than $40,000 per 

State). This increase is more commensurate with the security tasks State drinking 

water programs must take on and would help address the eroding effects of inflation 

since the originally appropriated level of $5 million in fiscal year 2002. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, ASDWA respectfully recommends that both State and Federal fiscal 

year 2009 budget needs for the provision of safe drinking water be adequately funded by Congress. The subcommittee can meet those needs through relatively modest 

increases in funding over the administration’s requested fiscal year 2009 budget or 

by a ‘‘budget-neutral’’ reallocation of funding within the overall budget of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. ASDWA calls the subcommittee’s attention to the 

State-recommended fiscal year 2009 budget developed by the Environmental Council 

of the States (ECOS) as a constructive starting point for these discussions. 

A strong drinking water program supported by the Federal-State partnership will 

ensure that the quality of drinking water in this country will not deteriorate and, 

in fact, will continue to improve—so that the public can be assured that a glass of 

water is safe to drink no matter where they travel or live. States are willing and 

committed partners. However, additional Federal financial assistance is needed to 

meet ongoing and ever growing regulatory and security needs. In 1996, Congress 

provided the authority to ensure that the burden would not go unsupported. For fiscal year 2009, ASDWA asks that the promise of that support be realized. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND INTERSTATE WATER

POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATORS

The States are responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act. They set standards, monitor and assess water quality, develop total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs), issue permits, assure compliance and implement other watershed protection. The Nation depends on these State clean water programs to protect public 

water supplies, recreational waters, aquatic life, wildlife and other water uses. 

The mandates and workload USEPA expects of States continues to grow. The permitted universe has increased over 500 percent; standards must be set for complex 

and challenging pollutants; TMDLs must be developed and implemented, etc. According to the State Water Quality Management Resource Analysis Report ‘‘At the 

highest level of aggregation. . . . State agencies are receiving less than one-half of 

the resources they need to fully implement the requirements of the Federal Clean 

Water Act.’’ With a funding gap of over $900 Million, based on conservative projections, States do the best they can to address priority water quality problems with 

the resources available. 

STATE MANAGEMENT FUNDING

State efforts are undermined by OMB and USEPA setting aside 106 funds. The 

underlying message this sends is that USEPA is on the path to significantly de-fund 

the State/Federal partnership. First it was a setaside for monitoring, then national 

probabilistic monitoring, then a permit fee incentive rule (fiscal year 2007 Budget) 

and then State scale probabilistic networks (fiscal year 2008 Budget). Cumulatively, 

the setasides total about $27 Million (over 25 percent of the funds States would 

have otherwise received). USEPA has no statutory authority to do this.1 Of equal 
260 

to be allotted based on ‘‘the extent of pollution.’’ Accordingly, States worked with USEPA to establish an equitable formula. 

importance, these funds are urgently needed in States to identify and solve important water quality problems. Diverting 106 funds from core efforts to fulfill water 

quality management obligations is not sustainable. States need flexibility to leverage the limited 106 funds appropriated to achieve environmental results. 

The setasides for the permit fee incentive rule and State probabilistic monitoring 

networks add insult to injury, creating incentives for some States by decreasing 106 

funding to others. 

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF): ASIWPCA is deeply concerned 

about the Federal dis-investment in the CWSRF, because the CWSRF is under capitalized. Documented needs total over $300 billion. This figure does not fully consider: (1) the Nation’s growing population which increases demands on infrastructure; (2) the higher levels of treatment that will be required at traditional permitted 

facilities for pollution; (3) treatment of sources such as stormwater, combined sewer 

overflows and separate sanitary overflows; and (4) repair and replacement of aging 

infrastructure. As a key partner in meeting these challenges, the CWSRF needs to 

be better funded and is well worth the investment: 

—Each dollar in Federal capitalization leverages an even greater amount at the 

State and local level; 

—Each Billion loaned saves communities $350 million in interest, and generates 

over 40,000 jobs and $1.9 billion in long term economic benefits; 

—77 percent of funds loaned are to improve water quality, 67 percent to protect 

and restore fisheries and recreational waters, and 19 percent to protect and restore drinking water; and 

—55 percent of funds loaned are to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act 

The Association makes the following recommendations for fiscal year 2009: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Amount 

Section 106 ...................................................................................................................................................... 270 .3 

319 ................................................................................................................................................................... 241 .5 

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund ......................................................................................................... 1 1,500 .0 

1 Fiscal year 2004 level. 

We ask the Committee to: 

—Preclude USEPA from promulgating or implementing a NPDES permit fee incentive rule. 

—Require that appropriated section 106 funds be allotted to States and Interstate 

Agencies in accord with the allotment formula as defined in 40 CFR Part 35.162 

(a)–(c). 

Maintaining and protecting the Nation’s water resources is crucial to public 

health, the environment, and the Nation’s economy. The Association appreciates the 

support the Appropriations Committee has given State and Interstate Agency Clean 

Water Programs and looks forward to working with you on these important issues. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASME ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 

TASK FORCE OF THE ASME ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION

INTRODUCTION

The EPA Task Force of the Environmental Engineering Division (EED) of ASME 

is pleased to have this opportunity to submit its position statement on the fiscal 

year 2009 budget request for Science and Technology (S&T) programs in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ASME is a worldwide engineering society focused on technical, educational, and research issues. It sets many industrial and 

manufacturing standards, holds numerous technical conferences and professional 

development courses each year, and is one of the largest publishers of technical and 

engineering information worldwide. 

BACKGROUND

Scientists and engineers have a long-standing professional interest in applying 

science and technology to improve the environment and human health. Mechanical 

engineers increasingly collaborate with other professionals in the environmental 
261 

field to develop innovative and cost-effective environmental technologies and systems. 

The EPA plays an essential role in the nation’s efforts to protect human health 

and safeguard the environment and EPA’s S&T research and development (R&D) 

activities should be important to improve environmental protection in a sound, sustainable, and cost-effective manner. R&D efforts are needed to improve environmental health and ecology, environmental monitoring, environmental technology development and implementation, pollution prevention, and address the emerging concerns of climate change, and the environmental issues of homeland security and infrastructure protection. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for EPA S&T programs would increase funding by $3.4 million over fiscal year 2008 to $763.5 million. Despite this 

increase, the EPA R&D budget has decreased, when adjusted for inflation, to the 

lowest levels in over two decades. Lower R&D funds could undermine major programs and also impair responses to climate change, terrestrial carbon sequestration 

and management, biofuels and oil shale waste issues, and nanotechnology development. 

Overview of the ASME Task Force Review 

We will focus our analysis on the R&D activities within the S&T portfolio within 

the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the Superfund program 

that support eight strategic programmatic research areas: 

I. Clean Air and Global Climate Change 

II. Clean and Safe Water 

III. Land Preservation and Restoration 

IV. Human Health and Ecosystems 

V. Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 

VI. Toxic Research and Prevention 

VII. Sustainability 

VIII. Homeland Security 

The change in funding levels supporting these core objectives between fiscal year 

2008 and fiscal year 2009 is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 

Change 

2008 2009 

Clean Air .......................................................................................................................... 99.6 96.9 ¥2 .7 

Clean Water ..................................................................................................................... 104.3 101.4 ¥2 .9 

Land Protection and Restoration ..................................................................................... 10.5 13.3 ∂2 .8 

Human Health and Ecosystems ....................................................................................... 223.6 217.3 ¥6 .3 

Toxic Research and Prevention ........................................................................................ 24.4 26.5 ∂2 .09 

Sustainability ................................................................................................................... 22.1 19.9 ¥2 .1 

Homeland Security ........................................................................................................... 54.1 73.9 ∂19 .8 

Total .................................................................................................................... 538.6 549.2 ∂10 .6 

EPA OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Through research and technical assistance, ORD provides the scientific foundation 

for EPA by performing research and development to identify and solve present and 

future environmental issues and providing responsive technical support to its scientific partners. The ORD administers programs addressing both foundational research to improve the scientific tools used to understand and evaluate environmental health as well as problem-driven research designed to provide scientific solutions to high-priority environmental problems. It is an invaluable national resource. 

We remain concerned that EPA’s science and technology investments continue to 

fall below the level of inflation. An evaluation of EPA’s resources is needed to ensure that it can balance between existing priorities and new challenges. Program 

specifics issues are outlined below: 
262 

CLEAN AIR RESEARCH 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 

Change 

2008 2009 

Global Change ................................................................................................................. 19.6 16.3 ¥3 .3 

Clean Air .......................................................................................................................... 79.9 80.5 ∂ .59 

Total .................................................................................................................... 99.6 96.9 ¥2 .7 

Funding for Global Change research has dropped at a time when the nation views 

this as a critical issue. We urge Congress to appropriate additional funds for Global 

Change to at least the fiscal year 2008 level. The Task Force supports increased research funding to at least the fiscal year 2008 level. 

CLEAN WATER RESEARCH 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 

Change 2008 2009 

Drinking water ................................................................................................................... 48.7 45.2 ¥3.5 

Water quality ...................................................................................................................... 55.5 56.1 ∂.6 

Total ...................................................................................................................... 104.3 101.4 ¥2.8 

Overall, the fiscal year 2009 budget request calls for a decrease of about $2.8 million over the fiscal year 2008 appropriated amount. This reduction could hurt the 

long-term development of infrastructure related to water quality issues. The Task 

Force is concerned about the reductions for Clean Water Research and urges Congress to increase funding for the Drinking Water and Water Quality programs to 

at least the fiscal year 2008 Appropriated amount. 

LAND PROTECTION AND RESTORATION 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 

Change 

2008 2009 

Land protection research ................................................................................................... 10.5 13.3 ∂2.7 

The $2.7 million, or 27 percent, increase in land protection and restoration research comes as ecosystem research and sustainability and environmental management are being reduced in funding. The Task Force recommends that funding for 

land protection and restoration be appropriated at requested levels for fiscal year 

2009. 

SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH 1

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 

Change 

2008 2009 

Sustainability 2 ................................................................................................................... 22.1 20.0 ¥2.1 

1 The Economics and Decision Sciences (EDS) and Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) programs have been zeroed out. 

2 No longer part of Land Protection and Restoration. 

Funding for Sustainability research is slated for a reduction of $4.6 million for 

this year, and nearly $10 million below the fiscal year 2007 level. Additionally, programs such as the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) and the Economics 

and Decision Sciences (EDS) were eliminated in the fiscal year 2008 Budget request. 
263 

The Task Force recommends restoring funding to the ETV and EDS programs. 

Funds for Sustainability research should be increased to at least fiscal year 2008 

levels. 

TOXIC RESEARCH AND PREVENTION 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 

Change 

2008 2009 

Pesticides and Toxics Research ...................................................................................... 24.4 26.5 ∂2 .09 

HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 

Change 

2008 2009 

Human Health 1 ................................................................................................................ 77.2 74.7 ¥2 .5 

Ecosystems 1 .................................................................................................................... 75.7 69.9 ¥5 .7 

Human health risk assessment ....................................................................................... 38.3 39.3 ∂ .98 

Endocrine disruptors ........................................................................................................ 10.3 9.5 ¥ .82 

Fellowships ....................................................................................................................... 9.8 8.8 ¥ .96 

Computational toxicology ................................................................................................. 12.1 14.8 ∂1 .9 

Human Research .............................................................................................................. 153.0 144.7 ¥8 .2 

Total .................................................................................................................... 223.6 217.3 ¥6 .3 

1 No longer a part of the Human Health and Ecosystems program. Separated in the fiscal year 2008 Budget. 

Funding for Healthy Communities and Ecosystems research is slated for a reduction of $6.3 million for this year, over $20 million from fiscal year 2007. Despite that 

other agencies are receiving increased funding for research to support long-term energy reliability and sustainability, such as oil shale, biofuels, and carbon capture 

and sequestration, EPA has not received funding to assess the ecosystem impacts 

of these major initiatives. The Task Force believes that the substantial budget cuts 

in ecosystems research will impede new technologies that minimize future environmental damage. The Task Force recommends increasing funds to at least fiscal year 

2008 levels to support these areas. 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 

Change 2008 2009 

Critical Infrastructure Protection ..................................................................................... 15.3 27.1 ∂11 .7 

Decontamination .............................................................................................................. 20.4 28.8 ∂8 .36 

Preparedness, Response, and Recovery .......................................................................... 38.1 46.2 ∂8 .0 

Total .................................................................................................................... 54.1 73.9 ∂19 .8 

Homeland security activities are a significant element of EPA’s S&T activities, focusing on critical infrastructure protection and disaster preparedness and response. 

The Task Force believes that the new emphasis on homeland security at EPA is justified and that the increase is more then adequate to meet the program’s objectives. 

Continued support should be provided to improve water security and enhance preparedness for biological and chemical threats. 

Environmental Education 

The fiscal year 2009 EPA budget requests $8.8 million to support research fellowships, a decrease of $1 million from the previous fiscal year. The STAR (Science to 

Achieve Results) fellowship program is the only federal fellowship program designed 

exclusively for students pursuing advanced degrees in environmental sciences and 

engineering. This is an important investment and the Task Force fully supports this 

program. The Task Force urges Congress to increase funding for STAR fellowships. 
264 

It is essential to encourage students to pursue careers in environmental science and 

engineering. Such investments are critical to addressing environmental concerns, 

bolstering our nation’s workforce, and maintaining its competitiveness. 

CONCLUSION

While the proposed fiscal year 2009 EPA Science and Technology budget includes 

increases in a few program areas, the overall research budget is historically low. We 

recommend that the ORD budget be increased by a minimum of $7 million to a level 

of $548 million. This is necessary to preserve EPA’s important contribution in meeting the challenges of our natural resource and policy issues in compliance with its 

regulatory mission. 

ASME is a non-profit technical and educational organization with 120,000 members worldwide. The Society’s members work in all sectors of the economy, including 

industry, academia, and government. This statement represents the views of the 

EPA Task Force of the ASME Environmental Engineering Division and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUDUBON CONNECTICUT

Madame Chairman and honorable members of the committee: Audubon Connecticut appreciates the opportunity to testify on behalf of funding through the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund to support the addition of three significant habitat 

areas to the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) system in Connecticut. A total $6 million is being requested for additions to the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife 

Refuge and $5.065 million for additions to the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Audubon Connecticut, the State organization of the National Audubon Society 

with more than 12,000 members statewide, works to protect birds, other wildlife and 

their habitats using science and conservation, education, and legislative advocacy 

for the benefit of people and the earth’s biological diversity. The NWR system in 

our state protects key habitat areas for birds, wildlife and plants, and provides opportunities for scientific research, environmental education, and fish and wildlifeoriented recreation. These refuges, the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge along the coast of Long Island Sound and the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and 

Wildlife Refuge covering the watershed of the Connecticut River, represent two of 

our Nation’s most unusual and important Refuges located in a densely populated 

and highly developed four-state region including Connecticut, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire and Vermont. 

The Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge is dedicated to protecting migratory bird habitat along 60 miles of Long Island Sound shoreline in Connecticut. 

The Refuge is used by more than 300 species of birds including raptors, waterfowl, 

shorebirds and Neotropical migratory landbirds. Several individual units are recognized as Audubon Important Bird Areas, part of a global network of sites that are 

essential to birds at some point in their life cycle. The Stewart B. McKinney NWR 

provides critical habitat for federally endangered Roseate Terns, federally threatened Piping Plovers, and a globally significant nesting population of Salt Marsh 

Sharp-tailed Sparrows, listed by the State of Connecticut as a Species of Special 

Concern and as Globally ‘‘Vulnerable’’ by BirdLife International. 

The Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge.—The Nation’s only Fish 

and Wildlife Refuge—consists of approximately 180,000 acres in 48 identified ‘‘special focus areas’’ within the 7.2 million acre watershed of the Connecticut River in 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. These areas contribute 

substantially and in unique ways to supporting natural diversity in the watershed 

and provide habitat for numerous species of birds including our nation’s symbol, the 

Bald Eagle. Two individual units in Connecticut are recognized as Audubon Important Bird Areas. The areas currently proposed for acquisition would constitute only 

the second acquisition of property in the State of Connecticut by the Conte Refuge. 

Audubon Connecticut strongly supports the following 2008 Land and Water Conservation Fund requests: 

—$6 million for phase I of a multi-year effort to acquire the Long Beach/Pleasure 

Beach project in Stratford and Bridgeport, Connecticut that would conserve a 

70-acre barrier beach adjacent to the State’s largest city, a distressed and targeted community. This will be first of several phases for this project. The beach 

shelters the 700-acre estuarine system of the Stratford-Great Meadows Unit of 

the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, and represents the most important remaining block of nesting habitat for the federally threatened Piping 

Plover and State threatened Least Tern in Connecticut. Long Beach and Pleas-
265 

ure Beach represent 20 percent of Connecticut’s remaining undeveloped coastline. More than 270 bird species utilize this area, and the addition of the Long 

Beach/Pleasure Beach property to the Refuge would create one of the premier 

birding areas in all of New England. Acquisition of this area by the USFWS 

will simultaneously improve public access, improve resource management for 

federally listed species and provide a new amenity to Connecticut’s largest city, 

Bridgeport. With both municipalities willing to sell their sites to USFWS, this 

is a unique opportunity to conserve critical bird habitat while also providing 

high quality wildlife-oriented recreation opportunities in an urban environment. 

—$2 million for acquisition of the Elm Camp/Johnson property, three (3) parcels 

that would add a total of 389 acres along the pristine Salmon River, a tributary 

to the Connecticut River, to the Salmon River Division of the Silvio O. Conte 

National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, as well as $3.065 million (a total request of 

$5.065 million) for additional properties in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and 

Vermont as part of a four-State coalition effort to permanently protect key areas 

in this unique Refuge that runs through the four-State region and spans the 

watershed of New England’s longest river. The Salmon River Division in Connecticut represents critical wintering habitat for Bald Eagles and nesting habitat for American Black Ducks, Wood Ducks, and Mallards, along with critical 

wetland, forest and shrubland habitat for many other species of conservation 

concern. The Elm Camp/Johnson property would represent only the second unit 

of the Refuge in Connecticut and the first addition to the Salmon River Division. The property contains 3,360 feet of frontage on Pine Brook, a high-quality 

stream that provides outstanding cold-water fish habitat, as well as 1,440 feet 

on the west bank of the Salmon River where there have been extensive State 

and Federal efforts to restore anadromous fish runs, including the Atlantic 

salmon. Pine Brook is the only major Salmon tributary free of artificial barriers 

to migratory fish. 

The acquisition of these parcels by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will continue efforts to protect bird habitat along the highly developed coastline of Long Island Sound and watershed of the Connecticut River. If funding is not made available in fiscal year 2009, there is a strong possibility that these parcels could be developed and Connecticut would lose more of the already-rare salt marsh and 

riverine habitats found on the subject properties. On behalf of Audubon Connecticut, 

I respectfully request your support in the fiscal year 2009 Interior Appropriations 

bill to ensure the success of these important conservation projects that will benefit 

the people of our State and our Nation for generations to come. 

Thank you for your consideration of these requests. 

Audubon Connecticut, the State organization of the National Audubon Society 

with more than 12,000 members statewide, works to protect birds, other wildlife and 

their habitats using science and conservation, education, and legislative advocacy 

for the benefit of people and the earth’s biological diversity. Through our network 

of nature centers, protected wildlife sanctuaries, and local volunteer Chapters, we 

seek to connect people with nature and inspire the next generation of conservationists. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AUDUBON SOCIETY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you for 

the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Audubon Society of New 

Hampshire in support of an appropriation of $1 million from the Federal Land and 

Water Conservation Fund to acquire a 2,450-acre tract known as the Mollidgewock 

Brook Project (Phase II) for the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (Lake 

Umbagog NWR) in Errol, New Hampshire. The Audubon Society of New Hampshire 

is a nonprofit statewide membership organization whose mission is to protect New 

Hampshire’s natural environment for wildlife and for people. Our organization has 

offered programs in wildlife conservation, land protection, environmental policy, and 

environmental education since 1914. 

My name is Carol R. Foss, Director of Conservation for the Audubon Society of 

New Hampshire, where I have worked in various professional capacities for more 

than 30 years. I hold a Bachelor’s degree in Biology from Colby College in 

Waterville, Maine, a Master’s Degree in Zoology from the University of Connecticut 

in Storrs, and a Ph.D. in Wildlife Ecology from the University of Maine in Orono. 

I have more than 25 years of field experience in northern New Hampshire and western Maine, including considerable time in the vicinity of the Lake Umbagog NWR. 

I have participated in a number of collaborative efforts to ensure the long-term conservation of our state’s northern forest landscape, serving on numerous advisory 
266 

committees and expert panels focused on land conservation and management 

around Umbagog Lake and elsewhere in the region. In my current position I administer a staff of six additional scientists, several of whom have also conducted field 

research in the forests and wetlands of northern New Hampshire. 

Set in the foothills of the rugged Mahoosuc Mountains and straddling the state 

border between northern New Hampshire and western Maine, Umbagog Lake is the 

westernmost link in the chain of Rangeley Lakes, famed for their excellent recreational opportunities as well as for possessing some of the finest wildlife habitat 

to be found in the two states. The 20,513-acre Lake Umbagog NWR, which encircles 

Umbagog Lake, includes 8,700 acres of open water, dozens of miles of shoreline, numerous sheltered coves and hidden backwaters, and extensive and diverse wetlands. 

These wetland features are surrounded by a variety of upland and lowland forest 

types in a broad array of successional age classes. 

Umbagog Lake offers scenic wilderness opportunities for recreationists throughout 

the year. In the warmer months, kayakers, canoeists, and boaters explore the lake’s 

coves and the rapids and backwaters of the Magalloway, Rapid, and Dead Cambridge rivers, the lake’s major tributaries, as well as the Androscoggin River which 

flows out of the lake. Primitive shoreline campsites offer rustic canoe camping in 

a magnificent northwoods setting. Hunters, hikers, nature photographers, and wildlife watchers find nearly unlimited opportunities for exploration. The watershed is 

a well-known and sought-after fishing destination that offers anglers the opportunity to fish for both cold water and warm water species. Winter recreational activities include snowmobiling, ice fishing, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and 

dog-sledding. 

Lake Umbagog NWR protects exemplary habitats for many types of northern forest wildlife, especially for wetland-dependent, migratory, and state-listed threatened 

or endangered bird species. Wetland areas on the Refuge are particularly notable 

for the diversity and abundance of migrating and nesting waterbirds. The Refuge 

supports the highest concentrations of nesting American black ducks, ring-necked 

ducks, and common loons in New Hampshire. Significant numbers of several birds 

of prey of state conservation concern in New Hampshire or Maine are found in and 

around the Refuge, including breeding populations of bald eagles, ospreys, peregrine 

falcons, and northern harriers. Many neotropical migrant songbirds associated with 

northern forest habitat types are plentiful on the Refuge, including several declining 

species such as Canada warbler, bay-breasted warbler, and rusty blackbird. 

Critical ecological values protected by the Lake Umbagog NWR have been recognized by a long list of interagency, academic, and non-governmental organizations, 

working groups, and committees. In the New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan, sections of the Refuge are rated as ‘‘Tier 1’’ habitat, a classification used by conservation planners to designate habitat areas with the highest condition ranking in the 

state. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan’s Atlantic Coast Joint Venture recognizes portions of the Refuge in both Maine and New Hampshire as high 

priority sites. The Refuge is located at the center of the Nulhegan-Rangeley Complex, one of only five waterbird focus areas designated in New England. Within the 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative, the Lake Umbagog NWR falls within 

the Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region (BCR–14); many of the Priority Species identified by BCR–14 occur on the Refuge. The National Park Service 

has specifically designated one unique 850-acre tract of boreal bog habitat within 

the Refuge as the Floating Island National Natural Landmark. 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2009 is the 2,450-acre Mollidgewock Brook 

Project (Phase II) located in the town of Errol, New Hampshire. Conservation of this 

parcel is a top priority for the Lake Umbagog NWR and the support of a variety 

of local and statewide conservation groups and natural resource agencies, including 

the Appalachian Mountain Club, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, 

and other conservation groups and natural resource agencies. The entire 5,016-acre 

Mollidgewock Brook Project (Phases I, II, and III) encompasses the majority of the 

Mollidgewock Brook wetlands—an extensive complex of low-gradient stream, boreal 

forest swamp, alder swamp and emergent marsh. A large block of lowland sprucefir forest surrounds the wetlands, and early successional northern hardwood and 

mixed forest covers the property’s gently rolling uplands. 

Specifically, Phase II of the Mollidgewock Brook Project encompasses 276 acres 

of wetlands as mapped by the National Wetlands Inventory, including at least 10 

different wetland types. These extensive and varied wetlands provide ideal habitat 

for waterfowl, such as hooded merganser, common goldeneye, and the regionally declining American black duck. Field data obtained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service document that this property also supports a variety of forest types, including 

lowland mixed hardwood-spruce forest, tamarack and spruce bogs, and regenerating 

stands of spruce-fir and northern hardwoods. Conifer stands on the property have 
267 

historically provided a large wintering area for white-tailed deer, the State’s most 

important game species. These forests also provide ideal habitat for lynx and American marten, both species of regional conservation concern. The forests support 

breeding populations of many neotropical migrant songbirds, including more than 

20 species of warblers. Ospreys and northern harriers breed on the property, and 

bald eagles utilize it as foraging habitat throughout the year. 

Conservation of this property will provide critically important ecological 

connectivity between the recently conserved 5,300-acre Errol Community Forest and 

the existing 20,513-acre Lake Umbagog NWR. This will benefit many types of wildlife by creating and preserving extensive wildlife travel corridors that extend from 

Umbagog Lake to the nearby Androscoggin River and to adjacent upland forests. 

This connection will help facilitate long-term conservation of important wetland and 

upland wildlife species, including migratory birds, large mammals, and endangered 

species. Addition of this 2,450-acre property to the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife 

Refuge will further accomplish the original purposes for the establishment of the 

Refuge in 1992, including protecting wetlands, wetland-associated wildlife, and migratory birds. Permanent protection of the Mollidgewock Brook and wetland complex will assist the Refuge in achieving these goals, as well as complement and enhance conservation efforts of several partner organizations elsewhere in the region. 

Additionally, acquisition of this property will support efforts to preserve outdoor recreational opportunities in the upper Androscoggin Valley. 

An appropriation of $1 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund is 

needed to complete the acquisition of Phase II of the Mollidgewock Brook Project. 

This investment will be leveraged by over $900,000 in State and private money that 

will support Phase I and Phase III in order to complete the entire 5,000-acre project. 

Timely action on this request is needed to complete conservation of the Phase II 

parcel, which had been at risk of subdivision for second homes by virtue of its proximity to Umbagog Lake, the Androscoggin River, and other desirable recreational 

amenities of the region. With your support of this appropriation, we have an opportunity to conserve threatened acreage and add it to the Lake Umbagog NWR. Acquisition of this parcel will support the Refuge in its efforts to protect important wildlife habitat and link it to other conservation lands which are already protected by 

various Federal, State, and municipal agencies. 

The Mollidgewock Brook Project is one of many worthy acquisition proposals nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, LWCF funding has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Federal budget 

proposes even further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, 

and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers many in-holdings and adjacent 

lands which have been identified as critical to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. If we fail to act in a timely manner to conserve treasured natural and 

cultural resources while we have an opportunity, many may soon be lost or severely 

degraded. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding available for LWCF 

in fiscal year 2009. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of this important conservation initiative in northern New Hampshire. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BLUE GOOSE ALLIANCE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the following is offered on behalf 

of the Blue Goose Alliance regarding the fiscal year 2009 appropriations for Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National Wildlife Refuge System. We urge 

the committee to allocate an increase of $81 million, thereby advancing the funding 

to $514 Million for Refuge System operations in the coming year. Further, we ask 

that the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) appropriations for fiscal year 

2009 be retained at the fiscal year 2008 level of $20.676 million. These funds are 

vital to assure continuation of a viable effort to address exchanges, inholdings, 

emergencies and hardships affecting habitats for endangered species, neotropical 

migrants and depleted populations of migratory birds. 

The Blue Goose Alliance is a national 501(c)(3) conservation organization. Its mission is to promote the legislative establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge Service within the U.S. Department of the Interior. To assist the accomplishment of that 

mission, the Alliance informs the public and Congress on needs and benefits of the 

Refuge System, and works independently or with other organizations to defend individual refuges against threatening projects or proposals. 
268 

SUMMARY

The Alliance thanks you, Madam Chairwoman, for your leadership last year as 

this committee worked to increase funding for the Refuge System. Those efforts 

were noteworthy given the difficult budget climate. Once again we urge you to move 

the Refuge System and its vital wildlife conservation programs forward by increasing funding in fiscal year 2009. A large group of organizations are working to establish adequate core program funding for the Refuge System by fiscal year 2012. The 

level we endorse for fiscal year 2009 ($514 million for NWRS O&M) represents a 

logical and very important step towards that well-justified goal. 

We are deeply concerned with the administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget request 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System, which proposes damaging decreases within 

basic refuge programs. Each year rising basic costs erode the purchasing power of 

the funding provided by this committee so that an additional $15 million each year 

is necessary merely to maintain refuge programs at the previous year’s level. The 

real need is to go beyond the inflation costs and allow refuges to increase activities 

and public benefits to higher levels. 

It is incomprehensible to us that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requested 

severe program cuts by diverting some fiscal year 2008 funds, ‘‘refusing’’ money allocated to it, and attempting to confine some subactivities to fiscal year 2007 levels 

even as they continue refuge workforce reductions. Those tactics conflict with the 

Appropriations Act and directions provided by this committee. We also respectfully ask the subcommittee for an additional $1 million to fund 

an independent study of the Refuge System. The National Wildlife Refuge Association in October 2007 first proposed such a study. It should detail the obscure stature 

of the Refuge System within the Department and FWS with consequent lack of leadership attention, weak decisions, forced staff reductions and inadequate funding undermining of the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuges. 

These factors also impede vital public outreach, foster lawlessness on refuges and 

limit the ability of field stations to mitigate and adapt to habitat and wildlife population changes wrought by global climate changes. The study would gauge the Refuge System’s status and efforts to implement the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. 

While the fiscal year 2009 President’s budget request for the FWS attempts to 

look like an effort to reduce government spending, it actually diverts funds from 

basic refuge programs originating in the 1997 statute, and funds new initiatives in 

the FWS and Department. This is a chronic problem for the System and a main reason the Blue Goose Alliance exists. We believe such diversions would cease if the 

Refuge System had full agency autonomy within the Department of Interior. 

REFUGE SYSTEM PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

The FWS has asked for a decrease of $930,000 for subactivities within the Wildlife and Habitat Management subactivity. The proposal ‘‘eliminates’’ a congressional 

add-on in last year’s appropriations. We support an increase of $25 million in this 

fundamental program. As Global Climate Change continues to impact coastal areas 

and especially northern Alaska, refuge wildlife and habitats must have the resources to help mitigate and adjust to the changes. Inland areas such as the prairie 

pothole region of north central States and the arid southwest are also feeling early 

effects of the greenhouse phenomenon. America’s fish and wildlife require time to 

adjust to expected habitat changes; refuges can serve as assisting agents for those 

adjustments. Refuges need to improve wildlife surveys and monitoring activities, increase the health of all refuge wildlife populations and habitats, and anticipate coming changes. 

The FWS has asked for a decrease of $1,733,000 in the Visitor Services subactivity, again redirecting resources to ‘‘other needs within the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’’ at a time when National Wildlife Refuges are, more than ever, a destination point for people as well as wildlife. Refuge visitation continues to grow as birdwatching becomes ever more popular and refuges offer premier opportunities found 

nowhere else. Birding now has 82 million participants, having grown by 8 percent 

since the year 2000. Today 35.4 percent of Americans 16 and older take active interest in birding. Altogether, over 8 billion birding days are expended each year, yet 

another increase in nature observations in general as humans seek balance in a 

stress-filled world. 

Environmental education is an especially important activity on refuges, and is increasingly popular with schools all across the Nation. Within the refuge system 

many refuges have a top quality EE program. Investments in EE are especially important as they reach our young people, the decision-makers of tomorrow. Volunteerism is another notable success story on refuges. Volunteers contribute 20 percent of the work hours performed on refuges. Rather than reduce this vital sub-
269 

activity and programs, this is an opportune time for enhancement. In total, the Alliance supports an increase of $20 million for the Visitor Services subactivity. 

The FWS proposes a program decrease of $1,027,000 in Conservation Planning. 

The congressional mandate for completing Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

(CCP) for all 554 units of the Refuge System by 2012 draws near. The larger, more 

complex refuges are only now beginning to be planned. A decrease in support at this 

juncture is unwarranted and unwise. An increase of $5 million in this subactivity 

would best support the necessary data collections and other activities required for 

quality planning. The recent tendency by the planners to use ‘‘boiler-plate language’’ 

in the CCPs should be replaced with sound planning and deeper thinking on upcoming issues to be addressed by the individual refuges. Global climate change has not 

been included in most of the plans completed to date. Because the plans are intended to guide the refuges for the next 15 years, and since early effects from climate changes are being noted, it is crucial to invest in completion of plans appropriate to the times. 

We support an even larger increase for the Law Enforcement subactivity than is 

included in the FWS budget request. The wildlife refuges along our Nation’s southern border require increased capability given the often dangerous situations being 

encountered. Refuge law enforcement in general is lagging at a time of increased 

visitation and needs an important boost for visitor and wildlife protection. Overall 

plans have been developed but funds for equipment, training, and new personnel 

must be made available. We support an increase in this subactivity of $5 million. 

The FWS proposes to reduce the Refuge Maintenance subactivity by $2,384,000 

while the National Wildlife Refuge Service continues to be crippled by a growing 

maintenance backlog currently exceeding $3 billion. We propose an increase of $25 

million in this vital program area. The present level of funding is inadequate and 

should be raised to provide a capacity more responsive to the initial investments 

and standards of responsible upkeep. 

CONCLUSION

The 2007 ‘‘Banking on Nature’’ report States that recreational visits to national 

wildlife refuges generate substantial economic activity. In fiscal year 2006, 34.8 million people visited refuges outside of Alaska for recreation. Their spending generated almost $1.7 billion of sales in regional economies. As this spending flowed 

through the economy, nearly 27,000 people were employed and $452.8 million in employment income was generated. Visitation projections for the coming year exceed 

40 million people. It is time to recognize this economic contribution of the Refuge 

System by moving a strong step above the fiscal year 2008 funding for operations 

and maintenance. Such a move will enable the Service to better shelter its fish, 

wildlife and plants while providing important benefits for the visiting public and 

other supporters. It is an investment that continues to pay dividends in several 

ways. We hope that members of this committee agree. 

The proposed FWS fiscal year 2009 Budget for National Wildlife Refuges would 

reduce the ability of every refuge in the System to successfully conduct important 

science based biological programs and to hire vital new staff. It would also diminish 

opportunities for the public to engage in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

The Blue Goose Alliance urges the subcommittee to provide an increase of $81 

million for the National Wildlife Refuge System in fiscal year 2009, raising the Operations and Maintenance funding level to $514 million, and to fund an important 

and much needed independent study of the System. This sorely needed surge in 

funding will continue the reversal of deteriorating refuge conditions started by last 

year’s appropriations. It will permit reopening several visitor contact stations and 

allow new or upgraded environmental education programs, an increase in volunteer 

programs and resulting output, and improve services to visitors. We also consider 

it vital that $20.7 be retained for the LWCF to assure an acquisition program commensurate with the need to save habitats for migratory birds and endangered wildlife. 

Thank you Madam Chairwoman for this opportunity to comment on the appropriation needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BONNEVILLE SHORELINE TRAIL COMMITTEE

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you for 

the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $1.5 million for the Forest Service to acquire the 150-acre North Ogden property for the 

Bonneville Shoreline Trail. 
270 

As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 

Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2009. 

For years, the residents of Salt Lake, Weber, Davis, Utah, and Cache Counties 

have benefited from their unique geographical location along the slopes of the 

Wasatch Range, which provides recreational opportunities, an escape from urban 

pressures, and a sense of community pride and identity. Development pressure 

poses the most serious threat to this valuable resource and will increase as the 

Wasatch Front population doubles within the next 10 to 15 years. This population 

growth and increased public use of these lands have raised issues of landowner liability and put pressure on these property owners either to sell their land or to restrict access to the trails, raising the possibility that this vital public recreational 

system could be impaired or lost. 

In 1990, representatives of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Weber County, 

the City of Ogden, and other citizens groups concerned about the fragile thread that 

holds the trail system together, began meeting in an effort to protect and expand 

the trail corridor along the foothills of the Wasatch Mountain Range. As a result, 

the Bonneville Shoreline Trail (BST) project was developed, with a broad goal of extending the existing but threatened trail corridor already in place in the city of 

Ogden south to Provo, following the prehistoric shoreline of Lake Bonneville within 

the national forest. This partnership has been so successful that the communities 

in Cache and Box Elder County have worked to extend the trail north. 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2009 is the 150-acre North Ogden property 

in Weber County, a high priority for protection by the U.S. Forest Service. The property serves as important habitat for deer and elk and as an important buffer for 

fire protection for the rapidly developing area along the Wasatch Front. The property also provides watershed protection for neighboring areas in addition to key recreational resources. 

The North Ogden program is a partnership effort to provide a new stretch of the 

BST along the northern boundaries of North Ogden and Pleasant View, within the 

boundaries of the national forest. In 2005, a 5-mile stretch of the BST along North 

Ogden and Pleasant View was secured through a trail easement along an existing 

utility corridor granted to the nonprofit Weber Pathways. The property available for 

protection this year is critical to the North Ogden program because it will bring Forest Service ownership to this stretch of the BST and add critical trail access to the 

citizens in this area of the State. Protection of this property will also protect beautiful views of the foothills of the Wasatch Front and Ben Lomond Peak, one of 

Weber County’s most important landmarks, while conserving important wildlife 

habitat and winter range along this rapid growth area. 

In fiscal year 2009, $1.5 million is needed to acquire this BST property that is 

critically important to furthering the goals of the trail. If not protected, this area 

will be developed. Public access to this portion of the BST could be lost forever, and 

adjacent forest and wilderness lands would also be put at risk. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BRISTOL BAY AREA HEALTH CORPORATION

The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) submits this statement regarding the fiscal year 2009 Indian Health Service budget. BBAHC is a consortium 

of 34 tribes in Southwest Alaska and was formed by the tribes of the region in 1973. 

We were the first tribal organization in the United States to use an Indian SelfDetermination (Public Law 93–638) contract to manage and operate an Indian 

Health Service Unit, and have been managing and operating the Kanakanak Hospital and Bristol Bay Area Service Unit since 1980. We provide health services in 

a 40,000 square mile area—larger than the state of Ohio and with no roads. Our 

energy costs are enormous. Heating oil is now $5 a gallon in Dillingham and double 

that in the villages—in some cases heating oil has to be flown in, exacerbating the 

costs. Gasoline is $11 per gallon in the villages. Medevac services are $20,000 per 

flight. 

BBAHC is struggling to meet health needs with high costs and woefully inadequate facilities as reflected in our IHS budget requests: 
271 

—$5.5 million increase for the Village-Built Lease program over a 3-year period 

with at least a $3 million increase in fiscal year 2009 and a pro-rata share of 

any increase for BBAHC. 

—$2 million to complete the replacement of the boiler plant at Kanakanak Hospital. 

—Authority for IHS to accept non-IHS built facilities and to issue use permits for 

these facilities to tribes. 

—$3.8 million for design and construction of a dental building. 

—$2 million for design of an expansion and remodeling of the Kanakanak Hospital. 

—$1.4 million for BBAHC’s Medivac program. This is the amount needed just so 

we can continue services at the current level. 

—Resources to stop the shoreline erosion—IHS owns the property underlying the 

Kanakanak Compound, and there is considerable contamination and beach erosion. 

—Funding is needed for water and sewer installation. 

We also strongly support the fiscal year 2009 IHS recommendations of the Alaska 

Native Health Board for: 

—A 20 percent increase in the IHS budget—$666 million increase over fiscal year 

2008. 

—Full funding for contract support costs, a $100 million increase over fiscal year 

2008. Nearly half of the CSC shortfall is in Alaska. 

—Funding for the Electronic Health Records Technology program—BBAHC’s costs 

for this is $500,000. 

—Sanitation Construction—a $20 million increase over fiscal year 2008. 

—Community Health Aide Program—a $3 million increase over fiscal year 2008. 

Boiler Plant Replacement.—Of great urgency is the need to complete the replacement of the hospital’s boiler plant. Of the $5.4 million cost, we have obtained $3.4 

million from various sources. We need an additional $2 million to complete the job. 

If the replacement is not completed soon we face a breakdown of the current system 

and closing of the hospital. 

The boiler plant will be in a new stand alone pre-fabricated building. A buried 

underground piping system will be added to connect the new building with the existing hospital heating system. A system of pipe anchors, pipe guides, and expansion 

joints will be provided to allow proper expansion of the steam piping system. The 

project will also incorporate space in the new boiler plant for the future relocation 

of the 500 kW standby generator system, which provides reliable power for the campus as a back-up to the utility power system. 

Village-Built Clinic Leasing Program.—The IHS lease program for village-built 

clinics has absolutely stagnated and it is not able to come close to keeping up with 

village needs. Funding for the IHS lease program is $3.7 million, the same as it has 

been for 19 years! We have not even had funding for inflationary increases. 

Thanks in part to assistance through the Denali Commission we have seen much 

needed expansion of some village-built clinics and new ones established. However, 

lease amounts for clinics that have expanded have not been increased, and indeed, 

are far below what one would consider reasonable local rates. And those clinics 

which have not expanded are also being leased at unreasonably low rates when one 

considers their rural, remote locations. An example is Ekwok, which has an annual 

clinic lease rate of only $9,146. Overall the current lease funding covers only approximately 55 percent of the operating costs, and those cost are expected to continue to increase as energy costs continue to skyrocket in rural Alaska. 

As new clinics have been added, they must be on a waiting list for clinic leases. 

In order for continued funding from the Denali Commission for clinic construction, 

the IHS leasing program funds must be increased. Such an increase would make 

an important difference in the provision of health services at the village level. 

Medevac Travel.—We request $1.4 million in recurring funding for BBAHC to 

support the high costs of Medevac services in the Bristol Bay region. As this subcommittee knows, there are few roads in Alaska and there are many instances 

where we must transport patients via air to the hospital in Dillingham, and, in instances where our hospital cannot provide the type of care needed, to Anchorage. 

Medevac transport costs $20,000 per flight. 

We receive $111,564 for Medevac but our costs are closer to $2 million. We have 

received no increase since 2001! We aggressively pursue third party collections, but 

it can in no way make up for the huge shortfall we have in Medevac costs. Medicare 

and Medicaid reimbursements cover less than half of Medevac costs. Due to high 

energy and increased costs over the previous year we absorbed $500,000 in Medevac 

costs last year. 
272 

DHHS Hindering the Use of Facilities Built with Non-IHS Funds.—In the past 

BBAHC has used non-IHS funds to pay for the construction of an emergency room 

and substance abuse treatment and behavioral health facilities, which we added to 

the Kanakanak Compound property owned by the IHS. Once built, these facilities 

were given to the IHS, which in turn has allowed BBAHC to utilize them to provide 

services under our compact in accordance with the terms of a use permit. DHHS 

has been micro-managing how IHS deals with the accepting and permitting of these 

facilities, and in so doing has prevented us from utilizing this arrangement for future construction projects. These actions make no sense to us because Congress does 

not appropriate sufficient funds for the IHS to pay for the needed construction 

projects at Kanakanak Compound. We, as well as other tribal health providers in 

Alaska, are compelled to seek other funding sources to build desperately needed facilities in an effort to carry out our mission of providing quality health care services. 

Beneficiaries in our regional have greatly benefited from our emergency room and 

substance abuse and behavioral health facilities. However, you should know that in 

completing the behavioral health facility, we lost two construction seasons due to 

lags in the ‘‘gifting process’’. We ask this Subcommittee to urge DHHS to delegate 

to the IHS the authority to accept these types of gifts and to continue issuing use 

permits to tribes as it has done in the past. 

Dental Building.—Funding for a dental building involves considerably more than 

just funding for a facility. In our case: 

—There is a significant amount of contaminated soils at the current location. 

—New dental equipment will cost $600,000. 

—We will need to relocate a sewer line, light poles, and a manhole. 

—Footings for new main entry will need to be completed with this project. 

—Information Technology Space & Independent Servers for Digital Image. 

Beach Erosion.—Our tribal consortium utilizes IHS-owned property for the 

Kanakanak Hospital and Compound in providing health services under the Indian 

Self-Determinatin and Education assistance Act. When we took over this federal facility under a use permit, the government agreed to be responsible for hazardous 

conditions resulting from prior federal use of the property, including pockets of oil 

underground due to years of spills, leaks and overflows. 

The erosion of the shoreline of the hospital compound has increased this problem. 

The erosion has brought oil to the surface and well as materials from old garbage 

dumps and, very disturbing, human remains from a cemetery dating back to about 

1900. The cemetery was used by a federally operated orphanage and school—and 

is now part of the IHS property on which Kanakanak Hospital is located. IHS needs 

to obtain the resources to stop the erosion and clean up the site. If this situation 

is not corrected it will eventually put the hospital itself at risk. The problem needs 

to be addressed immediately and the cost should not diminish the resources available for Alaska Native health care. 

Water and Sewer Installation.—While we have a water and sewer system in 

downtown Dillingham, the outlying areas of town are not on the system, and this 

is a similar scenario for several of our villages. Several have wells and septic systems where a sewer system is too costly. We are very concerned with the age of 

many systems that will fail and need to be replaced as they are outdated and inadequate to meet needs. 

Twenty Percent Increase in IHS Budget.—As mentioned above, we support the 

ANHB request for a 20 percent increase in the IHS budget, or $666 million over 

the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. While the IHS budget has not kept up with inflation and other built-in costs such as pay raises and population growth, the administration’s proposed fiscal year 2009 budget would make matters dramatically worse. 

The administration proposes not one penny for built in costs, and by its own conservative estimates tribal and IHS program would have to absorb $144 million for 

built-in costs in fiscal year 2009. When you add to it the generally insufficient funding over the years for built-in cost and the $200 million that has been rescinded 

from the IHS budget since 2000, a 20 percent increase is not at all out of line, even 

in this tight budget environment. 

Thank you for your consideration of our needs. 
273 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY

PROJECT REQUESTS 

Amount 

FUNDING FOR THE DON EDWARDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (FWS, CONSTRUCTION) .......................................................................................................................................................... $4,000,000 

MONITORING OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS (USGS, BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND MONITORING) .... 1,150,000 

CALIFORNIA SEAFLOOR MAPPING PROGRAM (USGS, COASTAL AND MARINE GEOLOGY PROGRAM) .............. 1,500,000 

SUMMARY

On behalf of the California State Coastal Conservancy, I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present our priorities for fiscal year 2009 and, at 

the same time, express our appreciation for your support of the Conservancy’s 

projects in the years past. The Conservancy respectfully requests needed funding for 

the following critical projects during fiscal year 2009: $4 million for the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge for project costs associated with 

the South San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project; $1,150,000 for the 

USGS Biological Research and Monitoring Program in support of the South San 

Francisco Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project, and; $1,500,000 for the USGS Coastal 

and Marine Geology Program in support of the California Seafloor Mapping Program. 

CONSERVANCY BACKGROUND

The California Coastal Conservancy, established in 1976, is a State agency that 

uses entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect, restore, and enhance coastal 

resources, and to provide access to the shore. We work in partnership with local governments, other public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners to 

accomplish these goals. 

To date, the Conservancy has undertaken more than 950 projects along the 1,100 

mile California coastline and around San Francisco Bay. Through such projects, the 

Conservancy: protects and improves coastal wetlands, streams, and watersheds; 

works with local communities to revitalize urban waterfronts; assists local communities in solving complex land-use problems and protects agricultural lands and supports coastal agriculture to list a few of our activities. 

Since its establishment in 1976, the Coastal Conservancy has: helped build more 

than 300 access ways and trails, thus opening more than 80 miles of coastal and 

bay lands for public use; assisted in the completion of over 100 urban waterfront 

projects; joined in partnership endeavors with more than 100 local land trusts and 

other nonprofit groups, making local community involvement an integral part of the 

Coastal Conservancy’s work and completed projects in every coastal county and all 

nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. In addition, we currently have over 300 active projects that are benefiting the citizens of California. 

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT POND RESTORATION PROJECT

The Conservancy is seeking two project requests before the subcommittee in support of this critical project. Our requests include $4 million in funding for the Don 

Edwards National Wildlife Refuge under the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Construction account and a $1,150,000 request from the U.S. Geological Survey through the 

agency’s Biological Research and Monitoring account. Both requests will be used to 

further construction of this project during fiscal year 2009 and will continue to keep 

us on schedule for the completion of Phase one of the restoration effort. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Funding Request—$4 million 

Specifically, the $4 million being requested for the Don Edwards National Wildlife 

Refuge will provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with the funding they need to effectively manage these lands, including installation and management of water control structures, levee maintenance, and the monitoring of the salt ponds. Of the total 

requested amount, $3,000,000 is requested to match California State funds for implementation of Phase I of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. Phase I 

includes continued construction and restoration of various salt ponds at the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. This funding will also be utilized for additional 

planning for the long-term habitat restoration plan which will be complete in 2008. 

In addition, $1 million of the requested funding will be utilized by Fish and Wildlife staff for levee maintenance at the Refuge that is need to provide continued pro-
274 

tection for the Silicon Valley. This funding is critical to the project and the local 

community as it will protect the project area from tidal flooding prior to implementation of the permanent flood control solution by the Corps of Engineers which is 

currently ongoing. 

U.S. Geological Survey Funding Request—$1.15 million 

The Conservancy is also seeking $1.15 million from the U.S. Geological Survey in 

support of the South San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project. This funding is critical to the current and future success of this groundbreaking project as 

project progression is based on adaptive management principles. This funding will 

be utilized by USGS to conduct interdisciplinary monitoring (biological, hydrological, 

and water quality studies) of Salt Ponds in the San Pablo Bay and San Francisco 

Bay. With restoration work occurring in both the South Bay and North Bay salt 

ponds, there is an urgent need for monitoring to guide planning and implementation 

efforts. In fact, the continuance of the project and current and future restoration activities are all dependent upon the successful implementation of the monitoring this 

funding will provide. Monitoring costs for the project during the fiscal year are expected to be in the amount of $900,000. Included in this request is $150,000 for the creation of a lead scientist position 

associated with the South San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds Restoration project. This 

position would greatly expand our ability to monitor the hydrological and biological 

changes occurring in the Bay as a result of project implementation and would provide consistency in accomplishing this task. Funding for both the monitoring of the 

project area and the creation of a lead scientist position is greatly needed as it will 

ensure a sound scientific and technical basis for the plan’s implementation, ultimately resulting in a leveraging of Federal investment, wiser expenditure of funds 

in the long term and a more effective and efficient project. The fiscal year 2008 appropriation for this request was $500,000. 

CALIFORNIA SEAFLOOR MAPPING INITIATIVE

The California State Coastal Conservancy, in conjunction with numerous State 

and Federal partners, is ambitiously pursuing the mapping of the entirety of the 

seafloor directly off the coast of the State of California. This project will produce detailed bathymetric maps of some of the most productive ocean waters in the United 

States and the world and as such is critical for a multitude of reasons. 

A large number of ocean management decisions can be made more effectively with 

accurate statewide mapping of seafloor substrate, marine habitat types, and bathymetry (underwater topography) of California’s coastal and nearshore waters. 

This information will inform the designation of new marine reserve areas as well 

as the monitoring of all reserve areas along the California Coast. High resolution 

seafloor maps will distinguish underwater habitats and highlight faults, chasms, fissures, crevices and pinnacles and will help identify and understand known and unknown fault dynamics along the seismically active California Coast. This information will then be utilized by scientists and resource managers to identify potential 

biological hot spots to aid their understanding of the highly productive and diverse 

ecosystem along the California Coast. Further, information concerning the size and 

extent of activity associated with known and unknown underwater fault lines will 

allow our communities to better prepare for the possibility of cataclysmic seismic activity of the California Coast. 

In addition, the project will provide extensive navigational benefits as it will identify hidden reefs, sunken obstacles and other navigation hazards in California’s near 

and offshore waters. This information is essential for the safety of maritime commerce vessels, and subsequently the economies of California and the Nation. These 

maps will provide greater knowledge and understanding of navigational channels 

and hazards surrounding the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland, the 

Nation’s 1st, 2nd and 4th busiest port facilities respectively, which collectively are 

responsible for 50 percent of the Nation’s total container cargo volume. 

Examples of some additional applications that would benefit from marine mapping and data include: understanding sediment transport and sand delivery, identifying dredging and dumping sites, regulation of offshore coastal development, and 

illuminating the dynamics of fisheries and other marine species. Detailed bathymetric maps are also critical in the development of an ocean circulation model that 

will allow us to better predict ocean response to natural and human-induced 

changes. 

In support of this effort the Conservancy is seeking $1.5 million during fiscal year 

2009 from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Coastal and Marine Geology Program. This 

funding will be utilized for scientific data collection (hydrographic surveys of the 

seafloor, video ground-truthing of remotely collected data to verify habitats and geo-
275 

logic structure, and seismic profiling to determine geologic stability) and for final 

map production associated with the project. Although most of the hydrographic survey data will be collected by private industry, the Coastal and Marine Geology Program of the USGS is uniquely qualified to ground truth the accuracy of the data, 

and in coordination with the CA Geological Survey, create finished map products. 

We are committed to the success and completion of the project and as such have secured $12.5 million from the State of California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) 

to date for the advancement of the project. The OPC also intends to appropriate an 

additional $7.5 million in fiscal year 2009 if funds become available. We are also 

working with the Packard Foundation to determine the potential of financial support. In addition to these efforts, we are seeking $6.3 million in Federal funding 

during fiscal year 2009 which includes the $1.5 million being requested from the 

subcommittee for USGS. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of an important land acquisition funding 

need at Mount Rainier National Park. I am supporting an appropriation of $2.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year 2009 to continue the acquisition of important parcels within the recently expanded boundaries 

of the national park. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, these projects are some of many worthy acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 

2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 

2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, 

refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, 

historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important 

features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in 

fiscal year 2009. 

Mount Rainier National Park was established on March 2, 1899, the first of three 

national parks in Washington state. Today it encompasses 235,625 acres, ranging 

in elevation from 1,610 to 14,410 feet above sea level. Mount Rainier itself is an 

active volcano, encased in over 35 square miles of snow and ice and surrounded by 

old-growth forest and stunning wildflower meadows. The park is also rich in cultural resources and was designated a national historic landmark district as an outstanding example of early park planning and national park rustic architecture. 

The proximity of the park to large cities like Seattle, Tacoma and Portland makes 

the park a busy tourist destination. Nearly 2 million people come to enjoy the grandeur and beauty of Mount Rainier each year—hiking its trails, climbing the summit, 

snowshoeing or cross-country skiing on its slopes, camping along its glacier-fed rivers, photographing wildflower displays in subalpine meadows, or just admiring the 

view. 

Ensuring access for the park’s many visitors has been a particular concern at the 

northwest entrance. The Carbon River Road has frequently been washed out, preventing visitors from reaching the Ipsut Creek campground and picnic area, as well 

as day-use parking for access to the Carbon Glacier and Wonderland Trail. To address this problem, and to eliminate the considerable maintenance costs necessitated by the frequent flooding, Congress passed legislation in 2004 extending the 

park’s northwestern boundary 3 miles along the Carbon River Valley. 

The addition of these new lands will allow the National Park Service to establish 

a new campground with associated roads and parking, new hiking trails, and riverfront fishing areas. The new roads will permit the current road to be eventually converted to a hiking-and-biking trail, and the Ipsut Creek campground will become a 

backcountry camping site. The expansion will also afford much needed protection to 

the beautiful Carbon River Valley, conserving habitat for endangered and threatened species such as the marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, and Chinook 

salmon. The valley contains one of the last inland old-growth rainforests in the 

United States, and connects wildlife corridors from the park to Puget Sound. 

There are two principal targeted acquisitions for 2009. Of most importance to our 

organization is the Carbon River Ranch, formerly owned by the Thompson family. 

Acquisition of the remaining 100 acres of this parcel is critical to the expansion, as 

it would form the new entryway to the National Park. The property is along the 

Carbon River and is prime recreational land. If the Park Service does not acquire 

this land, it would likely be developed. Also critical to the expansion of the Park 

is the Carbon River Gateway, a 440-acre parcel now owned by a timber company. 
276 

Acquisition of this parcel would link current Park Service lands with other previous 

and planned acquisitions. The Carbon River flows through this parcel, which also 

contains timber that could be logged if the Park Service does not acquire this land. An appropriation of $2.5 million in fiscal year 2009 will allow the National Park 

Service to complete the acquisition of the Carbon River Ranch (the Thompson property) and to acquire the Carbon River Gateway parcel. These acquisitions will be 

a critical step towards attaining the recreational, management, and environmental 

goals of the boundary expansion. 

Madam Chairman, and distinguished committee members, I want to thank you 

for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this important national protection effort 

in Washington at Mount Rainier National Park. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you for 

this opportunity to testify in support of a fiscal year 2009 Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation that will make possible a big leap forward in protecting a valuable wildlife ecosystem and recreation area in Washington’s Central 

Cascades. This appropriation of $4 million will permit the U.S. Forest Service to acquire three critical properties with multiple public benefits and further consolidate 

land-protection investments already made in this region. These properties include 

forestland in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee national forests at Big 

Creek, Jim Creek, and Sawmill Creek. 

The Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee national forests are part of the majestic forests of Washington’s Cascade Mountains. The Mount Baker-Snoqualmie 

National Forest extends more than 140 miles along the western slopes of the Cascades from the Canadian border to Mount Rainier National Park. The forest is rich 

in diversity with glacier-covered peaks, volcanoes, old-growth stands of timber, wild 

and scenic rivers, wilderness, and a multitude of plant, animal, and fish species. 

The Wenatchee, situated in the heart of Washington State, encompasses 8,000-foot 

volcanic peaks of basalt, pumice, and ash. These mountains simultaneously shelter 

secluded alpine lakes and glacier cirques that resemble giant cathedrals of granite 

and ice. Its shrub-steppe habitat bridges the lush ecosystem of Puget Sound with 

the rugged high desert of eastern Washington. Sagebrush at lower elevations surrenders to pine-covered slopes and eventually to the sparse vegetation atop the Cascades’ volcanic summits. 

The central Cascades are bisected by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad 

and by Interstate 90. The original railroad through the Snoqualmie Pass was constructed by the Northern Pacific Railway, which received land grants from the Federal Government in alternating square miles along the route. The legacy of this 19th 

century land grant system is the large checkerboard ownership pattern that now 

threatens this critical area of wildlife connectivity. The Washington Cascade Ecosystem project area is strategically located amid several key landscapes. To the 

north lie the Alpine Lakes, Glacier Peak, and Pasayten wilderness areas, providing 

wildlife connectivity as far as Canada. To the south lie the Norse Peak, William O. 

Douglas, and Goat Rocks wilderness areas alongside Mount Rainier National Park. 

Because of the checkerboard pattern in the central Cascades and the relatively limited amount of protected land, this region has acted as a bottleneck for migratory 

wildlife. A number of threatened or endangered species inhabit the area, including 

grizzly bear, wolf, spotted owl, marbled murrelet, steelhead, wild salmon, and bull 

trout. Additionally, the area provides habitat for an abundance of other wildlife— 

elk, deer, cougar, coyote, bobcat, and an occasional moose. 

The rising cost of housing in King County and the increasing traffic congestion 

caused by a growing population make the Cascades attractive for those seeking less 

expensive first homes and more extravagant second homes, exacerbating the challenges presented by the pattern of checkerboard ownership. Fragmented forestlands 

present difficulties for forest managers with respect to fire suppression, containment 

and eradication of invasive species, limits on public access, and protection of watersheds. 

Both the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee forestland and resource management plans address the need for significant land acquisition for recreation and 

ecosystem protection. Acquisition of parcels in this area is part of an ongoing program of consolidating lands in the central Cascades, which has long been a Forest 

Service priority. This program seeks to consolidate Federal land management and 

prevent future fragmentation due to subdivision and other development. 

The Cascade Land Conservancy, which includes both King and Kittitas counties 

within our focus area, has worked for numerous years in partnership with other 
277 

non-profits and Federal and State agencies to protect lands within the central Cascades area. Over the years, our partners have leveraged Federal funds with private 

philanthropic support as well as State funds to protect several important parcels in 

the area and increase recreational access and wildlife connectivity. However, these 

efforts will fall short if we cannot continue to acquire critical inholdings within the 

National Forests that knit this amazing landscape together. 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2009 are three properties near the crest 

of the Cascade Mountains. The proposed acquisitions are all within the boundaries 

of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee national forests, which share a common border that runs north and south along the crest of the range. The Pacific 

Crest Trail traverses the crest of the Cascades between these two national forests. 

This is a mountainous area of intermingled ownership, which places citizens and 

private property at increased risk from catastrophic wildland fire and restricts public access to our national forests and outdoor recreational opportunities. 

The Big Creek and Jim Creek parcels are located south and east of the Pacific 

Crest Trail in the Wenatchee NF. Each is 640 acres, and they are named for the 

Yakima River tributaries of Big Creek and Jim Creek, which flow respectively 

through each parcel. Much of the Big Creek property possesses incredible forest reserves due to its roadless nature. Many trails that feed into the Pacific Crest Trail 

traverse this property, giving the public greater access to these lands for recreation. 

The upper slopes are blanketed with old-growth forests, while second growth is 

found on the lower slopes. Under Forest Service ownership, these lands will be 

available to the public for hiking, fishing, camping, and cross-country skiing. 

The Sawmill Creek South parcel is named for the primary creek running adjacent 

to this 190-acre parcel, which contains luxuriant old-growth trees. These trees provide habitat for the threatened northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. In addition, these forests provide a protective buffer for Sawmill Creek, which hosts a distinct population of trout. Given the strategic location of the Sawmill Creek South 

parcel, its acquisition will provide additional protection for the City of Tacoma’s 

drinking water. 

The acquisitions of the Big Creek, Jim Creek, and Sawmill Creek South properties 

will improve forest management, enhance recreational activities, protect water quality, and secure vital wildlife migration corridors. An fiscal year 2009 Forest Service 

appropriation of $4 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund is needed 

to acquire and permanently protect these lands as part of the Washington Cascade 

Ecosystems program. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 

Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2009. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony in support 

of this critical forest protection effort. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CENTER FOR PLANT CONSERVATION

We respectfully request increased appropriations to a total of $10 million for the 

BLM Native Plant Materials Development Program and $5 million for the U.S. Forest Service Native Plant Materials Development Program. In addition we request 

$5 million in increased funding for the Endangered Species program in the Bureau 

of Land Management to begin to address dramatically increasing plant conservation 

needs. Further, we request an increase of a minimum of $100 million in additional 

funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Program budget to help address the imbalance in funding for recovery plan development and implementation 

for plants. We also appeal to the subcommittee to revise the current definition of 

wildlife used in the State Wildlife Grant Program, which excludes plants. Current 

guidance does not allow these funds to be expended for projects whose main objective is recovery of declining plants, and has further aggravated the imbalance in 

plant conservation activities and availability of resources at the state level. 

The Center for Plant Conservation is a conservation organization whose mission 

is to conserve and restore the rare native plants of the United States. We are a coordinated, science-based network of 36 botanical institutions working for the recovery of our most imperiled native species on public and private lands nationwide. Our 
278 

network represents a wealth of expertise and experience. Our organization works 

through professional staff in botanical institutions, hand-in-hand in productive partnerships for plant conservation and recovery. We have provided match resources of 

nearly $750,000 in our cooperative work with the Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service in the last few years, and implement 

approximately $3 million in plant recovery research and restoration each year. 

We rely on our public agencies as administrators of our public natural resource 

laws, and stewards of our public land plant trust resources. Public lands are instrumental in maintaining healthy environmental systems and serve as a primary 

source of the increasingly valuable natural resource plant biodiversity represents for 

the Nation. 

NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

The Center for Plant Conservation regards the Native Plant Materials Development Program as one of the most significant public works projects of our times, and 

has been an active partner for five years. The NPMD program works to collect, develop and distribute native plant seed to agency partners and industry for increase 

and use in Federal land restoration efforts following fire and other disturbances. Expanding the variety and quantity of native plant materials will create new business 

opportunities for the private sector, reduce cost for Federal land restoration, and improve availability for public and private uses. 

In 2001 Congress directed the BLM and the Forest Service, working through the 

Plant Conservation Alliance (PCA), to develop a long-term program to manage this 

effort. The program is funded through ‘‘burned area rehabilitation program funds’’ 

in BOTH the Dept of Interior BLM appropriations and USDA Forest Service (NFN3 

line item) in appropriations bills. Program success is contingent on consistent and 

increased funding. 

While seed collection has moved forward well, more work is needed, as well as 

seed increase projects before seed can be released to the commercial sector. These 

projects require several more years of effort to reach target needs. 

BLM developed a 10-year funding strategy, identifying a need for a relatively 

modest $120 million from 2003–2012. In spite of great progress, to date the BLM’s 

NPMD program has received only $27.3 million. The BLM strategy works with a 

nationwide collaboration of partners to secure seed, and has engaged many organizations. Positive collaborative partnerships for public lands have been fostered nationwide, and partners have invested over $5 million of non-federal match, making 

the program cost effective. 

In addition to the fire rehabilitation program, other BLM programs will benefit 

from improved native plant materials (oil and gas, range, wildlife and recreation) 

and current funding could be increased through their fiscal participation. We request an appropriation of $10 million for the BLM Native Plant Materials Program 

appropriation. In the President’s budget $0 has been recommended for the U.S. Forest Service Program. Abandonment of this USFS program which has made significant progress in developing new stocks for public and private benefit is fiscally 

wasteful. We request continued funding for the USFS Native Plant Materials Development program (line item NFN3 in their budget) as well, in the amount of $5 million. 

BLM PLANT CONSERVATION PROGRAM NEEDS

The President’s energy plan will increase significant disturbance of large areas of 

BLM lands for energy development. Challenges to the integrity and productivity of 

BLM lands from invasive species and global climate change have also increased potential impacts to significant numbers of federally listed and BLM special status 

plant species. 

The BLM is one of our largest Federal landholders, and therefore one of our most 

significant agencies in conserving plant biodiversity. The CPC recognizes the leadership of the BLM in establishing a Plant Conservation Program to take an integrated 

approach to these significant issues. This agency needs increased funding to evaluate impacts, secure wild populations, and plan and implement restoration and management practices to preserve valuable plant biodiversity on the 262 million acres 

of BLM lands. 

Additional botanists are needed for BLM field offices, as well as funds to support 

planning and implementation of identified program needs. We request an increase 

of $5 million in BLM Endangered Species Program funds (approximately 2 cents an 

acre) to help address these emerging needs, and recommend these funds be administered through the Plant Conservation Program. 
279 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECOVERY PROGRAM

The President’s budget would cut the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Pro- gram by 7.5 percent, over $5 million. This would be catastrophic for our federally 

listed plants, which are historically under-funded and under-served in recovery programs. While 57 percent of the federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are plants, they historically receive only 3–5 percent of federal agency expenditures for listed species recovery. 

Our research has demonstrated that approximately 75 percent of our federally 

listed plant species have fewer than 100 individuals remaining in the majority of 

remaining sites, and are at a high risk of extinction within 20–25 years unless intervention is initiated quickly. We have also shown that 87 percent of federally listed 

plant species are very closely related to agronomically important species. Given the 

high natural resource value of our wild plants for healthy air and water, mediating 

global climate change, the raw material for plant breeding in support of sustainable 

agriculture, and potential medically and economically significant products, this imbalance presents a real threat to the future economic well-being of our nation. More 

botanists and more dollars for recovery actions are needed. 

As noted above, the Center for Plant Conservation renders tremendously valuable 

public benefits in recovery efforts for our most imperiled plants, but we cannot garner the resources to solve this problem for the nation solely through private efforts. 

The backlog of work needed to properly respond to recovery needs for all federally 

listed species has been estimated to be well over $300 million. 

Rather than reducing recovery efforts, an increase in the USFWS Recovery Program Budget is needed to begin to address the most critically imperiled plant and 

animal species. We are requesting an increase of $100 million in the USFWS Recovery Program Budget. Further, we believe $80 million should be dedicated to implementation of recovery activities for priority listed plant species, which have been so 

long neglected. At least $20 million of this appropriation should be designated for 

recovery for Hawaiian plant species, as Hawaii has long been documented as our 

greatest national treasure for plant biodiversity. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the proposed Department of the Interior Appropriations. We hope you will be able to respond to 

these urgent needs for these valuable national resources. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for allowing me an opportunity to submit the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma testimony 

that outlines our funding requests for fiscal year 2009 budgets of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) in the bill making appropriations for interior, environment and related agencies. 

CHOCTAW SPECIFIC REQUEST

Last year, Chief Pyle submitted testimony (presented by Mickey Peercy, Executive 

Director of Health for the Choctaw Nation and Joy Culbreath, Executive Director 

of Education) before this subcommittee during consideration of the Budget proposal 

for fiscal year 2008, of the Choctaw Nation’s desire to restore a tribally controlled 

academic program for Jones Academy, near Hartshorne, Oklahoma. Named for the 

one of the great Chiefs of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Jones Academy has 

been operating for over 100 years, and, until the BIA terminated all academic programs in the 1950s, provided excellent educational services to students from many 

Tribes. 

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma was one of the first American Indian Tribes to 

provide tribally supported education to all children, boys and girls. We opened 

schools soon after our removal over the Trail of Tears in the 1830s, and until these 

schools were absorbed by the new BIA system in the 1880s, they were Tribally controlled. The BIA used the schools as a tool of assimilation and, until the 1950s, 

many of our schools were either BIA schools, or were the basis for the new State 

of Oklahoma system. 

The BIA shut down the academic program of Jones Academy and required us to 

send children residing at Jones to the public schools of the Hartshorne, Oklahoma 

School District (hereinafter HSD). Our experiences, and, more importantly, our students’ experiences, in the public schools were not as positive or successful as we desired. Our Tribe continued to provide many tribally sponsored services such as tutoring, mentoring, Foster Grandparents and other tools, but our children did not 

achieve the academic results that we felt were possible. 
280 

When Tribal Self Determination became the policy of the United States in the 

1970s and through today, our hope was that it would lead to a resurrection of tribally controlled education, particularly for our elementary school children. We believed, and continue to believe, that if they have a firm foundation, they can succeed 

in any setting. Today, with more Tribal resources and renewed hope and determination, we ask you to grant us access to this Tribal right. 

Since the 2003–2004 Academic year, our Tribe has operated a separate program 

providing small classes, special services, and assistance to our children in grades 1– 

6. Under the authority of an agreement with the HSD, we operate a separate site 

on the Jones Academy campus. Our students in grades 7 through 12 continue to 

attend HSD site schools, and our relationship with the school district has changed. 

HSD receives funding for Jones Academy students from the U.S. Department of 

Education. The Tribe augments this funding by providing a quarter of a million dollars in tribal funds for Jones Academy, a commitment of which we are proud. Our 

older students will continue in classes at HSD, and we look forward to continuing 

our work with them. 

However, for our youngest scholars, grades 1–6, we want to assume full tribal control of the policy and academic program, and to do so while maintaining our Federal 

Trust relationship with the Federal Government. This means we are requesting an 

exemption from the moratorium on distribution of Indian Student Equalization Formula funds, which has been included in each fiscal year Appropriations Act for a 

decade. 

The moratorium was not originally put in place over academic concern. It was put 

in place because of concerns regarding the implementation of a new construction 

and facilities improvement and maintenance program. It was never explained as 

being permanent and we do not believe that was the intent. While it may be an 

effective control over Indian education for the Bureau, it is unfair in situations such 

as ours. This limitation on funding of ‘‘new’’ or ‘‘expanded’’ programs has been interpreted 

as an absolute bar to any discussion of academic programs with Tribes, including 

the resumption of our terminated academic program. While we have met in the past 

5 years with BIA officials who sympathize with our problem and admit they see the 

dichotomy, the BIA says we must start with the appropriations members. 

That is what was presented in the testimony of last year. Things have changed 

substantially in the past year. I will cite these changes, and renew our request. —We have completed construction and equipping of a new $10.2 million state of 

the art facility for grades 1–6. The Choctaw Nation paid for this facility and 

asks for no federal construction/facilities or improvement and repair funding. 

We are proud of this achievement and excited about what it means for the future of our students. 

The moratorium purpose does not apply to us. 

—Last year, after the testimony, the BIA told your staff that allowing us to resume programs was a bad idea, since there are a lot of Tribes in the same position. Since then, we have tried to find any information that can identify a Tribe 

which (1) had an academy program terminated in the Termination Period, (2) 

which has built a new school for such a program, showing commitment and 

faith in the future and (3) which has a proven track record of academic performance for a program under its day-to-day control. We have been unable to locate 

such a program. What we have discovered is that the BIA has allowed expansions of program in tribally built facilities. 

—Last year, during Floor consideration the Chairman conducted a colloquy with 

our Congressman, Dan Boren, regarding concern that the moratorium was stifling Self Determination, and, more specifically, unfairly penalizing the Choctaw 

Nation. Mr. Boren pointed out that the BIA was ignoring this subcommittee’s 

directive, included in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior, that it develop guidelines and 

methods to allow consideration of expanded and re-instated academic programs. 

We were encouraged by your agreement that this was an issue the subcommittee needs to address. 

—Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to relate a success story for Jones 

Academy. 

In January of this year, teachers at Jones Academy received monetary awards 

from the State of Oklahoma for being recognized as one of only 3 schools in the 

State to receive #1 in Academic Performance Index (API) scores. This information 

can be found in the news releases on the Oklahoma State department website 

www.sde.state.ok.us. 

While we mean no disrespect, it is a fact that such performance has not been 

achieved in the past or in other settings. It is made possible because of an on-site 
281 

program run by personnel over whom we have day to day management. However, 

for the basic policy, we are still under limits set by the HSD. Imagine what we could 

do if we were free to determine all programs, set new academic courses and horizons 

and to renew our Choctaw heritage in education. Imagine this in a setting, which 

renews and continues our unique relationship with the Federal Government. We ask 

for your permission for such a chance. 

NATIONAL FUNDING CONCERNS

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma supports the requests of the National Indian 

Health Board and the National Congress of American Indians in restoring funds for 

National Urban Indian Health programs. In addition: 

Indian Health Service 

—$160 million increase for 100 percent full funding of IHS Contract Support Cost, 

including Direct Service Cost —$486 million increase for IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth 

—$152 million increase for Contract Health Service 

—Restore $21 million for health care facilities construction 

—Maintain annual funding for the Special Diabetes Programs for Indians at $150 

million until new authority is enacted —$5 million increase in the Office of Tribal Self-Governance (Restore $4.7 million 

and $.3 million in shortfalls, pay costs increases and inflation) 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

—$25 million increase for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)—general increase for 

core programs —Tribal Government—Self-Governance: Restore HIP @ $13.6 million and JOM @ 

21.4 million 

—Support increases to Tribal Education Programs and Tribal college operations 

—$50 million increase for 100 percent full funding of Direct and Indirect contract 

support costs 

—Annual increases in Tribal Public Safety and Justice programs in Tribal communities 

—$500,000 for Office of Program Data Quality 

—Support increases in the Office of Self-Governance for IT and Staffing 

On behalf of the Choctaw People, again, we thank you for this opportunity to submit our requests for fiscal year 2009 in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian 

Health Services Appropriations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHUGACH REGIONAL RESOURCES COMMISSION

The Chugach Regional Resources Commission requests that the subcommittee restore $350,000 in recurring base funding in the BIA Trust-Natural Resources budget. The Commission also seeks an additional $150,000 to support the Alutiiq Pride 

Shellfish Hatchery. 

The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) is an Alaska Native nonprofit organization that was created by the seven Villages of the Chugach Region 

(Tatitlek Village IRA Council, Chenega IRA Council, Port Graham Village Council, 

Nanwalek IRA Council, Native Village of Eyak, Qutekcak Native Tribe, and Valdez 

Native Tribe) to address environmental and natural resource issues and to develop 

culturally-sensitive economic projects at the local level that support the sustainable 

development of the natural resources. The mission of CRRC is to work with our 

seven member villages to promote and develop sound economic resource-based 

projects and to work collectively to address any natural resource and environmentrelated issues that affect the Native people of the Chugach Region. 

FUNDING HISTORY

CRRC normally receives its base funding through a self-determination contract 

with the Department of the Interior. The Indian Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act, Public Law No. 93–638, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

enter into contracts with Indian tribes and tribal organizations to deliver services 

that would otherwise have been delivered by the BIA. CRRC entered into its original three-year contract in 1993, and that contract has been renewed several times 

by the Secretary in the years since. 

The act requires Interior to provide ‘‘not less than the appropriate Secretary 

would have otherwise provided for the operation of the programs’’ covered by the 

contract (the so-called ‘‘Secretarial Amount’’) plus additional ‘‘contract support 
282 

costs.’’ 25 U.S.C. § 450j–1(a)(1)–(2). The act further specifies that Interior generally 

cannot reduce the contract funding amount from one year to the next. Despite this 

legal obligation to provide consistent annual funding to CRRC through the contract, 

the BIA has in recent years tried to avoid its funding obligation by failing to request 

funding for CRRC in its budget. We ask Congress to restore this funding in order 

to assist BIA in meeting its legal obligation. 

CRRC received $350,000 as part of the BIA’s base budget from fiscal year 1994 

though fiscal year 2002. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, CRRC was not included in 

the BIA budget (despite contractual obligations), but the program was restored each 

year with the help of Congress. In fiscal year 2006, the BIA unilaterally reduced 

CRRC’s funding to $300,000—a significant cut from our previous level of funding. 

After across-the-board reductions, CRRC received approximately $270,000 in fiscal 

year 2006. 

In fiscal year 2007, Congress again provided $300,000 for CRRC, but the BIA 

seized on the absence of associated earmark language to redirect CRRC’s funding 

elsewhere in its budget. Despite repeated appeals to the agency and despite its contractual obligation to pay, the BIA did not provide CRRC with any funding in fiscal 

year 2007. As a result, CRRC was forced to take out a bank loan of $100,000 just 

to avoid closing its operations entirely. We were also forced to lay off many employees, and several of our projects were put on hold because of the lack of employees. 

In fiscal year 2008, the BIA again sought to withhold all funding and in fact tried 

to cut off CRRC’s contract (which is illegal under the Self-Determination Act). CRRC 

was forced to expend several thousand dollars in legal fees to file suit in order to 

obtain its rightful funding for fiscal year 2008. We fear that without congressional 

assistance in the form of an earmark, we will be forced to sue the BIA every year 

in order to obtain the funding that CRRC should rightfully receive pursuant to its 

contract. 

EMPLOYMENT

CRRC has provided employment for 35 Native people in the Chugach Region, an 

area where Native people face high levels of unemployment. As a result of the reduction and elimination of funding in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, CRRC 

had to lay off several employees, including most of our Village employees. The impact of approximately six families per village losing this income in a village with 

an average population of 100 strikes a devastating blow to the local community 

economy. If funding is not restored, CRRC will be unable to resume village projects 

and rehire our employees. These families will create a much larger burden on State 

and Federal financial resources, as they will be forced to depend upon State and 

Federal welfare programs to provide funding for necessary living expenses. 

COMMUNITY PROJECTS

Over the past 16 years, CRRC funding has supported the development and operation of many programs that have assisted communities in providing meaningful 

employment opportunities as well as valuable services and products, including: 

—Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.—The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery is the 

only shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska. A 20,000 sq. ft. shellfish hatchery 

located in Seward, Alaska, the hatchery houses shellfish seed, brood stock, and 

algae production facilities. The hatchery employs four individuals and is operated by CRRC. Alutiiq Pride is undertaking hatchery, nursery and grow out operations research to adapt mariculture techniques for the Alaskan shellfish industry. 

—King Crab Research.—Recently, CRRC staff have begun conducting scientific research on blue king crab and red king crab. This research is part of a larger 

federally-sponsored program. Because Alutiiq Pride is the only hatchery in the 

state, CRRC is the only organization in Alaska that can carry out this research. 

—Natural Resource Curriculum Development.—Partnering with the University of 

Alaska, Fairbanks and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

CRRC is developing and implementing a model curriculum in natural resource 

management for Alaska Native students, integrating traditional knowledge and 

Western science. The goal of the program is to encourage more Native students 

to pursue careers in the sciences. So far, there are 15 students enrolled in the 

program who have earned a total of nine university credits each that can be 

applied toward a certificate in natural resource management. 

—Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council.—CRRC is a member of the 

Council responsible for setting regulations governing the spring harvest of migratory birds for Alaska Natives. 
283 

HATCHERY OPERATIONS FUNDING

CRRC also seeks annual funding of $150,000 for hatchery operating expenses and 

research and development funding to develop new shellfish species until we are selfsustaining. Once the hatchery is self-sustaining, CRRC plans to expand its production so that it can support some of CRRC’s base operating costs as well. Alutiiq 

Pride has been successful in culturing geoduck and razor clam species but additional 

research and development funding is needed to assist in the nursery, growth and 

marketing stages. Last year, Alutiiq Pride produced 4 million oyster seed. This year, 

the Hatchery anticipates sales of 8 million oyster seed. Revenue from such sales, 

however, is quite modest ($40,000). The geoduck shellfish farming industry is expected to grow rapidly. If Alutiiq Pride can sell geoducks and razor clam seeds, the 

production potential from only 2 million seed sales can approach $400,000, a tenfold 

revenue increase. 

The shellfish industry in Alaska has not yet grown to the point where seed sales 

cover the cost of operations. Oyster sales have matured and geoduck seed sales will 

coincide with the expected growth of that industry. Alutiiq Pride is undertaking 

hatchery, nursery and grow out operations research to adapt mariculture techniques 

for the Alaskan shellfish industry. The hatchery has recently become involved in 

king crab research, as described above. Until the hatchery is self-sufficient in 3–5 

years, however, it requires operations and research and development funds if it is 

to meet the State’s growing demand for shellfish seed. 

BUDGET

CRRC’s base operating funding supports the continued operation of the various 

community projects. The total operating budget for CRRC, Alutiiq Pride, and the 

community projects is close to $2 million. Specific projects receive independent funding from sources such as the Administration for Native Americans, Environmental 

Protection Agency, NOAA, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. However, base operating funding is essential to continue work on these projects. Building on its base 

funding, CRRC has been able to build several community programs and partnerships, as described above. Our base budget is as follows: 

Projected cost 

A. Chugach Region Shellfish Mariculture Development ................................................................................ $75,000 

—Oyster grow-out operations in Tatitlek 

—Oyster marketing 

B. Nanwalek Sockeye Salmon Development Project ...................................................................................... 20,000 

—Seek funds for disease free water engineering study 

—Operate smolt out-migration weir 

C. Port Graham Pink Salmon Hatchery ......................................................................................................... 75,000 

—Broodstock development 

—Sockeye and pink salmon fry production 

—Training and education for hatchery crew 

D. Program Development/Regional Office Operations ................................................................................... 180,000 

—1 staff person/supplies/quarterly board meetings 

—Biological Professional Assistance 

—Project development and Planning 

—GIS Mapping 

—Resource Evaluation and Management 

Total Direct Costs ............................................................................................................................. 350,000 

Indirect Cost (27.7 percent) .......................................................................................................................... 96,950 

TOTAL PROJECTED BASE BUDGET ..................................................................................................... 446,950 

Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery Operations .................................................................................................. 150,000 

TOTAL ................................................................................................................................................ 1 596,950 

1 $500,000 requested. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE THE REFUGE

The Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (Don Edwards San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 

2009 Budget, and strongly urges the subcommittee to appropriate $514 million for 

operations and maintenance of National Wildlife Refuges. 
284 

Senior members of our organization have advocated for refuges, locally and nationally, for more than 40 years. The magnificent American wildlife that existed historically has survived because of President Theodore Roosevelt’s remarkable idea in 

1903 to establish protected regions for indigenous plant and animal life. 

We have become aware of the esteem in which our 100 million-acre National 

Wildlife Refuge System is held worldwide, having been visited by people from all 

continents who have sought to learn American methods of protecting wildlife and 

valuable habitats. With that in mind, we deeply regret what inadequate funding for 

years has brought about in refuges nationwide. In some, staffing has been greatly 

reduced or even eliminated; decreased maintenance has led to unsafe conditions; 

vital biological research has been hampered; and fewer programs are available to 

the public. 

We are members of the National Wildlife Refuge Association, and wish to support 

the testimony of its president, Evan Hirsche. In addition to operations and maintenance funds, he requests funding for other important programs listed here: 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ($55.1 million) 

Volunteers and Invasives Program ($1 million) 

LWCF ($100 million or more) 

Infrastructure ($25 million) 

State and Tribal Grants ($85 million) 

NFWF ($10 million) 

Climate Change Planning ($30 million) 

Prevent land exchange at Izembek NWR 

Finally, I wish to thank the subcommittee for its support of refuges, our own included, the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. In the midst of 

7 million people, it has contributed remarkably to our quality of life. It has provided 

flood control, clean air and clean water, places of peace and serenity, preservation 

and restoration of extremely endangered species, and great recreational opportunities. 

This Complex also offers a rare opportunity to respond to the threat of climate 

change and rising sea level because it preserves so much of the shoreline of San 

Francisco Bay. At this moment, the bay is the site of one of the most remarkable 

restoration projects undertaken in the United States. The restoration of thousands 

of acres of salt ponds can bring back the biodiversity that existed decades ago. 

Surely the actions of your subcommittee in supporting the National Wildlife System is government at its finest. This is a legacy that we’ are leaving for those that 

come after us. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. CLARK

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you, 

Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an 

appropriation of $4 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

to acquire the first of two phases of 1,470 acres of patented mining claims on Montana forestlands near the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park. These funds 

would protect roughly half of the claims, which lie on the headwaters of three major 

tributaries of the Yellowstone River, immediately adjacent to Yellowstone National 

Park and the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately, since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent and the fiscal year 2009 

Budget proposes further cuts despite a rising need for funds to protect and enhance 

recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources 

and other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall LWCF 

funding to at least $278 million for this important program in fiscal year 2009. 

My testimony today is directed toward acquisition of land lying within the New 

World Mining District, an area that lies within the Custer and Gallatin Forests, immediately adjacent to our Nation’s first national park and one of our largest wilderness areas in the Lower 48 States. The District lies at the very heart of the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem, an 18-million acre region in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming 

that includes Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and portions of seven different national forests and three national wildlife refuges. 

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem contains some of the best wildlife habitat in 

the country. Living within its boundaries are grizzlies, lynx, moose, mountain lions, 

wolverines, big horn sheep, black bears and the largest elk herds in North America. 

With the successful reintroduction of the gray wolf, the region now contains the full 

range of mammals that lived in the region during the time of Lewis and Clark. 
285 

The lands we wish to acquire with this appropriation are old mining claims that 

form the core of the New World Mining District near Cooke City, a historic mining 

town and now a center of recreational tourism near the northeast entrance to Yellowstone National Park. 

The New World Mining District was created in recognition of the historic concentration of gold, silver and copper mines that operated around Cooke City beginning in the 1870s. Over time, the New World Mining District became the second 

largest producer of gold in Montana and remained an active producing area until 

the mid-1950s. Industrial-scale mining ceased in the area around 1958 and did not 

appear to be viable until new exploration technologies revealed that up to 2 million 

ounces of recoverable ore still remained in the ground. 

In 1989, Crown Butte Mines, a subsidiary of Canadian mining giant Noranda, Inc, 

proposed a massive gold mine in this location, in the midst of the headwaters of 

three major tributaries that flow through either Yellowstone Park or the Absaroka 

Beartooth Wilderness Area or into the Clarks Fork River that flows from Montana 

into Wyoming. The proposal sparked an international controversy because of the 

threat the mine posed to Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding wild 

lands. 

In 1996, after years of controversy, law suits, international media attention, and 

scientific debate, the mining company reached an agreement with the Clinton Administration and a coalition of environmental groups to cease development of the 

mine. As part of the settlement, the company would receive $65 million to stop the 

mine development. In return, the company would set aside $22.5 million to clean 

up past contamination of the mine sites. 

One of the company’s key partners in the mining venture was a retired schoolteacher named Margaret Reeb, who had acquired a range of mining claims including 

some that she had inherited from her father who was a gold prospector for many 

years in the Cooke City area. Ms. Reeb was an outspoken advocate for mining in 

the area, and the mining company was unable to convince her that she should sell 

her claims as part of the original settlement agreement between the company, the 

Federal Government and the various environmental organizations, who had banded 

together to stop the mine. In the wake of the agreement to stop the mine, Ms. Reeb 

continued to hold on to her land, although she did agree to stop her efforts to mine 

gold there. The lands owned by the Canadian mining company were turned over to 

the Forest Service. And, in a key follow-up move, Congress also passed legislation, 

formally withdrawing all of the land that the Federal Government owned in the district (including all of the claims that it had acquired from the mining company) from 

Federal mineral location and entry, effectively wiping out the threat of other mining 

companies trying to patent the land again. At her death 2 years ago, Ms. Reeb’s 

lands passed into the hands of her nephews who have now agreed that their aunt’s 

mining claims should be put into public ownership as was originally proposed by 

the agreement in 1996 to stop development of the New World Mine. 

In the years since the agreement was signed, the Forest Service has carried out 

an excellent reclamation effort to clean up the historic mine waste sites, which had 

contaminated the land and water in the area. Using the $22.5 million, which had 

been set aside under the agreement, the reclamation project has turned the area 

into what is perhaps the finest high-altitude hard rock mine reclamation effort in 

the western United States. 

Now, with this opportunity to acquire the Reeb lands, the final chapter in this 

dramatic story can be brought to a successful conclusion. With the Reeb lands passing into public ownership, the threat of an industrial mining operation next to Yellowstone Park and the Absaroka-Bearthooth Wilderness area will completely disappear. In addition, the threat of these lands succumbing to second-home developments in the middle of very wild country above 8,000 feet in elevation will also be 

erased. 

Over the past 136 years since the creation of Yellowstone National Park, our government has wisely invested enormous resources in the management and protection 

of the park and the surrounding national forest lands. Today, this concentration of 

public wild lands contains one of the most diverse and intact ecosystems on the face 

of the earth. As our people continue to use our national public lands for recreation 

and as our scientists continue to expand their knowledge of the genetic and natural 

diversity of these lands, the need to ensure their comprehensive and permanent protection becomes ever more important. 

LWCF monies are critical to achieving public ownership of these lands and ensuring that these high-altitude resources are forever protected and preserved. 

As the lead negotiator for the conservation groups who fought against Crown 

Butte Mines’ plans and who has subsequently watched the amazing transformation 

of these lands over the past decade as they have been cleaned up and restored, I 
286 

respectfully urge the committee to approve the $4 million appropriation that is 

needed to complete the first phase of this 2-year project We owe it to ourselves and 

to future generations. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM

In support of $5,900,000 to assist in Colorado River Salinity Control, Title II from 

the Soil, Water and Air Management effort, and with support for the President’s request for that activity. Also a request that $1,500,000 be spent on identified salinity 

control related projects and studies. 

This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) for the subactivity that assists the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Program authorized by the Congress. The BLM budget, as proposed by the administration in the BLM budget justification document, calls for five principal program 

priorities within the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of these priorities is reducing saline runoff to meet the interstate, Federal and international 

agreements to control salinity of the Colorado River. 

The BLM’s Budget Justification documents have stated that the BLM continues 

to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in cooperation with the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

and report salt-retaining measures in order to further the Plan of Implementation 

of the Federal Salinity Control Program in the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) believes that fiscal year 2009 funds appropriated by the Congress for the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program 

should be used, in part, for reducing saline runoff in the Colorado River Basin. 

The seven Colorado River Basin States, through the Forum, have engaged the 

BLM in a partnership with the Basin States as has been done previously with the 

two other Federal agencies implementing salinity control in the Basin. The Forum 

has requested and the BLM has selected a salinity control coordinator for this 

basinwide effort. This person now serves with the two full-time coordinators in place 

for the USBR and the USDA efforts. This enhanced working relationship has taken 

advantage of the availability of Basin States’ cost-sharing monies to leverage Federal funds. The Forum is encouraged by the words in the BLM budget document. 

The Forum supports the funding request for the Soil, Water, and Air Management 

Subactivity. As one of the five principal Soil, Water, and Air Program priorities, the 

Forum believes that the BLM needs to specifically target $5,900,000 to activities 

that help control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River 

Basin. In the past, the BLM has used $800,000 of the Soil, Water and Air Program 

funding for proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM’s salinity control coordinator for projects that focus on salinity control. The Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Advisory Council has recognized that the BLM has now identified projects 

that in fiscal year 2009 could use $1.5 million. For years, Congress has dedicated 

$800,000 on the effort and now the Forum believes $1.5 million should be so designated. 

The success of the BLM in controlling erosion and, hence, salt contributions to the 

Colorado River and its tributaries is essential to the success of the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Program, including adherence to the water quality standards 

adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will 

result in very significant additional economic damages to water users downstream. 

The Forum submits this testimony in support of adequate funding so that the BLM 

program can move ahead at a pace that is needed to sustain these water quality 

standards. 

OVERVIEW

This testimony is in support of funding for a portion of the Title II program. The 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by the Congress in 

1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act responded 

to commitments that the United States made, through a minute of the International 

Boundary & Water Commission, to Mexico specific to the quality of water being delivered to Mexico at the international boundary. Title II of the act established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado River water users in the 

United States and to comply with the mandates of the then newly enacted Clean 

Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the Interior and the USBR were given the lead 

Federal role by the Congress. 
287 

After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the Basin States concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be amended. In response to the Basin 

States’ requests, the Congress revised the act in 1984 to give new salinity control 

responsibilities to the USDA and to the BLM. That revision, while leaving implementation of the salinity control policy with the Secretary of the Interior, gave new 

salinity control responsibilities to the USDA and to the BLM. The Congress has 

charged the administration with implementing the most cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt removed). The Basin States are strongly 

supportive of that concept and have proceeded to implement salinity control activities for which they are responsible in the Colorado River Basin. 

Since the congressional mandates of over two decades ago, much has been learned 

about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system. The USBR estimates that 

the quantified economic impacts and damages to United States’ water users alone 

is about $330 million per year and there are very significant additional damages yet 

to be quantified. Damages occur from: 

—a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use for leaching in the agricultural sector, 

—a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector, 

—an increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water softening, and 

a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector, 

—an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment, and an increase 

in sewer fees in the industrial sector, 

—a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector, 

—difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, an 

increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation of salts 

in groundwater basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to groundwater quality deterioration, and 

—increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of desalination and 

brine disposal for recycled water. 

For every 30 mg/l increase in salinity concentrations, there is $75 million in additional quantified damages in the United States. 

The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the sevenstate coordinating body for interfacing with Federal agencies and the Congress in 

support of the implementation of the Salinity Control Program. In close cooperation 

with the USEPA and pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 

years the Forum prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado 

River, anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep the 

salinities at or below the concentrations in the river system in 1972 at Imperial 

Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams. 

In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system, the salinity concentrations at these three locations have been identified as the numeric criteria. The 

plan necessary for controlling salinity and reducing downstream damages has been 

captioned the ‘‘Plan of Implementation.’’ The 2005 Review of water quality standards includes an updated Plan of Implementation. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If adequate funds 

are not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salt concentrations in the 

water will be more widespread in the United States and Mexico. 

JUSTIFICATION

The BLM is, by far and away, the largest land manager in the Colorado River 

Basin. Much of the land that is controlled and managed by the BLM is heavily 

laden with salt. Past management practices, which include the use of lands for 

recreation; for road building and transportation; and for oil, gas, and mineral exploration have led to man-induced and accelerated erosional processes. When soil and 

rocks heavily laden with salt erode, the silt is carried along for some distance and 

ultimately settles in the streambed or flood plain. The salts, however, are dissolved 

and remain in the river system causing water quality problems downstream. 

The Forum believes that the Federal Government has a major and important responsibility with respect to controlling salt contributions from public lands. The 

Congress has explicitly directed specific Federal agencies, including the BLM, to 

proceed with measures to control the salinity of the Colorado River, with a strong 

mandate to seek out the most cost-effective options. It has been determined that 

rangeland improvements can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control 
288 

measures available. These salinity control measures may be more cost-effective than 

some now being considered for implementation by the USBR and by the USDA. 

They are very environmentally acceptable as they will prevent erosion, enhance 

wildlife habitat, increase dependable stream flows and increase grazing opportunities. 

Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah, Colorado, and 

Wyoming, consortiums of Federal and State agencies, including the BLM, have selected several watersheds where very cost-effective salinity control efforts could be 

implemented immediately. In keeping with the congressional mandate to maximize 

the cost-effectiveness of salinity control, the Forum is requesting that the Congress 

appropriate and the administration allocate adequate funds to support the BLM’s 

portion of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program as set forth in the Forum’s 

adopted Plan of Implementation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION OF NEVADA

As a Nevada representative of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 

and Advisory Council, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRC) supports 

funding for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the Soil, Water, and Air 

Management Subactivity that assists the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. As one of the five principal Soil, Water, and Air Program priorities, the CRC 

believes that the BLM needs to specifically target $5,900,000 to activities that help 

control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River Basin. 

Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River. Congress has 

recognized the need to confront this problem with its passage of Public Law 93–320 

and Public Law 98–569. Your support of the current funding recommendations that 

support the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is essential to move the 

program forward so that the congressionally directed salinity objectives are 

achieved. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE

RESERVATION

On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville Tribe 

or the ‘‘Tribe’’), I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the subcommittee on two programs of interest of the Colville Tribe and to other Indian 

tribes nationally: (1) restoration of $630,000 for the Lake Roosevelt ManagementEnforcement program; and (2) a $1.5 million programmatic increase for the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs’ (BIA’s) Indian energy programs. Both of these programs are administered in the Trust-Natural Resources Management account and the Tribe has 

worked, and continues to work, with Senator Patty Murray’s and Senator Maria 

Cantwell’s offices on these requests. 

Before discussing these programs, I would like to take this opportunity to provide 

some brief background on the Colville Tribe. Although now considered a single Indian tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation is, as the name 

states, a confederation of 12 smaller aboriginal tribes and bands from all across 

eastern Washington State. The Colville Reservation encompasses approximately 1.4 

million acres and is located in north central Washington State. The Colville Tribe 

more than 9,300 enrolled members, making it one of the largest Indian tribes in the 

Pacific Northwest. About half of the Tribe’s members live on or near the Colville 

Reservation. 

RESTORATION OF $630,000 IN FUNDING FOR THE LAKE ROOSEVELT MANAGEMENT– 

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

As the subcommittee is aware, Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds 

enable both the Colville Tribe and the Spokane Tribe of Indians to employ law enforcement officers to patrol Lake Roosevelt and its shoreline to enforce Federal laws 

(through cross-deputization arrangements) and tribal health and safety laws. Lake 

Roosevelt is the 151-mile reservoir of the Grand Coulee Dam, the largest hydroelectric power plant in the United States and the third largest in the world. As a 

national tourist destination, Lake Roosevelt receives approximately 1.5 million visitors annually. 

The law enforcement patrols funded by Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement 

funds have become increasingly critical since the September 11 terrorist attacks. 

Tribal personnel funded by Lake Roosevelt Management funds have in recent years 

worked cooperatively with the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Parks Serv-
289 

ice to increase their patrols to correspond with the heightened security of the Grand 

Coulee Dam. To this end, Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds play a direct role in protecting public safety by ensuring that a key access point to the Grand 

Coulee Dam, Lake Roosevelt, remains patrolled. 

The enforcement patrols funded by the appropriations are an integral part of combating ongoing smuggling activity involving float planes from Canada. Unmarked 

aircraft use Lake Roosevelt and other waterways on the Colville Reservation as a 

smuggling route for cocaine, ecstasy, and other contraband. In March 2006, Colville 

tribal officers funded by the appropriations apprehended one of the pilots of a float 

plane and recovered an estimated $2 million in illegal drugs. The Colville Tribe continues to receive several reports of sightings of these planes every month. 

Funding for Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement program was included in 

the Department of the Interior’s annual budget beginning in the early 1990s under 

the terms of an agreement between the tribes, the Secretary of the Interior, and 

other federal agencies. When the funds were omitted from the budget without explanation in fiscal year 2001, the tribes have had to seek Congress’s assistance to restore the funds through the appropriations process. The Tribe appreciates the Subcommittee’s continued support for this program and respectfully requests that the 

Subcommittee include this activity in its bill at the full $630,000 level. 

$1.5 MILLION PROGRAMMATIC INCREASE FOR THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS’ INDIAN

ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Colville Tribe also respectfully requests that the subcommittee consider a 

$1.5 million programmatic increase for the BIA’s Indian energy programs. The BIA’s 

Indian energy programs are administered by the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development (IEED). As the Colville Tribe can attest from its productive experience with the IEED in recent years, these programs bring much needed technical assistance and capacity building to Indian country and enable Indian tribes 

to maximize, leverage, and develop energy resources on tribal lands in two critical 

ways: 

Grants.—The IEED provides grants to Indian tribes to assess energy resources on 

tribal lands, build capacity, conduct feasibility studies, and for other purposes. Since 

2005, the Colville Tribe has received grants from this program that have allowed 

the Tribe to begin development of a new cogeneration facility on the Colville Reservation that will utilize woody biomass. A programmatic increase for this activity 

would enable more Indian tribes to receive grants for energy development activities. 

Since fiscal year 2000, 70 Indian tribes have received grants for energy related activities under this program. 

Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs).—Authorized under Title V of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, TERAs are agreements between Indian tribes and the 

Secretary of the Interior that are intended to maximize tribal oversight and management of energy resource development. Once the IEED determines that a tribe 

possesses the requisite management capacity and approves a TERA, the tribe can 

then engage in a variety of energy development activities under an entirely new, 

flexible mechanism for entering into energy-related business agreements with third 

parties. The BIA published its final rule implementing the TERA program on March 

10, 2008, and numerous applications are expected. A programmatic increase would 

provide the IEED with sufficient resources to ensure that Indian tribes are able to 

take advantage of this new economic development tool. 

The tribal energy programs carried out by the IEED are administered in the Minerals and Mining account within the BIA’s Trust-Natural Resources Management 

budget activity. Within that account, the President’s Budget includes a total of $2 

million for tribal energy activities for fiscal year 2009. Of that $2 million, $1.4 million is for grants (encompassed within the $6.93 million requested in the Minerals 

and Mining Projects line item), and $600,000 is for the IEED to consult with Indian 

tribes and begin the TERA review process (encompassed within the $1.49 million 

requested in the Minerals and Mining Central Oversight line item). The Tribe seeks 

an increase of $1 million for grants to Indian tribes and $500,000 for TERA implementation. To this end, the Tribe suggests the following report language: Changes 

to the Request include increases to Minerals and Mining of $1 million for grants 

for tribal energy activities and $500,000 for implementation and approval of Tribal 

Energy Resource Agreements. Other Indian tribes and tribal organizations support 

this programmatic increase, including, among others, the Council of Energy Resource Tribes and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for your consideration of these issues. Should the subcommittee have any questions, please feel free 
290 

to contact me directly via e-mail at mike.marchand@colvilletribes.com, by phone at 

(509) 634–2218, or via facsimile at (509) 634–4116. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN

RESERVATION

Honorable Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, ranking member Wayne Allard, and 

members of the committee: I am Antone C. Minthorn, chairman of the board of 

trustees of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), 

home of the Umatilla, Cayuse and Walla Walla Tribes. 

Once again the proposed budget for Indian Affairs does not support strong tribal 

self-government and self-determination. In fact, the fiscal year 2009 proposed budget goes in the opposite direction as there is $100 million in proposed budget cuts. 

The proposed budget does not help meet the trust responsibilities the Federal Government owes to treaty tribes because the total Office of Indian Programs budget 

is still below the fiscal year 1994 enacted level, without adjusting for inflation. 

Tribal governments are like State governments in many ways—providing critical 

services, shaping values, and promoting jobs and growth. Though Federal spending 

for Indians has lost ground compared to spending for the U.S. population at large, 

tribal self-government has proven that the Federal investment in tribes pays off. 

Unfortunately, tribal governments are treated differently than States because we 

are forced to compete for funds to address local needs rather than directly receiving 

those funds. Real per capita income of Indians living on reservations is still less 

than half of the national average. Indian unemployment is nearly quadruple the 

rest of the country and the poverty rate is three times the national average. Thus, 

while the work of tribal self-determination is well under way, much work remains. 

These long enduring socio-economic disparities, and the success of tribes in addressing them, warrant continued Federal investment in tribal self-determination. 

With respect to the Indian Affairs budget, the CTUIR will address several issues 

beyond the total amount of funds that are currently proposed. These include: 

—Proposed reductions to specific line items in the Tribal Priority Allocations 

(TPA) will have disproportionate impacts on different tribes; 

—The CTUIR is adamantly opposed to any redistribution of TPA funds based 

upon a needs analysis and asks that Congress prohibit the Department from 

pursuing any such plan. 

The CTUIR Requests That the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation and Litigation 

Support/Attorney Fees Programs be Restored to at Least Fiscal Year 2004 Budget 

Levels.—Apparently this administration does not consider water an important resource or a trust asset of tribes. In fiscal year 2004 the Water Rights Negotiation/ 

Litigation and Litigation Support/Attorney Fees component of the BIA budget was 

$15.5 million. By fiscal year 2008 the funding dropped to $9.95 million and there 

is a further proposed $1.0 million reduction for fiscal year 2009, a 42 percent reduction since fiscal year 2004. The justification for this cut was ‘‘to ensure other core 

responsibilities to American Indians/Alaska Natives were met’’. The CTUIR has a 

strong interest in the BIA budget for Water Rights Negotiations. In 2007, after 

CTUIR requests pending for a decade to assess the water rights of the CTUIR and 

the prospect for settling those water rights in the Umatilla Basin, Secretary Kempthorne appointed a Federal Water Rights Assessment Team. The CTUIR has been 

working closely with the State, Irrigation Districts and other stakeholders for the 

past 25 years to restore salmon and to meet the water needs of the CTUIR without 

harm to existing water rights holders. In 2009, the CTUIR expects to be requesting 

the appointment of a Federal negotiation team for a comprehensive settlement of 

the Tribe’s water rights in the Umatilla Basin. The CTUIR will need BIA financial 

assistance under the Water Rights Negotiation line item to be successful in our negotiations. The success the CTUIR has had in the Umatilla and Walla Walla basins 

is recognized as a national model for bringing together diverse water interests and 

cooperatively solving the multi-dimensional problems around use of water. 

The CTUIR Requests That the Water Management Program be Restored to at Least 

Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Levels.—Water Management Planning and Pre-Development is another component of the BIA budget that now plays a significant role in 

tribal efforts to adjudicate their water rights. Again this program has seen sharp 

decreases, going from $8.1 million in fiscal year 2004 to $5.6 million in fiscal year 

2008, a 30 percent reduction. According to the budget justifications, these ‘‘funds are 

being used to conduct water management and planning projects for the purpose of 

managing and conserving Indian water resources.’’ At the CTUIR these funds play 

an important role in our water management program, in determining the amount 

of water available on the Reservation and the amount of water required for various 
291 

purposes such as municipal service, agricultural irrigation, fish passage and measuring water quality standards. 

The CTUIR Strongly Objects to the Continuing Decline in Resources for Trust— 

Natural Resources Management and Requests That Funding be Restored to at Least 

Fiscal Year 2006 Levels.—The budget justifications indicate that these programs 

support the goal of fulfilling Indian fiduciary trust responsibilities and assisting 

tribes in the management, development and protection of Indian trust land and natural resource assets. The justification further States that a significant portion of 

these activities are carried out by tribes under contracts/compacts—in other words, 

these programs are having a positive impact at the reservation level. In the fiscal 

year 2007 Operating Plan the BIA reduced funding for these activities by $7.5 million or 5 percent. While Congress restored $2 million of the reduction in fiscal year 

2008 the proposed fiscal year 2009 budget still includes $5.4 million in cuts. We 

have identified a need for an increase of $310,000 for 6.5 additional FTE’s to our 

local budget. These funds are required to implement the Forestry, Agriculture, and 

Range Management Plans that will be adopted this year. It does not make sense 

to build up a system to track funds when the natural resources cannot be managed 

in such a way as to generate those funds. 

The CTUIR Requests That Under the Trust—Real Estate Services Budget Category the TPA Trust Services be Increased by at Least $5 Million and the $7.4 Million Requested for Probate Backlog be Added to the TPA Probate line Item.—Increases to 

the TPA base directly increase services to individuals and tribes at the local level 

where the needs are most acute and the greatest benefits are achieved. In fiscal 

year 2006 the BIA conducted a review of the local services and recommended that 

two additional real estate staff be added to meet the work load. More recently we 

conducted a review of the staffing needs and found that three additional real estate 

staff and one additional probate staff were needed to meet the increasing work load 

demands being created by the implementation of the To Be Trust Model and to reduce the current probate and realty backlogs. The CTUIR Requests That $3 Million Over the FIscal Year 2008 Enacted Level 

be Added to the Tribal Court TPA Line Item to Increase Resources at the Local 

Level.—In fiscal year 2008 Congress increased this line item by $2.3 million but the 

proposed budget removes this increase. The increases to law enforcement have not 

been accompanied by increases to the tribal court budget even though it has resulted in increasing the court’s work load. Additionally, as the Tribe has grown its 

economy, the demands on the court system have increased. The Tribe has adopted 

a number of codes, all of which call for final dispute resolution to be heard by the 

Tribal Court. In fiscal year 2006 an independent review of our Tribal Court system 

showed it is working, but additional resources to support the basic infrastructure 

that allows for the timely adjudication of criminal cases as well as for the expanded 

role in civil matters needs to be provided. 

The CTUIR Requests That Welfare Assistance Funding be Restored to at Least the 

Fiscal Year 2005 Enacted Level.—A $14.4 million reduction in fiscal year 2009 is 

being proposed on top of the $5 million reduction imposed in fiscal year 2007. The 

budget justifications indicate this represents the removal of able bodied adults from 

the roles. However, that program change cannot be made until the regulations are 

amended, a process to our knowledge that has not begun. As pointed out above, Indian Country remains the poorest of the poor in this country. This program is not 

duplicative of other Federal and State programs as claimed because clients must 

apply for services from all other sources that they are eligible for before receiving 

assistance. Due to the already extremely constrained resources, the CTUIR can 

serve less than 50 percent of the eligible clients per month. 

The CTUIR Requests That the JOM and Scholarships/Adult Education Programs 

be Restored at a Minimum to the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Levels and That These 

Programs be Moved Back to the BIA Structure.—The budget justifications for the 

newly created Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) make it very clear that the entire 

focus of the new Bureau will be on BIE operated and funded schools. While such 

improvements are clearly needed, the BIE is completely leaving out the 93 percent 

of Indian children that receive their education from public schools. If the BIE does 

not want to contend with tribally controlled TPA funding, then the programs need 

to be moved to an environment that supports tribal self-determination. The Johnson 

O’Malley (JOM) program is again proposed to be completely eliminated despite 

Congress’s continuing support. The assertion that these funds are duplicative of the 

Title VII program is simply not true. These funds go to tribal governments to provide support and services to Indian children, while Title VII funds generally go to 

school districts and tribes have little or no say over how they are used. Recent data 

shows that of the 552 tribal students from our reservation who attend local schools, 

40 percent are not meeting the statewide standards in English/Language or in Math 
292 

1The Conservation System Alliance is a coalition of over 75 conservation, historic preservation, faith-based, recreation, business and place-based friends groups representing millions of 

Americans nationwide. The Alliance aims to protect, restore and expand the National Landscape 

Conservation System by making it permanent, well-funded, well-managed, and inclusive of the 

best natural and cultural resources under the care of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

This testimony is submitted by John Garder, Public Lands Associate at The Wilderness Society, 

on behalf of the Alliance. 

and are in need of the additional services provided by the JOM program. The fiscal 

year 2009 proposed budget also calls for a $5.9 million or 20 percent reduction to 

the TPA scholarship/adult education line item. As tribes build their local economies, 

these programs are essential to having a well educated work force and to provide 

basic skills and opportunities to adults to participate in those economies. 

The CTUIR Requests the Restoration of the Housing Improvement Program.—The 

budget justification States that this program is being eliminated to meet higher priority items in the budget. What could be a higher priority than providing safe housing to the least well off individuals on the reservation? The assertion that these 

needs can be met through the HUD program demonstrates a lack of understanding 

by Washington bureaucrats of how programs operate in the field. 

With respect to non Indian Affairs components of the bill the CTUIR would like to 

offer the following comments 

The CTUIR Opposes the Proposed Elimination of the Land Consolidation Program 

in the Office of Special Trustee.—This program is recognized as being highly successful in reducing the fractionation of Indian allotments, thereby reducing the accounting nightmare and saving the government substantial sums of money by not having 

to track very tiny interests. The elimination of this program does not meet the 

needs of the United States or tribes. The OST has given some indication it will be 

rolling out some form of new concept for land consolidation, but to date we are unaware of any discussions with Tribal leaders. 

The CTUIR Supports an Increase to the National Park Service’s NAGPRA Activities.—These funds have remained constant over the past several years while the 

number of tribes trying to access the funds has continued to grow. There has been 

a large increase in the number of NAGPRA activities with the return of many museum collections and the increased awareness. 

The CTUIR Adamantly Opposes the Proposed 8 Percent Reduction to the U.S. Forest Service budget.—In the 1855 Treaty the CTUIR ceded 6.4 million acres of land 

to the U.S. Government but reserved the rights to hunt, fish, gather foods and medicines and graze livestock on ‘‘unclaimed lands’’ within the aboriginal area. The majority of the open lands are now under the control of three different National Forests. Past staffing and funding cuts already prevent the Forest Service from meeting 

even their most fundamental mission. Proposed budget cuts will only make the 

problems worse for future administrations, magnifying the damage and increasing 

the cost to repair. Over the past several years the Tribe has worked diligently to 

develop a cooperative relationship with the USFS and to educate them about the 

Tribe’s treaty rights and their responsibility to protect those rights. A 10 percent 

staff reduction would jeopardize that relationship as USFS personnel would just not 

have the time to deal with these matters. Finally such a reduction would put the 

CTUIR and all rural communities at risk because of the reduced capacity to implement fire prevention projects. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONSERVATION SYSTEM ALLIANCE 1

Mr. Chairman, the Conservation System Alliance would like to thank you for the 

opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the fiscal year 2009 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. On behalf of our 

millions of members, we provide below our fiscal year 2009 funding recommendation 

for $70 million, and increased budget clarity and accountability, for the Bureau of 

Land Management’s National Landscape Conservation System. 

The Conservation System is comprised of the most spectacular lands and waters 

under the stewardship of the BLM, like National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Scenic and Historic Trails, that have been designated for protection by Congress or the President. Created in 2000, the System provides economic 

benefits to neighboring communities across the West through unparalleled opportunities for solitude, adventure and recreation such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife 

watching. These lands and waters offer opportunities for science, education, economic growth and recreation, and uses as diverse as hunting and archaeological research. Yet with bare-bones funding for management and land stewardship, the 
293 

BLM is unable to keep its most extraordinary 26 million acres healthy, wild, and 

open. 

Adequate funding for the Conservation System is vital to protect BLM landscapes 

that are vital components of America’s natural and cultural heritage. These lands 

and waters are a network of the last places where visitors can still experience the 

history and wild beauty of the American West. These areas provide a uniquely 

American visitor experience; they are places where people can bring their families 

to escape the crowds and create their own adventure. Furthermore, they are a living 

classroom for academic researchers and outdoor educators. Congress can ensure that 

Conservation System lands and waters will remain valuable resources for present 

and future generations of recreators, ecologists, archaeologists, educators, and others by protecting these intact landscapes for public enjoyment, scientific research 

and outdoor education. 

However, Conservation System lands will not remain resource-rich without active 

stewardship. These extraordinary places are being ruined by vandalism, reckless offroad vehicle use, irresponsible resource extraction, and neglect. With an average of 

less than one ranger for every 200,000 acres, BLM lacks sufficient staff to adequately protect these lands. As a result, the agency spends more to repair damage 

than it would to provide the necessary staff and other resources to protect and restore invaluable cultural sites, riparian habitat, and other culturally and naturally 

significant places. Continuing damage to System lands and waters poses considerable threats to the integrity of these historically and biologically extraordinary landscapes. 

CONSERVATION SYSTEM BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

Clarity in the System’s budget is critical to ensuring that its units receive needed 

resources. The Alliance commends BLM for providing new Subactivities for Monuments and National Conservation Areas in the fiscal year 2009 budget, and for giving this spectacular System increased attention in budget documents, important 

first steps towards giving the System needed budgetary attention and clarity. However, we are disappointed that BLM failed to provide line item program elements 

for the Conservation System’s Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Scenic and Historic Trails, though directed to do so in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations 

Committee Report. Budget clarity for all System units is needed to ensure that all 

System managers can adequately plan and accurately track expenditures and to ensure accountability to Congress and the American public. We ask the Appropriations 

Committee to direct the Bureau to provide Subactivities for the Conservation System’s Trails and Rivers and provide greater clarity for the Conservation System in 

future budget documents. 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND PLANNING BUDGET NEEDS FOR THE

SYSTEM

If enacted, the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget would be the lowest level of 

funding ever for the Conservation System: $51.8 million, or less than $3 an acre. 

This constitutes a destructive cut of over $8 million from the final fiscal year 2008 

enacted budget, after one-time additions (source: BLM). The System warrants funding of at least $70 million in fiscal year 2009—a modest increase over historic funding levels when accounting for the growth of the System, growth in visitation, inflation and significant uncontrollable costs, such as insurance increases. The administration’s total proposed budget of just $51.8 million would leave critical BLM responsibilities and needs unmet, including law enforcement, management of illegal 

off-road vehicle traffic, archaeological site protection, control of invasive species, and 

the implementation of new Resource Management Plans. 

We respectfully request that the Committee provide $70 million as permanent 

base funding for operations and management of the Conservation System. Priority 

needs include additional rangers and field staff, investments in monitoring and restoration to sustain the System’s unique resources, cultural and historical site protection, and volunteer program support. 

This funding level would enable the BLM to restore needed services lost to recent 

funding cuts, while providing additional capacity to address areas of acute need, including: 

—Law Enforcement and Visitor Management.—A 2005 survey of 15 Monuments 

and Conservation Areas in the System found that only one-third has more than 

one full-time law enforcement ranger. On average, one ranger patrols 200,000 

acres. Enforcement staff capacity needs to keep pace with growth in use; in 

some areas, visitor numbers have quadrupled in the past 5 years. 
294 

—Science and Natural Resource Monitoring.—The BLM cannot meet its responsibility to obtain adequate information on the health of flora and fauna, riparian 

condition, water quality, and other resources—a problem recently highlighted 

by the Heinz Center and the Government Accountability Office. —Cultural Resource Management.—BLM does not have the personnel to meet its 

congressionally mandated responsibility to identify, evaluate, and nominate historic properties to the National Register of Historic Places, and to protect cultural sites. —Support for Volunteer Programs and Conservation Partnerships.—The Conservation System relies heavily on volunteers to help educate visitors, restore 

areas damaged by illegal off-road vehicle use, monitor cultural sites, and more. 

While volunteers provide free work, BLM still needs at least modest resources 

to create, run, and expand volunteer programs; ‘‘partner’’ groups need support 

for their work as well. Few areas have adequate resources to capitalize on the 

good will and free labor that volunteers supply. 

The System offers innumerable examples where currently bare-bones funding is 

leading to irreparable resource damage. For example, Arizona’s Grand CanyonParashant National Monument, spanning over a million acres, needs $1.2 million 

for stabilization of twelve of its historic and cultural sites, including old ranches and 

homesteads. Colorado’s McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area, where visitor 

use has increased nearly 90 percent in the last 5 years, needs $150,000 to hire a 

full time law enforcement officer and two seasonal rangers to protect resources and 

ensure visitor safety. 

We also respectfully ask the Committee to give serious consideration to any member requests for increasing programmatic funding or land acquisition funding for 

Conservation System units in the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill. These increases should be allocated in addition to, not in lieu of, funding already budgeted 

for each System unit in the BLM’s fiscal year 2009 budget. 

CONSERVATION SYSTEM LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PRIORITIES

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget would provide less than $4.5 million for 

BLM land acquisition via LWCF, which would be the lowest level ever and far below 

historic levels. We support the projects proposed for funding from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund in the President’s request, but they are insufficient. We 

strongly recommend at least an additional $16 million for projects in Santa Rosa 

and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument and California Desert Wilderness 

(CA), Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (AZ), Nez Perce National Historic 

Trail (MT), Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument (NM), Cascade Siskiyou 

National Monument and the Crooked and Sandy Wild and Scenic Rivers (OR). 

These projects offer willing sellers, local support, and opportunities to resolve 

inholder/access issues and protect recreational opportunities and biological integrity. 

SUPPORT THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ON LAND MANAGED BY THE BLM

The fiscal year 2009 budget proposes only $13.5 million for BLM’s 1050 account 

for cultural resource management and protection. This is a 16 percent reduction 

from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and a 19 percent decline from 2007. In fact, 

the $13.5 million request would be below fiscal year 1991 funding levels after adjusting for inflation. The administration’s request for cultural resource management 

fails to keep pace with increased energy development and recreational uses that 

have the potential to damage or destroy significant archaeological sites on BLM 

lands. We encourage the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to increase funding 

for the BLM’s cultural resource program by at least a modest $3 million for a total 

of at least $16.5 million. Funds from the 1050 account pay for archaeologists in 

BLM Field Offices but have never been sufficient to pay for proactive surveys and 

the protection of significant cultural resources. A reduction in funds only exacerbates this problem and insures there will be costly conflicts between energy development and recreational use and the protection of cultural sites on BLM land. 

RESTORE NEEDED FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM AND RECREATION

MANAGEMENT

BLM created a 10-year Strategy to ensure safe public access to its 13 National 

Scenic and Historic Trails while preserving their critical natural, historic, and cultural resources. Funding is needed to implement this Plan, including actions to administer the Iditarod, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and Old Spanish National 

Historic Trails, to continue progress toward completing the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and to protect the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. To implement the Trail Plan, we urge Congress to allocate at least $6 million as permanent 
295 

base funding for the National Scenic and Historic Trails, an increase of $3.5 million 

over the permanent base shown in the President’s request. This funding should be 

established in a new National Scenic and Historic Trails Subactivity account. Alternatively the funding should be allocated within the Recreation Management 1220, 

Cultural Resources 1050, Annual Maintenance 1652, and Challenge Cost Share 

1770 Subactivities. We urge the Conservation System office to prioritize Recreation 

Management Subactivity funding for planning, establishment, and maintenance of 

hiking trails on the ground throughout the Conservation System. 

APPENDIX.—ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF FUNDING NEEDS IN FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOR

THE BLM’S NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM

The list of Conservation System funding needs assembled in the accompanying 

fact sheet (Support our Western Heritage: Invest in the BLM’s National Landscape 

Conservation System) is by no means intended to be comprehensive. This appendix, 

though also not intended to be all-inclusive, lists some additional examples that further convey the need for increased funding for the Conservation System. 

Funding Priority #1: Cultural Resources Research and Protection 

Additional needs include: 

—Arizona’s Agua Fria National Monument has over 400 recorded sites, among 

them multi-room pueblos dating from 1250 to 1450 that provide crucial archaeological pieces to the Southwest’s historic puzzle. Located within an hour of 

fast-growing Phoenix, the Monument needs funding for two critical positions: an 

outdoor recreation planner (to help manage off-road vehicle use and other visitor pressures) and a full-time archaeologist. 

—Other examples include Arizona’s Sonoran Desert National Monument, which 

lacks a full-time archaeologist; Ironwood Forest National Monument, which is 

home to two historic districts, yet has no archaeologist to solicit needed public 

involvement in protecting cultural resources there; Las Cienegas NCA, which 

has a several million dollar backlog for historic site preservation; and California’s Carrizo Plain National Monument, which needs $100,000 to stabilize cultural and historical sites. 

Funding Priority #2: Rangers for the Conservation System 

Additional needs include: 

—Widespread marijuana cultivation on BLM lands—including Conservation System lands—is causing significant resource damage and threatening public safety. The problem has grown extensively, such that BLM law enforcement from 

other areas are re-assigned to help with detection and enforcement. However, 

even with reassignments, the BLM cannot keep up with this important public 

safety issue. At least nine BLM California law enforcement staff positions are 

needed to restore affected areas and protect public safety. This would prevent 

the temporary transfer of much-needed officers from Conservation System and 

other lands. $2 million would allow for twenty additional BLM officers to focus 

on this important public safety problem, relieving full or part-time Conservation 

System officers and allowing them to focus on other needed management priorities. 

—Colorado’s Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area struggles to curb illegal 

trash dumping, target shooting, theft from fee stations, and vandalism. Just one 

enforcement officer patrols all 64,000 acres, in addition to areas outside the 

NCA. $100,000 would fund an officer. 

—Other examples include Agua Fria, Carrizo Plain and Cascade Siskiyou National Monuments, which each need an additional law-enforcement officer; 

Headwaters Forest Reserve, which needs a ranger; and the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, which need four seasonal rangers. These positions require approzimately 

$680,000. 

Funding Priority #3: Sound Science, Monitoring, and Restoration 

Additional needs include: 

—Oregon’s Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is an ecological wonder with 

high biological diversity at the nexus of three different ecosystems. An unmet 

priority is to monitor the impacts of grazing and rangeland health on biological 

objects that the Monument was created to protect, including a rich mosaic of 

grass and shrublands, black oak woodlands and more. Other priority needs include mapping to inform invasive species control and road decommissioning to 

restore landscapes. 

—Alaska’s Steese National Conservation Area was established to protect habitat 

for wildlife, including Dall sheep and caribou. $200,000 would enable BLM to 
296 

carry out baseline caribou monitoring as land managers attempt to rebuild the 

population, as well as fund two seasonal staff to assess the interactions between 

caribou health, recent wildfires, and invasive species. 

—Other examples include Wild and Scenic Rivers, which are in need of $335,000 

for inventorying, monitoring and restoration; Sonoran Desert National Monument, which needs a natural resources specialist; Las Cienegas NCA, which has 

an unfunded operational need of $350,000 for recreation site maintenance, implementation of recreation site construction, biological monitoring, road maintenance, interpretive supplies and more; San Pedro Riparian NCA, which is in 

need of $40,000 for water gap construction to prevent livestock, off-road vehicle 

and flash flood damage to critical riparian areas; Carrizo Plain National Monument, which is in need of $100,000 to contract university wildlife research to 

better determine the needs of numerous threatened and endangered species; 

Headwaters Forest Reserve, which needs a natural resources specialist, as well 

as $15,000 for monitoring of numerous bird species; and King Range NCA, 

which has a priority need of $85,000 for the monitoring of Pacific Salmon. 

Funding Priority #4: Support for Volunteer Programs and Conservation Partnerships 

Additional examples of substantial benefits from volunteers through partnership 

funding are: 

—In Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area near Las Vegas, volunteers 

provide the equivalent of 8–9 full-time staff people. 

—At Colorado’s Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, a volunteer workforce contributes more than 10,000 hours annually at the Monument’s Anasazi 

Heritage Center, as well as outdoors in the Monument gathering data, monitoring archaeological sites, and restoring lands—time worth $174,000. 

—Friends of Nevada Wilderness organizes volunteer restoration projects in Conservation System wilderness to eliminate unnecessary roads and disguise illegal 

routes with rocks and vegetation. 

—However, Headwaters Forest Reserve benefits from a supportive regional coalition but lacks capacity to perform outreach and establish a place-based friends 

group. 

Funding Priority #5: Ensuring Adequate Recreation Management 

Other examples include: 

—In Arizona, in BLM’s Phoenix District, which includes several flagship Conservation System units in the fastest growing county in America, in one of the 

fastest growing States in America, there are only four permanent outdoor recreation planners. This lack of Outdoor Recreation Planners hinders their ability 

to keep recreational trails safe, accessible and enjoyable. 

—Arizona’s San Pedro Riparian NCA is in need of funds for site improvement and 

maintenance on the eleven regularly visited trailheads and two major facilities 

that receive high visitor use. 

—Other examples include the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, which is in 

need of two recreation positions; the Carrizo Plain National Monument, which 

needs ongoing maintenance and enhancement of recreational programs; the 

King Range NCA, which needs additional funding to facilitate special recreation 

permits and collect camping fees; Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, which needs $200,000 to upgrade existing camping sites and 

add additional sites, and to upgrade the public water system; Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument, which needs operating funds for its visitors’ center; the 

Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, which needs funding for 

plan implementation, including travel planning; and Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks 

National Monument, which needs $140,000 for recreation maintenance and 

other materials. 

Funding Priority #6: Educational Outreach 

Additional needs include: 

—The California Coastal National Monument would like to initiate kiosks and 

other public educational materials to minimize coastal damage and enhance resource education and development. Local groups are raising financial support 

for a series of public ‘‘gateways,’’ but BLM staff lack funds and staff to fully 

pursue the opportunities that come with working to involve local people in the 

management of their resources. 

—A University of Utah student has volunteered to write a public geology guide 

for Arizona’s Vermilion Cliffs National Monument but lacks $12,000 in BLM 

funding. 
297 

SUPPORT OUR WESTERN HERITAGE: INVEST IN THE BLM’S NATIONAL LANDSCAPE

CONSERVATION SYSTEM IN FISCAL YEAR 2009

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) National Landscape Conservation System is a network of the last places to experience the history and beauty of the 

American West. The System brings together BLM lands and waters designated for 

protection by Congress or the President, like National Monuments, National Historic Trails and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Yet with bare bones funding for management and land stewardship, the BLM can’t keep its most extraordinary 26 million 

acres healthy, wild, and open. 

If enacted, the proposed funding level for fiscal year 2009 would be the lowest 

since the Conservation System’s inception in 2000: just $51.8 million, or less than 

$2 an acre. Meanwhile, needs have increased and staff is minimal. Historic sites are 

vandalized and resources lost before they are even identified. With eleven of the 15 

fastest growing States in the country in the West, the Conservation System is people’s new backyard for recreation. These sites are also natural draws for local tourism and sustain local economies. While representing just 10 percent of BLM lands, 

the System receives about a third of all visitors to BLM’s 260 million acres. In some 

parts of the System, visitor use has more than tripled in the past 5 years. Yet the 

System receives less than 3 percent of BLM’s funding. 

The BLM’s Conservation System warrants funding of at least $70 million in fiscal 

year 2009—a modest increase over historic funding levels when adjusting for inflation and uncontrollable costs, such as unemployment and health insurance, workers’ 

compensation, and salary increases. Priority funding needs include additional rangers, field staff, investments in monitoring and restoration to sustain the System’s 

unique resources, cultural and historical site protection, volunteer program support, 

recreation management and community educational programs. 

Funding Priority #1: Cultural Resources Research and Protection 

The Conservation System includes thousands of cultural sites—from entire settlements of ancient peoples to historic ranches; there is a tremendous need for rangers 

and outreach professionals to discourage vandals and prevent off-road vehicle incursions on sensitive sites. Most monuments lack a full time archaeologist to assess 

and monitor archaeological resources. Examples include: 

—Arizona’s Vermilion Cliffs National Monument staff has identified the first evidence of interacting Puebloan cultures, which previously were not known to 

have co-existed, but do not have adequate staffing to inventory the resources, 

which are known to vandals and at a continuous risk of being looted. Two archeologists—at a total cost of $180,000—are needed to proactively inventory and 

protect these invaluable sites. 

—Arizona’s Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument spans over a million 

acres. Twelve of its historic and cultural sites, including old mines, ranches and 

homesteads, are in need of stabilization. $1.2 million would restore and prevent 

loss of these important sites. 

Funding Priority #2: Rangers for the Conservation System 

On average, each ranger in the Conservation System patrols 200,000 acres. With 

that scant presence, irreparable damage results from vandals, pothunters and uninformed but well-meaning visitors who simply lack guidance from signs, maps, or 

staff on how and where to recreate safely and responsibly. 

—At Colorado’s McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area, visitor use has increased nearly 90 percent in the last 5 years. The NCA needs a full time law 

enforcement officer and two seasonal rangers, but budget freezes have prevented filling the positions. $150,000 is needed. 

—Arizona’s Ironwood Forest National Monument has an abundance of natural 

and archaeological resources in need of protection, but management is challenged by traffic from undocumented immigrants. A second ranger—at a cost of 

$70,000—is needed to ensure public and staff safety and to educate visitors. 

—The 15-million acre California Desert District, including the Santa Rosa and 

San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, parts of the California Desert Conservation Area, and 67 wilderness areas, has numerous vacant positions due to 

funding shortages, many in highly populated areas. Tens of thousands of weekly 

visitors pose extensive challenges for managing off-road vehicles and other 

recreation and some areas have been determined to be unsafe for family recreation due to high drug and alcohol use. BLM employees are also subjected to 

life-threatening situations, experience a high burnout rate and frequently seek 

reassignment. $1.5 million would fund twelve needed positions to ensure public 

safety and the protection of cultural and natural resources. 
298 

Funding Priority #3: Sound Science, Monitoring, and Restoration 

The BLM must protect the natural and cultural resources for which its Conservation System units were designated—like threatened and endangered species, clean 

water, wetlands, and fragile deserts. Protection requires monitoring. Yet, the BLM 

does not have adequate resources to collect and assess high-quality data about the 

state of Conservation System ecosystems and resources, and to incorporate that 

data into management decisions. An investment in this area is also an opportunity 

to allow the Conservation System to function as an outdoor laboratory for science 

and best management practices across the BLM-managed lands—offering insights 

on geology, land and wildlife health, and invasives. Nearly every area would benefit 

from investments in monitoring programs and science-focused partnerships, including: —Arizona’s Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument requires $100,000 per 

year for needed staff to monitor cultural sites, wildlife and off-road vehicle use. 

An additional $100,000 annually is needed to manage the restoration of native 

vegetation that is being lost as a result of fire. $250,000 annually is needed for 

ecosystem restoration. 

—California’s Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument is in 

need of $1 million for adaptive trails planning for research that will facilitate 

recreation while proactively protecting wildlife including bighorn sheep. 

$100,000 annually is also needed for the eradication of tamarisk, which depletes 

invaluable water resources and competes with native vegetation. 

—National Scenic and Historic Trails are in need of more accurate trails mapping. 

Of the nearly 5,500 miles of National Scenic and Historic Trails managed by 

BLM (more than any other agency), only 400 miles have been mapped to a reasonable standard of accuracy, complicating the location—and therefore protection—of natural and cultural resources, as well as BLM’s ability to provide a 

safe and quality experience for recreational users. 

Funding Priority #4: Support for Volunteer Programs and Conservation Partnerships 

Like the National Parks, BLM’s Conservation System relies heavily on volunteers 

to help educate visitors, restore areas damaged by off-road vehicle use, monitor cultural sites, remove invasive plants, and more. While volunteers donate their time 

and labor, BLM still needs at least modest resources to create, run, and expand volunteer programs; ‘‘partner’’ groups need support for their work as well. Few areas 

have adequate resources to capitalize on the goodwill and free labor that volunteers 

supply. Examples of substantial benefits from volunteers through partnership funding are: 

—The WildCorps program establishes youth work crews at $200,000 each annually to assist with the management of National Monuments, Wilderness Areas 

and more. The program reconnects youth with America’s natural treasures 

while training the next generation of land managers and efficiently using Federal dollars to perform needed restoration at a fraction of the cost. 

—In Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, volunteers donate 

6,000 to 10,000 hours annually to assist BLM staff and scientists with projects 

ranging from fence repair to prepping specimens for exhibits. Monument funding has dropped 26 percent over the last 5 years. Due to this decrease in budget, they are heavily dependent on interns and volunteers. 

Yet, many Conservation System units lack sufficient staff to coordinate willing 

volunteers and nourish partnerships. For example, the California Coastal National 

Monument, with more than 20,000 small islands and the full 1,100 miles of the 

California coast, has only one full-time staff, so is unable to focus resources on developing partnerships with key management partners such as the California Fish 

and Game. Six additional staff are needed at $100,000/person to perform outreach. 

BLM also needs funding to establish several ‘‘Gateways’’ along the California coast. 

By coordinating with management partners, museums, marine labs and other local 

groups, Monument staff hopes to use the Monument as a way to develop stewardship partnerships through the State of California and enhance public education and 

development. 

Funding Priority #5: Ensuring Adequate Recreation Management 

The Conservation System receives about a third of all BLM visitors, yet lacks the 

resources to adequately manage recreational opportunities to protect valuable cultural and natural resources while ensuring unparalleled recreational opportunities 

such as river rafting, hiking, hunting and more. 

—$10 million is needed for the National Trails System: The BLM administers 

5,454 miles of three National Historic Trails and manages 5,485 miles of thirteen National Scenic and Historic Trails. There are only two employees to fulfill 
299 

BLM’s administrative responsibilities for the 5,454 miles of Historic Trails. 

These three trails have no stable operating funding, greatly hindering planning 

and the ability to coordinate with Park Service co-administrators and non-profit 

partners that perform the bulk of trail maintenance and purchase basic administrative supplies. Funding is also lacking for the implementation of congressionally mandated Comprehensive Management Plans for these trails. $1.6 million is also needed for completing Trail Visitor Centers to complete exhibits interpreting the historical and recreational resources of the trails for visitors. $2.8 

million is needed to fully operate four Trail Visitor Centers. 

—Alaska BLM’s Eastern Interior Field Office has lost numerous staff over the last 

5–6 years. With five Conservation System units to manage, the staff shortage 

makes it especially difficult to manage the world-renown rafting and other recreational opportunities there. For example, there is only one half of one position 

to monitor the entire 392 miles of the Fortymile Wild and Scenic River. 

—At Arizona’s Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, BLM needs $50,000 

annually to implement the Monument’s Resource Management Plan (e.g., to 

manage roads, post signs and implement route designations). 

Funding Priority #6: Educational Outreach 

Increased attention has recently been placed on the important public health and 

conservation benefits of reconnecting America’s youth with public lands. The House 

Interior Appropriations Committee noted in their fiscal year 2008 report that they 

‘‘recognize that the growing disconnection of America’s children from the natural 

world impacts the children’s health as well as the future of natural resource conservation. Within the... National Landscape Conservation System [budget], the 

Bureau should implement projects that help connect children and their families 

with nature.’’ Conservation System lands offer a critical opportunity for public education of youth and other visitors, but programs are difficult or impossible to sustain 

or initiate without funding. 

—California’s Headwaters Forest Reserve has active educational programs for 

youth in nearby schools, who comprise 8 percent of Headwaters visitation. BLM 

environmental education staff has developed programs in local schools to promote interest in land stewardship for the Reserve. Teachers have optional curriculum packets with lesson plans directly tied to State standards. Rangers 

teach at local schools, and then have children explore lessons in the Reserve. 

—Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument staff has an active community educational program building relationships with local schools in surrounding counties, but is increasingly unable to fulfill the schools’ requests due 

to a 26 percent funding decrease over the last 5 years. Monument staff developed State-approved curricula for schools, but have lost their environmental 

education position due to funding cuts. $100,000 is needed to refill the position. 

Monument staff also seeks to build on a biology program through partnerships 

with local universities. 

—Colorado’s Gunnison Gorge NCA receives far more requests for education programs than it can accommodate. Visitors and local residents would benefit from 

an interpretive/education specialist who would develop improved signs and educational materials, including school curricula. 

For more information, contact John Garder, The Wilderness Society, at 202–429– 

2641 or johnlgarder@tws.org, Denise Ryan, National Wildlife Federation at 202– 

797–6864 or ryand@nwf.org or Seth Levy, American Hiking Society, at 301–565– 

6704 Ext. 302 or slevy@americanhiking.org 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COOPERATIVE ALLIANCE FOR REFUGE ENHANCEMENT

The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) represents over 14 million people that care deeply about America’s National Wildlife Refuge System. This 

testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE’s 22 member organizations: 

American Birding Association, American Fisheries Society, American Sportfishing 

Association, Assateague Coastal Trust, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, 

Izaak Walton League of America, National Audubon Society, National Rifle Association of America, National Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Refuge Association, 

Safari Club International, The Corps Network, The Nature Conservancy, The Wilderness Society, The Wildlife Society,Trout Unlimited, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, 

Wildlife Forever, and the Wildlife Management Institute. 

Chairwoman Feinstein, ranking member Allard, and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2009 
300 

Interior Appropriations bill. The National Wildlife Refuge System stands alone as 

the only land system in the world with a mission that prioritizes wildlife conservation over all other activities. Since 1995, CARE has worked to showcase the needs 

of the remarkable Refuge System and to secure a strong congressional commitment 

for protecting America’s shorelines, wetlands, deserts, tundra, and forests. CARE 

wishes to express our deep gratitude to the subcommittee for the funding increase 

in fiscal year 2008 and the dramatic turnaround it represented. To continue enacting the conservation vision that President Theodore Roosevelt first espoused more 

than a century ago, CARE respectfully requests a funding level of $514 million for 

the Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

in fiscal year 2009. 

A recent detailed analysis by CARE found that our National Wildlife Refuge System needs $765 million in annual Operations and Maintenance funding to properly 

administer its nearly 100 million acres, educational nature programs, habitat restoration projects, and much more. Reaching a level of $514 million in fiscal year 

2009 is the next essential step along the pathway toward $765 million, and will enable wildlife refuges across the country to shelve the downsizing plans that call for 

a devastating 20 percent reduction in staff and return to what refuges do best: protecting America’s wildlife and water quality, providing a haven for threatened and 

endangered species, and guaranteeing a positive experience for 40 million annual 

visitors, whether hunting, fishing, birding, or learning from educational programs. 

When refuges are short-staffed, it doesn’t only affect activities inside refuge 

boundaries. Refuges are also unable to dedicate sufficient attention to threats beyond refuge boundaries, such as water rights disputes, upstream contamination, adjacent landfill sites, or planned developments. And as in recent years, when staff 

levels are reduced to only one or a few staff per refuge, opportunities to partner 

with other interested stakeholders are lost, dramatically and adversely affecting volunteer involvement and the leveraging of additional dollars. For example, consider 

that the reasonably well-staffed San Luis Refuge Complex in central California is 

often able to effectively triple its annual budget through creative partnerships. With 

this extra income, more trees are planted, invasive species are being eradicated, 

hunting programs are thriving, and staff can closely monitor outside threats. This 

situation demonstrates how much is possible with a critical mass of staff able to 

capitalize on funding and partnering opportunities, and how much is now being lost 

at other refuges. 

In addition to their integral role in American wildlife conservation, refuges are 

critically important on local and regional scales, as visitors in 2006 generated more 

than $1.7 billion in sales to local economies, creating over 27,000 U.S. jobs and $543 

million in personal income. While these figures are undeniably significant, it is 

widely recognized that the Refuge System’s potential remains largely untapped. In 

addition to being local economic engines, America’s wildlife refuges also provide innumerable environmental benefits to communities. For example, many refuges in 

urban or suburban settings filter storm water before it runs downstream to municipal water supplies and, in many areas, reduce flooding by capturing excess rainwater and attenuating coastal storm surges. The native vegetation on many of 

America’s refuges helps absorb pollution and captures carbon from the air, while 

natural filtration and sound water management promotes healthy fisheries within 

and beyond refuge boundaries. And importantly, refuges provide a way for children 

to connect with the natural world. 

There is a national wildlife refuge within an hour’s drive of every metropolitan 

area in the United States. As children spend more and more time inside on computers, watching television or playing video games, the need for a place to bring our 

youth to experience and explore the outdoors has never been more important. Many 

refuges work with local volunteer organizations such as ‘‘Friends’’ to provide environmental education programs to local schools; but when budgets are tight, they are 

often the first programs to be curtailed. 

Prior to the generous fiscal year 2008 appropriation, many years of inadequate 

budgets rapidly ballooned the Operations and Maintenance backlog to $3.5 billion 

and forced many refuges to eliminate all staff. Today, over one-third of America’s 

wildlife refuges have no staff; nobody to open the gates, teach the school children, 

repair the levees, pull the weeds, or even clean the bathrooms. While the increase 

in fiscal year 2008 helped immensely, many years of decline and degradation cannot 

be undone overnight. So refuge visitors still show up to find roads and visitor centers closed, viewing platforms and hiking trails in disrepair, and habitat restoration 

and school education programs eliminated. Non-native, invasive plants have degraded over 2.3 million acres and crime is on the rise as only 180 full-time law enforcement officers are asked to do the job of over 840. 
301 

Unfortunately, President Bush’s fiscal year 2009 budget proposal for the National 

Wildlife Refuge System does not improve the situation. The administration’s request 

does not consider rapidly rising inflationary costs. Each year, just to keep fuel in 

the trucks, pay for rising utilities and building rent, allow for salary adjustments 

and other fixed costs, the Refuge System needs a $15 million increase. With the current surge in fuel prices expected to continue through the year, that number is certain to climb dramatically. Therefore, to return the Refuge System to inflation-adjusted fiscal year 2004 levels and ensure a ‘‘no net loss’’ budget, the Refuge System 

needs a minimum of $466 million in fiscal year 2009. 

In a Nation with ever-shrinking natural areas, we must act quickly to safeguard 

our unique natural heritage for the benefit of wildlife and millions of present and 

future Americans. It was Teddy Roosevelt who reminded America that ‘‘our duty to 

the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled 

present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations.’’ CARE 

agrees that 40 million refuge visitors and all future Americans deserve the opportunity to see 100 million acres of the most visually stunning and biologically rich 

lands and waters in North America. Quite simply, the only way to ensure a future 

with clean water, thriving wildlife populations, and hunting and fishing opportunities is to increase the Refuge System’s fiscal year 2009 appropriation to $514 million. 

On behalf of our over 14 million members and supporters, CARE thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2009 Interior Appropriations bill and extends our sincere appreciation for the Subcommittee’s strong 

commitment to America’s National Wildlife Refuge System. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CORPS NETWORK

The Corps Network urges you to fully fund the Public Lands Corps Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–154), which was signed into law in 

2005. It authorizes $12 million for the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to contract with qualified youth and conservation Corps to carry out projects on public 

lands that are consistent with the goals of the Healthy Forests Act. It authorizes 

$8 million for priority projects and $4 million for other appropriate conservation 

projects. 

When funded, the act will enable the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to 

engage Service and Conservation Corps in projects: ‘‘(A) To reduce wildfire risk to 

a community, municipal water supply, or other at-risk Federal land; (B) To protect 

a watershed or address a threat to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire; (C) To address the impact of insect or disease infestations or other 

damaging agents on forest and rangeland health’’ and for other purposes. In addition, to these conservation and protection aims, The Act also seeks to provide opportunities for disadvantaged and the communities in which they reside by creating 

two preferences; one for projects and the other for Corps. 

The Public Lands Corps provides five important benefits: 

—Helps to Improve and Protect Public Lands and the Environment.—PLC Corpsmembers join the fight against wildfires, invasive species, other threats to our 

public lands and other disaster prevention and relief activities. 

—Helps to Reduce the Impacts of Climate Change.—By planting and managing 

vegetation to restore ecological processes and functions, including the recharging of streams and aquifers. 

—Engages Disadvantaged Young Adults.—The PLC engages young people, particularly those who are disadvantaged, in these efforts and connects young people with nature. 

—Is Cost-Effective.—Federal land managers will be able to deploy resources in a 

more cost-effective manner—to fight the effect of fires and invasive species as 

well as completing backlogged maintenance projects—because in the PLC, government cannot pay more than 75 percent of the cost of any project. The remaining 25 percent must be provided in cash or in-kind from nonfederal 

sources. 

—Creates a new Generation of Diverse Environmental Stewards.—Because the 

statute contains language providing for non-competitive hiring status for PLC 

Corpsmembers, the PLC also creates a pipeline of skilled and diverse recruits; 

the next generation of environmental stewards that the National Park Service 

can hire non-competitively. 

The Public Lands Corps can, and should, play a key role in the implementation 

of the National Fire Plan, especially with regard to rehabilitation, hazardous fuels 

reduction, and community assistance. Corps can help to insure that the necessary 
302 

resources are available to respond to fires. Across the Nation, they participate in 

emergency stabilization and rehabilitation activities like reforestation, road and 

trail rehabilitation, fence replacement, fish and wildlife habitat restoration, and replanting and reseeding with native or other desirable vegetation. They have experience reducing hazardous fuels to reduce the risks of fires to people, communities, 

and natural resources. Corps also have experience in helping communities that have 

been or are at-risk of fire by educating citizens on the effects of fire and doing community fire protection planning. 

According to the Climactic Data Center of the Department of Commerce, in 2007 

some 85,583 fires consumed 9.3 million acres; the second worst year for fires since 

mid 1990s and well above the 10 year average of 7.9 million acres burned. Federal 

agencies spent more than $2 billion on fire suppression in 2007. One factor that increases the wildfire threat is the growing number of new homes in the wildland/ 

urban interface; about 8.4 million new homes, or 60 percent of new homes, were 

built in the interface during the 1990s. 

In 2004 the National Fire News noted that ‘‘After a wildland fire... land management specialists and volunteers jumpstart the renewal of plant life through seeding and planting with annuals, trees, and native species that help retain soils and 

fight invasive weeds. It’s a long term process that comes alive as the wildland fires 

die down.’’ 

Reducing the impacts of climate change, restoring balance to the ecology, and connecting young people to nature is the kind of work at which Corps excel and can 

play an even greater role. Corps are an experienced, cost-effective, and valuable resource in the fight against fires and infestation. Corps do fuels reduction work, create firescapes around new communities as cities spread into previously rural areas, 

provide logistical support to firefighters, and educate homeowners and others about 

how to prevent fires. They also partner with community-based organizations in disaster preparedness and relief activities. Examples of Corps service include: —Reducing Maintenance Backlogs.—The Northwest Youth Corps works with the 

Washington Trails Association to brush, clear, repair, and extend trails in 

Mount Rainier National Park and Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, 

among other sites. In August 2007, park officials reported that they were still 

fixing damage caused by storms in October 2003. —Restoring the Environment.—The Nevada Conservation Corps works with The 

Nature Conservancy to return the Truckee River and wetlands to a more natural condition. —Disaster Relief.—Eleven Corps have sent more than 250 young people and staff 

to the Gulf Coast. Corps from across the country helped residents rebuild their 

homes and their lives by clearing debris, repairing roofs in Mississippi, managing a supply warehouse in Louisiana, serving displaced residents aboard 

ships in Alabama, and installing temporary ‘‘hard roofs’’ on historic buildings 

in New Orleans. 

—Wildfire Prevention.—In 2004, the Montana Conservation Corps (MCC) completed over 600 acres of wildfire fuels reduction projects in partnership with national parks, State agencies on private lands, and local conservation districts. 

Its priority has been to create defensible space around historic buildings in the 

national parks and around campgrounds. In West Yellowstone, MCC partnered 

with the Chamber of Commerce to remove 300 hazardous trees lining the popular Rendezvous Ski Trails, site of national ski races, and an important economic asset in a community trying to diversify from the traditional snowmobilebased economy. 

—Emergency Response And Prevention.—The Western Colorado Conservation 

Corps (WCCC) has done work in the urban interface in the Black Canyon of 

the Gunnison National Park housing area to insure safe passage for emergency 

response workers. Corpsmembers have been trained in firescaping around new 

suburban neighborhoods as cities spread into rural areas. They help to provide 

both visually aesthetic and fire resistant landscape around structures and along 

the avenues of emergency response. 

—Fire Prevention and Community Improvement.—The Coconino Rural Environment Corps located in Flagstaff, Arizona, thins hundreds of acres of Federal, 

State, county, city, and private lands every year. The Corps has created multiple partnerships in local communities to mitigate the hazards of catastrophic 

wild fires including one to provide local Native American communities with 

more than 400 cords of firewood. 

Invasive species are another large and growing threat to our public lands. Almost 

half of the plants and animals listed as endangered species by the Federal Government have been negatively affected by invasive species. Purple loosestrife, for example, diminishes waterfowl habitats, alters wetland structure and function, and 
303 

chokes out native plants. The Asian long horned beetle destroys valuable city trees 

and could spread. Invasive plants are estimated to infest 100 million acres in the 

United States. A Bureau of Land Management study (1996) estimated that 4,600 

acres of additional Federal public natural areas in the Western United States are 

negatively affected by invasive plant species every day. According to one study, in 

1999 the United States spent an estimated $590 million to prevent and control 

invasive species. 

Corps have also been mobilized in a number of States including Washington, California, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah to remove invasive species and 

to combat agricultural pests and insects. For example: 

—The Western Colorado Conservation Corps (WCCC), based in Grand Junction, 

Colorado, have been actively involved in tamarisk removal for several years. 

The WCCC has partnered with the Colorado State Parks Department and the 

State Division of Wildlife, the Audubon Society, and the Tamarisk Coalition to 

eradicate tamarisk and Russian Olive from a 50 mile stretch of the Colorado 

River and from the Utah State line to Palisade, Colorado. 

—Working under the direction of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Corpsmembers have fought the Mediterranean fruit fly, gypsy moth, 

white fly, red imported fire ants and the glassy-winged sharpshooter. 

—The Montana Conservation Corps is partnering with the National Forest Foundation, Gallatin National Forest, and Gallatin/Big Sky Weed Management Area 

Committee to undertake an extensive invasive weed mapping and removal 

project in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. 

Established in 1985, The Corps Network is the voice of the nation’s 116 Service 

and Conservation Corps. Currently operating in 41 States and the District of Columbia, Corps annually enroll more than 21,000 young men and women who contribute almost 17 million hours of service every year. Corps annually mobilize almost 300,000 community volunteers who contributed millions of additional hours of 

service. 

Our member Corps are direct descendents of the Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC) of the Depression-era that provided work and vocational training for unemployed single young men through conserving and developing the country’s natural 

resources. Between 1933 and 1941 the CCC had employed almost 3.5 million men 

who planted an estimated 2.5 billion trees, protected 40 million acres of farmland 

from erosion, drained swamp land, replanted almost a million acres of grazing land, 

built 125,000 miles of roads, fought fires, and created 800 State parks and 52,000 

acres of campgrounds. But the biggest legacy of the CCC may have been the hope 

it provided both the young men and their families. 

Today’s Corps are a proven strategy for giving young men and women, many of 

whom are disadvantaged and out-of-work and/or out-of-school, the chance to change 

their own lives and those of their families, as well as improve their communities. 

Of the Corpsmembers enrolled in 2007, 57 percent had no High School diploma, 53 

percent reported family income below the Federal poverty level, 30 percent had previous court involvement and, at least 5 percent had been in foster care. Corps provide thousands of young people the opportunity to earn a second chance in life. 

In the Corps model, Corpsmembers are organized into crews of 8–12 to carry out 

these projects while being guided by adult leaders who serve as mentors and role 

models as well as technical trainers and supervisors. For the past 25 years Corps 

have re-engaged society’s most vulnerable young people through a comprehensive 

approach of full-time service, a minimum-wage based stipend, job training, life skill 

development, career counseling and education. Most importantly, these young men 

and women learn to value their personal contribution, learn the importance of teamwork and experience the recognition that comes from making a positive investment 

in their community. 

In return for their efforts to restore and strengthen their communities, Corpsmembers receive: (1) a living allowance, (2) classroom training to improve basic competencies and, if necessary, to secure a GED or high school diploma, (3) experiential 

and environmental service-learning based education, (4) generic and technical skills 

training, and (5) a wide range of supportive services. Research has shown that 

youth who complete Corps programs have higher rates of employment and earn 

more than their counterparts. Corpsmembers also score higher on measures of personal and social responsibility and are more likely to earn a college degree. Corps 

generate a positive return for every dollar invested. 

The Public Lands Corps will provide work experience to disadvantaged Corpsmembers between the ages of 16–24, giving them the chance to develop the skills 

and habits they will need to become employed and productive citizens. It offers them 

a pipeline into Federal service, a win-win situation for the Forest Service and for 

the Corpsmember. This experience will help Corpsmembers help themselves, their 
304 

families, and their communities. It will also enable Federal land managers to costeffectively complete critical backlogged maintenance projects. 

We urge you to provide $12 million to support this program and we appreciate 

your attention to this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF ENERGY RESOURCE TRIBES

On behalf of the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT), I am pleased to submit for the subcommittee’s consideration the following statement on Indian energy 

funding needs as the subcommittee begins its work on its fiscal year 2009 spending 

bill. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the subcommittee on two 

programs of interest to CERT and its member tribes: (1) a $1.5 million programmatic increase for the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA’s) Indian energy programs; (2) funding the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program account at the $12,186,000 

level; and (3) restoration of funding for the Office of Minerals Evaluation. 

By way of background, CERT was founded in 1975 by Indian Tribes to chart a 

new course for the prudent, tribally-driven development of tribal energy resources. 

CERT’s mission is to support member Tribes as they develop their management capabilities and use their energy resources as the foundation for building stable, balanced, self-governed economies. CERT is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of the principal elected leadership of CERT’s 57 member Indian tribes. The 

Board directs CERT’s policy and the Board has made Federal appropriations 

CERT’s top priority for this year. Against this backdrop, CERT has the following 

funding priorities for fiscal year 2009 for the Interior and Related Agencies spending 

bill: 

$1.5 MILLION PROGRAMMATIC INCREASE FOR THE BIA’S INDIAN ENERGY PROGRAMS

CERT respectfully requests that the subcommittee consider a $1.5 million programmatic increase for the BIA’s Indian energy programs. The BIA’s Indian energy 

programs are administered by the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development (IEED). These programs bring much needed technical assistance and capacity 

building to Indian country and enable Indian tribes to maximize, leverage, and develop energy resources on tribal lands in two critical ways: 

—Grants.—The IEED provides grants to Indian tribes to assess energy resources 

on tribal lands, build capacity, conduct feasibility studies, and for other purposes. Since fiscal year 2000, 70 Indian tribes have received grants for energy 

related activities under this program. A programmatic increase for this activity 

would enable more Indian tribes to receive grants for energy development activities. 

—Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs).—Authorized under Title V of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, TERAs are agreements between Indian tribes and 

the Secretary of the Interior that are intended to maximize tribal oversight and 

management of energy resource development. Once the IEED determines that 

a tribe possesses the requisite management capacity and approves a TERA, the 

tribe can then engage in a variety of energy development activities under an 

entirely new, flexible mechanism for entering into energy-related business 

agreements with third parties. The BIA published its final rule implementing 

the TERA program on March 10, 2008, and numerous applications are expected. 

A programmatic increase would provide the IEED with sufficient resources to 

ensure that Indian tribes are able to take advantage of this new economic development tool. 

The tribal energy programs carried out by the IEED are administered in the Minerals and Mining account within the BIA’s Trust-Natural Resources Management 

budget activity. Within that account, the President’s budget includes a total of $2 

million for tribal energy activities for fiscal year 2009. Of that $2 million, $1.4 million is for grants (encompassed within the $6.93 million requested in the Minerals 

and Mining Projects line item), and $600,000 is for the IEED to consult with Indian 

tribes and begin the TERA review process (encompassed within the $1.49 million 

requested in the Minerals and Mining Central Oversight line item). CERT seeks an 

increase of $1 million for grants to Indian tribes and $500,000 for TERA implementation. To this end, CERT suggests the following report language: Changes to the 

Request include increases to Minerals and Mining of $1,000,000 for grants for tribal 

energy activities and $500,000 for implementation and approval of Tribal Energy 

Resource Agreements. Other Indian tribes support this programmatic increase, including, among others, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe. 
305 

INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM

CERT also asks respectfully requests that the subcommittee fund the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program account at the $12,186,000 level, a $4 million increase 

over the President’s fiscal year 2009 Request. While CERT is pleased that the President’s fiscal year 2009 Request includes a $2 million increase for this account over 

fiscal year 2008 enacted levels, more funding is needed to facilitate economic development in Indian country and encourage private investment on Indian lands. 

The Indian Guaranteed Loan Program is among the most flexible and efficient 

tools to encourage tribal economic development, including energy development. The 

BIA provides approximately 50 new loans annually under the program. Existing 

loans range from $250,000 to $18 million. Every dollar appropriated to the program 

is leveraged at least 16-fold, thereby maximizing the funding available to Indian 

country from private lenders. A $4 million increase would therefore result in at least 

$64 million in new loan funding being available to Indian country for energy development or other economic development projects. 

THE OFFICE OF MINERALS EVALUATION

The President’s fiscal year 2009 request does not include funding for the Office 

of Minerals Evaluation (OME). CERT respectfully requests that the subcommittee 

fund this activity at at least the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. OME performs subsurface economic evaluation to determine the value of the subsurface estate for Indian trust restricted property. For Indian tribes and individual Indian land owners, 

this is an important step to obtain Secretarial approval for mineral leases. Without 

this evaluation, it is impossible for the Secretary to determine that the Indian interest owner is obtaining fair value. CERT understands that the Department is considering outsourcing these appraisals, a move that CERT opposes. The OME is uniquely situated to utilize data from Indian tribes and within the Department to generate 

fair appraisals that the Indian landowners have confidence in. Any plan to 

outsource this function would erode this confidence. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this written testimony. Should the subcommittee have any questions, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at 

adlester@certredearth.com, via telephone at (303) 282–7576, or via facsimile at (303) 

282–7584. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF WESTERN STATE FORESTERS

The Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF) is pleased to submit the following 

testimony on the proposed fiscal year 2009 U.S. Forest Service Budget related to 

the funding of the State Fire Assistance program. The State Fire Assistance Program is funded through both State and Private Forestry and Wildland Fire Management under the U.S. Forest Service. The CWSF and the National Association of 

State Foresters (NASF) recommend that the fiscal year 2009 budget for the State 

Fire Assistance Program be funded at a combined $145 million. 

The Council of Western State Foresters supports NASF’s fiscal year 2009 Appropriations recommendation testimony that has been submitted to the U.S. Senate 

Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies. The State Fire Assistance program is of primary importance to the West. 

For this reason, the CWSF submits the below text from a letter sent to Congress 

on April 9, 2008 that highlights the SFA program and the broad and diverse support that has rallied around this USDA Forest Service program. A complete list of 

the organizations that support increased funding for the SFA program is at the bottom of the letter. 

Chairman Byrd, ranking member Cochran, Chairman Feinstein, and ranking 

member Allard: The respective organizations identified in this letter represent a coalition with the shared goal of improved State and community wildfire protection. 

This coalition was formed in early 2007 to advocate on behalf of the State Fire Assistance Program (SFA). The SFA budget is funded through the U.S. Forest Service’s State and Private Forestry (S&PF) and Wildland Fire Management budget 

areas. The program provides critical cost-share grants to State forestry agencies to 

facilitate wildland fire preparedness, by integrating State and private lands into 

landscape-scale fuel mitigation and planning. 

In recent years SFA has been the subject of recurring reductions proposed by the 

administration. The administration proposed a 30 percent reduction in SFA for fiscal year 2007, a 14 percent reduction for fiscal year 2008 and a 25.5 percent reduction for fiscal year 2009. We appreciate that your committee has consistently provided stable appropriations in response to on-the-ground needs. This coalition again 
306 

requests your leadership to restore and enhance SFA funding. The National Association of State Foresters has estimated SFA funding needs at $145 million for fiscal 

year 2009 to reflect current and emerging community wildland fire preparedness 

and protection needs. Although the diverse undersigned groups individually support 

varying levels of funding for SFA, all agree that the SFA program is a vital component of effective community wildland fire preparedness and mitigation. 

The State Fire Assistance Program is the fundamental Federal assistance program that States use to develop preparedness and response capabilities for wildland 

fire. Improved response efficiency provided through State Fire Assistance funding 

is critical to reducing suppression costs, which have continued to skyrocket, reaching over $1 billion in 5 of the last 7 years. In fiscal year 2007, 12,080 communities 

increased their capacity through local fire department training, upgrades of equipment and formation of new departments, due in large part to SFA funding. This 

training and capacity building has enhanced interagency coordination for wildland 

fire management on State, Federal, and private lands. Moreover, wildland-urban 

interface hazardous fuel reduction is a major component of the SFA program and 

funds have been used by communities to mitigate high-priority hazard fuel loads on 

over 470,000 acres within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). 

Lastly, SFA is an essential funding source for the development of Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs). As of 2007, thanks in part to significant SFA 

funding, over 4,700 communities at risk have developed CWPPs, a 46 percent increase over 2006. Many of these communities also received funding through SFA to 

accomplish their fire plans and implement fuels reduction priorities on both private 

and federal lands, as shown by the 3,814 communities that reduced risk through 

fuel mitigation and firewise activities. 

However, current analyses such as the SFA-funded Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment and the NASF report on SFA and Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) estimate that more than 51,612 communities are still at risk. At current funding levels, 

that would mean each of these communities would receive only about $1,560. In addition, Western State Fire Managers were only able to fund 47 of the 171 applications for mitigation assistance provided by SFA in fiscal year 2008. These examples 

clearly indicate a need for enhanced SFA funding. 

As you know, in 2001 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, western 

Governors, counties, State foresters and diverse stakeholders developed a 10-year 

collaborative strategy for reducing wildfire risk and improving forest health nationwide. The Strategy was updated by these partners in December, 2006 and calls for 

increasing collaboration between all levels of government and interest groups, improving fire prevention and suppression, reducing hazardous fuels, restoring ecosystems and promoting community assistance. These important goals are only 

achievable through substantial and sustained levels of funding for the State Fire Assistance program. 

In these fiscally constrained times, effective wildland fire management requires 

partnerships between agencies and communities. Funding hazardous fuels reduction 

on Federal lands is critical, especially when these lands are in the WUI. However, 

an exclusive focus on Federal lands is an incomplete solution and will ultimately 

undermine success. State and private lands must be considered through a landscape-scale approach to reduce hazardous fuels if we are to effectively meet the 

highest priority of federal fire policy—protecting lives and communities threatened 

by wildland fire. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget proposes cutting the USFS’ budget by 8 

percent overall and includes a drastic 58 percent cut to the S&PF programs. Due 

to the reduced capability, effectiveness and size of the USDA Forest Service, a viable State Fire Assistance program is crucial to providing funding for necessary State 

and community wildfire protection. The very programs proposed for virtual elimination are the programs that can help reduce the wildland fire suppression costs 

straining the USFS’ declining budget. Ever increasing emergency wildland fire suppression costs consume a larger portion of the USFS budget every year, and reduce 

investment in key S&PF programs, such as SFA. The USFS emergency wildland fire 

suppression budget problem needs to be solved in order to eliminate the drain on 

the S&PF programs, but a commitment to increased financial investment must also 

be part of the solution. 

We appreciate your continued leadership and support for the State Fire Assistance Program and respectfully request that you consider increased funding for State 

Fire Assistance in fiscal year 2009 in line with the needs outlined in the 10-Year 

Strategy. 

Allegheny Defense Project, Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters, American 

Forests, American Forest Foundation, American Lands Alliance, Applegate Partnership & Watershed Council, California Fire Safe Council, Center for Biological Diver-
307 

sity, Colorado Firecamp, Colorado Wild, Conservation Northwest, Denver Water, 

Environmental Protection Information Center, Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology, Flathead Economic Policy Center, Forest Landowners Association, 

Framing Our Community, Idaho Conservation League, Idaho Association of Counties, Idaho Fire Chiefs Association, International Association of Fire Chiefs, Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Lomakatsi Restoration 

Project, National Association of Counties, National Association of Forest Service Retirees, National Association of State Foresters, National Woodland Owners, New 

Mexico Forest Industry Association, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Resource Innovations, Salmon Valley Stewardship, Siskiyou Project, Society of American Foresters, Sustainable Northwest, Swan Ecosystem Center, Taos Pueblo Department of Natural Resources, The Forest Guild, The Lands Council, The Nature 

Conservancy, The Wilderness Society, Watershed Research and Training Center, 

Western Governors’ Association, WildEarth Guardians, and WildWest Institute. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANCE/USA 

Madame Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Dance/USA 

is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of our members across 

the United States. We urge the committee to designate a total of $176 million to 

the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2009. This testimony is 

intended to highlight the importance of the Federal investment in the arts to sustaining a vibrant cultural community and to our national character. 

Dance/USA, the national service organization for not-for-profit professional dance, 

believes that dance is essential to a healthy society, demonstrating the infinite possibilities for human expression and potential, and facilitating communication within 

and across cultures. Dance/USA sustains and advances professional dance by addressing the needs, concerns, and interests of artists, administrators, and organizations. By providing services and national leadership, Dance/USA enhances the infrastructure for dance creation, education and dissemination. To fulfill its mission, 

Dance/USA offers a variety of programs, including data research and regional professional development, and works with organizations within and outside the arts 

field with whom common goals are shared. Dance/USA’s membership currently consists of over 350 ballet, modern, ethnic, jazz, culturally specific, traditional and tap 

companies, dance service and presenting organizations, artist managers, individuals, 

and other organizations nationally and internationally. Dance/USA’s member companies range in size from operating budgets of under $100,000 to over $50 million. 

The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from the performing 

arts. Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965, the arts were limited mostly to 

a few big cities. The Arts Endowment has helped strengthen regional theater, opera, 

ballet and other artistic disciplines that Americans now enjoy. NEA funding provides access to the arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic 

or geographical limitations. The endowment embodies the ideal that no one should 

be deprived of the opportunity to have art in their lives. The Arts Endowment has 

helped the arts become accessible to more Americans, which in turn has increased 

public participation in the arts. 

Despite diminished resources, the NEA awards more than 1,000 grants annually, 

to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that encourage artistic creativity. These 

grants help nurture the growth and artistic excellence of thousands of arts organizations and artists in every corner of the country. NEA grants also preserve and enhance our Nation’s diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the 

Nation’s cultural life results in both new and classic works of art reaching all 50 

States. 

NEA grants are instrumental in leveraging private funding. On average, each 

NEA grant generates at least eight dollars from other sources. Government cultural 

funding plays a catalytic leadership role that is essential in generating private support for the arts. 

The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every community 

The return of the Federal Government’s small investment in the arts is striking. 

The nonprofit arts industry generates $166.2 billion annually in economic activity, 

supports 5.7 million full-time equivalent jobs, and returns $12.6 billion to the Federal Government in income taxes. Measured against direct Federal cultural spending of about $1.4 billion, that’s a return of nearly nine to one. Few other federal 

investments realize such economic benefits, not to mention the intangible benefits 

that only the arts make possible. Even in the face of tremendous cutbacks in recent 

years, the NEA continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country. 
308 

NEA Grants at Work 

NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core programs: Access 

to Artistic Excellence; Challenge America: Reaching Every Community; Federal/ 

State Partnerships; and Learning in the Arts, as well as through initiatives such 

as American Masterpieces: Dance. The following are some examples of the impact 

of NEA funding on dance programs in 2008 from the NEA’s 2008 Access to Artistic 

Excellence Program: 

Headlong Dance Theater 

Philadelphia, PA 

$10,000 

To support a choreographic lab with choreographer Tere O’Connor and the creation of a new work by Headlong Dance Theater’s co-artistic directors. O’Connor will 

teach Headlong Dance Theater his strategies and language for composition, dance 

dramaturgy, and movement invention. 

Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. 

Becket, MA 

$70,000 

To support residencies and performances of dance companies. The project will include a Creative Development Residency, presentation of national and international 

dance companies, and audience engagement and educational programs. 

NewArt New Mexico, Inc. 

Albuquerque, NM 

$10,000 

To support the Global DanceFest 2009, an annual festival of national and international contemporary dance. The 2009 festival, titled 60 North, will celebrate contemporary dance and dance theater from Scandinavia, Russia, and Canada. 

Pacific Northwest Ballet Association 

Seattle, WA 

$30,000 

To support the presentation of comedic works by established and emerging 

choreographers during the Comedy Festival. There will be a variety of outreach 

events including lectures, demonstrations, and question-and-answer sessions with 

dancers and artistic staff. 

The Non-Profit Professional Dance Community 

America’s dance companies perform a wide range of styles and genres. These include both classical and contemporary ballet, classical and contemporary modern, as 

well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary fusions and traditional to modern work rooted 

in other cultures. Over two-thirds of America’s professional dance companies are 

less than 45 years old; as an established art form with national identity and presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living memory. And, yet, 

America can boast some of the greatest dance companies of the world and can take 

credit for birthing two indigenous dance styles—tap and modern dance. 

One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the Arts instituted its Dance 

Touring Program in the 1970’s, great dance became accessible to every community 

in America. What used to be a handful of professional companies and a scattering 

of ‘‘regional’’ dance has become a national treasure spread across cities and through 

communities, schools and theaters in all 50 States. NEA programs today, like the 

National College Choreography Initiative, continue to ensure that the best of American dance is for all of America and a showpiece for the rest of the world as well. 

In 2005, the State Department collaborated with Dance/USA to replicate on a smaller, targeted scale the National College Choreography Initiative in five Middle Eastern countries. It was a great success. There are now over 600 professional dance 

companies in America as well as over 1,000 pre-professional and semi-professional 

groups. Based on recent surveys, Dance/USA estimates that the 81 largest and most 

visible non-profit dance companies in the United States do the following: 

—Employed over 6,000 people in a mix of full-time and part-time positions; 

—Performed for total home audiences of nearly 2.9 million people; 

—Paid approximately $237.5 million in wages and benefits; 

—Had operating expense budgets totaling $452.2 million; 

—Earned $156.7 million, or 38 percent of their income, from performances; 

—Earned $76.2 million from sales, tuitions and activities other than performances; 

—Received $16.7 million, from state, local and government contributions; 
309 

—Received $21.6 million from corporate contributions; 

—Received $46.2 million from private foundations; 

—Received $98.7 million from individual contributions through donations, benefit 

events, guilds, and United Arts drives; and 

—Had over 24,300 volunteers, including over 2,700 members of Boards of Trust- ees. 

CONCLUSION

Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending federal tax 

dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, and its programs are seriously underfunded. Dance/USA 

and other performing arts service organizations work hard each year to strengthen 

support for the NEA in Congress. As the NEA banner underscores, ‘‘a great nation 

deserves great art.’’ Last year, Congress began to lay the foundation for full restoration of the agency with a $20.3 million increase for the NEA. However, in order for 

there to be great art, organizations need stronger infrastructure and stability. 

Therefore, we urge you to increase the fiscal year 2009 NEA funding allocation to 

$176 million. 

On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

Madam Chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to submit this testimony for the record. I am Mary Beth 

Beetham, Director of Legislative Affairs for Defenders of Wildlife. Founded in 1947, 

Defenders of Wildlife has more than 1 million members and activists across the Nation and is dedicated to the protection and restoration of wild animals and plants 

in their natural communities. 

Defenders continues to be greatly concerned that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the wildlife related programs in other natural resource management 

agencies have reached a breaking point. The President’s budget again cuts funding 

for lands and wildlife. Bright spots such as ‘‘Safe Borderlands’’ and ‘‘Birds Forever’’ 

are paid for by cuts in other programs, with the result a net conservation loss. We 

deeply appreciate increases provided by the subcommittee in S. 1696, the fiscal year 

2008 Senate the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill and 

are also very grateful for the increases that were maintained in the final omnibus 

bill after negotiations with the administration reduced the subcommittee’s allocation. Funding provided has begun to stabilize our land and wildlife programs. However, significant additional amounts will be needed in the coming years to reverse 

the damage to the FWS and other agencies, to make them once again whole and 

critically important, to equip them to deal with the growing crisis of climate change. 

We know that the subcommittee must operate within the constraints of its 302(b) 

allocation, but we ask you to do as much as possible. Defenders has again worked 

during the development of the fiscal year 2009 congressional budget resolutions to 

support the environment and natural resources budget function, and we will continue to do so in the coming years. 

We urge the subcommittee to continue to rebuild the FWS workforce which has 

suffered substantial losses, nearly 800 staff from 2004–2007, an 8 percent reduction. 

We are particularly concerned about the loss of biological capability. 

—The endangered species program continues to experience a 30 percent overall 

vacancy rate, yet the president’s fiscal year 2009 budget cuts the program by 

$3.7 million, 2.5 percent. 

—The National Wildlife Refuge System has lost 300 staff and will eliminate at 

least another 250 if funding increases are not forthcoming. A comprehensive 

staffing model developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police recommended 840 law enforcement officers for the System which currently can afford only 180 full time officers. 

—The Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is down to 191 special agents down from 

a high of 238 in 2002, far below the authorized level of 260, and is expected 

to lose another 20 to 25 through retirement in the next year. The OLE also is 

in desperate need of both scientists for its world renowned wildlife crime 

forensics laboratory and port inspectors. 

—In the International Wildlife Trade Program, under International Affairs, the 

Division of Scientific Authority’s already small staff continues to be short by one 

third and the Division of Management Authority still suffers a 15–20 percent 

staffing shortfall. Still, the President’s budget cuts International Affairs by $1.2 

million, 10.3 percent. In addition, the important International affairs program 
310 

is currently buried in the General Operations Activity—Defenders recommends 

that it be moved and given equal status with other programs such as Migratory 

Birds and OLE. 

We urge the subcommittee to continue its effort to fully fund agency fixed costs 

which typically increase by 3–5 percent yearly and to restore the integrity of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, one of the crown jewels in our Nation’s conservation heritage. The fiscal year 2007 and 2008 bills took excellent first steps in correcting the damage done by years of funding below fixed costs that had forced severe erosion of programs. We deeply appreciate the nearly $40 million increase provided in the final fiscal year 2008 bill which has given the Refuge System breathing 

room to put on hold plans for massive staff downsizing; however, with the $434.1 

million level in the request, refuges still would slide backward. The Refuge System 

needs $15 million each year just to keep pace with fixed costs, and the inflation adjusted level for the peak funding achieved in fiscal year 2004, now totals $466 million. Moreover, even if fixed costs were fully funded, the FWS still would not have 

the resources to ensure that the System envisioned in the landmark 1997 National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act would be realized. Defenders supports the 

recommendation of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, a diverse coalition of 22 national conservation, sporting, and scientific organizations for a yearly 

level of $765 million for Refuge Operations and Maintenance by fiscal year 2013 

and, to make progress toward this goal, $514 million for fiscal year 2009. 

To address the needs of our Nation’s most vulnerable plants and animals, we urge 

the subcommittee to rebuild the FWS endangered species program. The budgets of 

this administration have further damaged this most important of programs that already was suffering from chronic funding shortfalls. Currently, 280 candidates await 

proposal for protection under the Endangered Species Act—many have been candidates for years. Further, the loss of staff has left the FWS without the needed biological capability to oversee recovery of listed species, to adequately address the 

workload of consultations, or to effectively monitor hundreds of Habitat Conservation Plans covering millions of acres. 

We urge the subcommittee to provide increases to important FWS grant programs 

where it will not take needed funding from core operations, and continue to provide 

direction that maximizes their efficiency. Our highest priorities among the grant 

programs are the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (STWGP) and the Cooperative 

Endangered Species Fund. The STWGP was established to serve the federal interest 

by conserving species before they decline to the point where they need Endangered 

Species Act protection. We appreciate the subcommittee’s strong oversight of the implementation of the Action Plans created through STWGP and ask that it be continued. 

We urge the subcommittee to continue efforts to refocus the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on its multiple use mission, and, in particular, halt the diversion 

of wildlife program resources to support energy and other programs. We appreciate 

language in the final fiscal year 2008 bill that attempts to limit the amount of appropriated dollars devoted to energy development on BLM lands and to address the 

diversion of resources from wildlife programs to pay for compliance activities of 

BLM’s energy, grazing and other non-wildlife related programs, which should instead come from benefiting programs. Unfortunately, no information has emerged 

to suggest that the situation has been rectified. This practice significantly undermines the wildlife programs which already are grossly underfunded; for example, 

more than $60 million is needed annually just to implement actions assigned to 

BLM in recovery plans for listed species, and the recent court action overturning 

the FWS decision failing to list the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act 

will likely lead to a need for substantially increased resources for its protection. 

Moreover, the diversion of resources has increased the importance of the Challenge 

Cost Share program, with reports that it is the primary means through which 

proactive wildlife conservation work is accomplished. In addition, we strongly support the Native Plant Materials Development program which will become more crucial in the face of the climate change threat and recommend that the subcommittee 

examine the need for a separate Plant Conservation Activity or Subactivity under 

Management of Lands and Resources. 

We urge the subcommittee to continue restoration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Habitat loss is one of the main threats to wildlife and will 

be greatly exacerbated by climate change. According to a recent Forest Service report, ‘‘Cooperating Across Boundaries—Partnerships to Conserve Open Space in 

Rural America,’’ the United States loses 6,000 acres of open space a day. The administration has repeatedly cut LWCF funding by increasingly greater levels each year, 

and even though the unspent balance in the Fund on paper exceeds $16 billion, pro-
311 

posed just $50 million for fiscal year 2009, more than 67 percent below fiscal year 

2008. 

We urge the subcommittee to give attention to addressing impacts of illegal immigration and related enforcement on sensitive land and wildlife resources along the 

border. We support the administration’s ‘‘Safe Borderlands’’ initiative; however we 

believe greater increases are needed to adequately address the situation. To date, 

there has been no assessment by the land management agencies of the costs to fully 

address the situation—we ask the subcommittee to include language in the bill requesting this information. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

is expediting plans to start construction of border walls in Texas that will have devastating impacts on one of the most biologically diverse areas in America, including 

the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, in which approximately $90 

million and three decades has been invested purchasing land and restoring habitat 

for ocelots, jaguarundi and other rare wildlife and plants. Recently, DHS has begun 

to pursue an even more damaging alternative formerly dismissed in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to build a wall into the existing levee without 

revising the EIS, doing hydrologic modeling, or formally consulting on impacts to 

refuges or endangered species. On April 3, 2008, DHS Secretary Chertoff issued a 

sweeping waiver of 36 Federal laws along 470 miles of the SW border to expedite 

wall construction. We ask the subcommittee to do everything in its power to protect 

its investment in the refuge by working with the DHS appropriations subcommittee 

to ensure that a thorough assessment to select the least harmful alternative and 

full mitigation plan is completed before any construction proceeds. 

We urge the subcommittee to reject the proposed cut to Forest Service (FS) Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management. Although more than 425 listed species and 

3,200 at-risk species occur on FS lands, the budget proposes a 10.6 percent cut ($14 

million) and reduction of 130 staff. 

We urge the subcommittee to restore the integrity of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units. One fifth of all CFWRU scientist positions 24 are vacant due to erosion of funding since fiscal year 2001. The 

Research Units provide critical scientific capability to the four land management 

agencies, yet the president’s budget reverses the fiscal year 2008 $1 million increase 

provided by the subcommittee. 

We are deeply grateful for the establishment of the National Global Warming and 

Wildlife Science Center (Center). We ask that you maintain your support for this 

important new initiative. The new Center will be a critical front in the battle to help 

wildlife adapt to climate change, supporting research needs of both federal and state 

agencies in dealing with a threat in which we have no analogous experience. While 

the subcommittee allocated up to $2.5 million for fiscal year 2008 for the Center, 

we were disappointed to find that the administration has allocated only $1.5 million 

and has requested only that amount for fiscal year 2009. We urge $10 million for 

fiscal year 2009. In addition, comprehensive bills are moving forward that likely will 

dedicate significant sums to the natural resource agencies for climate change adaptation; the agencies need to start planning now to spend these sums strategically 

and effectively. We ask the subcommittee to include funding and specific direction 

for the development of a national strategy to ensure a coordinated interagency 

framework to address impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, and habitat. 

RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS 

[In millions of dollars] 

Program President’s 

request 

Recommended 

level 

FWS Endangered Species Total .......................................................................................... 146 .8 185 .2 

Candidate Conservation ...................................................................................................... 8 .7 12 

Listing ................................................................................................................................. 18 .2 25 .2 

Recovery .............................................................................................................................. 68 .4 84 .8 

Consultation ........................................................................................................................ 51 .6 63 .2 

FWS National Wildlife Refuge O&M .................................................................................... 434 .1 514 

FWS Office of Law Enforcement ......................................................................................... 57 .4 69 .5 

FWS Migratory Bird Management ....................................................................................... 53 .2 53 

FWS International Affairs .................................................................................................... 10 .3 20 .4 

FWS State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ................................................................................ 73 .8 100 

FWS Cooperative Endangered Species Fund ...................................................................... 75 .5 96 .2 

FWS Multinational Species Conservation Fund .................................................................. 4 .3 12 

FWS Neo-tropical Migratory Bird Cons. Fund ..................................................................... 4 6 

BLM Wildlife and Fisheries ................................................................................................. 43 .8 65 .4 
312 

RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS—Continued 

[In millions of dollars] 

Program President’s 

request 

Recommended level 

BLM Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................... 20 .6 29 .9 

BLM Native Plants .............................................................................................................. 4 .6 15 .8 

BLM Challenge Cost Share ................................................................................................. 9 .2 19 .3 

FS Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management ................................................................. 118 176 .5 

USGS Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Units ................................................................... 15 .4 19 .4 

USGS National Global Warming Wildlife Ctr. ..................................................................... 1 .5 10 

Land and Water Conservation Fund ................................................................................... 50 1 403 

1 $278 Federal and $125 stateside. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DELAWARE HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of an important Land and Water Conservation Fund 

request of $1.4 million to allow National Park Service acquisition of the 96-acre 

Santos Farm property within the legislated boundary of the Delaware Water Gap 

National Recreation Area. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 

Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2009. 

The Delaware Highlands Conservancy is a non-profit land trust dedicated to 

working with landowners, other conservation organizations and local and State government to conserve the natural and cultural heritage of the Upper Delaware River 

region. Specifically the Conservancy serves Pike and Wayne Counties in PA, as well 

as Sullivan and Delaware Counties, NY. We are members of the National Land 

Trust Alliance and follow their best management standards and practices. 

To date the Conservancy has helped landowners protect over 10,000 acres for the 

benefit of future generations. Located within easy driving distance of the Nation’s 

most populous metropolitan area, New York City, and within a 5-hour drive of onethird of the population of the United States, the primary industry in this area is 

tourism. 

Protecting our natural areas is of vital economic importance to the region. The 

Pocono Mountain Visitors Bureau (PMVB), reports that the travel and tourism industry produces $1.073 billion in expenditures to the four primarily rural counties 

they serve. The Bureau recently completed extensive research with visitors and determined that the top values were: preservation of the natural environment; preservation of the authentic small town charm; and responsible development. 

A coalition of diverse groups—including local elected officials, the Pike County 

Commissioners, local planning commissions, watershed groups, the Conservancy, 

and like-minded organizations—have identified key parcels in the region that need 

to be protected to maintain the scenic rural character. The Santos Farm is viewed 

by all to be a critical component of the landscape and critical for protection. 

Please allow me to provide some background on the area. After flowing south to 

Port Jervis, New York, the Delaware River turns along the long ridge of the 

Kittatinny Mountain. For 40 miles the River runs southwest in a valley confined 

by the Kittatinny Mountain in New Jersey and the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania. Just east of Stroudsburg, the river breaks through the Kittatinny Mountain 

creating a dramatic ‘‘water gap’’ in the ridge. The forested and craggy mountains 

on both sides of the Delaware River tower over it by more than 1,200 feet. 

Geologists believe the water gap was created by separate rivers on both sides of 

the Kittatinny Mountain. For thousands of years the two rivers, assisted by wind 

and rain, eroded the mountain, carrying away more earthly material at weak spots 

in the rock than at stronger spots. Several million years ago, the rivers linked at 

a particularly weak spot in the mountain’s geology. This action created both the 

water gap and the current Delaware River. The creation of the water gap increased 
313 

erosion by the more powerful single river, which led to the dramatic chasm that is 

today referred to as the Delaware Water Gap. 

In the 1960s the Army Corps of Engineers planned to dam the Delaware River 

and create the Tocks Island Reservoir. Congress approved the proposal in 1965 and 

instructed the Corps and the Interior Department to acquire lands around the proposed reservoir for ‘‘public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of the proposed 

Tocks Island Reservoir... and for preservation of the scenic, scientific, and historic features contributing to public enjoyment of such lands and waters.’’ This 1965 

legislation created the present Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, covering nearly 70,000 acres in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. However, controversy 

over the dam blocked its construction for nearly 15 years. Many critics found the 

two purposes of the authorizing law, damming the River and preserving the land 

and water, contradictory. 

Congress resolved the issue by designating the portion of the Delaware River 

within the Recreation Area as a National Wild and Scenic River, ending the possibility of building a dam and making the conservation of the natural, recreational, 

historical, and cultural attributes of the water gap and the River valley the primary 

mission of the park. 

Today the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is a natural and recreational treasure in the mid-Atlantic section of the Appalachians Mountains. It is 

the largest park unit between Maine and Virginia. Its proximity to the metropolitan 

areas of northern New Jersey, New York City, and Philadelphia places it within 

reach of tens of millions of people. Its accessibility to these populations—Interstate 

80 runs through the water gap—brings more than 5 million annual visitors. Attractions include scenic viewpoints in the water gap on I–80 and in the valley along US 

209, waterfalls, hiking, biking, rock climbing, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, 

camping, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, tubing, swimming, wildlife observation, and 

the opportunity to learn about the many historical and cultural sites in the park. 

River recreation and wildlife thrive on the exceptionally clean waters of the Delaware River throughout the valley. Additionally the Recreation Area includes 27 

miles of the Appalachian Trail. 

Within the legislative boundary, there are a number of privately owned properties 

that could be potentially sold for development. Acquisition of these inholdings from 

willing sellers allows the National Park Service to consolidate ownership and improve management of forest, wildlife habitat, and recreational resources. In fiscal 

year 2009 the National Park Service has the opportunity to acquire the 96-acre 

Santos Farm property in Milford, Pike County, Pennsylvania. 

The Santos Farm property is located along the Delaware River at the northern 

end of the National Recreation Area. The property is one of the last undeveloped 

farmland tracts in Pike County and provides significant wildlife habitat. Milford 

Borough, Township, and county officials have expressed strong support for protecting this property. If developed, the loss of scenic, recreational, and habitat resources would be significant. 

The Delaware Highlands Conservancy together with the Pike Conservation Partnership, a coalition of non-profit organizations and local and state agencies, and the 

Pike County Commissioners have identified the Santos Farm as a high priority 

property for conservation. And, Pike County voters recently approved the Scenic 

Rural Character Preservation Bond for the protection of natural areas in the County, with a yes majority of 68.2 percent. Support for the conservation of this land 

is high, but there are insufficient funds locally to raise the entire purchase price. 

An appropriation of $1.4 million to the National Park Service for the acquisition 

of the Santos Farm property would consolidate ownership and improve management 

of forested areas within the park, protect wildlife habitat, enhance local park and 

trail networks, and protect the watershed of the Delaware River within the National 

Recreation Area. 

Madam Chairman, and distinguished subcommittee members, I wish to thank you 

for this opportunity to provide testimony in support of this critical land acquisition 

funding need at the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DZILTH-NA-O-DITH-HLE COMMUNITY GRANT SCHOOL

Requested 

Indian School Equalization Formula ............................................................................................................ $382,783,800 

Administrative Cost Grants .......................................................................................................................... 53,000,000 

Student Transportation ................................................................................................................................ ( 1 ) 

1 $3.15 per mile. 
314 

My name is Eugene Guerito. I am the President of the School Board which operates the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School on the Navajo Reservation 

in Bloomfield, New Mexico. I know that many non-Navajos have difficulty pronouncing our School’s name, so if you wish, you may call us the ‘‘DCGS School.’’ 

With me is Faye BlueEyes, our School’s Finance Director. I asked her to address 

the committee with me because of her extensive knowledge of the financial needs 

of the BIA school system for Indian children. 

Our School offers K–8 academic programs and residential programs for students 

in grades 1–12, but the residential students in grades 9–12 attend the local public 

school. Currently, 235 students are enrolled in our academic program, and 47 students are housed in the campus dormitories. Our all-Navajo Board operates the 

School through a Grant issued by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) under the 

Tribally Controlled Schools Act. 

Let me get right to the point. The administration’s budget request for BIE school 

operations betrays us and our children. How can the Federal Government demand 

that our students make Adequate Yearly Progress under No Child Left Behind Act 

mandates yet withhold the financial resources we need to meet these goals? The 

United States also made a commitment to support tribal control of education 

through laws such as the Indian Self-Determination Act and the Tribally Controlled 

Schools Act. But BIA and BIE consistently violate this commitment by poorly funding the administrative costs we incur when we exercise the option to take over direct program operations under the Federal Indian self-determination policy. 

I urge the committee to take steps to meet the Federal Government’s obligations 

to the Indian children in the school system it created for them. Ms. BlueEyes will 

describe specific parts of the BIE budget most in need of your attention. 

Administrative Cost Grants.—BIE seeks no increase for Administrative Cost 

Grants, the account that is supposed to provide funding for the administrative costs 

incurred in tribal operation of school programs. Five more schools will convert to 

tribal operation in SY 2009–2010 (the school year funded by this budget request). 

This means that instead of the 125 schools now being supported by the $43.4 million 

AC Grant budget, 130 schools will have to be supported by that same amount. The 

budget request does not tell you that in the current school year, BIE was only able 

to supply 65.7 percent of the funding required by the formula for calculation of AC 

Grants set out in Federal law (25 USC 2008). With 5 more schools in the mix, the 

percentage paid will probably drop below 60 percent. 

Yet our administrative cost obligations continue to increase—in critical areas such 

as financial management, property management, insurance, grant management, auditing, legal and security. Right now we are only able to afford 2.25 employees for 

our Business Office, a situation which jeopardizes our internal controls system. A 

further cut could make compliance with minimum standards for internal control impossible. 

At the same time that BIE ignores its responsibility to supply proper administrative funding to tribally-operated schools, it asks you to provide an additional $1.5 

million for its own administrative costs—to cover severance pay for the Federal employees who now work at the 5 schools that will convert to tribal operation. We 

think this additional $1.5 million should be used for AC Grants, and that BIE 

should have to do what schools have to do when they have insufficient funding: redirect funds from other parts of its budget. Certainly it should be easier for the Department of the Interior, with its multi-billion dollar budget, to absorb these severance costs than it is for small tribally-operated schools who constantly have to make 

do with less. It is so discouraging that the agency responsible for educating Indian 

children thinks only about its own needs, not the needs of the our school system. 

Full funding of the BIE’s AC Grant obligation would require at least $66 million. 

If this is impossible to achieve in this budget year, please consider supplying at 

least $53 million to get us close to the 80 percent level and then close the remaining 

gap next year. 

Student Transportation.—We thank Congress for supplying more funds for student transportation last year. That was the first meaningful increase we’ve had for 

many years. At our School, the transportation budget fell short by nearly $13,000 

last year. We had no choice but to use education funds from the ISEF to make up 

the shortage. If we cannot get students to school, we cannot educate them. 

Here again our costs are ever increasing—for fuel, bus repairs and bus driver salaries. In our area of New Mexico, diesel fuel now costs over $4/gallon. A fill-up that 

a year ago cost $115 now runs $200. Our buses travel 100 miles round-trip per day. 

Much of their routes are over very rough dirt roads which enormously increases the 

cost of vehicle maintenance. Plus, we compete with the local oil field for drivers with 

the required CDL licenses. This means we must offer competitive bus driver salaries 

or we lose the ones with needed credentials. 
315 

Please do not agree to cut Student Transportation by $1 million as the BIE suggests. BIE estimates its request would cut the per-mile funding to $2.87, but we 

have to question whether this estimate would still be valid in July, 2009, when SY 

2009 begins. Who can really predict what fuel prices will be that far in advance? 

Instead, please increase funding to a level that enables us to receive $3.15 per mile 

so that we can better cover our ever-increasing costs. 

Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF).—The ISEF is our biggest and most 

important account. It must supply funding for teachers, teacher aides and all other 

parts of our educational program as well as for a full complement of personnel to 

supervise and safeguard children who live in the dormitories. Sadly, ISEF funds 

must also be diverted to make up shortages in other areas such as in student transportation, as I mentioned. 

We are very disappointed that the BIE request seeks additional ISEF funds only 

for ‘‘fixed costs’’ and actually shows a cut for program costs. The request of $364.5 

million is only 5.3 percent higher than the appropriation for fiscal year 2003—the 

first budget submitted after the No Child Left Behind Act was passed. 

Our School Board and staff are totally committed to the goals of NCLBA. We 

want to see all of our students perform at the ‘‘proficient’’ level. But in the BIE system, this is merely a dream, not the reality. Students in the BIE-funded school system produce some of the lowest achievement scores in the nation. Last year, nearly 

2/3 of them scored in the lowest achievement category—‘‘basic’’—in reading. In 

mathematics, 70 percent of BIE system students were categorized as ‘‘basic’’. 

Our School and other tribally-operated schools face many enormous roadblocks in 

our efforts to improve student achievement: 

—Low ISEF funding puts us at the bottom of teacher pay scales which means we 

can’t effectively compete for qualified teachers with public schools, and certainly 

cannot compete with BIE-operated schools which have to pay at Federal wage 

rates. 

—We fund professional development opportunities for teachers, but often lose this 

investment when the additional skills they acquire qualify them for better-paying jobs at other schools. Then we have to start all over again with our professional development programs. 

—Teacher recruitment is also adversely impacted by the remoteness of and poor 

housing options in reservation communities. We have to supply on-campus 

housing for teachers, but these quarters units are old, unattractive and lacking 

in basic comforts. 

—Many school buildings are old, in disrepair, and incapable of supporting modern 

educational technology as they were not built with computer cabling in mind. 

—Our children face many impediments to learning such as poverty, poor housing, 

poor nutrition and long distances between home and school. Many Navajo children also face the challenges of learning english as a second language. 

I recite these conditions to help you understand why we need a significant increase in ISEF funding. We not only need better ISEF funding now, we need a commitment to recurring appropriate levels of support year after year. That’s the only 

way we will have a chance to recruit high quality teachers and keep them. Student 

achievement occurs in the classroom. That means recruitment and retention of high 

quality teachers. 

Improving ISEF resources is also the only way we will be able to afford the professional staff needed to implement innovative teaching models, especially those with 

lower teacher-to-student ratios. For example, to increase focus on reading skills, our 

School recently adopted a Reading First program and incorporated components of 

‘‘Response to Intervention’’ for special education and ‘‘Walk to Read’’, a strategy 

where students walk to another classroom for specialized reading instruction in 

small, performance-level groups. It is too early to evaluate the results of these strategies, but both staff and parents are encouraged by the program. We can only continue it, however, if we are able to supply the additional staffing, instructional materials and teacher training it requires. 

We ask the Committee to increase ISEF funding by at least 5 percent—to 

$382,783,800. 

FOOD SERVICES AND FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Our costs for food services were over-budget by $84,000 this year. While we receive student meal funding from USDA, it is not enough to cover the cost of 220 

lunches per day for day students and the three meals per day for residential students. Thus we had to take money from the ISEF—both education and residential 

budgets—to cover the shortfall. 
316 

1See Corning Press Release citing the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association 

(MECA) (February 15, 2005), http://www.corning.con/environmentaltechnologies/media-center/ 

press-releases/2005021501.aspx. 2See Environmental Protection Agency (July 7,2005), ‘‘2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Final Rule,’’ 

i.e. http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/diesel.htm. 3 Ibid. 

We could devote our entire testimony to facilities issues. I will be brief, however, 

and just tell you that on a daily basis we deal with many problems in our 40-yearold school buildings: inadequate plumbing, heating and cooling systems; electrical 

systems that are not capable of supporting today’s educational technology; and unsafe conditions on sidewalks, playground and bus loading areas. For many years, 

the facilities operations funding has been so low that it is routinely ‘‘constrained’’. 

This is BIE-speak for supplying only a percentage of the amount needed by each 

location. This year the budget is ‘‘constrained’’ to 51.87 percent. Most of our facilities 

operations budget is used to pay utility bills as we must pay those at 100 percent, 

not 51.87 percent. 

CONCLUSION

As long as woefully inadequate support for the BIE school system persists, the 

objective of NCLBA remains only a dream—and a broken promise. For our schools, 

Congress is the equivalent of the county government and state legislature, the two 

sources of basic financial support for public schools. We hope this Congress will 

produce a better school operations budget than the one proposed by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. Should you have any further questions, you may contact either of 

us via phone at 505.632.1697 or you can reach Ms. Blue Eyes via email at 

heywoman87417@yahoo.com. Thank you for helping our Indian children. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony proposing fiscal year 

2009 funding for EPA’s Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) program at $70 million and for the EPA’s State and local quality grants program at $270 million. 

My name is Tim Regan. I’m the president of the Emissions Control Technology 

Association (ECTA) and an executive with Corning Incorporated. ECTA is a trade 

association that promotes public policies to improve air quality by reducing mobile 

source emissions through the use of advanced technologies. 

ECTA represents the companies that have been at the cutting edge of mobile 

source emissions control technology for three and a half decades. Our members invented and developed the core, specifically the substrate and the catalyst, of the 

catalytic converter. Our technology has had a profound impact on the environment 

both here and abroad, removing 1.5 billion tons of pollution from American skies 

and 3 billion tons of pollution worldwide since 1975.1

Thirty years ago, when the catalytic converter was first introduced, our industry 

was faced with the challenge of reducing nitrogen oxides from the transportation 

sector. Today, the challenge is to reduce the black smoke and smell from diesel exhaust. Once again, our industry has risen to the challenge by developing a full 

range of devices, commonly known as ‘‘after-treatment’’ technology that remove fine 

particulate matter and other pollutants in diesel exhaust. 

Our technology is required equipment on all new on-road heavy duty vehicles entered into service after January 1, 2007. This will make a significant contribution 

toward cleaner air and better health. In fact, EPA estimated at the time the socalled 2007 Heavy Duty Rule was promulgated that the technology would generate 

$66 billion in economic and health benefits annually when the new vehicles significantly penetrated the fleet after the year 2020.2

Obviously, there is a cost associated with installing this equipment on new vehicles, but the payoff is significant. EPA estimates that for every dollar spent on the 

technology $16 of economic benefit will be generated.3

THE CHALLENGE

The challenge before us now is how to retrofit this new technology onto existing 

vehicles and engines that are being used today. These vehicles and engines do not 

have the emissions control technology that is required for new vehicles. Consequently, they are the ‘‘dirtiest’’ diesel devices in use, and there are a lot of them. 
317 

4See Senator Voinovich Press Release (June 16, 2005), http://voinovich.senate.gov/ 

newslcenter/record.cfm?id=238996&. 

EPA estimates there are currently 11 million heavy duty diesel engines in use 

today. This compares to about 500,000 new clean diesel engines that are normally 

put in to use annually. In other words, there are 22 existing engines in the fleet 

for every new clean diesel engine that is added each year. 

Because diesel engines are so durable, the existing equipment in the fleet will not 

be fully replaced until the year 2030.4 The best way to clean up these 11 million 

vehicles and engines is to retrofit them with the same kind of technology that is 

being installed in new ones. This retrofit equipment could include after-treatment 

devices, such as a diesel particulate filter or a diesel oxidization catalyst. It also 

could include vehicle replacement, engine replacement, engine rebuilds, and engine 

repair. 

Unfortunately, the cost of purchasing and installing diesel retrofits oftentimes 

does not introduce enough operational efficiency to generate a return on the investment. So, equipment owners are understandably reluctant to invest in a retrofit unless they are given some form of financial assistance to help defray the cost. And, 

it makes sense for the public to help finance retrofits because they generate benefits 

in the form of cleaner air for all of society. 

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

To the credit of Congress, it has acted to provide the necessary financial assistance to promote the deployment of diesel retrofits. Congress started to address this 

problem as far back as fiscal year 2003. At the time, Congress appropriated $5 million to provide the original funding for the Clean School Bus USA program. 

This program was founded to improve the health conditions of the 25 million children who ride diesel-powered school buses every day. EPA estimates that 40,000 

school buses have been cleaned up during the lifetime of the Clean School Bus USA 

program, reducing the exposure of more than 1.5 million school children to the potential harmful effects of diesel exhaust. It marks a good beginning, but we still 

have a long way to go to clean up over 400,000 school buses that are currently on 

the road today. 

Based on the positive experience with the Clean School Bus USA program, Congress took another big step in 2005 to advance the deployment of diesel retrofits. 

Specifically, as part of the Energy Policy Act, Congress proposed and passed the 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA). This provision of law authorized the expenditure of $1 billion over 5 years to finance diesel retrofits through grants and 

revolving loans. The authorization calls for the appropriation of $200 million per 

year for fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011. 

This subcommittee has done a valiant job in trying to find the resources to fund 

DERA in fiscal year 2008. These are difficult financial times. All Federal accounts 

are under stress, especially those under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. But 

under your leadership, your subcommittee approved $50 million in funding for this 

program last year, a 40 percent increase above the President’s request. We appreciate the subcommittee’s efforts. 

THE PROBLEM

Unfortunately, the resources available to fund diesel retrofits far exceeds the demand. The best example of this is what has happened with the Clean School Bus 

USA program. During the first 3 years of the program, 292 grant applications for 

a total of $106 million were submitted to EPA. Because of funding constraints, only 

72 awards were made from the 292 applications, a 25 percent grant rate. In terms 

of funding, only $17.3 million was awarded from the $106 million requested, a 16 

percent success rate. 

This shortfall affected much of the country, and especially the States represented 

on this subcommittee. For example, applicants from the 17 States represented on 

the subcommittee filed 92 grant applications with EPA under the first 3 years of 

the school bus program and only 22 (or 24 percent) were funded. These grant requests amounted to a total of $32.1 million, of which $4.2 (or 13 percent) was funded. 

OUR REQUEST

In light of this strong demand for funding, we respectfully request that the subcommittee increase the level of funding for DERA above the amount requested by 

the President. The President proposed $49.2 million. We urge the subcommittee to 
318 

5See ECTA comments (February 20, 2007) in Federal Highway Addministration Docket No 

FHWA-2006-26383, http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/454896.pdf, http://dmses.dot.gov/ 

docimages/p89/454899.pdf 6 Ibid, Table 4, p.10, http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/454896.pdf 

7See Supra, Note 4. 

increase funding for DERA by the same proportion that it did last year, that is, by 

40 percent to a total of $70 million for fiscal year 2009. Last year, the President 

requested $35 million and the subcommittee appropriated $50 million, a 40 percent 

increase. 

RATIONALE

We believe that this proposed increased level of funding is reasonable and appropriate for several reasons. First, it is fully consistent with the action taken by the 

Subcommittee last year when you increased DERA funding by 40 percent above the 

President’s request. 

Second, the demand for funding to purchase diesel retrofits far exceeds the supply 

of funds, as witnessed by our experience with the Clean School Bus USA program. 

Third, the money will be well spent because diesel retrofits have been proven to 

be one of the most cost-effective emission reduction strategies. Studies have shown 

that emission reduction strategies which involve the use of diesel retrofit technology 

can, in almost every case analyzed, achieve the lowest cost-per-ton of emissions reduced compared to a long list to other strategies for reducing emissions from the 

transportation sector.5 For example, installing a diesel particulate filter on a Class 

7 heavy duty truck is 15 times more cost-effective than replacing a conventional bus 

and 46 times more cost-effective than building an HOV lane.6

Fourth, spending on diesel retrofits generates a substantial return on an investment of 13 to 1. When DERA was enacted, EPA estimated that, if fully implemented, the program would generate $20 billion of economic and health benefit for 

$1.5 billion of cost. This cost includes both the Federal funding of $1 billion and anticipated State and private sector matching of $500 million. In other words, for 

every dollar of government money spent $13 of economic and health benefit would 

be generated.7

Fifth, because DERA sets aside 30 percent of its funds for a State Grant Program, 

it can be used to help States bring their air quality in to conformity with Federal 

standards for particulate matter. Moreover, by providing additional Federal monies 

to States that match the DERA funds, the DERA State Grant program provides incentives to States to more proactively address diesel emissions in their region. 

Finally, there is a very broad base of support for DERA and a level of funding 

for the program that far exceeds the President’s request. From the beginning, DERA 

enjoyed strong support from both sides of the aisle in Congress and from the entire 

range of private interests and non-profit public interest groups. As evidence of this, 

more than 250 businesses, associations, and environmental groups cosigned a letter 

asking the President to fully fund DERA in fiscal year 2009. Few environmental 

programs enjoy such widespread support. 

STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY GRANTS

We would also like to endorse the request for increased funding to support State 

and local air quality grants that is being requested by the National Association of 

Clean Air Agencies (NACAA). State and local governments hold primary responsibility for preventing and controlling air pollution. They rely on grants to carry out 

their core obligations under the Clean Air Act, including monitoring air quality, assessing emissions impacts, permitting and inspecting sources, and enforcing environmental regulations. 

Unfortunately, because of funding constraints, the State and air quality agencies 

grants have been on the decline. Last year, the grants were funded at $216 million 

and the President has proposed reducing funding to $185.6 million in fiscal year 

2009. We urge the subcommittee to increase funding for these grants to $270 million, the level being proposed by NACAA. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony to the subcommittee. 

We urge you to fund DERA at $70 million for fiscal year 2009 because it consistent 

with the proportional increase adopted by the subcommittee last year and will result 

in the most cost-effective use of Federal funds to achieve emission reductions from 

the transportation sector. 
319 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES COALITION

On behalf of the undersigned organizations and the millions of members we represent nationwide, we urge you to fully fund programs of the Endangered Species 

Act at the levels outlined below during the fiscal year 2009 appropriations process. 

The Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, plants and fish that are 

on the brink of extinction. The act has been successful in preventing the extinction 

of many of our Nation’s species, including Bald Eagles, Peregrine Falcons, wolves, 

grizzly bears and wild salmon. In today’s era of global warming, it is needed more 

than ever. However, for years the Endangered Species Act has been under funded, 

making it increasingly difficult for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service experts to 

carry out their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. The funding levels outlined below are designed to be the first step in addressing this problem over 

the next 5 years. 

CORE ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTIONS

The four Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species operating accounts are key 

to effective implementation of the Endangered Species Act. All four program areas 

are currently experiencing at least a 30 percent staffing shortage due to budget constraints, an unacceptable vacancy rate. To adequately implement the endangered 

species program, a total of at least $305.8 million is needed for the four main accounts by 2013, an increase of $155 million over fiscal year 2008. 

Listing.—This account funds the protection of new plants and animals under the 

Endangered Species Act, as well as habitat critical to recovery. Currently, more 

than 280 species sit on the candidate waiting list for protection, creating an estimated backlog of more than $160 million. Candidate species wait an average of 19 

years to be listed and since 1975, 64 have gone extinct while waiting—seven times 

the number that have disappeared under the full protection of the ESA. To eliminate this backlog over the next 5 years, we request a $7.2 million increase this year 

for a fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $25.2 million. 

Recovery.—While the Endangered Species Act has been extremely successful at 

preventing wildlife from going extinct, the purpose of the act is to protect and recover endangered and threatened fish, plants and wildlife. It is difficult to estimate 

the true needs for the recovery program—current estimates place it at approximately $100 million. The conservation community would like to see the recovery 

program funded at no less than $121.6 million by 2013 (the increased level over 

$100 million accounts for fixed costs increases needed over that time period) therefore, we request recovery be funded at $84.8 million for fiscal year 2009 as a first 

step, an increase of $13.8 million. 

Consultation.—The consultation program is an important part of the checks and 

balances system to ensure that endangered fish, wildlife, and plants are protected 

on the ground. There has been a dramatic increase in demand for consultations recently, jumping from 40,000 in 1999 to 67,000 in 2006. Shortage of personnel in this 

program area causes delays of project reviews thus creating conflicts between agencies. The consultation budget also funds the Service’s work with non-federal entities 

for permitting and development of Habitat Conservation Plans; lack of funding prevents the Fish and Wildlife Service from ensuring that these plans are properly developed, implemented and monitored. To adequately implement the consultation 

program would require an overall program budget of $122.4 million by 2013. We request $63.2 million for fiscal year 2009, an increase of $11.4 million. 

Candidate Conservation.—This program protects species before they are actually 

listed, thus in theory averting the need to ever list them at all. As mentioned above 

though, fish, plants and wildlife on the candidate list go extinct at a much higher 

rate than those with full protection—in part because of severe understaffing for this 

program. A doubling of this program’s staff is justified to ensure adequate implementation. This would require $25.4 million. The conservation community again requests this increase be accomplished over the next 5 years and, therefore, requests 

the program be funded at $12 million for fiscal year 2009, an increase of $2.3 million over fiscal year 2008 levels. 

ADDITIONAL ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTIONS

Cooperative Endangered Species Fund.—This fund provides grants to States for 

wildlife and habitat conservation activities on non-Federal lands for listed and candidate species. At least 65 percent of federally listed species are found on non-Federal land. Without the proposed increases States will fall further behind in their 

ability to independently work to protect at risk species. Crucial conservation activities funded by these grants include: research, species status surveys, habitat res-
320 

toration, captive propagation and reintroduction, planning assistance, and land acquisition by States for Habitat Conservation Plans and recovery. To adequately fund 

State endangered species conservation activities a total of at least $160 million is 

needed by 2013. We therefore request an increase of $22.4 million this year for a 

total appropriation of $96.2 million in fiscal year 2009. 

Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship Grants.—These grants provide 

funding for voluntary conservation actions taken by landowners to conserve at-risk 

plants and animals on private lands, which benefits us all. The Landowner Incentive program awards competitive grants to state and tribal conservation agencies for 

their work with private landowners and tribal lands, while the Private Stewardship 

program provides funding directly to individuals and groups implementing private 

land conservation actions. In 2007, funding was awarded to efforts in 46 States. Regrettably, neither program was funded in the fiscal year 2008 Interior appropriations bill due to budget constraints; these important programs should be re-started 

in fiscal year 2009. The demonstrated need for these programs has far outstripped 

available funding in the past—the amount requested for worthy projects on average 

totaled two to three times the yearly available funding. To support private landowners in their voluntary conservation efforts, a gradual increase to $77 million is 

needed by fiscal year 2013 in these two incentive programs. We request that these 

programs be restored to their fiscal year 2007 levels of $23.7 million for the private 

landowner and tribal lands grants and $7.3 million for the stewardship grants. 

However, while these voluntary incentives programs are important for the recovery 

of our Nation’s imperiled species, they should not be funded at the expense of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s core endangered species programs. 

BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Management.—The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) controls habitat that supports more than 300 federally listed 

or candidate species. This program, along with their Fisheries and Wildlife Management program, funds inventory and monitoring, habitat restoration, endangered 

species recovery, and other proactive conservation activities vital to maintaining 

healthy, functioning ecosystems and fish, wildlife, and plant populations. Recently, 

an average of 30 percent of these funds have been used to pay for the compliance 

activities of the BLM’s energy, grazing, and other non-wildlife related programs. 

Traditionally, funding for compliance work has come from benefiting programs. In 

addition, the programs are substantially understaffed. For example, the BLM has 

only one biologist per 591,000 acres of land, and more than $60 million is needed 

annually just to implement actions assigned to BLM in recovery plans for listed species. In addition to restoring the funds diverted to benefit other program areas, we 

request an increase of $7.6 million in fiscal year 2009 to begin meeting this program’s needs, for a total appropriation of $29.9 million in fiscal year 2009. 

The Endangered Species Act is a broadly supported law and has been very successful in preventing extinctions. But without the necessary funding, the act’s true 

goal of restoring endangered species to healthy populations will be much more difficult to accomplish. We ask you, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, to 

fully fund Endangered Species Act programs this year. Thank you. 

American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Endangered Species Coalition, National Wildlife Federation, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Wildlife Alliance of Maine, and Xerces Society 

for Invertebrate Conservation. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES RELATED FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2009 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2008 enacted 

POTUS fiscal year 2009 rec- ommendation (vs. 

enacted) 

Green budget 

proposal 1

Green budget 

compared to fiscal year 2008 enacted 

Candidate Conservation ............................................. $9,731 $8,659 

(¥1,072 ) 

$12,000 $2,269 

Listing ......................................................................... 17,978 18,188 

(∂210 ) 

25,200 7,222 

Consultation ................................................................ 51,758 51,577 

(¥181 ) 

63,200 11,442 

Recovery ...................................................................... 71,041 68,417 

(¥2,624 ) 

84,800 13,759 
321 

ENDANGERED SPECIES RELATED FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2008 enacted 

POTUS fiscal year 2009 rec- ommendation (vs. 

enacted) 

Green budget 

proposal 1

Green budget 

compared to fiscal year 2008 enacted 

Eco Services Total ......................................... 150,508 146,841 

(¥3,667 ) 

185,200 34,692 

Cooperative Endangered Species Fund ...................... 73,831 75,501 

(∂1,670 ) 

96,200 22,369 

Landowner Incentive Grants ....................................... ........................ .......................... 23,700 ( 2 ) 

Private Stewardship Grants ........................................ ........................ .......................... 7,300 ( 2 ) 

BLM Threatened & Endangered Species Mgmt .......... 22,302 20,582 

(¥1,720 ) 

29,900 7,598 

1 The Green Budget is endorsed by 21 conservation and environmental organizations and designed to help assist appropriators with meeting 

America’s most pressing environmental needs. 2 Equal to fiscal year 2007 levels. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF THE STATES

In this document, the States respectfully submit their budget proposal for the portion of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s budget that supports States, 

tribes, and local governments, the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). 

States request $3.867 billion for these purposes. These funds are used for categorical 

grants and infrastructure support. 

The States request $1.219 billion for 24 categorical program grants for State and 

tribal governments. 

We request $2.648 billion for infrastructure support to be spent on wastewater, 

drinking water, Brownfields, and other environmental infrastructure needed to meet 

the goals of the core environmental statutes. 

The States are integral partners and co-regulators with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) in the implementation of the Nation’s environmental laws. 

States in fact conduct most of the permitting, enforcement, inspections, monitoring, 

and data collection required by those laws on EPA’s behalf. To assist the States, 

Congress provides a portion of the States’ costs through EPA’s budget in STAG. 

Additionally, Congress provides Federal funding to capitalize vital water and 

wastewater infrastructure needs. 

Unfortunately, EPA has once again proposed cuts for support of the States’ work 

on its behalf. These cuts reduce STAG to the levels received in 1998—over 10 years 

ago. During the period 2000–2009 EPA has asked (or is asking) the States to implement about 400 new rules with a ‘‘State or local impact.’’ These are significant rules 

that are discussed in hearings before Congress, written about by the press, and for 

which the public is counting on States to do the job entrusted to them by Congress. 

EPA has asked States to participate in its budget development for the last 3 

years, and ECOS did so in the development of the administration’s budget as it was 

being worked on in 2007. Unfortunately, our recommendations, such as those presented herein, were not heeded. 

The proposed cuts threaten to undermine the States’ ability to provide the environmental protection mandated by Congress. We ask Congress, on behalf of the citizens of our States, not to accept the President’s recommendations for STAG, but instead to give consideration to this proposal. 

This year, we also ask Congress to prohibit EPA from the pernicious practice seen 

in recent EPA budget proposals in which the agency interferes with the States’ ability to exercise its obligations by stipulating that funds must be spent on specific activities. Examples of this include the so-called ‘‘Permit Fees Rule,’’ the 106 setasides for ‘‘probabilistic monitoring’’ and the proposal to prohibit States from using 

the ‘‘State bond match’’ for the revolving loan funds. Most of these EPA requests 

have been restricted by Congress in report language, which the agency then interprets to its liking and, in our opinion, thwarts the clear will of Congress in the process. 

The States’ budget proposal is based on three primary principles: 

1. In times of fiscal crisis, when resources are in short supply, the core mandated 

environmental programs funded through STAG, including infrastructure capitalization, must be funded first; 
322 

2. Reductions in EPA’s budget, if they must occur, should be shared proportionately by EPA and the States after STAG levels are returned to their 2004 levels; 

and 

3. States should be afforded the flexibility to run their core programs in a manner 

that will obtain the highest level of attainment with the standards set by Congress 

and EPA without undue hindrance from EPA, but within its oversight responsibilities. 

ECOS’ budget does not propose cuts for the non-STAG portions of EPA’s budget. 

1. EPA staffing can remain intact as presented in the President’s 2009 budget 

proposal. 

2. No non-STAG programs need be eliminated beyond those described in the 

President’s 2009 budget proposal. 

3. No decrease in protection of human health or the environment will result—in 

fact, it will be improved. 

ECOS is prepared to present additional details and suggestions as requested, including in testimony on any hearings as might be held on the President’s budget 

proposal. 
323 

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Programs 

Fiscal year 

ECOS’ 

proposal 

2009 

Brief rationale 

Percent change 

2004 

enacted 

2008 

enacted 

(2008 enacted 

to 2009 

proposal) 

(2004 enacted 

to 2009 

proposal) 

Highest Priority 

State and Local Air Quality Management ................................ $237,297 $216,825 $270,300 Increase for new requirements and inflation ........................................... 24.7 13.9 Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) ................................. 101,904 97,554 124,404 Increase for new requirements and inflation ........................................... 27.5 22.1 Brownfields CG .......................................................................... 50,000 48,723 50,000 Increase for inflation ................................................................................. 2.6 ....................Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance .................................... 103,689 101,734 103,768 Increase to meet requirements and inflation ........................................... 2.0 0.1 Underground Storage Tanks 1 ................................................... 11,725 2,461 2,510 Increase for inflation ................................................................................. 2.0 ¥78.6 Nonpoint Source (sec. 319) ...................................................... 241,542 200,857 204,874 Increase for inflation ................................................................................. 2.0 ¥15.2 Pollution Control (sec. 106) ...................................................... 202,937 218,206 270,300 Increase for new requirements and inflation ........................................... 23.9 33.2 

Moderate Priority 

Environmental Information ........................................................ 19,474 9,844 10,000 Increase to meet requirements and inflation ........................................... 1.6 ¥48.7 Beaches Protection .................................................................... 8,826 9,746 9,746 Same as previous year .............................................................................. .................... 10.4 Homeland Security .................................................................... 4,051 4,873 7,000 Assists states in dealing with ‘‘all hazards’’ approach, as opposed to 

past practice of ‘‘biohazards’’ only, and new directives and EPA requirements.

43.7 72.8 

Lead ........................................................................................... 14,100 13,352 13,352 Same as previous year .............................................................................. .................... ¥5.3 Pesticides Enforcement ............................................................. 19,776 18,419 18,419 Same as previous year .............................................................................. .................... ¥6.9 Toxics Substances Compliance ................................................. 5,036 5,019 5,019 Same as previous year .............................................................................. .................... ¥0.3 Pesticides Program Implementation ......................................... 13,225 12,768 12,768 Same as previous year .............................................................................. .................... ¥3.5 Pollution Prevention .................................................................. 6,150 4,863 4,863 Same as previous year .............................................................................. .................... ¥20.9 Radon ........................................................................................ 8,062 7,948 7,948 Same as previous year .............................................................................. .................... ¥1.4 Tribal Air Quality Management ................................................. 12,385 10,769 10,769 Same as previous year .............................................................................. .................... ¥13.0 Tribal General Assistance Program .......................................... 62,196 56,037 56,037 Same as previous year .............................................................................. .................... ¥9.9 Unnderground Injection Control (UIC) ....................................... 10,800 10,721 10,721 Same as previous year .............................................................................. .................... ¥0.7 Water Quality Cooperative Agreements ..................................... 16,608 .................... 9,844 For program as described in statute ........................................................ n/a 40.7 Wetlands Program Development ............................................... 17,110 16,567 16,567 Same as previous year .............................................................................. .................... ¥3.2 

Low Priority 

Wastewater Operator Training .................................................. .................... .................... .................... Eliminated .................................................................................................. .................... ....................Sector Program .......................................................................... 1,838 1,209 .................... Eliminated .................................................................................................. ¥100.0 ¥100.0 Targeted Watersheds ................................................................. 7,472 9,844 .................... Eliminated in favor of WQCA above ......................................................... ¥100.0 ¥100.0 
324 

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Programs 

Fiscal year 

ECOS’ 

proposal 

2009 

Brief rationale 

Percent change 

2004 

enacted 

2008 

enacted 

(2008 enacted 

to 2009 

proposal) 

(2004 enacted 

to 2009 

proposal) 

Subtotal, Categorical Grants ....................................... 1,176,203 1,078,339 1,219,211 13.1 3.7 

Highest Priority 

Clean Water SRF ....................................................................... 1,397,785 689,080 1,500,000 Increase to address gap issues ................................................................ 117.7 7.3 Drinking Water SRF ................................................................... 881,524 829,029 1,000,000 Increase to address gap issues ................................................................ 20.6 13.4 

Moderate Priority 

Brownfields Projects .................................................................. 87,380 93,518 93,518 Same as last year ..................................................................................... .................... 7.0 Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program ............................. .................... 49,220 .................... ECOS suggests this cost item be moved to the EPM account, as EPA 

controls the majority of these funds, not States. ECOS supports full funding of this program as part of the EPM budget.

¥100.0 ....................

Congressional Priorities (STAG Infrastructure Grants) 2 ........... 263,524 132,894 .................... ( 2 ) ¥100.0 ¥100.0 Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages ................... 37,434 24,610 24,610 Previous year; no recommendation ........................................................... .................... ¥34.3 Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border ................................. 64,846 19,688 19,688 Previous year; no recommendation ........................................................... .................... ¥69.6 CA Reduction Project Grants .................................................... .................... 9,844 9,844 Previous year; no recommendation ........................................................... .................... n/a 

Subtotal, Infrastructure ............................................... 2,732,493 1,847,883 2,647,660 43.3 3.1 Total, all items ............................................................ 3,908,696 2,926,223 3,866,871 32.1 ¥1.1 

1 In the 2008 budget, a substantial amount of the funding for this program was shifted to the LUST Trust Fund. We recommend retaining that approach with the same $31 million in the UST fund for UST Grants as last year. 2 These are included here as part of the CW SRF funds. ECOS follows EPA’s practice of not budgeting these, but we do not oppose the use of Congressional Priorities. 2004 data is presented as a comparison because it was the most recent peak year of funding. All figures are post-rescission, including 2008. These are actual-year dollars, not adjusted. 
325 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

I am Karen R. Diver, Chairwoman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa. Thank you for considering our testimony on fiscal year 2009 Appropriations. Our Tribe occupies a 100,000 acre reservation in northeastern Minnesota. It 

is part of our aboriginal homeland and was established by Treaty in 1854. We provide health, education, social and other governmental services to 6,500 Indian people living on or near our Reservation. We are deeply concerned that the President’s 

budget would cut funding for programs that are essential to our ability to educate 

our children, care for our elderly and infirm, prevent crime, and protect and manage 

natural resources. We urge Congress to restore or increase the funding for these 

critical programs. 

BIE: Education.—The Fond du Lac Band depends on BIE funding for the operation of the Band’s Ojibwe School. We oppose the President’s proposed $25.6 million 

reduction to funding for BIE programs as they are contrary to the government’s 

trust responsibilities for the education of Indian people. The proposed cuts simply 

cannot be reconciled with the President’s stated goal of closing the education 

achievement gap for Indian students. Nor can those cuts be reconciled with the 

BIE’s own findings that for the past 3 years, 60 percent of BIE-funded schools have 

failed to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind 

Act and that student performance at BIE-funded schools is lower than that for students at public schools. As Indian students are the most at-risk group of students 

in our Nation, funding for Indian education must not be further reduced. These programs should be funded at no less than fiscal year 2008 levels. 

The proposed cuts include a drastic reduction in Education Program Enhancements even though, as BIE points out, this funding is used for teacher training, 

strengthening math and reading skills, tutoring and mentoring, which BIE-funded 

schools need if they are to achieve AYP. The proposed cuts also include a reduction 

in Early Childhood Development, even though, as BIE again recognizes, early childhood education continues to be a very effective investment providing comprehensive 

reading skills that prepare our American Indian students to become successful 

learners. The proposed cuts also include the complete elimination of the Johnson 

O’Malley program. Restoration of this funding is essential as JOM is critical to sustaining Native language and cultural education in public schools serving Indian students. With the demands of achieving the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act, 

it becomes more important to integrate our native culture and teachings into the 

school curriculum. Not funding JOM will jeopardize the public schools’ ability to do 

this. 

The President’s proposal would also reduce funds for student transportation, even 

though steadily increasing fuel costs and an already inadequate funding level have 

severely handicapped our ability to provide safe and reliable transportation to our 

students. In addition, the President would cut Education Construction from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. We urge Congress to appropriate funds to support the 

new construction projects currently being funded, and ask that the proposed reduction ($27.6 million) be restored and allocated to facilities improvement and repair 

so that we can extend the lives of the buildings and ensure that that they are safe. 

BIA: Public Safety and Justice.—While we support the administration’s Safe Indian Communities Initiative, the funding proposed for this still falls very far short 

of what is needed and should be increased. We also ask that Congress increase the 

Band’s base funding by $1.5 million for court operations and law enforcement, and 

provide a one-time appropriation of $6 million to allow us to expand the facility that 

houses our law enforcement and natural resources departments but which is inadequate for those purposes. 

The Fond du Lac Band faces massive unmet needs for law enforcement. We had 

to assume responsibility for law enforcement after the Minnesota Supreme Court 

ruled that the State did not have jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws on roads within 

Indian reservations, State v. Stone, 572 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 1997). We have done 

this using a combination of tribal and Federal funds (made available through the 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs), and by cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies. But 

because of the insurgence of methamphetamine, alcohol, illegal prescription drug 

use, and gang-related activities on our Reservation our law enforcement responsibilities continue to grow. In 2007, our police responded to over 4,000 calls, more than 

any prior year. Prescription drug abuse is becoming an epidemic, with increasing 

numbers of our elders and others the victims of more frequent assaults, burglaries 

and robberies that are prescription drug related. We also face increasing numbers 

of juvenile offenses involving drugs, alcohol, thefts, assaults and burglaries. 
326 

To address these problems, we need to increase our law enforcement staff so that 

we can station police officers in specific locations, such as near elderly housing, and 

ensure effective law enforcement coverage 24/7. But we do not have the funds to 

do this. We currently employ 13 officers and 3 administrative staff. Two officers are 

assigned to needed day shift duties, a School Resource Officer (to try and stem the 

tide of juvenile crime), and an investigator. Officers work 12-hour shifts. We try to 

maintain at least two officers for each night shift and two on the weekend day and 

night shifts. Ultimately, for officer safety and timely responses, we should schedule 

three officers per shift around the clock. However, lack of funding prevents us from 

meeting this goal. As such, there are times when only one officer is on duty to cover 

the entire Reservation. With officer backup from other agencies as far as a 20–30 

minute drive, this becomes a serious safety issue for both officers and the people 

we need to protect. Our limited staff also means that we are handicapped in our 

ability to implement pro-active measures, such as youth education and outreach programs, and assistance to the clinics in developing means for identifying and preventing prescription drug abuse. We need 15 to 20 officers, but this requires funding 

which we do not have. 

Federal funding is also vital for law enforcement equipment. Our ability to effectively address crime requires that we periodically upgrade patrol cars including 

SUV 4×4 vehicles to respond to remote areas within our Reservation. Other equipment is needed as well. For example, because the Band does not own an intoxilyzer, 

our officers must transport persons arrested for DWI on our Reservation an hour 

each way to the St. Louis County Jail for DWI processing—pulling our limited number of officers away from other responsibilities for long periods of time. In addition, 

while we recently accessed the on-line law enforcement reporting system (NEMISIS 

SHEILDS) which serves seven area counties, it will cost us $400 per year per officer 

to use that system—a cost not previously budgeted. Further, to make effective use 

of this system, we should have a secure T–1 line (rather than the current key-fob 

system), but we do not have the funds ($20,000) for this. We also need substantial 

additional funds to buy new digital car radios and software to integrate the Band’s 

dispatching system with the more advanced system being adopted by the counties. 

Finally, we need a new facility for our law enforcement department. The department is now housed in a 6-room building which has no room for investigative interviews, nor office space for specialty positions such as investigators and school resource officers. The evidence room, reception area, and parking lot are all inadequate, and because of the building’s age, staff must double-up phone lines. A new 

building is essential. 

We also urge Congress to increase Tribal Court funding. As the demands on the 

Band’s law enforcement have grown, so too has our Tribal Court docket. While the 

President, in his budget, recognizes that Tribal Courts are unable to meet needs, 

his proposed cut to Tribal Court funding will only make matters worse. Modest increases for Law Enforcement Programs should not come at the expense of a reduction in funds for historically under-funded Tribal Courts. 

BIA: Natural Resources.—We urge Congress to reject the President’s proposal to 

cut funding for Natural Resources Management but to instead increase funds for 

these programs. Related to the Band’s law enforcement work are the Band’s responsibilities for enforcing conservation laws that protect natural resources and regulate 

Band members who hunt, fish and gather those resources within and outside the 

Reservation pursuant to rights reserved under Treaties with the United States. The 

Band is responsible for enforcing regulations over approximately 8,000,000 acres in 

northern and central Minnesota. Funding is essential for that work, as well as for 

the Band’s management of natural resources both on and off-reservation. These resources provide the foundation for our culture, subsistence, employment and recreation. We request that $1.5 million to be added to our base budget for Resource 

Management programs, as funds for this program have not been increased since 

1991. 

BIA: Natural Resources, Circle of Flight.—We ask Congress to restore the Circle 

of Flight Wetland/Waterfowl Enhancement Program to at least fiscal year 2008 levels and to consider providing $1,000,000 to cover actual program needs. Circle of 

Flight has been one of Interior’s top trust resource programs since its inception. 

Through this program, Great Lakes Tribes have restored or enhanced more than 

66,000 wetland, grassland and native prairie acres. Circle of Flight has invested 

more than $9.7 million in habitat projects, and has leveraged these dollars for an 

additional $27 million in Federal, State, private, and tribal funding, yielding an impressive match ratio of nearly 3 to 1. Because of the importance of wild rice to our 

members and to the wildlife of the area, Fond du Lac has used these funds to restore over 200 acres of wild rice habitat and has identified another 550 acres of wild 

rice habitat that is restorable given adequate funding. 
327 

BIA: Human Services.—We urge Congress to reject the administration’s proposal 

to decrease Human Services funding. Although the President, in the proposed budget recognizes the need to increase funding for social services to address the impact 

that the methamphetamine epidemic has on not only public health and safety, but 

also child protection, child welfare and foster care services, his proposed modest increase for social service funding is far too little, and most certainly should not be 

offset by reductions in funding for the BIA’s welfare assistance, Indian Child Welfare Act, and Housing Improvement programs. If Tribes are to have any realistic 

hope of protecting Indian children, preventing domestic violence, and fostering Indian families in the face of this crisis, funding for Social Services and ICWA programs must be increased. 

Indian Health Service.—We oppose the President’s proposal to decrease total 

funding for Indian Health Services by $21 million from the fiscal year 2008 enacted 

level. While the proposed budget includes small increases for clinical health services, contract health care, preventive care and contract support costs, those only 

bring funding to pre-rescission fiscal year 2008 levels and still fail to address the 

high rates of medical inflation and the substantial unmet need for health care 

among Indian people. Indians at Fond du Lac, like Indians throughout the Nation, 

continue to face disproportionately higher rates of diabetes and the complications 

associated with diabetes, than the rest of the population. Heart disease, cancer, obesity, chemical dependency and mental health problems are also prevalent among our 

people. As found by Minnesota Department of Health, in its Populations of Color 

Health Status Report for 2007, diabetes among Indians is 5 times that for Caucasians; infant mortality among Indians is more than twice that for Caucasians and 

higher than that for any ethnic group; and Indians are more likely than any ethnic 

group to die from cancer, cirrhosis, diabetes, and suicide. While other Federal programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, have seen annual increases in funding of 5–10 

percent to address inflation, the budget for IHS has never had comparable increases, and, as a result, IHS programs have consistently fallen short of meeting 

the actual needs. All Indian tribes should receive 100 percent of the Level of Need 

Formula (LNF), which is absolutely critical for tribes to address the serious and persistent health issues that confront our communities. The Band serves approximately 

5,900 Indian people at our clinics, but the current funding level meets only 38 percent of our health care funding needs. In addition, the Band requests an increase 

in funding for substance abuse and mental health programs in order to combat the 

growing methamphetamine problem on our Reservation. 

EPA: Tribal Air Quality Management.—We support the President’s proposal to increase funding for Tribal air quality management, and urge Congress not to offset 

this by cuts to other environmental programs. We operate an air quality monitoring 

program, and the demands on our program are increasing as industrial activity continues to grow. There are a number of major facilities within 60 miles of our Reservation that affect our air quality and which we must monitor—including Excelsior 

Energy (a coal-gasification plant), Minnesota Steel (new taconite plant), Polymet 

(Cu-Ni mine), Enbridge pipeline expansion, Mittal Steel (taconite plant issues), and 

U.S. Steel-Keetac (taconite mine expansion)—as well as smaller local facilities which 

also impact regional haze. We collect wet deposition samples to test for mercury and 

operate ambient monitors for nitrous oxides, ozone, and fine particulate matter. And 

Fond du Lac is only one Tribe. Many other tribes face the same issues. Because of 

the critical need to protect reservation air quality, increased funding for tribal air 

quality programs is essential. 

In conclusion, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian Country remain 

massive. Your support on these funding issues is essential to our ability to maintain 

vitally important programs and improve the delivery of services to Band members. 

Miigwech. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of an important land acquisition funding 

need at Virgin Islands National Park. An appropriation of $4.5 million from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is requested in fiscal year 2009 to 

begin Park Service acquisition of the unique Maho Bay property. 

I represent the Friends of VI National Park, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, 

dedicated to the protection and preservation of the natural and cultural resources 

of Virgin Islands National Park and to promoting the responsible enjoyment of this 

unique national treasure. We have more than 3,000 members—20 percent of whom 

live in the Virgin Islands and the balance represent every state in the union. 
328 

We carry on the rich tradition of using private philanthropy for the betterment 

of this park as well as mobilize volunteers and community participation. In our 19 

years of work in support of Virgin Islands National Park we have been involved in 

many initiatives, projects and activities that help this park be a model of natural 

resource protection and cultural preservation—but none have been as important as 

our work in support of the acquisition of Estate Maho Bay and its incorporation 

within the park. 

We have played the important role of informing and motivating the community 

about the issues related to the preservation of Estate Maho Bay. But motivation 

was hardly needed; the preservation of Estate Maho Bay and ensuring unimpeded 

access to this spectacular area enjoys near unanimous support among native St. 

Johnians, residents who have moved here from mainland United States and visitors 

alike—no easy feat for a community that prides itself in its diversity of opinions. 

Virgin Islands National Park, located on the island of St. John, is a tropical paradise preserved for the enjoyment and edification of the public. Beautiful white sand 

beaches, protected bays of crystal blue-green waters, coral reefs rich in colorful 

aquatic life, and an on-shore environment filled with a breathtaking variety of 

plants and birds make St. John a magical place. More than 800 species of trees, 

shrubs, and flowers are found in the park, and more than 30 species of tropical 

birds breed on the island, which was designated an international Biosphere Reserve 

by the United Nations in 1976. St. John is also home to two species of endangered 

sea turtles, the hawksbill and the green. In addition, the park contains archeological 

sites indicating settlement by Indians as early as 770 B.C. The later colonial history 

of St. John is also represented by remnants of the plantations and sugar mills established by the Danes in the 18th and 19th centuries. 

One of St. John’s most popular eco-campgrounds sits on a cliff overlooking Maho 

Bay and its pristine white sand beaches. The bay’s campgrounds create memorable 

vacations in the beautiful setting of St. John without sacrificing the delicate ecosystem of the island. Few places on earth match the breathtaking beauty of Maho 

Bay. A lush forested slope rising nearly 1,000 feet rims its crystal waters and soft 

white beaches. Hundreds of tropical plant species and more than 50 species of tropical birds fill these lands on the island of St. John, at the heart of the American 

paradise of Virgin Islands National Park. Just offshore are seagrass beds, green turtles and magnificent coral reefs. This fragile area contains large nesting colonies of 

brown pelicans, as well as the migratory warblers and terns that winter on St. 

John. In addition to its natural treasures, the largest concentration of historic plantations and ruins on the island is found within this area. 

Available within the Virgin Islands National Park boundaries in fiscal year 2009 

is the first phase of a 207-acre acquisition at Maho Bay. This Maho Bay property 

offers spectacular views of the bay and includes some beachfront. It is extremely important because of their relationship to the whole undeveloped area and its cultural 

resources. What most people do not know about this property is that it is not owned 

by the park, even though it has every appearance of being so. 

Though the park boundaries cover a broad area of St. John, the National Park 

Service actually owns two separated blocks of land. A smaller block covers the 

northeastern shore of the island, and a larger, more contiguous block extends from 

the southern to northwestern side. The Maho Bay property is what divides these 

two section of the park and its acquisition would be the first step in linking these 

two blocks, ensuring future access, resource connectivity, and seaside protection. 

Wetlands in the lower portion of the watershed provide adequate sediment retention for the undeveloped nature of this area. As a result of long-term geological processes, the topography created by these processes and the historical rise of sea level 

during the past 5,000 years, a large, rare and complicated freshwater dominated 

wetland developed throughout the basin. It represents a natural stage wetland typical of large watersheds with relatively flat basin topography. The Maho Bay wetland is the largest of this type on St. John and along with the Magens Bay wetland 

on St. Thomas, one of only a few of this type in the Territory. These wetlands provide habitat to numerous species of shorebirds, water fowl and other wildlife, several listed as endangered under the V.I. Endangered and Indigenous Species Act. 

Others are protected under various federal laws and treaties. 

To the people who live on St. John—both native St. Johnians and those who have 

chosen to make St. John their home, and the millions of visitors who come annually 

to experience and enjoy this remarkable place, Maho beach is the most accessible 

beach on the island and one of the most popular. Due to its close proximity to the 

road, the nearly flat beach and the shallow water it is particularly popular with 

families with small children, people with mobility concerns, non-swimmers and, of 

course, those who just love a beautiful beach. 
329 

The land was historically used during the plantation era for agricultural activities 

such as sugar cane, coconut, and cotton cultivation. The lands included in the Phase 

I area include portions of several historic plantation era sugar estates. The Maho 

Bay area contains the highest density of plantation era estates on St. John. Preservation of these sites is important in reconstructing the history and heritage of St. 

John. With increasing growth and investment throughout the Caribbean—including 

places not far from the unspoiled beauty of St. John—this vulnerable land has been 

the focus of intense development threats. In recent years, more than one investor 

envisioned private development along these shores, which would have jeopardized 

the natural and cultural resources of the Maho Bay area and access to the beach. 

The total estimated fair market value of the 207 acres is $18.6 million. This property is being made available to the National Park Service for a total of $9 million 

over 2 years, with the balance to be provided through private donations of cash and 

land value. This year, an appropriation of $4.5 million is needed from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund toward the purchase of the first phase (105 acres) of these 

valuable lands. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 

Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2009. 

Madam Chairman and distinguished committee members, I want to thank you for 

this opportunity to testify on behalf of this important national protection effort in 

Virgin Islands National Park. The protection of Maho Bay has spurred great interest on St. John and in the Virgin Islands because of the multiple scenic, cultural, 

historic, and ecologic values it holds. On behalf of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park and the over one million visitors to the Park each year, I appreciate 

your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FORT RIVER PARTNERSHIP

Madame Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you for 

the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $2.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire the 66-acre Zuckerman 

property at Silvio Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge in Massachusetts. 

The Fort River Partnership coordinates the work of Federal, State, and nonprofit 

partners to protect wildlife habitat, working farms, and water quality in the Fort 

River region of the Connecticut River valley in Massachusetts. As president of the 

Kestrel Trust, a nine town regional land trust, I strongly support the efforts of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the Fort River Division of the Conte 

NFWR through land acquisitions that protect grassland bird habitat along and near 

the Fort River. 

This project is one of many worthy acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF 

funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by 

about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from 

willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified as 

necessary to the protection and enhancement of recreational access, historic sites, 

wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. I urge 

the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal year 2009. 

Silvio O. Conte was a conservationist, fisherman, and champion of the Connecticut River. From 1959 until his death in 1991, he served as a U.S. Representative for Massachusetts’ 1st District. Just before he died, Congressman Conte introduced legislation to establish a unique national wildlife refuge in the Connecticut 

River watershed, and his congressional colleagues paid tribute to his conservation 

legacy by authorizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to establish the 

Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge in 1991. 

The refuge protects native and endangered fish, wildlife, and plant species and 

their habitats throughout the 7.2 million-acre Connecticut River watershed, providing opportunities for scientific research, environmental education, recreation, and 

access. In its 1995 Refuge Action Plan, the USFWS identified 48 special focus areas 

in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Nearly 80,000 acres 

were targeted for protection through refuge acquisition and partnership, including 
330 

over 16,000 acres in Massachusetts. Thus far, over 32,000 acres have been acquired, 

but fewer than 400 acres are in Massachusetts. There is a concerted effort underway to enhance refuge protection efforts in critical parts of western Massachusetts 

where development pressures are increasing. 

Available for acquisition in Massachusetts in fiscal year 2009 is the 66-acre 

Zuckerman tract in Hadley, Massachusetts. This parcel is part of the Grasslands 

Complex Special Focus Area in Hadley, now established as the Fort River Division. 

The focus area is prized for its habitat potential for grassland bird species such as 

the grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, and upland sandpiper and its frontage on the 

Fort River. The Fort River is the longest free-flowing tributary of the Connecticut 

River in Massachusetts, and is one of the top seven rivers in the entire four-State 

watershed for freshwater mussel diversity, a key indicator of river habitat value. A 

viable population of the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel was identified in 

the Fort River system in 2007, making conservation efforts all the more compelling. 

In addition to mussels, the Fort River and its riparian zone are home to many other 

rare species, including the bridle shiner dragonfly and several species of state-protected turtles. 

The FWS conserved 82 acres adjacent to the Zuckerman property this month, 

with funds made available by Congress in fiscal year 2008. Members of the Fort 

River Partnership are extremely grateful for this critical investment, as well as for 

an earlier purchase of 22 acres in 2005. Unfortunately, many other properties in the 

area remain threatened by conversion to non-conservation purposes and additional 

funds are needed to ensure the success of the Fort River Division of the Refuge. The 

Zuckerman parcel has been identified by our partnership as the most urgent acquisition to pursue. The addition of this parcel to the refuge’s Fort River Division will 

contribute strongly to the creation of a viable land base for grassland bird species 

and to the health of other critical Fort River species. Failure to protect it will inevitably lead to housing developments in this sensitive area thereby diminishing both 

the historic and natural resource values of the region. There have been active efforts 

to permit construction of 44 homes on this parcel. 

Hadley, a traditional farming town rich in prime soils, is increasingly facing the 

challenge of losing its rural character to residential development. The USFWS and 

its partners are working closely with local land trusts to ensure that the refuge addition is leveraged through local, State, and Federal investments in farmland protection, creating a conservation mosaic in the focus area that preserves its rural, 

historic, and scenic character and protects the quality of the town’s drinking water 

aquifer. The Hadley Board of Selectmen has stated its support for refuge acquisitions in this focus area. 

The estimated value of the Zuckerman tract is $2.5 million, and is part of a larger 

fiscal year 2009 need for the entire four-State refuge. Acquisition of this parcel will 

allow the Conte NFWR to continue to provide valuable resource protection within 

the Connecticut River Valley in Massachusetts. This amount is part of a larger 

$5.065 million request to fund other conservation opportunities throughout the four 

Conte NFWR states in fiscal year 2009, including the Salmon River in Connecticut, 

the Pondicherry Division in New Hampshire, and the Nulhegan Division in 

Vermont. 

I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $2.5 million for the 

Silvio O. Conte NFWR in Massachusetts in the fiscal year 2009 Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations bill. I also support the request of the Friends of the Silvio 

O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge for a total of at least $5.065 million for 

the entire four-state refuge. This amount will help fund the current high-priority 

Conte NFWR projects that are at risk of being lost in the Connecticut River watershed, a region comprising one sixth of New England’s land mass and providing over 

70 percent of the freshwater inflow to Long Island Sound. With roughly 2.3 million 

people in the Connecticut River watershed and ongoing exurbanization of the landscape, the threat from development poses a challenge to the mission of the refuge 

and the protection of the valley’s resources. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of this 

important conservation project at Silvio Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF BACK BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

I am Molly Brown from Virginia Beach, Virginia. I am the President of Friends 

of Back Bay, a group of over 400 dedicated volunteers who are committed to the 

protection of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Located in southeastern Virginia Beach, Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was established on February 29, 1938, as a 4,589-acre refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds. We 
331 

thank Congress for their continued support of this project. The Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service approved a Refuge boundary expansion on May 7, 1990. 

The expansion area includes 6,340 acres of important wildlife habitat. To date the 

Fish and Wildlife Service has been able to acquire 4,980 acres. 

In order to continue the Back Bay Refuge expansion project, we respectfully request $1.5 million for fiscal year 2009. This money will help to fill in the mosaic 

pattern of small land parcels from willing sellers who have been waiting patiently 

to sell their land to the Refuge. 

The enclosed map gives a visual description of the Acquisitions through 2007 and 

the remaining parcels by priority to be purchased from willing sellers within the 

Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge proposed acquisition boundary. Here is a brief 

description of each parcel. 

Priority 1—Sanford.—26 acres, much of which is valuable riparian/wetland habitat on the northern bank of Nanney’s Creek This Creek has been identified as one 

of Virginia Beach’s ‘‘impaired waterways’’ by the State DEQ. Cooperative efforts by 

private landowners (mostly farmers), the City of Virginia Beach, the State of Virginia and Back Bay NWR are ongoing to restore the water quality of this tributary 

of Back Bay. Existing Refuge property is immediately adjacent to this tract on its 

east and west boundaries. 

Priority 2—Griffith.—105 acres of emergent marsh habitat on the east side of 

Back Bay This property already supports a wide variety of nesting and wintering 

migratory birds, especially waterfowl. 

Because this parcel is located on the bay side of the highly developed Sandbridge 

area of Virginia Beach, failure to acquire this piece could result in increased private 

recreational boating facilities by individuals who own lots/houses adjacent to this 

property. 

Priority 3—Van Nostrand.—15 acres of timbered wetlands on the west side of 

Back Bay This property has been cleared, and is ready for farming and/or development. Although the current habitat has little wildlife value, reforestation of this 

parcel, as Back Bay NWR has done with so many other parcels, will serve as quality 

habitat for a variety migratory birds, especially neotropical migrants. This property 

has an approved appraisal, and the landowner has been presented with an option 

to buy. 

Priority 4—Rice.—8 acres, much of which is valuable riparian/wetland habitat on 

the southern bank of Nanney’s Creek This Creek has been identified as one of Virginia Beach’s ‘‘impaired waterways’’ by the State DEQ. Cooperative efforts by private landowners (mostly farmers), the City of Virginia Beach, the State of Virginia 

and Back Bay NWR are ongoing to restore the water quality of this tributary of 

Back Bay. This property is adjacent to existing Refuge property on its north and 

east boundaries. 

Good things continue to happen at Back Bay! A new educational project to enhance the wildlife viewing opportunities of the public is the ‘‘windows on wildlife.’’ 

This one-way glass will allow the public to watch migratory birds without being 

seen by and thus disturbing the waterfowl. This project opened this winter. On a 

recent January day, the pond featured a visual smorgasbord of tundra swans, Canada geese, black sucks, snow geese, mallards and pied-billed grebes. A red-tail hawk 

flew close to the building and landed on the branch of a near by tree. 

This March the Back Bay Restoration Foundation is conducting ‘‘Back Bay Forum 

2008’’. There will be presentations on research and data collected within the Back 

Bay watershed, followed by an opportunity for participants to identify future research and action needed for the health of the bay system. 

I wish to extend my appreciation for the funding that you appropriated through 

fiscal year 2008. The $505,000 that was appropriated in fiscal year 2008 has purchased 47 acres of a key parcel along Nanney’s Creek. To date we have purchased 

4,980-acres of the proposed 6,340-acre expansion. This means that this project is 

over 78 percent completed in seventeen years. Thank you for the opportunity to 

comment on this important project. Bravo to Back Bay! 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF BLACKWATER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the Friends 

of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge located near Cambridge, Maryland, I am 

submitting testimony for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior 

and Related Agencies concerning the fiscal year 2009 budget for the National Wildlife Refuge System. We respectfully request that the subcommittee support the following funding levels: 
332 

—$514 million in fiscal year 2009 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account; —$55.1 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, of which $2 million be allocated to conduct strategic habitat conservation around national wildlife refuges in strategic partnerships among the FWS, refuge Friends and other 

national, regional and local interests; —$1 million for the Volunteer Invasive Monitoring Program and grants for 

invasive species work with Friends; —$100 million for the FWS land acquisition budget to acquire habitat and 

marshlands from willing sellers across the country; —$10 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) in the FWS’s 

Resource Management General Administration budget. It is necessary that the National Wildlife Refuge System budget by $15 to $20 

million each year in order to maintain services and programs from the previous 

year. The $15 to $20 million increase accounts for cost-of-living increases for FWS 

personnel, growing rent and real estate costs and other cost increases, while sustaining current levels of visitor services and wildlife management. Funding the 

O&M account at $514 million would allow the Refuge System to avoid further employee layoffs and reductions in services that are important at the Blackwater NWR, 

and the over 150,000 who visit the Blackwater NWR each year, while also preventing the approximately $3.5 billion National Wildlife Refuge System O&M backlog from growing larger. While refuges received a $39 million increase for fiscal year 

2008, the National Wildlife Refuge System is still not funded at the level it was in 

fiscal year 2003 when adjusted for inflation. Because of this, refuges such as ours, 

the Blackwater NWR, struggle to meet their most basic wildlife conservation objectives. 

Refuges are also vital economic engines in the local economy, fueling hotel stays, 

restaurant patronage and much, much more. According to Banking on Nature, a 

2007 report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, recreational visits to national 

wildlife refuges generate substantial economic activity. Nearly 35 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2006, generated over $1.7 billion for local economies—including 27,000 jobs and $185 million in tax revenues. Eighty-seven percent 

of all economic activity generated by refuges is from non-resident visitation. These 

visitors contribute to the local economy through patronage of local hotels, restaurants, outfitters and gas stations to name just a few examples. We simply cannot 

afford to lose these local economic engines. Supporting our refuges with adequate 

funding is an effective method of resisting the possible recession with which the nation is currently struggling. 

While providing adequate funding to operate and maintain the Refuge System is 

of vital importance, most refuges are too small in size to achieve their conservation 

mission and objectives alone. Their integrity depends on the health of surrounding 

State, Federal and private lands and waters. Consequently, there is a growing need 

to provide funding to ensure that lands and waters beyond refuge boundaries are 

conserved. Today, the alarming rush to convert rural land to subdivisions and strip 

malls has caught wildlife managers off guard and requires quick action. Accordingly, 

for fiscal year 2009 we respectfully ask that the Subcommittee appropriate $55.1 

million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, of which $2 million be allocated specifically to conduct strategic habitat conservation around national wildlife 

refuges that engages refuge Friends and other national, regional and local interests 

that work with States, counties and municipalities to identify, prioritize and implement land and water conservation opportunities beyond refuge boundaries. These 

local initiatives will result in strategic visions which will serve as blueprints for use 

of State, Federal, and private conservation dollars, and will expedite implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans. 

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies 

should provide strong funding for Refuge System Visitor Services programs and Visitor Facility Enhancement Projects. Visitor Services funding pays for many Friends 

and volunteer programs. We depend on this funding for programs that allow us to 

remain effective stewards of our refuge. 

Recognizing invasive species as a top threat to our refuge lands, we also ask the 

Committee to continue their support by again providing $1 million ‘‘for cooperative 

projects with Friends groups and volunteers on invasive species control’’. This funding supports worthy programs like competitive grants for Friends groups and the 

Volunteer Invasives Monitoring Program. Utilizing the energy and enthusiasm of 

Friends and volunteers is a proven, effective and economical partnership for the National Wildlife Refuge System and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

We encourage the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding to assess and purchase high-priority water rights and high-priority lands and conservation easements 
333 

through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), $100 million. Inadequate 

water quantity and quality represent some of the biggest obstacles for refuges to 

overcome and unfortunately, many refuges do not own the water rights on the refuge or they are not guaranteed an allocation of water from a river or stream. The 

FWS is currently compiling a needs-based priority database of where water rights 

need to be secured, and we urge the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding to 

allow the FWS to acquire these essential rights while they are available and affordable. Also, The Refuge System land acquisition backlog is estimated at more than 

$4 billion, with over 15 million acres remaining to be acquired within approved refuge boundaries. While a full suite of conservation strategies should be employed in 

working with private landowners, in cases where fee title acquisition is preferred 

by the landowner and the refuge has identified it as a top priority, the FWS should 

acquire the land. 

We encourage the subcommittee to allocate $10 million for the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation through the FWS’ Resource Management General Administration appropriation. Each year, NFWF receives more project proposals than they are 

capable of funding. Adequate funding will ensure NFWF has the ability to leverage 

resources to fund projects that directly benefit diverse species in, around and outside of national wildlife refuges across the country. 

In this era of uncertainty related to climate change, we urge the Subcommittee 

to allocate $30 million in dedicated funding to allow the FWS to create a plan for 

how to manage refuges in such a way that would allow them to adapt to anticipated 

changes. Work currently conducted by scientists including Dr. Michael Scott, Senior 

Scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and Professor of Wildlife Biology at the 

University of Idaho, show how models for individual refuges can be made that simulate rising water levels, increased temperatures, and how species are expected to 

react. While these innovative tools are now readily available, without dedicated 

funding, refuge staff is simply unable to take full advantage of it. Refuges are perhaps our best natural laboratories on a national level to assess impacts to wildlife 

and habitat as a result of global climate change; a small investment could yield valuable insights that will guide wildlife management and land use planning well into 

the future. 

Again, on behalf of the Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Association, Inc., we thank you for your consideration of our requests. If you have any questions, we would certainly be happy to help in any way. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF THE BOUNDARY WATERS WILDERNESS

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2.25 million appropriation from 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the acquisition of two parcels in the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota. The tracts are the 30-acre 

Chainsaw Sisters property and the 60-acre Wolf Island property. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is one among many worthy proposals nationwide for land acquisition funded from the LWCF. Unfortunately, funding of the 

LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent since fiscal year 2002, and the fiscal year 

2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left the agencies responsible for our national parks, forests and wildlife refuges unable to acquire—from 

willing sellers—key parcels, within and adjoining public lands, that have been identified as critical to protecting these national treasures and enhancing their recreational, historic and conservation values. So I also urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for the LWCF . 

Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness is devoted to protecting, preserving 

and restoring the wilderness character of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the surrounding Quetico-Superior ecosystem. We are a nonprofit, membership organization formed in 1976 to advocate for full wilderness protection of the 

Boundary Waters, which the Congress established in 1978. We have more than 

2,500 members and a large cohort of additional supporters and allies nationwide. 

The Superior National Forest spans 150 miles along the U.S.-Canadian border in 

northeastern Minnesota and features boreal forests, lakes, streams, bogs and rocky 

outcrops. Within the national forest lies the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), a million-acre maze of unrivaled opportunity for seekers of solitude 

and wild places. Established by Congress in 1978, the Boundary Waters Wilderness 

is the Nation’s only large lake-land wilderness outside Alaska. 

Outdoor enthusiasts can enjoy camping, canoeing, fishing, hiking, cross-country 

skiing and dog-sledding in the wilderness. The deep foliage and plentiful water also 

make homes for a wide variety of wildlife, including bald eagles, loons, moose, tim-
334 

ber wolves, black bears, lynx and myriad migratory birds. The BWCAW draws some 

250,000 overnight visitors annually, making it the most visited of the wilderness 

areas established by Congress. 

Through the U.S. Forest Service’s Minnesota Wilderness acquisition program, two 

properties are available for acquisition in fiscal year 2009 in the Superior National 

Forest. Both are important to the future of the wilderness. 

The 30-acre Chainsaw Sisters property is on Picket Lake and Mudro Creek, within the Superior National Forest and at an entry point into the BWCAW. Such properties are in high demand for second homes and recreational properties; in this case, 

development could threaten public access at an especially popular entrance to the 

Wilderness. 

Since 1988, the Chainsaw Sisters Saloon—so named for its owners, two sisters 

who had worked on a Forest Service crew—has been a pilgrimage site for canoeists, 

snowmobilers, hunters and others. The Chainsaw Sisters property, where the saloon 

sits, has long been a priority acquisition for the Superior National Forest and the 

Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness. Maintaining public access at this 

BWCAW entryway will ensure access for up to 72 overnight campers and canoeists 

each day and an unlimited number of day-use visitors. 

The 60-acre Wolf Island property is located in Lake Vermilion, and is also a high 

priority for protection this year by the U.S. Forest Service. Twenty-four miles long, 

Lake Vermilion is one of Minnesota’s largest vacation destination lakes. It is home 

to healthy populations of walleye, northern pike, muskie, bass and bluegill, and was 

once named by National Geographic as one of the Nation’s 10 most scenic lakes. 

Wolf Island’s location affords beautiful views of the beloved lake as well as the 

national forest. Its 60 acres are mostly high, rolling land that is densely forested 

with mature aspen, pine and maple. Its rich history was well documented by John 

Jaeger, a prominent Minneapolis architect who homesteaded the island after first 

visiting in 1906. Jaeger’s drawings identified cultural resources, including burial 

mounds and a canoe-building workshop plaza. 

The Bois Forte Band of Chippewa and the Superior National Forest plan to conduct a formal cultural resource inventory of the island. The acquisition of the island 

by the Superior National Forest will bring into public ownership an outstanding scenic resource and access for paddlers, boaters and other recreational users who follow 

in the footprints of both Native Americans and the fur-trading French voyageurs of 

years gone by. 

Public acquisition of the Chainsaw Sisters property and Wolf Island will ensure 

that the attributes of the northwoods region so treasured by its many visitors—the 

solitary sound of the common loon, the serenity of an evening paddle, the call of 

the wolf—will be better protected in perpetuity. It will also maintain key access for 

thousands of visitors each month to the waterways of the BWCAW. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF BUENOS AIRES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Madame Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 

Friends of Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (Friends of BANWR) and its membership composed of individuals who are concerned about our Nation’s wildlife and 

public lands, we want to thank you for your leadership and strong support for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) including the enacted $39 million increase 

for fiscal year 2008. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2009 Interior 

Appropriations bill. 

We strongly support the detailed testimony that was submitted by the National 

Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA). 

Our refuge is located in Arizona on the Mexican border. 

We are aware that you cannot consider allocations to specific refuges. However, 

we wish to give specific examples on our refuge to corroborate a few of the comments made in the NWRA request. 

—Border issues are a particular problem here, but funding for Law Enforcement 

has been adequate, for which we thank you. 

—Operations and Maintenance.—We have no adequate housing for staff. Given 

the remoteness of our refuge, this causes problems in the recruitment and 

maintenance of staff. Personnel must either live in trailers or commute long distances, which takes time and more and more money as the price of gasoline 

goes up. 

Our administration and visitor centers are inadequate. 
335 

—Land Acquisition.—The drought in the Southwest is causing nearby ranchers to 

begin to sell their private land. We recently missed an opportunity to obtain a 

ranch near an important wetland. Development, with its attendant polluted 

runoff and human traffic now threatens this sensitive habitat. More such sales 

are sure to come and we have no acquisition funds. 

These are just a few specific examples to illustrate the need for protecting our 

wonderful natural heritage. We truly appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony 

and thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF CONGAREE SWAMP

On behalf of: American Rivers, Archaeological Society of South Carolina, Audubon 

South Carolina, Carolina Bird Club, Carolinas’ Nature Photographers Association, 

Columbia Audubon Society, Congaree Land Trust, Friends of Congaree Swamp, 

League of Women Voters of the Columbia Area, League of Women Voters of South 

Carolina, National Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation Association, Palmetto Conservation Foundation, Palmetto Paddlers, Inc., Richland County Conservation Commission, Sierra Club—John Bachman Group, South Carolina Coastal 

Conservation League, South Carolina Native Plant Society, South Carolina NatureBased Tourism Association, South Carolina Wildlife Federation, The Sierra Club of 

South Carolina, The Trust for Public Land, and The Wilderness Society. 

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: We appreciate 

this opportunity to present testimony in support of an appropriation of $5.38 million 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund—to enable the National Park Service 

to purchase the 1,840-acre Riverstone tract for Congaree National Park in South 

Carolina. 

Congaree Swamp National Monument was authorized as a National Park Service 

unit in 1976. In 2003, Public Law 108–108 elevated Congaree to a National Park— 

South Carolina’s first and only National Park—and authorized a boundary expansion of 4,576 acres. 

Congaree National Park—on the floodplains of the Congaree and Wateree rivers— 

is recognized as an International Biosphere Reserve, a National Natural Landmark, 

a Wilderness Area, and a Globally Important Bird Area. All waters within the 

park’s pre-2003 boundary have been designated Outstanding Resource Waters, and 

much of Cedar Creek within the park is designated Outstanding National Resource 

Waters. 

With more than 75 species of trees, Congaree hosts the Nation’s largest tract of 

old-growth bottomland hardwood forest. The trees growing in this floodplain forest 

are some of the tallest in the eastern United States, forming one of the tallest temperate deciduous forest canopies in the world—taller than old-growth forests found 

in Japan, the Himalayas, southern South America, and eastern Europe. 

More than 195 species of birds have been observed within the park. Following rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas, Congaree National Park is 

considered prime habitat for recovery of this species. The South Carolina Ivorybilled Woodpecker Working Group coordinates research within Congaree National 

Park. 

Congaree National Park also offers excellent opportunities for recreation. A 2.5- 

mile boardwalk loop provides easy access into Congaree’s forest, and more than 20 

miles of trails are available for hiking. Visitors enjoy canoeing and kayaking on 

Cedar Creek, the only Outstanding National Resource Waters in South Carolina. 

Outdoors enthusiasts can also enjoy fishing, camping, birding, and picnicking. 

In fiscal year 2005, Congress appropriated $6 million from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund to purchase the 2,395-acre Bates Fork tract—at the confluence 

of the Congaree and Wateree rivers. This is the largest tract within the Congaree 

park boundary expansion authorized in 2003. The National Park Service completed 

this acquisition in November 2005. 

Fiscal year 2009 presents the opportunity to purchase the 1,840-acre Riverstone 

tract—the second-largest tract within the park boundary expansion authorized in 

2003. The Riverstone tract will connect the previously-acquired 21,786 acres of Congaree National Park with the recently-acquired 2,395-acre Bates Fork tract. The 

Bates Fork tract, in turn, adjoins the 16,700-acre Upper Santee Swamp Natural 

Area, owned by the South Carolina Public Service Authority. So, the Riverstone 

tract is the link to connect a conservation corridor of more than 42,000 acres along 

the Congaree, Wateree, and upper Santee rivers. 

In addition to its biological resources, the Riverstone tract has significant geological and hydrological resources, including Running Lake, Little Lake, Big Lake, Running Creek, and Bates Old River. Bates Old River is a 4-mile-long oxbow lake, the 
336 

former channel of the Congaree River. This oxbow is flanked by the best-defined 

ridge and swale topography in the Congaree floodplain. No other oxbow lake in the 

Congaree floodplain can compare to Bates Old River in size, hydrological dynamics, 

accessibility, or as a recreational resource. 

The Riverstone tract also has significant cultural and historical resources, including a prehistoric mound from the Woodland Period (1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000). The 

history of McCord’s Ferry (established before 1750 as Joyner’s Ferry) is intertwined 

with the Riverstone tract. Patriot and British forces used McCord’s Ferry during the 

American Revolution. 

Accordingly, acquisition of the Riverstone tract will add to Congaree National 

Park’s opportunities for visitor access, education, recreation, and research. 

The Trust for Public Land (TPL) has committed to acquire Phase I of the 

Riverstone tract this spring 2008, and has signed an option agreement with the private landowner to secure the remainder of the tract until March 31, 2009 for Park 

Service acquisition. The price of the Riverstone property is $5.88 million, based on 

a federally-approved appraisal. Recognizing this tract as a key priority for acquisition, the Park Service has identified and dedicated $500,000 in existing funds toward Phase I. 

For the first time ever, the Park Service has the authorization and the opportunity—and the urgent necessity—to acquire the entire Riverstone tract from a single willing seller. Prompt funding is the key. If this opportunity is missed, the 

Riverstone tract would be sold to another buyer, or subdivided and sold to multiple 

buyers. The Park Service would have to acquire multiple parcels, thereby increasing 

total purchase cost and reducing the probability of acquiring all parcels. 

The 23 organizations which join in this testimony urge you to provide full funding 

this year to protect this critical tract at Congaree National Park. A fiscal year 2009 

appropriation of $5.38 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will enable the Park Service to complete acquisition of the Riverstone tract, thereby ensuring permanent protection of its outstanding natural and cultural resources, and connecting the 22,000 acres upriver with the 19,000 acres downriver. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony and 

for your consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF HYDE FARM

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of a request for a $3.031 million Land and 

Water Conservation Fund appropriation in fiscal year 2009 to permit the National 

Park Service to acquire the 95-acre Hyde Farm property at the Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area in Georgia. 

Flowing in a southwesterly direction from the Appalachian Mountains in northeastern Georgia, the Chattahoochee River is a significant recreational and ecological 

corridor in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Between Atlanta and Chattanooga a series of mountain ridges separated by river valleys cross the landscape. The Chattahoochee River valley is the southernmost in this chain. The river’s length and 

breadth provides an excellent corridor for river recreation and open space for wildlife habitat. With substantial headwaters in the forested mountains of northern 

Georgia, the protection of the river’s water quality for drinking water and recreation 

is an important regional and national objective. 

The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area provides much needed recreational opportunities in the Atlanta metropolitan area for all Georgians. The park 

was created in 1978 to protect the watershed, provide opportunities for river and 

land recreation, and to conserve important tracts in the river’s floodplain. The park 

extends along the river for nearly 50 miles from Buford Dam at Lake Sidney Lanier 

to the entrance of Peachtree Creek tributary by Marietta Boulevard in Atlanta. Annually the park averages about 2.75 million visitors; many are from the burgeoning 

Atlanta metropolitan area. In recent years, the population in the State of Georgia 

has grown rapidly to about 9 million residents and half of these residents live in 

the Atlanta area. The population growth has placed tremendous pressure on lands 

important to the region’s water quality, recreation, and historical and agricultural 

heritage. In 1999 Congress passed Public Law 106–154 expanding the boundaries 

of the park to protect additional lands in this ‘‘nationally significant’’ river corridor. 

In fiscal year 2009 the National Park Service has the opportunity to acquire the 

95-acre Hyde Farm property in Cobb County. The farm has been in agricultural use 

since the 1830s when a log cabin was built on the site downstream from a Cherokee 

village. As the Chattahoochee River is the last natural barrier to entering Atlanta 

from the northwest, the Confederate army established its last defensive line in front 
337 

of the Atlanta fortifications along the river southwest of the farm before the advancing Union armies of General Sherman in 1864. The Hyde Family first became involved in the farm in the 1870s and has owned the property since 1919. Until his 

death in 2004 in his early nineties, the farm was cultivated for family use by J.C. 

Hyde and his older brother, Buck. J.C. Hyde had a deep attachment to his land and 

its cultivation, and he wished to see the farmland forever protected. In 1993 the 

Hyde family sold approximately 35 acres of the property directly on the banks of 

the Chattahoochee River to the National Park Service for inclusion into the park. 

The entire Hyde Farm property is within the authorized boundaries of the park and 

is located between the Gold Branch and Johnson Ferry units. 

If acquired for the national recreation area, Hyde Farm would provide visitors 

with a window into the traditional farming culture that has largely disappeared in 

Cobb County and the Atlanta area. The property is adjacent to the northern end 

of the Johnson Ferry unit, which hosts seasonal visitor services, 2.5 miles of trails, 

and a boat launching site. In the 1999 legislation, Congress stated its intention to 

‘‘increase the level of protection of the open spaces... along the Chattahoochee 

River.’’ The acquisition of the Hyde Farm represents one of the ‘‘dwindling opportunities to protect the scenic, recreational, natural, and historic values’’ of the Chattahoochee River corridor referred to by Congress in the act. 

Private contributions will enable the National Park Service to acquire Hyde Farm 

for less than half of its estimated fair market value. Already, the National Park 

Service has $900,000 available from previous fiscal years and just under $2 million 

from a fiscal year 2008 appropriation. Thank you for your support last year to secure this initial funding; it was critical to the project. In fiscal year 2009, the final 

appropriation needed from the Land and Water Conservation Fund is $3.031 million. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 

Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2009. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on this important land acquisition opportunity in Georgia. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF THE POTOMAC RIVER REFUGES

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the Friends of the 

Potomac River Refuges, we are submitting testimony for the Senate Appropriations 

Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. We support a 

funding level of $514 million in fiscal year 2009 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance (O&M) 

account and an add to FWS’ construction budget of $750,000 for the design and engineering of an administrative/visitor contact building at Occoquan Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR). 

Currently, the National Wildlife Refuge System suffers from a $3.5 billion operations and maintenance stewardship funding backlog, which will only grow larger 

if current funding levels continue. While refuges received a substantial $39 million 

increase for fiscal year 2008, the National Wildlife Refuge System is still NOT funded at the level it was in 2003, adjusted for inflation. Because of this, refuges such 

as ours, the Potomac River Complex of which Occoquan is a part, struggle to meet 

even their most basic wildlife conservation objectives. In fact, funding shortfalls 

have led to the decline of refuge habitats and wildlife populations, aging facilities 

and infrastructure, the cancellation of many refuge public use programs and even 

increased crime on our public lands. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System budget must increase by $15 million each 

year just to maintain the same level of services and programs as in the previous 

year. The $15 million increase accounts for cost-of-living increases for FWS personnel, growing rent and real estate costs and other cost increases, while sustaining 

current levels of visitor services and wildlife management. Funding the O&M account at $514 million would allow the Refuge System to avoid additional employee 

layoffs and reductions in services that are important to our refuge, our members 

and the over 40,000 people who visit the refuges that make up the Potomac Com-
338 

plex each year, while also preventing the current $3.5 billion O&M backlog from 

growing larger. 

Budget reductions over the last 3 years have severely impacted the Potomac River 

Refuges in Northern Virginia. The complex is comprised of Elizabeth Hartwell 

Mason Neck NWR, Occoquan Bay NWR, and Featherstone NWR. This complex is 

approximately 20 miles from Capitol Hill. Each refuge was established through 

strong public support and effort in recognition of their importance as representative 

pieces of this region’s distinctive, but fast disappearing, natural environment. Mason 

Neck’s woodlands and Potomac shoreline has been instrumental in the recovery of 

the bald eagle, Featherstone provides sanctuary for native flora and fauna dependent on tidal wetlands, and Occoquan Bay includes unique habitats of great importance to migratory waterfowl and songbirds and other wildlife. Each refuge and the 

complex plays an indispensable role in preserving the natural character of Northern 

Virginia. 

As part of FWS Region 5’s workforce plan the 71 national wildlife refuges in the 

Northeast region have been classified as ‘‘stay strong’’, targeted, or de-staffed. The 

region has chosen to direct resources to ‘‘stay strong’’ refuges to avoid ‘‘across-theboard mediocrity that would result from proportionately equal budget cuts at each 

refuge.’’ To our dismay the Potomac River NWR Complex is classified as a targeted 

reduction refuge. 

The Potomac River Complex was de-staffed in fiscal year 2006. The Complex lost 

its only biologist and one of the two maintenance workers. Staff cuts resulted in program elimination therefore impacting FWS’ ability to manage wildlife and their 

habitat. Wildlife surveys, research and investigations, biological monitoring, and 

invasive species control have been curtailed or eliminated. The lack of a biological 

program leave invasive species unchecked adversely impacting native plant and animal species. In addition, maintenance and support of public use facilities/activities 

including trails, roads, and programs have been reduced. At this point, even if additional maintenance funds were made available the current staffing level impedes 

the completion of additional work projects. 

Our local refuges are also threaten by illegal activities occurring on them. Documented activities are: trespass, gangs including MS–13, drugs, felonies, and undocumented aliens establishing camps. We believe some of these activities can be curtailed if refuge staff had an increased presence on the refuges. As mothers we are 

concerned about the safety of children and other visitors. Currently, the staff is 

housed miles away from any of the refuges in a strip mall along Route 1 in 

Woodbridge. Vehicles and other equipment are stored at a rented garage a mile 

away from the office. Response to habitat, wildlife or visitor needs can take hours 

given the notorious Northern Virginia traffic. This situation creates numerous inefficiencies and safety issues. 

USFWS Region 5 has acknowledged the need for an administrative/visitor contact 

station at Occoquan Bay NWR by listing it as their number one priority for building 

construction funds. However, even with this acknowledgment there is no funding in 

the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget for construction of this facility. We are urging this subcommittee to provide $750,000 for the design and engineering of this facility. Locating an administrative/visitor facility on the Occoquan NWR is estimated 

to improve the efficiency of daily refuge operations by twenty percent. For preservation of the habitat and wildlife, safety of the visitors and enhancing the efficiencies 

of the staff, planning of this facility needs to occur now. 

According to Banking on Nature, a 2007 report by the USFWS, recreational visits 

to national wildlife refuges generate substantial economic activity. Nearly 35 million 

people visited national wildlife refuges in 2006, generated over $1.7 billion for local 

economies—including 27,000 jobs and $185 million in tax revenues. Eighty-seven 

percent of all economic activity generated by refuges is from non-resident visitation. 

These visitors contribute to the local economy through patronage of local hotels, restaurants, outfitters and gas stations to name just a few examples. We simply cannot 

afford to lose these local economic engines. 

In conclusion, the Potomac River Refuges provide a wonder environment for 

plants and animals that we must treat with care and vigilance. The flora and fauna 

utilizing these refuges and the entire Refuge System are fundamental to our Nation. 

When Teddy Roosevelt established the Refuge System in 1903, he recognized these 

lands and the creatures dependent upon them were essential to our nation’s development and would continue to be a vital part of our children’s futures. The Friends 

of the Potomac River Refuges ask you to provide adequate funding for this refuge 

complex and the entire Refuge System to conserve our children’s natural heritage. 

Friends of the Potomac River Refuges respectfully request the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to add $750,000 to USFWS’s construction budget for the design 

and engineering of an administration/visitor facility on Occoquan River NRW and 
339 

increase funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System in fiscal year 2009 to $514 

million. We hope you will support the Potomac River Refuges and others across the 

country by securing strong funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System. On behalf of the Friends of the Potomac River Refuges we thank you for your consideration of our requests. If you have any questions, we would certainly be happy to 

help in any way. If you have any questions regarding this request please call Joan 

Patterson at 703–791–3458 or send an email to joan@thepattersonfamily.us. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF RACHEL CARSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I thank you for 

the opportunity to present to the subcommittee written testimony in support of the 

acquisition of the 110-acre Timber Point property at the Rachel Carson National 

Wildlife Refuge in Kennebunkport, Maine. An appropriation of $3.5 million from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund, to be matched by an equal amount of private 

funds, is needed to protect this exceptional coastal property. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 

budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, 

and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent 

lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic 

sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. 

I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal year 

2009. 

The Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is named in honor of one of the nation’s foremost and forward-thinking biologists. After arriving in Maine in 1946 as 

an aquatic biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rachel Carson became 

entranced with Maine’s coastal habitat, leading her to write the international bestseller The Sea Around Us. This landmark study, in combination with her other 

writings, The Edge of the Sea and Silent Spring, led Rachel Carson to become an 

advocate on behalf of this Nation’s vast coastal habitat and the wildlife that depends 

on it. With the celebration of the 100th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s birth in 

2007, her legacy lives on today at the refuge that bears her name and is dedicated 

to the permanent protection of the salt marshes and estuaries of the southern 

Maine coast. 

Consisting of meandering tidal creeks, coastal upland, sandy dunes, salt ponds, 

marsh, and productive wetlands, the Rachel Carson NWR provides critical nesting 

and feeding habitat for the threatened piping plover and a variety of migratory waterfowl, and serves as a nursery for many shellfish and finfish. The salt marsh habitat found at Rachel Carson NWR is relatively rare in Maine, which is better known 

for its dramatic, rocky coastline. Upland portions of the landscape in and around 

the refuge host a unique, unusually dense concentration of vernal pools that provide 

habitat for several rare plant and animal species. Located along the Atlantic flyway, 

the refuge serves as an important stopover point for migratory birds, highlighted by 

shorebird migration in the spring and summer, waterfowl concentrations in the winter and early spring, and raptor migrations in the early fall. In fact, southern Maine 

contains a greater diversity of terrestrial vertebrates, threatened and endangered 

species, and woody plants than any other part of the State. 

Previous years’ appropriations have allowed the USFWS to conserve several properties within the refuge at Biddeford Pool and Parson’s Beach, providing an important buffer between the intense development pressure along the southern Maine 

coast and its fragile coastal estuaries. With towns in the area growing rapidly—at 

rates ranging between 11 percent and 32 percent over the next 10 years—development pressures continue to spiral upwards and additional coastal properties are 

under threat. 

This year, an opportunity exists to significantly enhance the mission of the Rachel 

Carson NWR and its role in protecting coastal natural resources. Available for immediate acquisition from a single willing landowner in fiscal year 2009 is the 110- 

acre Timber Point property, one of the last large undeveloped properties along the 

50 miles of coastline from Kittery to Cape Elizabeth and a longstanding priority for 

the refuge. It is being offered to the USFWS at a significant discount through the 

generosity of the landowner and the support of the local community. 

Located in the Little River Division of the refuge near Kennebunkport, Timber 

Point is comprised of a large peninsula and a small island that is effectively connected to the peninsula at low tide. All told, the property includes over 2.25 miles 

of undeveloped coastline, an enormous amount for southern Maine. Unlike much of 
340 

the State’s southern coastal areas, Timber Point’s coastline is mostly rocky, making 

it an ideal location for eider nesting and wintering purple sandpipers. The Timber 

Point peninsula hugs the mainland, offering both rocky oceanfront shoreline and a 

sheltered, sandy cove. Wintering black ducks, assorted sea ducks, and migratory 

shorebirds feed and roost along the shoreline while sanderlings frequent the sandy 

cove during migration. In addition, the rocky offshore habitat serves as a productive 

lobster nursery. 

In addition to the abundant wildlife which benefits from this virtually undeveloped coastline, upland habitats harbor many species of conservation concern as well. 

Habitats represented on Timber Point are diverse and include shrubby wetlands, 

early successional thickets and grassy openings, forested wetlands, and mature 

white pine forests. Early successional habitats are home to breeding American 

woodcock, willow flycatcher, eastern towhee, chestnut-sided warblers, gray catbirds, 

and bobolink. Upland forests and forested wetland habitats are likely to be used by 

breeding scarlet tanagers, northern flickers, and Baltimore orioles. 

Refuge-owned lands already protect the headwaters of the Little River, which 

empties into the Atlantic at Goose Rocks Beach—a popular public swimming area 

adjacent to Timber Point. Once acquired, the Timber Point parcel will enhance the 

refuge’s ability to protect water quality in the estuary and important wildlife habitat 

by linking it to already conserved refuge lands in the Little River Division of the 

refuge. Currently, the USFWS holds an easement on just 35 of the 110 acres at 

Timber Point, this proposed acquisition would recombine the easement with full fee 

ownership and permanently protect the entire property—save 11 acres, which members of the family would retain with a conservation easement preventing any further development of the parcel. Located in a rapidly developing part of Maine, this 

acquisition offers the refuge an outstanding opportunity to conserve southern 

Maine’s coastal landscape and further consolidate the fragile habitat that exists on 

the marshes, uplands, creeks, and the estuaries of the coast. 

Given the development pressures in this part of the State, the opportunity to permanently protect this unique coastal property exists only for a limited time. An appropriation of $35 million for the Rachel Carson NWR in fiscal year 2009 will be 

matched by an equal amount of private philanthropy, offering a once-in-a-lifetime 

opportunity that will yield enormous public benefits for generations to come. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony 

in support of this important project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of an important land acquisition funding 

need at Virgin Islands National Park. An appropriation of $4.5 million from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is requested in fiscal year 2009 to 

begin Park Service acquisition of the unique Maho Bay property. 

I represent the Friends of VI National Park, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, 

dedicated to the protection and preservation of the natural and cultural resources 

of Virgin Islands National Park and to promoting the responsible enjoyment of this 

unique national treasure. We have more than 3,000 members—20 percent of whom 

live in the Virgin Islands and the balance represent every state in the union. 

We carry on the rich tradition of using private philanthropy for the betterment 

of this park as well as mobilize volunteers and community participation. In our 19 

years of work in support of Virgin Islands National Park we have been involved in 

many initiatives, projects and activities that help this park be a model of natural 

resource protection and cultural preservation—but none have been as important as 

our work in support of the acquisition of Estate Maho Bay and its incorporation 

within the park. 

We have played the important role of informing and motivating the community 

about the issues related to the preservation of Estate Maho Bay. But motivation 

was hardly needed; the preservation of Estate Maho Bay and ensuring unimpeded 

access to this spectacular area enjoys near unanimous support among native St. 

Johnians, residents who have moved here from mainland United States and visitors 

alike—no easy feat for a community that prides itself in its diversity of opinions. 

Virgin Islands National Park, located on the island of St. John, is a tropical paradise preserved for the enjoyment and edification of the public. Beautiful white sand 

beaches, protected bays of crystal blue-green waters, coral reefs rich in colorful 

aquatic life, and an on-shore environment filled with a breathtaking variety of 

plants and birds make St. John a magical place. More than 800 species of trees, 

shrubs, and flowers are found in the park, and more than 30 species of tropical 
341 

birds breed on the island, which was designated an international Biosphere Reserve 

by the United Nations in 1976. St. John is also home to two species of endangered 

sea turtles, the hawksbill and the green. In addition, the park contains archeological 

sites indicating settlement by Indians as early as 770 B.C. The later colonial history 

of St. John is also represented by remnants of the plantations and sugar mills established by the Danes in the 18th and 19th centuries. 

One of St. John’s most popular eco-campgrounds sits on a cliff overlooking Maho 

Bay and its pristine white sand beaches. The bay’s campgrounds create memorable 

vacations in the beautiful setting of St. John without sacrificing the delicate ecosystem of the island. Few places on earth match the breathtaking beauty of Maho 

Bay. A lush forested slope rising nearly 1,000 feet rims its crystal waters and soft 

white beaches. Hundreds of tropical plant species and more than 50 species of tropical birds fill these lands on the island of St. John, at the heart of the American 

paradise of Virgin Islands National Park. Just offshore are seagrass beds, green turtles and magnificent coral reefs. This fragile area contains large nesting colonies of 

brown pelicans, as well as the migratory warblers and terns that winter on St. 

John. In addition to its natural treasures, the largest concentration of historic plantations and ruins on the island is found within this area. 

Available within the Virgin Islands National Park boundaries in fiscal year 2009 

is the first phase of a 207-acre acquisition at Maho Bay. This Maho Bay property 

offers spectacular views of the bay and includes some beachfront. It is extremely important because of their relationship to the whole undeveloped area and its cultural 

resources. What most people do not know about this property is that it is not owned 

by the park, even though it has every appearance of being so. 

Though the park boundaries cover a broad area of St. John, the National Park 

Service actually owns two separated blocks of land. A smaller block covers the 

northeastern shore of the island, and a larger, more contiguous block extends from 

the southern to northwestern side. The Maho Bay property is what divides these 

two section of the park and its acquisition would be the first step in linking these 

two blocks, ensuring future access, resource connectivity, and seaside protection. 

Wetlands in the lower portion of the watershed provide adequate sediment retention for the undeveloped nature of this area. As a result of long-term geological processes, the topography created by these processes and the historical rise of sea level 

during the past 5,000 years, a large, rare and complicated freshwater dominated 

wetland developed throughout the basin. It represents a natural stage wetland typical of large watersheds with relatively flat basin topography. The Maho Bay wetland is the largest of this type on St. John and along with the Magens Bay wetland 

on St. Thomas, one of only a few of this type in the Territory. These wetlands provide habitat to numerous species of shorebirds, water fowl and other wildlife, several listed as endangered under the V.I. Endangered and Indigenous Species Act. 

Others are protected under various federal laws and treaties. 

To the people who live on St. John—both native St. Johnians and those who have 

chosen to make St. John their home, and the millions of visitors who come annually 

to experience and enjoy this remarkable place, Maho beach is the most accessible 

beach on the island and one of the most popular. Due to its close proximity to the 

road, the nearly flat beach and the shallow water it is particularly popular with 

families with small children, people with mobility concerns, non-swimmers and, of 

course, those who just love a beautiful beach. 

The land was historically used during the plantation era for agricultural activities 

such as sugar cane, coconut, and cotton cultivation. The lands included in the Phase 

I area include portions of several historic plantation era sugar estates. The Maho 

Bay area contains the highest density of plantation era estates on St. John. Preservation of these sites is important in reconstructing the history and heritage of St. 

John. With increasing growth and investment throughout the Caribbean—including 

places not far from the unspoiled beauty of St. John—this vulnerable land has been 

the focus of intense development threats. In recent years, more than one investor 

envisioned private development along these shores, which would have jeopardized 

the natural and cultural resources of the Maho Bay area and access to the beach. 

The total estimated fair market value of the 207 acres is $18.6 million. This property is being made available to the National Park Service for a total of $9 million 

over 2 years, with the balance to be provided through private donations of cash and 

land value. This year, an appropriation of $4.5 million is needed from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund toward the purchase of the first phase (105 acres) of these 

valuable lands. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 

Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, ref-
342 

uges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2009. 

Madam Chairman and distinguished committee members, I want to thank you for 

this opportunity to testify on behalf of this important national protection effort in 

Virgin Islands National Park. The protection of Maho Bay has spurred great interest on St. John and in the Virgin Islands because of the multiple scenic, cultural, 

historic, and ecologic values it holds. On behalf of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park and the over one million visitors to the Park each year, I appreciate 

your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF WALLKILL RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGES

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I am grateful to have the opportunity to submit testimony. I request that you approve $514,000,000 

for the United States Fish and Wildlife Operations and Maintenance budget. In the 

final budget, our National Wildlife Refuge System received $39 million above the 

Presidents budget, and it was stated: ‘‘Increased Funding for the refuge operations 

should be used to re-establish basic operating capacity and staffing shortfalls at all 

refuges nationwide. In addition, these funds should be distributed outside the Refuge Operations Needs System and other traditional allocation formulas.’’, (page 7 

of the fiscal year 2008 budget, passed on December 27, 2007). Thank you, that increase has made a difference by increasing available funds throughout the refuge 

system. Unfortunately, this amount remains inadequate for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement the requirements of the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. My 

testimony will highlight a few examples of how underfunding the system results in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System falling short in both fulfilling the will of Congress and the needs of the American people. It is imperative to remember that the 

refuge system is a system and that Every Refuge Matters. 

DE-STAFFED REFUGES

Now, I want to share with you what has happened in a year’s time, and provide 

you a reality check of how those funds are being used to carry out the National 

Wildlife Refuge System’s mission. This situation represents only the Northeast Region; other regions have more refuges that have been, or will soon be, de-staffed. 

I cannot imagine the purpose of the Refuge Improvement Act was to de-staff and 

close refuges. While Service management may not call these refuge closed, in terms 

of their accessibility to the American people, they are closed; let’s call a spade, a 

spade. All the refuges I stated above have been de-staffed, except the two whose 

Friends Groups I represent—Wallkill River, and its satellite, Shawangunk Grasslands—refuges whose staff have been collectively cut from six to one. The manager 

of that refuge has been told to look for another job for more than 2 years now, all 

while being charged to write the refuge’s master plan and a plan to more than double the size of the Wallkill River refuge. 

Great Bay NWR, in New Hampshire, was de-staffed on January 31 of this year. 

It does not have a Friends organization to advocate for it. It is a classic case of when 

the System gives up on the refuge much of the community gives up as well. Indeed, 

it had a Friends group but there was little they could do with out a building to hold 

functions in and without the leadership of management, they disbanded. 

Sunkhaze Meadows in Maine, was also de-staffed January 31 of this year, it is 

in better shape; it still has a Friends group to advocate for it. 

Supawna Meadows in southwestern New Jersey, was de-staffed and its doors 

were closed 2 years ago. It has a Friends group on the struggling with the idea of 

giving up. They were told their refuge, supported by their tax dollars and their volunteer hours, would be the last refuge to be re-staffed in the region; how can a community have hope and continue to spend their weekends working on a refuge when 

they see no future? Volunteer hours for the nation last year were 1,489,890 hours, 

that equates to $27,785,418.00, the equivalent to 716 full time employees, that’s 

some serious numbers. We Friends love our refuges and we can do great work but 

we really have to have USFWS staff to supervise what we do, we cannot, and should 

not, run these refuges ourselves. 

For the past several weeks, I have studied the eight Strategic Workforce Plans 

of each region of National Wildlife Refuge System. Rising personnel and operational 

costs combined with several years of flat budgets have triggered a nationwide 20 
343 

percent reduction in the workforce. As cost of living raises, energy inflation, and 

non-mission administrative workloads continue to increase, the ability to staff refuges to do on-the-ground work diminishes. 

COMPLEXING

In many cases Regional offices chose to ‘‘Complex,’’ meaning they combine refuges 

that are geographically and ecologically similar, but they share a staff. In most 

cases the ‘‘Parent Refuge’’ is hours away from the ‘‘Satellite Refuges.’’ Some refuges 

have always been Complexed because they were many small areas or islands. In 

many more recent cases, these Satellite Refuges have buildings that no longer have 

staff. They no long have visitor centers and community services are cut with no one 

there to administer programs. In the words of USFWS Region 3 Workforce Plan: 

‘‘Experience with Complex offices in the Midwest has shown that staffs in complex 

offices are often higher graded than staffs of the prior stand alone refuges. Instead 

of Reducing costs, the complex office may actually be more expensive. Span of control and responsibility for managers can grow beyond an individual’s capability, 

with a resulting loss of attention to employee and resource issues. In addition, as 

refuges are reformed into a complex, individual refuge units lose identity and individual recognition. And, as refuges lose identity, they may lose the support from 

local community. Volunteer and Friends groups, who have a loyalty and pride in 

their refuge, find it harder to support geographically anonymous complex offices.’’ 

Region 3 clearly recognizes the futile nature of Complexing. This is exactly what 

happens when refuges are de-staffed, and this is happening across the country. The 

community cannot reach staff on the phone or in person and they give up. The 

knowledge of local issues is minimal at best. Often more harm than good comes of 

these contacts. The worst thing that could happen to a refuge is when it is destaffed and its community abandons hope, and let me assure you this is happening. 

NATIONWIDE STAFF REDUCTIONS

Region 1, The Pacific Region, will have a staff reduction of 49 positions, 64 refuges. 

Region 2, Southwest Region, will be reduced by 38 positions, 45 refuges. 

Region 3, Midwest Region, will be reduced by 71 positions, 54 refuges. 

Region 4, Southeast Region, will be reduced by 79 positions, 128 refuges. 

Region 5, Northeast Region, will be reduced by 24 field positions, 71 refuges. 

Region 6, Rocky Mountain Prairie Region, 44. positions, 117 refuges. 

Region 7, Alaska, 21 positions, 16 refuges, 76,774,229 acres. 

Region 8, California and Nevada, no cuts, 51 refuges, 11 complexes and 3 individual refuges. 

Many reductions were made in the years preceding these plans simply not refilling positions as staff were transferred or retired. Some were buy outs and early retirements. 

Some regions are more remote and there is no need to have a large staff. In the 

Northeast and Southeast there are more refuges and more people and a greater 

need for staff at these refuges. Alaska is remote and has a great quantity of land 

but the costs of maintaining there are higher so the need is for less manpower and 

more on-the-ground resources. 

California and Nevada, Region 8, were a newly created region and already at a 

desired ratio of staff and maintenance, reflecting its creation in this austere budget 

climate. The Southeast has many areas that are vulnerable to hurricanes, and as 

we all learned from Katrina and Rita sometimes extra resources are needed to address the damage from hurricanes. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT

There are 400 total Law enforcement officers nationally for 548 refuges and 37 

wetland management districts. There are 234 full time Law Enforcement officers 

and 164 dual-function, officers meaning some have a regular position such as biologist or refuge manager and they are also performing the duties of law enforcement. 

These officers have the responsibility to prevent destruction of habitat, maintain 

safe conditions for visitors and personnel. At my local refuges, we have one law enforcement officer for 3 refuges, each an hour apart from one another. Many working 

hours are lost on all Complexed refuges because staff have to drive to distant refuges that they would normally spend working, but now spend driving and adding 

to the nation’s carbon emissions. And then there is the cost of gas. Without law enforcement presence there are big problems with ATV and Snowmobile damage all 

over the Nation. There is vandalism and poaching. When refuges are also without 

on site staff management there is not even anyone to report damage to. The public 
344 

can try but the nearest staff person, might be reached by phone, who is hours away. 

Our National Wildlife Refuges are our National Treasures; it is quite an embarrassment to us all when a family goes to a refuge to see nature and instead they see 

beer bottles, condoms and drug paraphernalia. It takes dedicated on site staff—literally and figuratively—to display a presence, and give out a few tickets here and 

there. Simply stated, we need more law enforcement officers. 

MAINTENANCE

There is a backlog on maintenance of $3.5 billion. Specifically, this is for repairing 

buildings, other facilities, keeping vehicles maintained, keeping refuge assets in 

good condition, maintaining trials and other public use areas safe, maintained, and 

accessible. When there is no one to maintain equipment, it sits there unusable and 

decaying. But that doesn’t really matter when there is no one to use the equipment 

does it? . . . except that these are taxpayer vehicles and taxpayers are losing out. 

Volunteers have to try and pick up the slack for maintenance. But again, if there 

are no staff to guide, supervise or allow access to maintenance equipment, the maintenance can’t get done by volunteers either. All government facilities are required 

to be handicap accessible. This requires staff to regularly maintain these places for 

handicapped people’s use. With out people on refuges that option can be totally lost, 

no one to open gates for parking, no one to make sure facilities are functioning and 

safe, no one to respond when problems arise. 

PARTNERSHIPS

When refuges lose management, many partnerships dissolve such as those with 

other Federal agencies, such as NASA, the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as 

state fish and wildlife and environmental agencies. There have been years and 

many manpower hours into building these programs. Relationships simply fall apart 

when the management positions are eliminated. 

There are hunting organizations that volunteer their manpower to do invasive 

species maintenance on refuges. In some cases, it is Ducks Unlimited, Audubon, 

Trout Unlimited, and the Ruffed Grouse society biologists who do biological research. Refuges need staff biologists who are familiar with the local area to supervise and keep data centralized and uniform for the research to be credible and 

meaningful, and to provide context for the biological research performed by interns 

and bio-technicians. Without a biologist on site, little, if any, research gets done. 

These are the people monitoring invasive and endangered species. It is much more 

financially prudent to keep invasive species under control than to have to come in 

later after the invasives have taken over and eliminated native species. 

We can not keep expecting the volunteers to pick up more and more of the work 

staff used to do. As I have stated before, when there is no staff to supervise the 

volunteers the work can not get done by them either. USFWS staff need to be 

around to make decisions about Refuge property; those decisions cannot and should 

not be made by volunteers. 

When offices are closed, the community no longer has access, and the only interpretive and educational programs are provided by volunteers if any are available 

and willing. This decreases services to hunters and other wildlife recreationalists. 

Un-maintained trails mean less birdwatching. Americans paid for these refuges, but 

are they losing more and more of their ability to participate in hunting fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation. Under 

these conditions, it is very easy for these support groups to lose hope and give up. 

When a refuge’s community gives up it is the worst thing that can happen to a refuge. 

Although too dedicated and willing to admit it, many refuge staff know the maintenance, biological research and community services are so far beyond what they 

can do they are overwhelmed. Realistically, they can not begin to accomplish all the 

work that needs to be done. Right now, only a select few can see a light at the end 

of the tunnel. 

LAST YEAR’S $39 MILLION ADDITION

Last year there was $39 million added to the President’s budget, with the statement that it was to be used to address staffing shortages. In the Southwest Region, 

they were able to stop eliminating positions. California and Nevada were able to 

meet their inflationary costs. The Southeast will still have to cut positions, but not 

nearly so many. In the Northeast, we had already cut many of the positions, and 

the fate for those still in delete positions remains tenuous at best. Included among 

those is the refuge manager at my local refuges. I was also told that two Law Enforcement officers were being added in Maine, a State that never had any Law En-
345 

forcement officers. Midwest was able to achieve 75–25 and to freeze further staff 

reductions. Some of the other regions were able to stop eliminating positions altogether, others were simply able to meet the ratio of 75–25. This ratio means 75 percent salary and benefits to 25 percent management capabilities, considered ideal for 

most of the country. (Alaska is 70–30 because their expenses are so high, meaning 

they get even less staff.) the $39 million was significant in stopping the hemorrhaging caused by previous years stagnant funding and increased costs. It has 

made big difference. Perhaps the system will not tread water for a year or two, 

whereas before we were in danger of drowning. Please support increased funding of $514 million, for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, so that all its refuges may be adequately staffed and cared for, and that 

the American people get a fair return on their investment in America’s natural 

treasures. I also ask that you follow up with the USFWS to ensure that Congress’s 

desire to have lost positions funded not be ignored or discounted. Clearly, Congress 

intended for our Nation to have a first-class refuge system when it passed the Refuge Improvement Act. Now we all need to do our part, whether we be a Congressional Representative, Senator, Friends Group member, Service staff, or American 

citizen to visit, support, and take care of our National Wildlife Refuge System. Remember, Every Refuge Matters. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

The Wallkill River NWR has focused its land acquisition on protection of the river 

and its major tributaries through consolidation of forested wetland, wetland and upland properties. In fiscal year 2009, the Wallkill Refuge is working to acquire an 

86 acre property contiguous to existing refuge lands. The parcel includes a small 

canyon,stream and excellent forest interior for migratory birds and other species. 

This site protects area water quality and adds additional recreation opportunities. 

An appropriation of $630,000 from the Land and Conservation Fund in fiscal year 

2009 is needed to protect this important property. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF WERTHEIM NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

On behalf of Friends of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, I am submitting testimony for the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies. We support 

a funding level of $514 million in fiscal year 2009 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance 

(O&M) account, adequate funding for Visitor Services and $1,135,300 for phase I 

(total cost is $7.9 million) for the Long Island NWR Complex’s Visitor Learning Center/Administrative Headquarters to be located at its headquarters, Wertheim NWR. 

The $514 million accounts for cost-of-living increases for FWS personnel, while 

maintaining current levels of visitor services and wildlife management. Funding the 

O&M account at $514 million would allow the Refuge System to do its job of protecting habitat and wildlife in a much more responsible way. It is of the utmost importance that our Nation protects and enhances our National Wildlife refuge System 

for future generations. 

The Senate Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies should provide 

strong funding for Refuge System Visitor Services programs and Visitor Facility Enhancement Projects. Visitor Services funding pays for many Friends and volunteer 

programs. We depend on this funding for programs that allow us to remain effective 

stewards of our refuge. 

Recognizing invasive species as a top threat to our refuge lands, we also ask the 

committee to continue their support ‘‘for cooperative projects with Friends groups 

on invasive species control’’. This funding supports worthy programs like competitive grants for Friends groups and the Volunteer Invasive Monitoring Program. Utilizing the energy and enthusiasm of Friends and volunteers is a proven, effective 

and economical partnership for the National Wildlife Refuge System and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

The $7.9 million for the Visitor .Learning Center/Administrative Headquarters for 

the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex to be located at Wertheim NWR 

is a key focal point of LINWR Complex’s 15 year Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

It is important to note that $1,135,300 for Phase I: Planning and design would enable us to start this project. Phase I includes: Site work, A/E Services and Regional 

Engineering Services. The Visitor Learning Center would serve as a catalyst for 

educational opportunities, wildlife conservation partnerships and collaborative efforts. In an effort to reduce cost, time and energy consumption, the service has developed a standard conceptual design for the building. Designed with ‘‘green tech-
346 

nology’’ (the plans are consistent with LEED certification requirements) the Center 

will be a state-of-the-art energy efficient model. The $7.9 million includes all phases 

of the project: planning, site design, construction, and interpretive exhibits. 

Friends of Wertheim NWR feels this project deserves Federal funding because 

United States Fish and Wildlife is the Federal agency charged with conserving, protecting and enhancing the Nation’s fish, wildlife and plants for the continuing benefit of the American people. Another top priority of the Service is connecting people 

with nature: ensuring the future of conservation. Therefore a priority of Federal 

funding must be to take action. While there is no doubt that our public lands need 

to be managed through community partnerships/community resources, the Federal 

Government should be the catalyst on Federal lands to make this happen. 

When the funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System is compared to the entire national spending it is not even a ‘‘blip on the radar screen’’. The National Wildlife Refuge System is one of our ‘‘National Treasures’’ and the dedicated Refuge 

staff, Friends and volunteers do so much with so little. It is our hope that in 2009 

and beyond there is increased funding that will do more than maintain what we 

had last year; we need your help to address the $2.7 billion O&M backlog. Only by 

being ‘‘faithful stewards’’ of all of the National Wildlife Refuges in the United States 

will we ensure that they will be here for our children and our children’s children. 

The Refuges in the Long Island Complex may be small compared to others; but 

they are so important!! As a fifth grade science teacher in the local school district 

I took 4 science classes on field trips to Wertheim each year. One year one of the 

boys was standing on the trail just looking up and he stayed this way for some time. 

Since the rest of the students were eager to move on I went over to him and asked 

what he was doing. He replied, ‘‘Look—the trees make a tunnel—I can’t see the 

sky!’’ What a beautiful discovery!!! This is the reason why we must give our Refuge 

System adequate funding (fiscal year 2009—$514 million) and why the Long Island 

NWR Complex needs a Visitor Learning Center/Administrative Headquarters (fiscal 

year 2009—Phase 1 $1,135,300). 

On behalf of Friends of Wertheim NWR we thank you for your consideration of 

our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE WILLAMETTE VALLEY NATIONAL

WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX

Madame Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: We are the Friends of 

the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, a non-profit of local volunteers who care for the habitat and wildlife on the 10,625 acres within the William 

L. Finley, Ankeny, and Baskett Slough National refuges, as well as 50-acre Snag 

Boat Bend, operated as a unit of William L. Finley. The refuges of the WVNWRC 

are not as understaffed as many of the refuges, yet the limited staffing is still an 

issue during critical periods created by drought, flooding, and intense waterfowl use 

during winter. W.L. Finley NWR has attempted to stem small occurrences of false 

brome, which is widespread in native habitats in Benton County. Current levels of 

surveillance are inadequate to detect newly arrived species before they become firmly established. The impacts of nonnative species are often not well—understood, and 

appropriate and cost-effective control is often by trial and error. Although a volunteer team is being recruited to battle invasive plants, no Refuge staff positions are 

dedicated to this major problem. It is a problem also for the private commercial 

farms surrounding all three refuges. A shortage of fuel and staff time to use and 

maintain existing heavy equipment owned by the Refuge is also a serious limitation. 

The Willamette Valley refuges are the critical wintering area for the Dusky Canada goose, and during winter, our refuges provide the major habitat areas that support their survival until the spring flight back to Alaska. Refuge habitat is limited, 

and the refuge staff have been pursuing a partners program with local landowners, 

to provide private lands as the additional winter habitat required by the Duskies. 

Additional staff support for this program would be a win-win for both the Duskies, 

and local agriculture, as it would prevent some of the depradations of wintering 

geese on neighboring agricultural lands. 

Road maintenance is another serious issue where funding and staff limitations result in deterioration of Refuge facilities. Finley Road, for one example, is in a state 

of bad disrepair and is eroding at every significant rain event. The runoff enters the 

aptly-named Muddy Creek, the main body of water through the refuge, causing sedimentation and pollution. There are also safety issues concerning the roads, including the lack of safe entry lanes off US 99W for entry to the Finley Refuge. Increased 

warning signs would provide a short-term solution, but construction of an exit lane 

is the only safe option. 
347 

More signage would help also in the way of interpretation. There are trails on the 

complex that could use interpretive signage, but little progress has been made, 

largely due to lack of funding. Although environmental education is one of the dedicated uses of the refuge system, limited staff time has prevented Refuge staff from 

providing refuge tours requested by local teachers. As the Friends, we are organizing to develop such a program, but we need the leadership and expertise that 

only a dedicated staff member can provide, at least part time. Similarly, local teachers have requested tours for class groups, but staff workload has prevented the development of an environmental education program to properly handle these requests. 

In summary, the Refuge System is facing a tremendous task in carrying on at the 

funding levels being provided today. We ask that the subcommittee increase O&M 

funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System to $514 million in fiscal year 2009. 

In addition, we ask that the subcommittee allocate additional funds from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2009 to allow acquisition of critical 

areas beneficial to the protection of wildlife within the Refuge system. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GATHERING WATERS CONSERVANCY

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you for 

the opportunity to present testimony in support of an appropriation of $3.5 million 

to acquire more than 1,400 acres of forest inholdings within the ChequamegonNicolet National Forest in Wisconsin. The Forest Service has prioritized these acquisitions through its Wisconsin Wild Waterways program. 

As you know, this project is one of many worthy acquisition projects nationwide 

seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has 

diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further 

cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to 

acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been 

identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, 

scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal year 2009. 

The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, located in northern Wisconsin, covers 

more than 1.5 million acres of northern forests and lakes. The variety of forest types 

is virtually unmatched anywhere else in the United States, and the combination of 

this feature with the abundance of lakes, rivers, and streams ensures that the forest 

boasts some of the best recreational opportunities in the country. With its 1,200 

lakes, the national forest offers plenty of paddling, prize fishing, canoeing, boating, 

and swimming, in addition to opportunities afforded by its 800 miles of trails. 

The Forest Service has recognized the unique attributes of the Wisconsin forests 

by undertaking a land protection program that is focused on the protection of undeveloped lakefront properties and consolidation of publicly owned land for the benefit 

of recreation and natural resources. The Wisconsin Wild Waterways program has 

been supported through annual funding from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. In the past few years, over 10,000 acres of undeveloped shoreline along several critical lakes and streams have been protected through this program. 

This year, there are numerous key inholdings available for acquisition. 

First, in Bayfield County, there is an 881-acre assemblage of inholding parcels 

consisting of nine tracts ranging in size from 33 to 240 acres. These inholdings are 

nearly surrounded by national forest land and share a 12.25-mile boundary with the 

forest. They include one quarter mile of creek frontage, a tributary to Trapper Lake, 

40 acres of wetland, an entire small lake, and the remaining private ownership on 

three other small lakes. The tracts also include the territory of a wolf pack and are 

within the planned habitat range of the released Wisconsin elk herd. The mixture 

of forest and riparian areas makes these properties a haven for recreation as well 

as for wildlife, including important habitat for the bald eagle, goshawk, and pine 

martin. 

Ideal for multi season recreation, visitors to this area can enjoy hiking, camping, 

birding, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing. Two of these 

inholdings are located in the Big Brook and Marengo semi-primitive non-motorized 

areas, and their protection will help consolidate these protected lands. Protecting 

these nine properties are critically important to maintaining the natural character 

of the area, while insuring long-term elk habitat for Wisconsin’s growing elk herd. 

If these properties are not protected, habitat loss is imminent, as easy road access 

to these areas makes them particularly susceptible to second home development. 

Also available for acquisition are 548 acres of multiple small inholdings throughout the forest. Since many of these inholdings have good quality water frontage, the 
348 

properties are highly threatened by development. The properties include the last 

privately owned parcel on Zarling Lake. Completely surrounded by national forest 

land, this 40-acre property includes one-third mile of frontage on the 38-acre lake. 

One historic and three prehistoric archeological sites have been identified on adjoining Forest Service land, and it is likely that this parcel will also contain significant 

archeological resources. Another parcel consists of 31 acres on the western shore of 

Wabikon Lake and has 1,000 feet of shoreline, important wetland habitat, and numerous springs that feed the lake. Conserving these threatened inholdings within 

the boundaries of the national forest help meet Forest Service goals to consolidate 

land for better management, enhance public access to these resources, and protect 

water quality and recreational values. 

There is strong public support for public ownership of these tracts as part of the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. An appropriation of $3.5 million from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2009 will continue the success 

of the Wisconsin Wild Waterways program in protecting these important properties 

from development while enhancing diversity of habitat and recreational opportunities in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the 

funding needed to acquire these forest inholdings. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GEORGIA RIVER NETWORK

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of an important land acquisition funding 

need in the Oconee National Forest in Georgia. I am supporting an appropriation 

of $4 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year 

2009 for the Chattahoochee/Oconee Riparian Project. 

Georgia River Network is a statewide organization working to protect and restore 

rivers across Georgia. We represent over 500 Georgia citizens and 30∂ river protection organizations. Land conservation is vital to our watershed conservation efforts. 

One of the organizations we work with, the Central Georgia Rivers Partnership, 

places middle Georgia land conservation as its cornerstone. A University of Georgia 

study found an area of middle Georgia encompassing Oconee National Forest areas 

to be the third wildest place in Georgia, behind the Okefenokee Swamp and the 

Chattahoochee National Forest. The area is also under unprecedented development 

pressures. Conserving Central Georgia rural and natural areas are important to our 

quality of life, our cultural and historic heritage and community economic wellbeing. 

From the headwaters to where they join to form the Altamaha, the Ocmulgee and 

Oconee river corridors possess natural, historic and prehistoric treasures and has 

many citizens, agency personnel, and businesses interested in conserving land 

throughout the area. A variety of management plans and conservation areas already 

exist in Central Georgia, and the CGRP strives to connect these areas and plans 

together in order to conserve this special place. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, these projects included in the program are some 

of many worthy acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, 

and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left 

our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance 

recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, 

and other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding 

for this program in fiscal year 2009. 

The Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests encompass the ridges and valleys of 

the southern Appalachians in north Georgia as well as significant recreational, historical, and natural resources in the Georgia Piedmont. These forests provide important habitat for over 500 wildlife species, including many unique mountain species 

of plants, and contain over 1,000 miles of primary trout and warm-water streams. 

The watersheds within the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests supply 

the drinking water for the largest urban areas in the State of Georgia. These watersheds not only provide recreational opportunities, but also critical habitat for dozens 

of threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species. The ChattachoocheeOconee National Forests are featured in the 2007 Forest Service publication, National Forests on the Edge, a report that examines the challenges faced by the national forest system due to the high growth in housing density projected to occur 

on adjacent private land between 2000 and 2030. This area in Georgia is at very 

high risk for development due to its close location to Atlanta, Athens, and Macon. 

Already, the building of second homes threatens the forests by fragmenting wildlife 
349 

1The requested BIA funds reflect GLIFWC’s allocation of this line item that also funds the 

1854 Treaty Authority. 2The rights guaranteed by these treaties, and the associated tribal regulatory and management responsibilities, have been affirmed by various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case. 

habitat, complicating wildfire management, and increasing the amount of nonpoint 

source pollution in the area. 

Within the Oconee National Forest, the Ocmulgee River watershed is threatened 

by such growth. The Ocmulgee is one of the most productive and diverse fisheries 

in the Georgia Piedmont. There are a variety of microhabitats throughout its wide 

channel, including shoals, riffles, and pools. This riparian corridor provides many 

water-based recreational opportunities, which include some of the best shoal bass 

fishing in the state as well as excellent canoeing, camping, hiking, hunting, swimming, and horseback riding. 

Among the priorities of the Chattahoochee/Oconee Riparian Project is the Cedar 

Creek parcel. Its acquisition will further the consolidation of Oconee National Forest 

lands and protect the water quality of Cedar Creek and the Ocmulgee River. The 

Forest Service designated Cedar Creek as an ‘‘outstandingly remarkable stream’’ 

within the Chattahoochee-Oconee NF. Preventing the development of this land will 

also protect more habitat for wildlife such as the red-cockaded woodpecker, wood 

stork, and gray bat—all federally listed endangered species. The current owner of 

the Cedar Creek property is a timber company seeking to sell off its inholdings. Unless the Forest Service is able to acquire and protect this land, it will very likely 

be developed in the near future. In fiscal year 2009, $4 million is required from the 

Forest Service through the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire and conserve the Cedar Creek property, as well as other worthy land acquisition projects 

within the Chattahoochee and Oconee national forests. This acquisition will protect 

important cultural, recreational and wildlife areas, protect clean drinking water, 

and facilitate improved management of national forest lands in Georgia. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present testimony in support 

of these important acquisition projects. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE

COMMISSION (GLIFWC) 

AGENCIES—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1. BIA TREATY RIGHTS PROTECTION/IMPLEMENTATION: $4,327,000 

($452,000 above fiscal year 2008 appropriation). 

Agency/Program Line Item: Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation 

of Indian Programs, Trust-Natural Resources Management, Rights Protection Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resource Management.1

Funding Authorizations: Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. §13; Indian Self-Determination 

and Educational Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. §§450f and 450h; and the treaties between the United States and GLIFWC’s member Ojibwe Tribes, specifically Treaty 

of 1836, 7 Stat. 491, Treaty of 1837, 7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591, and 

Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat. 1109.2

2. EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT: $300,000 (fiscal 

year 2004 enacted). 

Agency/Program Line Item: Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental 

Programs and Management (funneled through the EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office). 

Funding Authorizations: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1268(c); and treaties cited 

above. 

GLIFWC’S GOAL—A SECURE FUNDING BASE TO FULFILL TREATY PURPOSES

As Congress has recognized for almost 25 years, funding for GLIFWC’s conservation, natural resource protection, and law enforcement programs honors Federal 

treaty obligations to 11 Ojibwe Tribes and provides a wide range of associated public 

benefits. GLIFWC seeks an inflation-adjusted secure funding base to: (i) implement 

Federal court orders and intergovernmental agreements governing the exercise of 

treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and gathering rights; and (ii) participate in management partnerships in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. 
350 

3This amount includes $151,000 in fixed pay costs that the Bureau has been providing but 

that needs to be preserved in future appropriations. 

ELEMENTS OF GLIFWC’S FUNDING REQUEST

1. BIA TREATY RIGHTS PROTECTION/IMPLEMENTATION: $4,327,000. As its 

primary Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act funding base, 

GLIFWC seeks to: 

a. restore $227,000 3 in program operational costs lost to continually decreasing 

base funding over the last four years; 

b. provide $150,000 to sustain enhancements in conservation enforcement and 

emergency services capabilities; and 

c. provide $75,000 to retain cultural infusion programs designed to sustain and 

foster inter-generational transfer of Chippewa language, lifeways and traditional ecological knowledge. 

2. EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT: $300,000. As an 

EPA funding base for its primary environmental program elements, GLIFWC seeks 

to: 

a. Provide $190,000 for basic scientific/technical capabilities to: (i) continue participation in a number of Great Lakes initiatives (including the Binational Program 

to Restore and Protect Lake Superior and the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration); 

(ii) carry out habitat and human-health related research; and (iii) provide the requisite analysis and data to support participation in regional initiatives and to assess 

the impact of particular projects on tribal treaty rights. 

b. Provide $110,000 to undertake three habitat and human health-related research projects regarding: (i) GLIFWC’s fish consumption mercury advisory program; (ii) invasive species impacts on the Lake Superior food web; and (iii) a global 

climate change pilot project. 

CEDED TERRITORY TREATY RIGHTS—GLIFWC’S ROLE AND PROGRAMS

Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management agency for its 

eleven member Ojibwe Tribes regarding their ceded territory (off-reservation) hunting, fishing and gathering treaty rights. Its mission is to: (i) ensure that its member 

Tribes are able to exercise their rights for the purposes of meeting subsistence, economic, cultural, medicinal, and spiritual needs; and (ii) ensure a healthy, sustainable natural resource base that supports those rights. GLIFWC is a ‘‘tribal organization’’ within the meaning of the Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act (Public Law 93–638). It is governed by a Constitution developed and ratified by its member Tribes and by a board comprised of the Chairs of those Tribes. 

GLIFWC operates a comprehensive ceded territory hunting, fishing, and gathering rights protection/implementation program through its staff of biologists, scientists, technicians, conservation enforcement officers, policy specialists, and public 

information specialists. Its activities include: (i) natural resource population assessments and studies; (ii) harvest monitoring and reporting; (iii) enforcement of tribal 

conservation codes in tribal courts; (iv) funding for tribal courts and tribal registration/permit stations; (v) development of natural resource management plans and 

tribal regulations; (vi) negotiation and implementation of agreements with state, 

federal and local agencies; (vii) invasive species eradication and control projects; 

(viii) biological and scientific research, including fish contaminant testing; and (ix) 

development and dissemination of public information materials. 

JUSTIFICATION & USE OF THE REQUESTED FUNDS

For almost 25 years, Congress has recognized GLIFWC as a cost-efficient agency 

that plays a necessary role in: (i) meeting specific Federal treaty and statutory obligations toward GLIFWC’s member Tribes; (ii) fulfilling conservation, habitat protection, and law enforcement functions required by Federal court decisions affirming 

the Tribes’ treaty rights; (iii) effectively regulating harvests of natural resources 

shared among the treaty signatory Tribes; and (iv) serving as an active partner with 

State, Federal, and local governments, with educational institutions, and with conservation organizations and other non-profit agencies. 

Particularly relevant to the requested EPA funds, Tribal members rely upon treaty-protected natural resources for religious, cultural, medicinal, subsistence, and 

economic purposes. Their treaty rights mean little if contamination of these resources threatens their health, safety, and economy, or if the habitats supporting 

these resources are degraded. With the requested stable funding base, GLIFWC 

will: 
351 

4For example, the previously restored funding base was used to: (i) reinstitute fall juvenile 

walleye recruitment surveys to previous levels; (ii) restore tribal court and registration station 

funding cuts; (iii) restore Lake Superior lamprey control and whitefish assessment programs; 

(iv) restore GLIFWC’s share in cooperative wildlife and wild rice enhancement projects; (v) replace aging equipment; (vi) meet expanding harvest monitoring needs; and (vii) meet uncontrollable increases in employee benefit costs. 5GLIFWC has: (i) upgraded its patrol capabilities with new vehicles, boats, snowmobiles, and 

off-road vehicles; (ii) increased officer medical training and upgraded first aid equipment; (iii) 

upgraded its radio systems to be compatible with surrounding agencies; and (iv) established ongoing joint training with federal, state, and local agencies. 6GLIFWC currently participates on a regular basis in the Binational Program to Restore and 

Protect Lake Superior, International Joint Commission and SOLEC forums, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, and the implementation of agreements to regulate water diversions and 

withdrawals under the Great Lakes Charter, Annex 2001. 7With the requested fiscal year 2008 EPA funds, GLIFWC would: (i) continue its long-standing program to collect and test fish for mercury and to communicate testing results through 

health care providers and GIS maps; (ii) document the diet of important species of Lake Superior fish in order to understand potential changes over time due to invasive species or other 

causes; and (iii) identify climate variables that affect the presence, health and abundance of selected natural resources that are harvested by GLIFWC member tribes. 

1. MAINTAIN ITS CORE CAPABILITIES TO CONSERVE NATURAL RESOURCES AND TO REGULATE TREATY HARVESTS: With the requested funds 

GLIFWC would: (i) restore program operational costs lost to continually decreasing 

base funding over the last four years; 4 (ii) retain the knowledgeable, experienced 

staff that are relied upon to conserve natural resources, protect public health and 

safety, and promote social stability in the context of tribal treaty rights; (iii) solidify 

law enforcement and emergency response infrastructure improvements that have 

been instituted with a combination of BIA and U.S. Department of Justice COPS 

funds; 5 and (iv) sustain cultural infusion programs designed to sustain and foster 

inter-generational transfer of Chippewa language, lifeways and traditional ecological 

knowledge. 

2. REMAIN A TRUSTED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PARTNER AND 

SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTOR IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION: With the requested EPA funding base, GLIFWC would maintain its ability to bring a tribal perspective to the interjurisdictional mix of Great Lakes managers.6 It also would use 

its scientific expertise to study issues and geographic areas that are important to 

its member Tribes but that others may not be examining.7

The lack of a secure, ongoing EPA funding base jeopardizes GLIFWC’s role as a 

trusted environmental management partner and scientific contributor in the Great 

Lakes Region. The Federal Government’s treaty obligations to GLIFWC’s member 

Tribes compel more than the mere opportunity to compete for a diminishing patchwork of discretionary EPA grants. This is particularly true given important current 

initiatives such as the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration in which GLIFWC participates as a full partner. 

3. MAINTAIN THE OVERALL PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT DERIVE FROM ITS 

PROGRAMS: Over the years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and valued partner 

in natural resource management, in emergency services networks, and in providing 

accurate information to the public. Because of its institutional experience and staff 

expertise, GLIFWC provides continuity and stability in interagency relationships 

and among its member Tribes, and contributes to social stability in the context of 

ceded territory treaty rights issues. 

Over the past 20 years, GLIFWC has built many partnerships that: (i) provide 

accurate information and data to counter social misconceptions about tribal treaty 

harvests and the status of ceded territory natural resources; (ii) maximize each partner’s financial resources; (iii) avoid duplication of effort and costs; (iv) engender cooperation rather than competition; and (v) undertake projects and achieve public 

benefits that no one partner could accomplish alone. 

OTHER RELATED APPROPRIATIONS CONCERNS

1. Fully Funded BIA Contract Support Costs.—GLIFWC seeks full funding of its 

contract support costs. In 2007, for the first time ever, GLIFWC received full funding of its indirect costs and a portion of its direct contract support costs. GLIFWC 

strives to maintain a low indirect cost rate, thereby enabling the majority of federally contracted funds to go directly toward program services, not administrative 

costs. In fiscal year 2008, GLIFWC’s fixed-carry forward indirect cost rate is 17.59 

percent. 

2. BIA Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Initiative.—Once again, Congress should fully fund this long-standing tribal contribution to the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan that the administration again proposes to eliminate. 
352 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREEN MOUNTAIN CLUB

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $4 million from the Forest Legacy Program to protect the 5,727-acre Eden Forest property 

in Eden, Vermont. 

I also urge your support for a significant increase in funding for the Forest Legacy 

Program in fiscal year 2009 to enable the protection of more forest resources than 

are included in the President’s Budget. The Budget for this year proposes a cut of 

75 percent and sets aside funds for only three Forest Legacy projects nationwide out 

of 87 submitted by the States. Without additional funds, the program will not be 

able to continue its successful partnerships with States, local communities, and 

landowners to protect valuable forestlands, while retaining, in many cases, private 

ownership. 

The Forest Legacy Program in Vermont seeks to achieve significant conservation 

goals for the State by protecting the following types of land: large contiguous and 

productive forest blocks, wildlife habitat dependent on large contiguous forest 

blocks, threatened and endangered species habitat, State fragile areas and undeveloped shoreline, significant wetlands, and important recreation corridors. 

The State’s top Forest Legacy Program priority for fiscal year 2009 is the 5,727- 

acre Eden Forest. Situated on the spine of the northern Green Mountains in Eden 

and Johnson. This large contiguous timber tract is truly a high-quality forest, which 

contains two unique natural communities known as red spruce hardwood swamp 

and semi-rich northern hardwood forest. The property has been managed for timber 

for over 50 years and, given the excellent condition of the forest and forest roads, 

is well positioned to continue providing forest products far into the future. 

Eden Forest is adjacent to 24,188 acres of conserved land and shares a common 

boundary with the Long Trail State Forest and the Long Trail corridor itself for approximately four miles. The Long Trail is the Nation’s oldest long-distance hiking 

trail and one of Vermont’s most cherished cultural resources. The property also contains portions of both Bowen and Butternut Mountain summits. Its protection would 

create a 30,000-acre block of protected land, a significant unfragmented ‘‘core’’ forest 

in Vermont’s northern woods. 

Eden Forest’s close proximity to such ecological hotspots as the Babcock Nature 

Preserve, the Atlas Timberlands, and Green River Reservoir State Park coupled 

with the large unfragmented nature of the property will provide a haven for many 

wildlife species such as black bear, bobcat, gray and red fox, moose, and deer. Over 

5,000 acres of the property is considered ‘‘core’’ habitat and has received a high wildlife-linkage-value rating by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife due in 

part to it being a ‘‘black bear production habitat’’ area. These areas support a relatively high density of cub-producing females. This property also has 120 acres of 

beaver wetlands that provide habitat for wood ducks, wood turtles, and many species of warblers. A rookery for great blue herons, a rare species in Vermont, was 

found at one of the property’s wetland complexes. 

The Eden Forest property encapsulates almost the entire watersheds of two Gihon 

River headwater streams, Stony Brook and Wild Brook. It also contains approximately one-half mile of frontage on both sides of the Gihon River itself, which is 

a tributary of the Lamoille River, and abuts Vermont’s scenic Route 100. The property includes more than 46 miles of streams and rivers that make up part of the 

Gihon River headwaters. The Lamoille County watershed plan recognizes the importance of protecting the Gihon River headwaters area for its near-pristine natural 

condition, wildlife and fish habitat value, timber value, and location adjacent to a 

core of protected land. Numerous wetlands dot the extensive property, including the 

six-acre Lanpher Meadow. 

Historically, the Eden Forest property has also provided numerous recreational 

activities such as hiking, hunting, and cross-country skiing. Snowmobiling is also allowed, and the property hosts trails that are managed by the Vermont Association 

of Snow Travelers (VAST). Lamoille County also has the largest connected network 

of cross-county ski trails in the world, and this project could help expand that network in the future. These activities all make up an important part of the local tourist economy. 

Eden Forest is under immediate pressure from development. According to 2000 

census data, the town of Eden has the second highest percentage of population 

growth in Lamoille County, and its projected population growth through 2015 is expected to continue at a higher rate than almost any other town in the county. Eden 

also had a 25 percent increase in the number of housing units from 1990 to 2000, 

indicating a high demand for new homes in the area. This type of sprawl is largely 

to blame for the fragmentation of Vermont’s forests and farms. With its first-rate 
353 

access to Route 100, low-elevation open meadows, well-developed road network, 

southern exposure, scenic views, and proximity to the major cities in Vermont, Eden 

Forest is a prime spot for development. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairman for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $4 million from the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 2009 to protect the vast 5,727-acre Eden Forest property. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, HANOVER

COUNTY, VIRGINIA

On behalf of the Hanover County, Virginia Board of Supervisors, I thank you Senator Feinstein and Senator Allard for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding 

Hanover County’s efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay. To further our efforts to 

protect the Bay, Hanover County respectfully requests $1.884 million through the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State and Tribal Assistance Grants 

(STAG) for the Sharon Park Septic Tank Elimination and Public Sewer Extension 

Project. Failing septic systems have been shown to be a contributor to the current 

impaired status of the Bay. Completion of this project will not only protect the 

health of Hanover County residents, but will also further Hanover County’s efforts 

to protect the Chesapeake Bay. 

Hanover County, located in the east-central Piedmont and Coastal Plain areas of 

Virginia between the Chickahominy and Pamunkey Rivers, is part of the greater 

Richmond metropolitan area. The County land area is 471 square miles bordered 

by the Counties of Caroline, King William, New Kent, Henrico, Goochland, Spotsylvania and Louisa. Hanover County is a vibrant rural and suburban locality. The 

County has two interstate highways, I–95 and I–295, which are among the busiest 

in the eastern United States. The County has a population of approximately 

100,000, and is an excellent environment in which to live, for it offers a taste of 

rural America (it is the home of the internationally renowned Hanover Tomato) in 

the greater Richmond area. Hanover County is great horse country and boasts some 

of the finest livestock farms in central Virginia. The County, one of the fastest growing in the state, continues to be an exciting community where history is preserved 

for the future. 

Hanover County is dedicated to protecting the Chesapeake Bay. The County was 

the first jurisdiction in the metro Richmond region to adopt the revised Chesapeake 

Bay Regulations, and voluntarily included Biological Nutrient Removal in the design of the new wastewater treatment plant. The County also implemented a growth 

management program (Smart Growth) well before such programs became popular. 

Under Hanover’s Smart Growth program, 78 percent of the County’s 471 square 

miles will remain rural in nature (agricultural, forestall and low density residential). The remaining 22 percent will be suburban style development. Hanover is 

managing its Smart Growth program through funding incentives and the construction of public water and wastewater facilities. Hanover’s water and sewer rates are 

among the highest in the region due in part to the investment in infrastructure to 

support the growth management program. 

Hanover County requests Federal assistance in order to complete another important step in the County’s plan to protect the Chesapeake Bay watershed by extending public sewer to the Sharon Park subdivision which currently relies on a septic 

system. The Sharon Park subdivision is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Point source discharges such as industrial and wastewater treatment plan discharges are currently regulated, and managers of these entities are working to reduce pollutant discharges. However, septic systems are unregulated. To fully 

achieve the goals of the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement, programs to eliminate 

failing septic systems, like Sharon Park, are necessary. The Sharon Park project 

provides an approach to advance the goals of the 2000 agreement by eliminating 

failing septic systems. 

Sharon Park is a mature subdivision dating back to 1950. Approximately 85 of 

the subdivision’s 120 lots, which range in size from half an acre to one acre, are 

developed. Under normal conditions the life expectancy for a septic system is between 20 and 30 years and the older septic systems in Sharon Park are now failing—creating both health and environmental hazards. Because of the lot sizes, the 

Sharon Park residents are precluded from rectifying the problem through replacement of the septic systems. Because many in Sharon Park rely on individual wells 

for drinking water, the septic tank failures and their impact on the surrounding soil 

present a significant public health threat. 

Providing wastewater service to Sharon Park Subdivision involves the construction of approximately 10,500 linear feet of 8-inch gravity sewer, a new pump station, 
354 

and an approximately 3,300 foot long force main. The estimated cost to retrofit 

Sharon Park is approximately $3.425 million or $28,500 per household (approximately $119 per month for 20 years assuming 0 percent interest loan—total sewer 

bill would be approximately 2.1 percent of median household income). Hanover 

County is requesting $1,884,000 in Federal funding, 55 percent of the project cost. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program has determined that nitrogen and phosphorous are 

the major contributors to the impaired status of the Chesapeake Bay, and septic 

systems are significant contributors to the nitrogen load. According to the 1990 Bureau of the Census data, 24.7 percent of housing units in the Chesapeake Bay watershed rely on septic tanks or cesspools to treat their household wastewater. Population is expected to increase by 18 percent between 1997 and the year 2020 (from 

15.1 million to nearly 17.8 million). Nitrogen loads from septic systems are expected 

to increase as population increases. Because increase in nitrogen loads from septic 

systems is generally attributed to growth, the increase in load due to the failing systems may be even greater. The York River Tributary Strategy data shows nitrogen 

discharges from septic systems into the York River Basin will increase by 38 percent 

between 1985 and 2010 due to growth. This assumes all other septic systems are 

in good working order and being maintained properly. 

Hanover County proposes to support reduced nitrogen loads by eliminating the 

failing septic systems in the Sharon Park subdivision. A resident hooked to an advanced wastewater treatment plant sends about two pounds of nitrogen into the 

Chesapeake Bay waterways annually, whereas a septic tank produces about nine 

pounds annually. With previous support from this subcommittee, Hanover County 

has nearly completed a similar project in the Atlee Manor subdivision, a neighborhood very similar to Sharon Park that also lies in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

The completion of these projects will have a profound and recognizable impact on 

the health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

On behalf of Hanover County, I would like to thank the subcommittee for its commitment to protecting the Chesapeake Bay. Hanover County requests that this subcommittee again support the County’s efforts to protect the Bay by providing additional support to eliminate the septic tanks in the Sharon Park subdivision. Thank 

you again for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of Hanover County. We 

look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee to achieve our mutual 

goal of enhancing and protecting the health and beauty of the complex ecosystem 

of the Chesapeake Bay. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HAWAII AUDUBON SOCIETY

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you, 

Madam Chairman for the opportunity to present this testimony in behalf of the Hawaii Audubon Society in support of an appropriation of $6 million for the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to continue the protection of an 850-acre tract at the 

James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge on O‘ahu in Hawai‘i. 

Founded in 1939, the Hawai‘i Audubon Society is the State’s oldest conservation 

organization, and it has played a proactive role in furthering its primary mission 

of fostering community values that result in the protection and restoration of native 

ecosystems and conservation of natural resources through education, science and advocacy in Hawai‘i and the Pacific. 

The James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge is a strategic landfall for migratory 

birds coming from as far away as Alaska, Siberia, and Asia. It is also the largest 

of O‘ahu’s national wildlife refuges, providing both research and educational opportunities. Established in 1976, the refuge serves as one of the last reservoirs for 

Hawai‘i’s four endangered waterbird species—Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian duck, Hawaiian moorhen, and Hawaiian stilt—and as winter haven for migratory waterfowl 

and shorebirds. A total of 117 bird species have been documented on the refuge 

since its inception. The refuge currently includes 260 acres in two units—Ki‘i and 

Punamano ̄, separated by nearly a mile. The Punamano ̄ unit includes a natural 

spring-fed pond, whereas the Ki‘i unit, a remnant of a formerly larger marsh, has 

been drastically modified by agriculture. Due to the sensitivity and small acreage, 

access to the refuge is restricted, but guided tours periodically are offered to the 

general public and environmental education groups. In addition, school groups are 

accommodated on a regular basis during the non-nesting season. 

As the members of this committee know, in May 2006, Congress passed the James 

Campbell National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act in response to longstanding public concerns about protecting O‘ahu’s natural resources and open space on the 

Kahuku coastal plain. 
355 

This authorization allows the USFWS to acquire lands within the expanded refuge boundary from the Estate of James Campbell. The refuge expansion will protect 

the natural coastal wetlands and natural dune habitats of the Kahuku coastal area 

and ensure a protected haven for all four species of endangered Hawaiian 

waterbirds and a variety of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl that use coastal 

wetlands and surrounding lands. Protection of the dune and strand vegetation near 

the coast will conserve resting areas for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, and 

nesting habitat for the threatened green sea turtles that use Kahuku beaches. 

As one of the few scattered remnants of wetland habitat that still exist on O‘ahu, 

the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge is one of the most productive 

waterbird wetlands for resident and migratory species. The expansion of the refuge 

will also provide visitors increased opportunities to view native Hawaiian wildlife 

and some of the last remaining pristine coastal habitat on O‘ahu. Expansion will 

offer year-round wildlife viewing opportunities as well as the eventual establishment of an outdoor education center for students. Activities would focus on the importance of wetlands, their cultural significance, the plight of native plants and 

birds, and efforts to conserve and restore essential wetland habitat to save these 

species from extinction. Further, acquisition of this coastal site will aid in cultural 

resource protection, as it is believed the land encompasses ancient Hawaiian burial 

grounds. In previous fiscal years, $8 million has been appropriated to help implement the expansion. An appropriation of $6 million from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund in fiscal year 2009 will bring closer to completion the permanent protection 

of 850 acres of diverse habitat lands within the expanded refuge boundary. This 

project will provide habitat for some of Hawai‘i’s most endangered species and will 

expand on existing wildlife viewing opportunities to the multitude of visitors who 

are expected to come to the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge annually. 

Madam Chairwoman, I’m sure that you are well aware that this project is one 

of many worthy acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, 

and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left 

our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical holdings in adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and 

other important features. On behalf of the Hawai‘i Audubon Society and its members I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2009. 

Mahalo for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of this important 

conservation project in Hawai‘i. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HIGHLANDS COALITION

On behalf of the regional Board of the Highlands Coalition, which includes over 

180 organizations working together to conserve nationally important natural resources in the Highlands region of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the fiscal 

year 2009 Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Our top priorities for fiscal year 2009 include: 

—$11 million for the Highlands Conservation Act, including $10 million for land 

conservation partnership projects through the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and 

$1 million for USDA Forest Service technical assistance and research programs 

in the Highlands —$120 million in land acquisition funding for the Forest Legacy program 

—$403 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Federal and stateside land acquisition program. 

HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION ACT

Priority Land Acquisition 

Just over 3 years ago, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the Highlands 

Conservation Act, recognizing the national significance of the 3.5 million acre Highlands region as a source of drinking water, productive forests and working farms, 

wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities for the 25 million people who live 

within an hour of its resources. The Highlands shadows the major metropolitan 

areas of the east coast from Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Allentown, New York City 

and Hartford. The act authorized $100 million over 10 years to assist the Highlands 

States in conserving priority lands from willing landowners, and $10 million over 
356 

10 years to continue vital USDA Forest Service research and assistance to private 

landowners in the Highlands. Under the act, the four States acquire the lands with 

Federal assistance and are required to match those Federal funds for land conservation partnership projects on an equal basis to greater leverage these funds. These 

lands are evaluated and identified in three separate Forest Service studies of the 

Highlands in 1992, 2002, and 2008. 

As happened in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2008, no funding has been 

provided for the Highlands Conservation Act (HCA) in the fiscal year 2009 budget. 

This means that none of the analytically selected and prioritized land conservation 

partnership projects in the four Highland States can be accomplished in fiscal year 

2009 without action by Congress. We strongly urge the committee to provide full 

funding for the HCA at a total of $11 million with $10 million in land acquisition 

funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and $1 million for the USDA Forest 

Service’s technical assistance program in the Highlands. The USDA Forest Service 

has been a valuable partner and catalyst in the region and $1 million is needed to 

allow the Forest Service to provide increased technical assistance to State agencies, 

private landowners and local communities to advance sound stewardship and management of important resources in the region. 

The Governors of the four Highlands States have jointly submitted land conservation projects totaling $10 million to the Department of the Interior for funding in 

fiscal year 2009, including: 

Cooks Creek Watershed & South Mountain (PA) 

Funding for the Highlands Conservation Act program in fiscal year 2009 would 

fund land acquisition efforts on 567 acres in the Cooks Creek area of Pennsylvania 

(Durham Township, Bucks County). Cooks Creek originates in the diabase and 

quartzite hills of Springfield Township and flows through the limestone valley at 

Springtown to empty into the Delaware River. The area’s steep forested hills, 

unique to Bucks County, are due to this geology. Cooks Creek Watershed has a long 

colonial history, dating to 1698, when British settlers sought the area’s iron deposits. Pioneer families settled by the 1730’s and many of their historic structures along 

Cooks Creek, including mills, bridges, homes, churches and schools, still stand. Durham Mine, now abandoned, is the State’s second largest bat hibernaculum, an Important Mammal Area home to six bat species. The surrounding forest is important 

bat and rare bird habitat. Cooks Creek is Bucks County’s only viable coldwater fishery, supports naturally reproducing trout and is a PA DEP Exceptional Value waterway. The watershed’s rural valley has working prime farmland and numerous rare 

and endangered species. The 1999 Bucks County Natural Areas Inventory rates the 

area Priority 1, Heritage Conservancy includes Cooks Creek Watershed as part of 

its Lasting Landscapes Program, and the Highlands Coalition has designated it an 

area of special concern. 

Wildlands Conservancy, the City of Allentown, the County of Lehigh, Salisbury 

Township and Emmaus established Lehigh County’s South Mountain-Robert Rodale 

Reserve, comprised mostly of Allentown’s South Mountain Park and Wildland Conservancy’s South Mountain Preserve, to protect the Lehigh Valley’s scenic viewshed 

and important wildlife habitat, and to provide residents with nearby recreational opportunities. The reserve contains maturing second-growth forest, rare and threatened species, including two plant species of special concern, and nesting habitat for 

more than 59 bird species. Vernal pools here are thought to be the State’s most active for salamanders, and are surrounded by intact forest, which is critical for amphibians. Lehigh County has designated the Robert Rodale Reserve site a top-priority natural area, and South Mountain preservation efforts have been ongoing for 

more than a decade. South Mountain is a prominent landscape within the Highlands of Lehigh and Northampton counties. 

Wyanokie/Farny Highlands & Ramapo Mountains (NJ) 

The Wyanokie and Farny Highlands were identified as a Conservation Focal Area 

in the USDA Forest Service NY–NJ Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update. The 

Wyanokie and Farny Highlands contain critical watersheds that protect New Jersey’s most significant and most threatened water supply—the Wanaque Reservoir— 

on which nearly two million people rely. The Wyanokies contain the headwaters of 

Burnt Meadow and West Brooks, waterways of exceptional ecological significance, 

which flow directly into the Wanaque Reservoir. Acquisition will provide essential 

protection for this critical water supply, which the U.S. Forest Service identified as 

highly threatened by development. In addition, preservation will help complete a 

missing greenway link between Norvin Green State Forest and Long Pond Ironworks State Park, and extend a direct connection to New York’s Sterling Forest 

State Park along the route of the Highlands Millennium Trail, which travels 150 
357 

miles between the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. The Wyanokie Highlands boast an 

extensive network of historic hiking trails and dramatic scenic overlooks, as well as 

significant ecological values. The Wyanokie Highlands Project consists of 855 acres 

in Passaic County in three parcels: 400 acres on Saddle Mountain in Ringwood Borough and West Milford Township, 155 acres on Westbrook Mountain and 300 acres 

on Buck Mountain, both in West Milford. 

The Ramapo Mountains were identified as a Conservation Focal Area in the 

USDA Forest Service NY–NJ Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update. Located in 

Bergen and Passaic counties, the Ramapo Mountains contain important watersheds 

and outstanding parklands that protect the easternmost ridge of the Highlands, 

with its breathtaking views of Manhattan, for significant public recreational use Acquisition of the Camp Yaw Paw property will finally close a critical gap in existing 

protected lands and assure the preservation of significant unfragmented forest that 

is home to threatened and endangered species including barred owl, Cooper’s hawk, 

northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk, timber rattlesnake and wood turtle. Preservation of 209-acre camp Yaw Paw in Mahwah Township, Bergen County and 

Ringwood Borough, Passaic County will enlarge Ramapo Mountain State Forest and 

adjoining Ringwood State Park, which total 8,300∂ acres, by acquiring an inholding 

which also connects to over 2,000 acres of County parklands. 

Ethel Walker (CT) 

The State of Connecticut requests Highlands Conservation Act funds to protect 

Phase II of the Ethel Walker Property—91 acres of ecologically rich forest, streams, 

meadows and floodplains. Phase I, 336 acres, is expected to close soon in a fee and 

conservation easement deal with the Town of Simsbury, which will make a $1 million non-refundable deposit on an option to purchase the remaining 91 acres. Ethel 

Walker contains Class I watershed land and the primary recharge area for the 

Stratton Brook Aquifer which provides 10,000∂ residents with drinking water. The 

property lies within Simsbury’s Aquifer Protection Zone (APZ) and CT DEP’s Preliminary APZ. There are extensive pubic hiking and equestrian trails here. Large 

stands of mature conifers support more than 60 forest nesting and migratory bird 

species, including a high density of northerly or higher elevation bird species. The 

American Bittern, a CT endangered species, has been documented here by the Hartford Audubon Society. Stratton Brook supports native Eastern Brook Trout, in decline throughout CT. Ethel Walker is contiguous with several preserved properties; 

if all 427 acres here are preserved, the property would form the core of 1,400 acres 

of open space. CT’s 2003 Regional Plan of Development identifies Ethel Walker as 

high conservation value and a key piece to protect. 

Great Swamp and Greater Sterling Forest Areas (NY) 

The Great Swamp is one of NY’s most important wetland complexes and one of 

NY’s largest and highest quality red maple hardwood swamps. This project consists 

of a 647-acre parcel in Putnam County’s Harlem Valley, in the East Branch Reservoir Watershed of the NYC Croton Reservoir System. An Audubon Society-designated ‘‘Important Birding Area,’’ the Great Swamp constitutes a 63,000-acre watershed and is breeding habitat for more than 90 bird species and migratory habitat 

for more than 180 species of waterfowl and other birds. Great blue heron, red-tailed 

hawk, marsh wren, osprey, wood duck, thrushes, vireos, warblers, and scarlet tanager make their home here. Located less than 70 miles from New York City, this 

vast and fragile wetland provides numerous benefits to residents of New York and 

Connecticut, including drinking water, flood control, recreation, open space, and 

wildlife habitat. The Great Swamp contains a south-flowing section of the East 

Branch Croton River, a critical part of New York City’s water supply system, and 

a north-flowing section of the Swamp River which flows into the Housatonic and, 

ultimately, to Long Island Sound. This project is a New York State Open Space Conservation Plan (2006) priority site. 

The Sterling Forest Fairgrounds, the Sterling Forest Ski Center, the Torsoe property, Arrow Park, the former Kings College property, Tuxedo Reserve and the 

Shirazi property are inholdings and adjacent to Sterling Forest. These lands buffer 

the park, which citizens have worked tirelessly to preserve. In close proximity to the 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail, these 1,630 acres contain scenic lakes, woodlands, and wetlands, as well as frontage on Orange Turnpike. The properties may 

be developed if not protected. Sterling Forest State Park is a great accomplishment 

of public-private land conservation between the Federal Government, the States of 

New York and New Jersey, and private organizations. Preservation of private 

inholdings and adjacent properties, such as these, will safeguard this $78-million investment while protecting drinking water, wildlife habitat, and recreational, his-
358 

toric, cultural, and scenic resources. This project is a New York State Open Space 

Conservation Plan (2006) priority site. 

Forest Legacy Program and Projects 

In order to ensure that there is adequate program funding for these critical projects in the Highlands, we urge your support for funding Forest Legacy at $120 

million in fiscal year 2009. We support this funding as it will serve to provide support for important Forest Legacy projects in the Highlands region including four exemplary projects: Lake Waubeeka (CT), Fishkill Ridge (NY), Passaic Ramapo Watershed (NJ) and Tree Farm #1—Mount Hope Tract (PA). These two represent very 

high priorities for conservation that would protect unique and critical forests in the 

eastern United States. 

The Forest Legacy Program is an outstanding example of prioritized, strategic 

Federal conservation program, and a hallmark for how the Federal Government can 

help accomplish sound partnership conservation projects with States, municipalities, 

and nonprofits. Unfortunately, funding for this program has decreased significantly 

over the past decade. The fiscal year 2009 President’s budget includes just $12.5 

million—representing just three projects nationwide, which would protect only 300 

acres. Clearly there is a much larger demand as evidenced by the States’ submissions for the program, totaling over $200 million in demonstrated need. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

The proposed cuts to the Land & Water Conservation Fund for fiscal year 2009, 

which continue the trend of gravely declining budget for this critically important 

program. The program is the core Federal conservation program enabling both the 

Federal and State governments to target and protect vitally important natural resources. While LWCF ought to be fully funded at its authorized amount—$900 million—we are requesting that this subcommittee and Congress fund LWCF at $403 

million, including $278 for Federal acquisition programs and $125 for State programs. This funding would include support for the critical acquisitions at the 

Wallkill National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey. 

Without adequate funding to the Highlands Conservation Act, Forest Legacy Program and Land & Water Conservation Fund, precious natural treasures of the 

Highlands may be developed and lost to conservation forever. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on the fiscal year 2009 

Interior Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION

My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I am executive director of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement to 

the Committee regarding the views of the Compact’s member States on the fiscal 

year 2009 Budget Request for the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) within the U.S. 

Department of the Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $63.7 million 

to fund Title V grants to States and Indian tribes for the implementation of their 

regulatory programs and $30.8 million to fund discretionary spending for the Title 

IV abandoned mine land (AML) program, which includes some State grants. Our 

statement will address both of these budgeted items. 

The Compact is comprised of 24 States that together produce some 95 percent of 

the Nation’s coal as well as important noncoal minerals. The Compact’s purposes 

are to advance the protection and restoration of land, water and other resources affected by mining through the encouragement of programs in each of the party States 

that will achieve comparable results in protecting, conserving and improving the 

usefulness of natural resources and to assist in achieving and maintaining an efficient, productive and economically viable mining industry. 

OSM has projected an amount of $62.6 million for Title V grants to States in fiscal year 2009, an amount which is matched by the States each year. [The figures 

we will use in this statement reflect grants to States only, not Indian tribes. The 

tribes have recently seen significant increases in their Title V grants due to the tribal primacy provisions contained in the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA.] As you know, 

these grants support the implementation of State regulatory programs under the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as such are essential 

to the full and effective operation of those programs. 

For fiscal year 2008, Congress approved an additional $5 million over the President’s budget request of $60.5 million for State regulatory programs in OSM’s budget, for a total of $65.5 million. The States are greatly encouraged by and are most 

appreciative of the significant increase in Title V funding approved by Congress in 

the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Even with the 1.5 percent rescis-
359 

sion and the allocation for tribal primacy programs, the States saw a $6 million increase for our regulatory programs over fiscal year 2007 levels. As we noted in our 

statement on last year’s budget, State Title V grants had been stagnant for over 12 

years and the gap between the States’ requests and what they received was widening. This debilitating trend was compounding the problems caused by inflation 

and uncontrollable costs, thus undermining our efforts to realize needed program 

improvements and enhancements and jeopardizing our efforts to control the impact 

of coal extraction operations on people and the environment. 

In its fiscal year 2009 budget, OSM is reversing the positive trend established by 

Congress last year. While OSM attempts to paint a picture of increased funding for 

Title V grants, its argument is disingenuous as the agency refers to fiscal year 2007 

numbers in making its case. The fact is, OSM’s proposed amount of $62.6 million 

for State Title V grants is $1 million less than what was allocated in fiscal year 

2008 (after the rescission and tribal allocation). Our estimate of actual need for fiscal year 2009 is $68 million, leaving a difference of almost $6 million. This difference would be reduced by $2 million if Congress’ approved amount for fiscal year 

2008 was used as the base. 

This is not the time to reverse course and upset the effort to restore the efficacy 

of State regulatory programs. The States are finally in a position of seeing some 

meaningful recognition of their program expenses through the upward adjustments 

approved by Congress last year. The States are just now beginning to put last year’s 

improved funding to work in their programs through the filling of vacant positions 

and the purchase of much needed equipment and supplies (including computers and 

vehicles). As States prepare their budgets for the next few years, there is an expectation that the amount approved by Congress will become the new base on which 

we will build into the future—otherwise we create a situation where layoffs would 

occur for those who were just hired. The States continue to face significant cost increases in their programs due to inflation, especially increased fuel and equipment 

costs. Health insurance premiums and cost of living adjustments are also significant 

factors in the annual operation of State programs, especially with personnel expenses representing some 80 percent of total program costs. A new challenge has 

come in the form of retirements, where States are faced with buy-outs, paying for 

unused annual leave, and replacing an aging work force. These are substantial, 

often unanticipated, costs that are wreaking havoc on State budgets. 

It is essential that we maintain consistent funding from year to year in order to 

deploy resources for our programs. This is especially true with regard to hiring new 

staff to fill vacancies or to supplement under-staffed areas of the programs. We cannot afford to invest money in these positions and then face potential layoffs the next 

year because funding is not maintained. Sending these types of mixed signals to 

State legislatures and budget officers will undermine their ability to support their 

respective regulatory programs through matching State funds and may cause them 

to reexamine their commitment to these programs. A clear message from Congress 

that reliable, consistent funding will continue will do much to ensure that States 

can continue to implement these vital programs. 

As we have stated before, and as OSM notes in its budget justification document, 

the State regulation of coal production continues to be a tremendous bargain for the 

Federal Government since States are able to issue permits and regulate mines for 

far less than it would cost for Federal permitting and regulation. It must be kept 

in mind that State coal regulatory program permitting and inspection workloads are 

in large part related to coal mine production. In general, as coal production increases, the need for additional permitting and operational inspections also increases. State programs must be adequately funded and staffed to insure that permitting and inspection duties are both thorough and timely as States experience the 

reality of accelerating coal mine production and expansion activities. If program 

funding shortfalls continue, the Nation risks the possibility of delayed production of 

a critical energy source and negative impacts to the environment. Stressing existing 

program resources also results in the delay or elimination of lower priority program 

functions. 

There continues to be no disagreement about the need demonstrated by the 

States. In fact, in OSM’s budget justification document, the agency States that: ‘‘the 

States have the unique capabilities and knowledge to regulate the lands within 

their borders. Providing a 50 percent match of Federal funds to primacy States in 

the form of grants results is the highest benefit and the lowest cost to the Federal 

government. If a State were to relinquish primacy, OSM would have to hire sufficient numbers and types of Federal employees to implement the program. The cost 

to the Federal Government would be significantly higher.’’ (Page 76 of OSM’s Budget Justification) For all the above reasons, we urge Congress to increase funding for 

State Title V regulatory grants in OSM’s fiscal year 2009 budget to $68 million, as 
360 

fully documented in the States’ estimates for actual program operating costs. This 

represents a $1 million increase over our request for fiscal year 2008 and a $2.5 

million increase over the amount approved by Congress last year. 

With regard to funding for State Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program 

grants, Congressional action in 2006 to reauthorize Title IV of SMCRA has significantly changed the method by which State reclamation grants are funded. Beginning with fiscal year 2008, State Title IV grants are funded primarily by permanent 

appropriations. As a result, the States will receive mandatory funding in fiscal year 

2009 of $298.4 million for AML reclamation work. OSM also proposes to continue 

its support of the Watershed Cooperative Agreement program in the amount of $1.5 

million, a program we strongly endorse. OSM also proposes an amount of $30.8 million for discretionary funding related 

to OSM operations under the Title IV program, which includes supplemental funding needed for minimum program States. Under the funding formula contained in 

the 2006 amendments to SMCRA, all of the States and tribes will receive funding 

increases except for minimum program States. They remain stagnant for the next 

fiscal year at $1.5 million, a level of funding that greatly inhibits the ability of these 

States to accomplish much in the way of substantive AML work. It is unfair and 

inappropriate for these States to have to wait yet another year to receive funding 

increases when they are the States most in need of AML moneys. We urge Congress 

to fund these States at the statutorily authorized level of $3 million in fiscal year 

2009 so as to level the playing field and allow these States to get on with the critical 

AML projects awaiting funding. 

We also urge Congress to approve continued funding for the emergency program. 

OSM’s budget would eliminate funding for state-run emergency programs and also 

for Federal emergency projects (in those States that do not administer their own 

emergency programs). Funding the OSM emergency program should be a top priority for OSM’s discretionary spending. This funding has allowed the States and 

OSM to address the unanticipated AML emergencies that inevitably occur each 

year. In States that have federally-operated emergency programs, the State AML 

programs are not structured or staffed to move quickly to address these dangers and 

safeguard the coalfield citizens whose lives and property are threatened by these 

unforeseen and often debilitating events. 

Section 410 of SMCRA establishes an emergency reclamation procedure for AML 

sites that pose a ‘‘sudden danger with a high probability of substantial physical 

harm to the health, safety or general welfare of people before it can be abated under 

normal program operation procedures’’. (OSM Directive AML–4). In a Federal Register notice dated March 6, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 14810), OSM noted that ‘‘the Secretary of the Interior working through OSM has the responsibility for projects administered under these authorities.’’ (emphasis added). Therefore, the authority for 

the implementation of the emergency program is placed solely on the Secretary. The 

same Federal Register notice States that emergencies are differentiated from priority one problems in section 403 of SMCRA. 

Additionally, the funding for the emergency program is separate from the State 

and tribal non-emergency AML grant funding since it comes from the Secretary’s 

‘‘discretionary share’’. Funding for emergencies is provided for in section 402(g)(3) 

of SMCRA and is used for the purposes described therein and with monies remaining after the distributions required under sections 402(g)(1), (g)(2) and (g)(5). Section 

402(g)(1)(C) specifically requires that the non-emergency State share be used only 

for annual reclamation project construction and administration costs. The non-emergency Federal share allocated to the States in Section 402(g)(5) is used to supplement the State share received under 402(g)(1) until the priorities set forth in section 

403(a)(1) and (2) are met. Emergencies do not fall under section 403, but are provided for only in section 410. This matter was spoken to very directly in a report 

to the Interior Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee entitled 

‘‘Cleaning Up the Damage: An Analysis of the Operation of the AML Program’’ in 

1992. Rep. Carl C. Perkins (D-KY) stated in the report: ‘‘The AML emergency program has existed separately and been run differently from normal AML programs 

for very good reason: it deals with separate types of problems. Indeed, the Congress 

recognized this distinction when it devoted a special section (410) of SMCRA to the 

Secretary of the Interior with special powers to cope with AML emergencies. Reversing this division of responsibility cannot be accomplished simply by reallocating 

funds. There are a number of other hurdles which have to be negotiated.’’ 

While there were several significant changes to the AML program under SMCRA 

as a result of the 2006 amendments recently passed by Congress, there were absolutely no changes to the emergency program under section 410 of the Act. In fact, 

significant funding increases were approved by Congress that would allow the 

States to address long overdue reclamation problems including landslides, contami-
361 

nated drinking water, refuse piles, dangerous highwalls, mine fires, and exposed 

mine portals. Diverting these monies to the emergency program, as suggested by 

OSM’s budget, would impede the progress the States are now making to address 

AML problems that have been awaiting funding for years. In this regard, new section 402(g)(1)(D)(2) requires that the Secretary ensure ‘‘strict compliance’’ by the 

States in their use of non-emergency grant funds for the priorities listed in section 

403(a). For the States to do otherwise would require at the least a rulemaking by 

OSM, if not legislative adjustment. It would also reverse 30 years of official guidance and practice by OSM. We therefore request that Congress restore $21 million 

for the AML emergency program in OSM’s fiscal year 2009 budget. 

We also urge the committee to support adequate funding for OSM’s training program, including monies for State travel. These programs are central to the effective 

implementation of State regulatory programs as they provide necessary training and 

continuing education for State agency personnel. IMCC also urges the Committee 

to support adequate funding for TIPS, a program that directly benefits the States 

by providing needed upgrades to computer software and hardware. In this regard, 

we strongly support the proposed amounts for the training program and TIPS in 

OSM’s fiscal year 2009 budget. Finally, IMCC requests continuing support for the 

Acid Draining Technology Initiative (ADTI), a nationwide technology development 

program with a guiding principle of building consensus among Federal and State 

regulatory agencies, universities and the coal industry to predict and remediate acid 

drainage from active and inactive coal and metal mines. We support continued funding for this vital initiative. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTER-TRIBAL BISON COOPERATIVE

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Chairman Feinstein, ranking minority member Allard and members of the subcommittee, thank you for considering this testimony of the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC). This is submitted in conjunction with the request recently delivered 

to the subcommittee from Senators Bingaman, Thune, Tester, Johnson, Salazar, 

Coleman, Baucus, and Kohl. ITBC is a Native American non-profit organization, 

headquartered in Rapid City, South Dakota, comprised of 57 federally recognized Indian Tribes in 18 States. On behalf of the member Tribes of ITBC I would like to 

address the following issues: (1) request an appropriation of $4,000,000.00 for fiscal 

year 2009, from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation 

of Indian Programs, to continue our bison restoration efforts; (2) explain to the Committee the unmet needs of the members of ITBC; and (3) update the committee on 

the present initiatives of ITBC. 

The American buffalo, also known as bison, has always held great meaning for 

American Indian people. The buffalo provided the Tribes with food, shelter, clothing, 

and essential tools. Indian people developed a strong spiritual and cultural relationship with the buffalo that has not diminished with the passage of time. It is this 

connection that caused multiple Tribes to come together to organize ITBC with the 

mission of preserving the sacred relationship between Indian people and the buffalo 

through restoring buffalo to Tribal lands. ITBC envisioned the restoration of buffalo 

on Tribal lands would foster sustainable economic development that would be compatible with each of the Tribal cultures. ITBC received funds in 1992 and began 

their restoration efforts. 

Federal appropriations have allowed ITBC to successfully restore buffalo to over 

50 reservations, thereby preserving the sacred relationship between Indian people 

and the buffalo. The respect that Indian Tribes have maintained for the buffalo has 

fostered a very serious, high level of commitment by ITBC member Tribes for successful buffalo herd development. With healthy, viable buffalo herds, opportunities 

now exist for Tribes to utilize buffalo for prevention and treatment of the diet related diseases that gravely impact Native American populations such as diabetes, 

obesity, cardio-vascular disease and others. Viable buffalo herds also offer Tribes the 

opportunity to develop sustainable economic development projects. This will allow 

the Tribes to utilize a culturally relevant resource as a means to achieve self-sufficiency. 

FUNDING REQUEST

The Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative respectfully requests an appropriation for fiscal year 2009 in the amount of $4,000,000. This amount would restore ITBC to the 

fiscal year 2006 appropriation level and provide for ITBC’s continued growth as 

more Tribes join. The requested funding level will allow our member Tribes to con-
362 

tinue their successful restoration efforts, to restore our marketing initiative and to 

restore the health initiative for the prevention and treatment of diet related diseases among Native American populations, while simultaneously building economic 

sustainability for the Tribal projects. 

FUNDING SHORTFALL AND UNMET NEED

In fiscal year 2006, ITBC and it member Tribes were funded through appropria- tions at $4,000,000. The President’s budget in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 

eliminated funding for ITBC. ITBC was funded $1,000,000 by the BIA in fiscal year 

2007 and fiscal year 2008 through a congressional appropriation. The cuts came just 

as ITBC had started a successful Marketing Program and Health Initiative that addressed diet related health problems that are epidemic on most of our reservations. 

The cuts damaged the economic stability of the ongoing Tribal bison programs. 

Without the restoration of funding to the fiscal year 2006 level, new member 

Tribes will not receive adequate funding to begin buffalo restoration efforts. Tribes 

that have successfully restored buffalo to Tribal lands will not receive adequate 

technical assistance and resource development funds to ensure the sustainability of 

existing herds. Furthermore, the investment made by Congress in fiscal year 2006 

towards ITBC’s health care initiative has been cut to the point of almost being nonexistent. As indicated above, this was designed to utilize buffalo meat for prevention 

and treatment of diet related diseases among Native American populations. 

ITBC is structured as a member cooperative and 100 percent of the appropriated 

funds are expended on the development and support of Tribal buffalo herds and buffalo product business ventures. ITBC funding is distributed to ITBC member Tribes 

via a Herd Development Grant program developed by the consensus of the members. ITBC surveys member Tribes annually to determine unmet project needs and 

currently the total unmet needs for ITBC member Tribes’ projects is $12,000,000. 

I have attached the Tribal Bison Project Proposal summaries that detail the ITBC 

member Tribes projects and financial needs for your review. 

ITBC GOALS AND INITIATIVES

The goal of ITBC is restoration of buffalo to Indian lands for Tribes to utilize in 

their day to day lives in a manner that promotes sustainable economic development. 

Economic Development 

In 1991, seven Indian Tribes had small buffalo herds numbering less than 1,600 

animals. The buffalo provided little or no economic benefit to the Tribal owners. 

ITBC has proven extremely successful at buffalo restoration in its 17 years of existence. Today, with the support and technical assistance of ITBC and its fellow member Tribes, 57 Indian Tribes are engaged in raising buffalo or developing plans to 

raise buffalo and incorporate them into their daily lives. ITBC and the member 

Tribes have restored approximately 15,000 buffalo back to Tribal lands for use by 

the Tribes and their members. 

Many of these Tribal buffalo programs have developed herds large enough to justify plans for marketing products as a step towards self sufficiency. Because of the 

depressed economies on the reservations, jobs are scarce and our buffalo restoration 

efforts on the reservations have created hundreds of direct and indirect jobs relating 

to buffalo management and production. As a result, a significant amount of revenue 

derived from buffalo products is beginning to circulate through Indian reservation 

economies. 

However, Tribes must have the resources to build solid foundations for this new 

industry to become fully self sufficient and maintain sustainable buffalo herds. 

ITBC provides critical technical assistance to member Tribes that have developed 

sustainable management and infrastructure development plans. Additionally, ITBC 

provides training curriculum for the newly created jobs and marketing plans as 

Tribal herds reach marketing capabilities. ITBC has begun implementation of a 

marketing initiative to provide member Tribes with viable marketing options for utilization of buffalo as economic development efforts. This marketing initiative is in 

an infancy stage and renewed funding is critical to achieve success. 

Tribal Buffalo Marketing Initiative 

ITBC member Tribes face a multitude of obstacles when trying to get their buffalo 

to market. The remoteness of the reservations means having to transport buffalo 

long distances to processing plants and this results in higher operating costs. The 

quality of meat is also negatively impacted by introducing an increased amount of 

stress on the buffalo. Further compounding the problem is the reluctance of some 

processing plants to process range fed buffalo and the requirements of some buyers 

that animals be corn finished in a feedlot situation. Some buyers also require USDA 
363 

certification, which means USDA inspected processing plants must be used, which 

increases transport time. ITBC believes this lack of a constant supply chain that 

is cost effective is what is limiting the economic development of Tribal buffalo herds. 

ITBC has assisted the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap 

Indian Community in northern Montana with the development of a meat packing 

facility acquired by the Tribe in Malta, Montana. They have also begun to operate 

a smoke house in addition to the packing plant. ITBC has assisted the Cheyenne 

River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota with operation of their meat packing facility. 

ITBC has provided assistance to the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska for a tannery that the 

Tribe has started to produce brain tanned hides. ITBC has set up an arrangement 

in which the Yakama Nation of Washington supplies buffalo meat to a Tribal enterprise of the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla in Oregon. ITBC believes the creation 

of locally driven, regional marketing plans will help to overcome the remoteness of 

the reservations. ITBC will provide technical assistance in the areas of development 

of distribution and supply systems for buffalo meat and by-products and development of a cooperative brand name with standards and labeling guarantees for Native American produced buffalo. 

Preventive Health Care Initiative 

ITBC is committed to providing buffalo meat to Indian reservation families both 

as an economic development effort for Native American producers and, more critically, as a healthy food option. Current research indicates that the diet of most Indian reservation families includes large amounts of high cholesterol, processed 

meats that contribute to diabetes, obesity, cardio-vascular disease and other diet related illnesses. 

ITBC member Tribes were beginning to implement a preventive health care initiative with fiscal year 2006 funding that provided easy access to buffalo meat on 

Indian reservations and educated Indian families on the health benefits of range fed 

buffalo meat. The decrease in funding has led to the elimination of the majority of 

the program with only the educational program still in existence. 

Generally, buffalo meat is not sold at the reservation grocery and convenience 

stores, which leaves Indian families with few alternatives to the high fat, high cholesterol, processed meats stocked in reservation stores. ITBC seeks to remedy this 

concern by providing buffalo meat in family sized quantities to reservation markets. 

ITBC will work with federal food programs to make buffalo meat available through 

the local school systems and local community health networks working on addressing diabetes and other health issues. 

CONCLUSION

ITBC has demonstrated 17 years of success by assisting its member Tribes to restore buffalo to their native lands for cultural purposes and now is working towards 

economic development for herd sustainability. ITBC will continue to provide technical assistance and funding to its member Tribes to facilitate the development of 

sustainable buffalo herds. 

ITBC and its member Tribes have created a new reservation industry, Tribal buffalo production, resulting in new money for reservation economies. In addition, 

ITBC continues to support methods to market buffalo meat by providing easy access 

to meat on the reservations and education efforts about the health benefits buffalo 

meat can bring to the Native diet. The ultimate goal is to restore the Tribal herds 

to a size large enough to support the local health needs of the Tribal members and 

also generate revenue through a cooperative marketing effort to achieve economic 

self sufficiency. 

ITBC and it member Tribes are appreciative of past and current support from the 

Congress and the administration. I urge the committee to consider restoring ITBC 

funding to the fiscal year 2006 level of $4,000,000, which will allow ITBC to continue the restoration efforts and restore the marketing and health initiative program started in fiscal year 2006. We respectfully request that the subcommittee not 

include the type of restrictive language you inserted last year. While the vast majority of our funding does go directly to our member tribes, it is nearly impossible to 

operate our organization—including the many direct services we provide our members—without any funding. If you discuss this matter with the BIA, you will find 

that we made a number of administrative changes since some concerns were raised 

a few years ago and are spending these funds wisely, efficiently and in conjunction 

with all applicable regulatory requirements. 

I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to submit this testimony 

and the members of ITBC invite the honorable members of the committee to visit 

our Tribal buffalo projects and experience first hand their successes. Questions and/ 

or comments regarding any of the issues presented within this testimony may be 
364 

directed to Mr. Ervin Carlson, President, or to Mr. James Stone, executive director, 

(jstone@itbcbison.com) at InterTribal Bison Cooperative, 2497 West Chicago Street, 

Rapid City, SD 57702; 605–394–9730. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE IRRIGATION ASSOCIATION

The Irrigation Association supports the movement to increase the EPA WaterSense program budget to $5 million. This program is delivering solid results 

in their mission to enhance the marketplace for water efficient technologies. Given 

the serious nature of concerns over our nation’s water supply, one might consider 

this a modest investment on behalf of the federal government. One only need look 

to the southeastern United States to recognize how quickly and how severely a 

water crisis can impact U.S. citizens. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT TRIBAL COURTS REVIEW TEAM

Thank you for the opportunity to address the serious issues involving Tribal 

Courts and funding needs for the fiscal year 2009 Budget. I am the team leader for 

the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. Our requests and recommendations for 

the fiscal year 2009 Budget for Public Safety and Justice in the Bureau of Indian 

Affair’s (BIA) Budget that is included in the Department of the Interior. 

Budget Priorities, Request and Recommendations—$52.46 Million 

1. ∂$2.461 million, restore the proposed cuts in fiscal year 2009 President’s Budg- et, (includes the $2.3 million fiscal year 2008 additional appropriations) 

2. ∂$50.0 million new additional funds for tribal courts, through BIA Office of 

Justice Services, Division of Tribal Justice Support 

For the past 30 months, our Independent Review Team has been traveling 

throughout Indian Country reviewing Tribal and Federal Courts of Indian Offenses 

(CFR Courts). We feel safe in saying that there are no individuals with more awareness of the current needs of Tribal Courts than our Review Team. During this time, 

we have completed some 34 court reviews. We have come into contact with every 

imaginable type of Tribe; large and small, urban and rural, wealthy and poor. We 

have NOT encountered any Tribe whose Court system receives adequate Federal 

funding. We have identified the following decrease in the President’s budget. 

ITEM.—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Fiscal year Amount 

President’s budget: 

2008 enacted ........................................................................................................................................ $14,338,000 

2009 request ......................................................................................................................................... 12,047,000 

Program change .................................................................................................................................... ¥2,461,000 

Cuts for tribal courts of $2,461,000 are not justified in President’s budget. This 

reduction will be the second such budget cut in two consecutive years. 

Further, our research indicates Tribal courts are at a critical stage in terms of 

financial need. Nationwide, there are 156 Tribes with Courts that receive Federal 

Funding. Those Tribes divide a mere $14.3 million in Federal funds. It is the strong 

recommendation of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team that the Federal 

Tribal Courts budget be substantially increased, not decreased as in the President’s 

Budget. We strongly urge Congress and the Appropriations Committee to increase 

funding for Tribal Courts by at least $50 million through the BIA Office of Justice 

Services, Division of Tribal Justice Support, to assure funds go to tribal courts. 

A frequent observation as a result of the Tribal Court reviews is that Tribes and 

the Federal Government fund Court operations as if they were a program that is 

capable of adjusting to budget reductions and not as a branch of government that 

is required to provide services irrespective of budget cuts. As everyone knows, a 

functional, independent and fully funded Court system is essential to the dispensation of justice on reservations and everywhere. Tribal Courts are under funded; they 

have little hope of increased funding; they are expected to make do with too little 

funding; and they are depressed from the weight of years and even decades of funding deficiency. 

We have seen the poorest Courts in the United States. We have seen Courts 

where holding a jury trial means laying off staff. We have seen Courts with no 

criminal procedure updates for 30 years. We have seen Courts where 1,000 defend-
365 

ants a year are prosecuted, by one Judge and one prosecutor. We have seen Courts 

where a significant number of the staff is paid below the poverty level; as low as 

$14,000 per year. We’ve seen courts funded as low as $12,000 per year. 

In many cases, the common denominator is funding. These courts need additional 

funding. Yet, there are many Tribal Court funding fallacies. We address some of 

those here. 

A STUDY OF TRIBAL COURTS WILL REVEAL WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO FIX THEM

No amount of studying these Courts will cure deficient funding. Any study will 

find Tribal Courts need the things that funding will buy, i.e. more staff, more resources, more computers, more training, better software, better facilities, etc. 

TRIBES WOULD BENEFIT FROM MOVING TRIBAL JUDICIAL MATTERS TO FEDERAL OR

STATE COURT

Federal and State Courts are already overburdened. They don’t want additional 

jurisdiction or cases. The Federal Courts of Indian Offenses are perhaps the most 

overburdened courts in the Country, even in a poorer situation than many Tribal 

Courts. The Public Law 83–280 states, Indian reservations receive the worst level 

of law enforcement service. So bad, in fact, that when the Public Law 83–280 Tribes 

receive gaming funds, the first thing they do is start local law enforcement. Finally, 

Tribal Courts exercise laws and traditions specific to their populations, which no 

non-Tribal Court could, or would do. This assists to keep the peace when other 

means are unavailable. 

GAMING MEANS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NO LONGER HAS TO FUND TRIBAL COURTS

There are perhaps 25–30 Tribes in Indian Country that make substantial 

amounts of money from gaming. The remainder only make enough to sustain a few 

Tribal programs or, as we have seen, just barely enough to sustain gaming. The 

Tribes that profit from gaming do not need Federal Court funds and DO NOT SEEK 

THEM! (Our research has revealed several Tribes who have turned down, or will 

turn down, Federal dollars for Tribal Courts because, among other reasons, other 

Tribes have more necessity of these funds). Why put up with the headache and the 

reporting if it is easier for the Tribal government to simply support their Court operation out of Tribal funds? 

There are, however, many positive aspects about Tribal Courts. It is clear that 

Tribal Courts and justice systems are vital and important to the communities where 

they are located. Tribes value and want to be proud of their Court systems. Tribes 

with even modest resources tend to send additional funding to Courts before other 

programs. After decades of existence, many Tribal Courts, despite minimal funding, 

have achieved a level of experience and sophistication approaching, and in some 

cases surpassing, local non-Indian Courts. Tribal Courts, through the Indian Child 

Welfare Act, have mostly stopped the wholesale removal of Indian children from 

their families. Indian and Non-Indian Courts have developed formal and informal 

agreements regarding jurisdiction. Tribal governments have recognized the benefit 

of having law-trained Judges, without doing away with Judges who have cultural/ 

traditional expertise. Some Tribal Court systems have Appellate Courts, jury trials, 

well-appointed Courthouses, and Tribal Bar listings and fees. Perhaps most importantly, Tribes recognize the benefit of an independent judiciary and have taken 

steps to insulate Courts and Judges from political pressure. No longer, in Indian 

Country, are Judges automatically fired for decisions against the legislature. 

However, Tribal Courts continue to have many needs, the greatest of which are 

funding related. We comment today to express our very deep concern with the Federal funding levels for Tribal Courts. In particular, the President’s budget would 

devastate Tribal Justice Systems. We respectfully request that Congress take a close 

look at these funding levels. Our research indicates that they are extremely low and 

should be increased. 

We find these cuts unjustifiable and unsupportable. The Budget provides increases in Law Enforcement and Detention (which we support as needed and necessary costs for Tribes). How does the President suppose those individuals get to detention from law enforcement? The most probable answer is through Tribal Courts. 

The Budget proposes $6.34 million in increases in funds to fight Methamphetamine. 

How does the President propose we keep those individuals off the street after they 

are arrested? The most probable answer is through Tribal Courts. The Budget proposes $2.67 million in increases in funds for an IMARS Reporting system to track 

convictions. How does the President propose we document those convictions? The 

most probable answer is through Tribal Courts. 
366 

There are other examples, but none are necessary to show that this budget simply 

does not make sense. It ignores Tribal Courts, which is the primary means for carrying out justice and enforcement of the laws on Indian reservations. It relegated 

Tribal Courts to program status... essentially stating to Courts, ‘‘. . . we know 

the numbers [of cases] will increase but make do with what you have. Or, in this 

case, less than what you have’’. 

Courts, however, are not able to make changes like Tribal programs. There are 

minimum standards that Courts must meet. And every time the New York Times 

(as has occurred) publishes a story about justice in Indian Country suggesting a violation of speedy trial requirements or bonding or adequate representation, Tribes 

will suffer the comparison with non-Indian Courts. Ideally, Courts should be funded 

on an individual basis and not compete with Tribal Programs for funds. Increases 

for law enforcement should be tied on a percentage basis to increases for Tribal 

courts. The ability of Tribal Courts to do more with less and adapt to this inept programmatic analogy should not be interpreted as meaning the analogy works. 

The Independent Tribal Court Review Team completed the Tribal & CFR Court 

Reviews Project Final Report in 2006. The report contains 132 Findings regarding 

all areas involving Tribal Courts. Many of the Findings support the recommendations made above, including several indicating that Tribal Courts are under-funded. 

We list some of these below. 

Finding #38: The Federal Funds are inadequate to fund most Court needs.—Other 

Court needs, technology, supplies, travel, training, are usually assumed by the 

Tribe. These needs are often provided by decreasing available funds for Tribal Programs. Or, the needs are simply not provided and the Courts must make due without these services. 

Finding #32: Almost all Courts are under-funded.—Court budgets vary widely. 

When you get beyond the few Tribes with very successful economic development 

ventures, the substantial number of Courts, approximately 90 percent, is underfunded. They are missing staff positions and common items such as a safe, a Court 

recording systems, telephone systems, or security systems. Almost every Court that 

is under-funded is still mostly functional. 

Finding #33: Many are under-funded at a critical level.—Some contracted Courts 

are very poor. There are Courts with only a part-time Judge and a Clerk. They must 

rely [Tribal] Administration for simple items, such as printer ink. There is no training. Salaries are below the poverty level. We have seen Courts that operate on less 

than $25,000 per year. We have seen groups of Tribes with low Federal funding 

numbers joined into a single overworked Court system that can only provide limited 

service. 

Finding #6: A very small number of Tribes have large amounts of available economic development funds.—These Tribes (about 10 percent) are those few with very 

successful economic development ventures. These Tribes contribute 90 percent or 

more of the funding to their Courts. These Tribes pay well; they have several Attorneys on staff, including Attorneys on the Tribal Court staff and have fully funded 

law enforcement. These Tribes are better trained and experientially and financially 

able to deal with Court matters, including criminal matters, than local city, county 

and state governments. 

Finding #5: Most Tribal economic development funds provide jobs and pay for a 

modest amount of other governmental services.—The biggest fallacy about Indian 

Nations is that gaming has made all Tribes rich. (This fallacy isn’t always bad. It 

often encourages non-Indian governments and law enforcement to work with the 

Tribe.) The vast majority of Tribes have limited economic development that 1) funds 

itself and 2) can modestly assist Tribal programs and the Court budgets. A majority 

of Tribes have no economic development or economic development that only funds 

itself. 

On behalf of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team, Charles D. Robertson 

Jr., Honorable Philip D. Lujan, Ralph E. Gonzales, Myrna Rivera, court reporter 

and myself, thank you again for your consideration. If you have any questions, 

please feel free to contact Elbridge Coochise at 602–418–8937 or Charles D. Robertson, Jr. at 605–390–0061. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony concerning appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization founded in 1922. We have more than 35,000 members and nearly 

300 community-based chapters nationwide. Our members are committed to advanc-
367 

ing common sense policies that safeguard wildlife and habitat, support communitybased conservation, and address pressing environmental issues. The following pertains to programs administered primarily by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

The League joins the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 wildlife, sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations representing over 14 million members and supporters, in requesting $514 million for 

operations and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System in fiscal year 

2009. We appreciate the steps Congress took in fiscal year 2008 to boost Refuge System funding above the administration’s request to $434 million and encourage it to 

build on this foundation in the coming fiscal year. 

National Wildlife Refuges across the country provide some of the most important 

habitat for fish, wildlife and waterfowl, and offer incredible recreational opportunities for hunters, anglers, birdwatchers and countless others who enjoy the outdoors. 

In addition, refuges contribute to local and regional economies generating $1.7 billion in sales and supporting 27,000 private-sector jobs. In spite of these and other 

benefits, funding for essential refuge operations and maintenance has not kept pace 

with inflation and pressing environmental, conservation and law enforcement challenges. Today, the System has a $3.5 billion backlog in basic operations and maintenance projects. As eroding budgets have forced the Fish and Wildlife Service to cut 

hundreds of staff, visitor services at many refuges have declined. Moreover, the 

Service faces a growing number of law enforcement challenges, including poaching 

and illegal drug trafficking and cultivation, with too few full-time law enforcement 

personnel. 

In 2007, CARE released a comprehensive assessment of the funding needs of the 

Refuge System. This report documented how stagnant budgets, inflation and growing demands negatively impact the system as a whole. This analysis concluded that 

the Refuge System needs $765 million in annual operations and maintenance funding by 2013 to properly administer nearly 100 million acres, provide educational and 

recreational programs and services, and conserve critical fish and wildlife populations. In order to reach this reasonable goal, we urge the Subcommittee to provide 

$514 million for the Refuge System in fiscal year 2009. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS

As a member of the Teaming with Wildlife National Steering Committee, the League urges the subcommittee to provide $85 million for the State Wildlife Grants 

Program in fiscal year 2009. In fiscal year 2008, the final appropriation for Wildlife 

Grants totaled $73.8 million. 

The State Wildlife Grants Program supports proactive conservation projects aimed 

at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. Experience shows that efforts to 

restore imperiled wildlife can be particularly contentious and costly when action is 

taken only after species are formally listed as threatened or endangered pursuant 

to the Endangered Species Act. State Wildlife Grants support State and communitybased efforts to safeguard habitat and wildlife before either reaches the tipping 

point. This program also provides States with an important source of Federal funds 

to address non-game species. Finally, the Federal investment leverages significant 

funding from private, State, and local sources. 

When Congress established the program, it required States to develop comprehensive Wildlife Action Plans that evaluate wildlife conservation needs and identify action steps to address those needs. In early 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service completed the process of reviewing and approving plans for every State. With approved 

plans in place, State wildlife management agencies and their many partners, including Izaak Walton League chapters, are beginning to implement them. On-going Federal support, including $85 million for fiscal year 2009, is critical to effective implementation and to conserving a wide array of non-game species and their habitat. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL FISH PASSAGE PROGRAM

The League opposes the administration’s proposal to reduce the budget for the 

National Fish Passage Program by nearly $6 million compared to the fiscal year 

2008 appropriation of approximately $11 million. We urge the subcommittee to provide at least level funding in fiscal year 2009. 

The National Fish Passage Program represents a highly valuable partnership between the Fish and Wildlife Service, States, localities and community groups. Local 

citizens and partners identify barriers that block access to historic habitat and, according to the Service, contribute approximately 60 percent of the funding and in- 
368 

kind support for projects designed to remove or bypass those barriers. The Service 

provides technical assistance at the project level and helps to prioritize projects for 

Federal financial assistance. 

The administration’s proposal to reduce funding by more than 50 percent is clearly at odds with the well-documented need for Federal investment in this area. In 

its fiscal year 2009 Budget Justification, the Service States that: ‘‘[M]ore than 2.5 

million dams, and millions of other poorly designed culverts and other structures, 

impede fish passage across the American landscape.’’(page FAR–30) Within this 

much larger universe, the Service has identified more than 460 priority passage 

projects with a total estimated cost of nearly $87.5 million. The Service further indicates in its Budget Justification that addressing these priorities would ‘‘remove or 

bypass 464 barriers and open access to 4,831 miles and 42,143 acres of historical 

spawning and rearing habitats . . .’’ (page FAR–30) 

The dramatic reduction proposed by the administration would undermine efforts 

to return many fish species to their native habitat, limit recreational fishing opportunities and short-circuit community-driven conservation efforts. We applaud the 

subcommittee for making an important investment in the program in the past and 

urge it to continue this effort in fiscal year 2009. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL FISH HABITAT ACTION PLAN

The League is a strong proponent of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan and 

regional Fish Habitat Partnerships. We support the administration’s request for approximately $5.1 million for fiscal year 2009, which is essentially level with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. 

The National Fish Habitat Action Plan provides a national framework for restoring critical habitat. Regional partnerships provide geographic focus and create opportunities for citizens and groups to play active and constructive roles in developing strategies to safeguard resources near where they live. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service is the lead Federal agency working with Fish Habitat Partnerships and the 

National Fish Habitat Board. The Service uses limited funding very efficiently allocating approximately 60 percent of program dollars to on-the-ground restoration 

projects and most of the remaining funds to supporting the regional partnerships. 

The League is pleased to support the request for this important initiative. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

The League joins the Healing Our Waters Coalition in urging the subcommittee 

to reestablish funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) at the historic high of $1.35 billion with $490 million allocated for the Great Lakes States. 

The Great Lakes, which provide drinking water to 40 million people and provide 

jobs and recreational opportunities for millions more, are at risk from combined 

sewer overflows and aging wastewater treatment plants. In fact, the EPA estimates 

that more than 150 municipalities or sewer districts in the United States with combined sewer systems operate on the Great Lakes or their tributaries—all of which 

are subject to overflows during significant storm events. 

The Clean Water SRF is a highly successful program that provides the funds 

needed to reduce sewage contamination. The administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget includes $555 million for the SRF, which is $134 million below the fiscal year 

2008 appropriation, and would target $201 million toward the Great Lakes States, 

which is approximately $48 million less than current funding. The request is inadequate and would undermine efforts to reduce sewage contamination throughout the 

Great Lakes region and across the country. The League supports reinvigorated investment in the SRF in fiscal year 2009 and beyond. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, TARGETED WATERSHED GRANTS

We urge the Subcommittee to reject the administration’s proposal to terminate 

Targeted Watershed Grants and to provide $35 million in fiscal year 2009 compared 

to $9 million in fiscal year 2008. 

We further recommend that $10 million of the total be allocated to support 

projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Targeted Watershed Grants fund projects that expand collective knowledge on the 

most innovative, sustainable and cost-effective strategies to reduce excess nutrient 

loads to the Chesapeake Bay and other important waterways throughout the country. This program has helped to reduce nutrient, sediment and bacteria pollution, 

protect drinking water supplies, increase aquatic habitat and enhance recreational 

opportunities. Terminating this program would directly undermine successful efforts 

to address long-standing challenges facing the Bay. We encourage the Subcommittee 

to maintain the program and increase the Federal investment. 
369 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

The League urges the subcommittee to increase funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program Office from $22.6 million in fiscal year 2008 to $30 million, including $3 

million for Small Watershed grants, in fiscal year 2009. 

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary on the Atlantic coast and one of the 

largest in the world. EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) is the primary 

facilitator of restoration activities by partners throughout the watershed. Although 

the Chesapeake Bay Program has made significant progress toward pollution reduction, habitat restoration, fisheries management and watershed protection goals, 

much more work is needed to restore the Bay. For example, habitat restoration efforts are collectively less than half way to Program goals and there is concern about 

the overall quality of habitats that remain. Achieving these goals will require participation from citizen groups and local governments. The Chesapeake Bay Program 

supports stakeholder involvement through the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed 

Grants. In the past nine years, the Small Watershed Grants Program has provided 

$17.7 million to support 544 water quality improvement and wildlife habitat restoration projects. These grants have been used by recipients to leverage an additional $50.7 million from other funding sources. The League supports additional investment in the Program Office with particular emphasis on boosting support for 

Small Watershed grants. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NON-POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The League opposes the administration’s proposal to reduce funding for section 319, the Non-point Source Management Program, by $16 million compared to the 

fiscal year 2008 funding of $200 million. We strongly urge the subcommittee to increase funding for this critical program. 

This program provides grants to States, territories and tribes for non-point source 

pollution reduction activities. Non-point source pollution is the leading cause of 

water quality problems and the primarily reason that approximately 40 percent of 

surveyed rivers, lakes and estuaries are not clean enough to support fishing or 

swimming. Through this program, States identify impaired waters and implement 

non-point source management programs to address these impairments. Since 1990, 

this program has improved water quality so dramatically that 66 watersheds in 28 

States have been removed from the impaired waters list. In light of the importance 

and success of this program, we join with American Rivers in urging the Subcommittee to appropriate $250 million for section 319 in fiscal year 2009. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE

On behalf of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, I want to thank this subcommittee 

for the opportunity to submit testimony on our funding priorities and requests on 

the fiscal year 2009 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) 

budgets. We have long appreciated this subcommittee’s support of our funding requests. However, we are gravely concerned that Federal funding for Indian programs continues to lose ground compared to spending for the general U.S. population at large in the majority of programs that constitute the trust responsibility. 

We believe fulfillment of these responsibilities through appropriations is a top priority. 

Tribal-Specific Appropriation Priorities: 

1. $1,460,000 Land Purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project 

2. $200,000 Increase to BIA Tribal Base Budget for Fish & Wildlife Management 

Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations: We support all requests and recommendations of: 

1. Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians 

2. Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board 

3. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BIA requests: 

1. Restore Johnson O’Malley funds ($21.4 million); and Housing Improvement 

Funds ($13.6 million) to Tribal base programs; 

2. Provide $25 million General Increase to BIA Tribal Priority Allocation for inflationary and fixed costs; 

3. Provide $45 million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost (CSC), including 

Direct CSC; and, 

4. $500,000 for BIA Data Management to fund the Office of Program Data Quality 
370 

IHS requests: 

5. Provide $486 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth increase to maintain existing health care services; 

6. $152 million increase for Contract Health Services (CHS); 

7. $160 million increase for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC; 

8. Increase $5 million to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Tribal Self-Governance. 

We support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board. 

TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION JUSTIFICATION

$1,460,000 Land Purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project.—The purpose 

of the project is to preserve tribal cultural and ceremonial access to an important 

archaeological site of the S’Klallam American Indian people. Tamanowas Rock, located in Eastern Jefferson County on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, 

is of great cultural and spiritual significance to the Tribes in the region, and also 

holds special historical meaning for the local non-Indian community. As a geological 

formation, the estimated age of Tamanowas Rock is 43 million years. More importantly, the oral history among the local Tribes includes the era of the mastodons 

(extinct for 8,000 years), when Tamanowas Rock was used as a perch by Tribal 

hunters. Another story references a great flood (assumed to be a tsunami from 

around 3,000 years ago) when people tied themselves to the Tamanowas Rock to 

avoid being swept away by the turbulent waters. 

In 1976, Tamanowas Rock was listed in the Washington Heritage Register as having major archaeological interest. The Tribes and local community have been working to protect the property where the Rock is located from development for more 

than 10 years. In February 2005, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, acting on behalf 

of all the S’Klallam Tribes, obtained loans to purchase a 20 acre parcel and a group 

of platted properties totaling 66.32 acres in imminent threat of development in the 

vicinity of the Rock. If dedicated roads are vacated, the acreage is closer to 100 acres 

for the platted properties. The local community and the Tribes now seek funds to 

purchase the land, which was temporarily secured by the loans and purchase the 

remaining 80 acres directly surrounding Tamanowas Rock, all of which would be 

protected in perpetuity. 

$200,000 Increase to BIA Tribal Base Budget for Fish & Wildlife Management.— 

The U.S. Government formally recognized the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in 1981. 

Jamestown is one of four Tribes that signed the Point No Point Treaty with the U.S. 

Government in 1855. The BIA began contracting with the Tribe to provide fisheries 

management services. The Point-No-Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) was serving as 

the fisheries management agency for the other Klallam and Skokomish Tribes. In 

its efforts to contract with Jamestown for basic fisheries management services, the 

BIA decided to provide only enough funding to slightly expand PNPTC rather than 

providing funding of sufficient quantity for Jamestown to operate a fisheries program of its own. Following the implementation of the Self-Governance Initiative, the 

distribution of contracted funds to each PNPTC member tribe was based on funding 

history, thus Jamestown received a significantly smaller portion of the PNPTC base 

funding. The Tribe is required to meet the basic fisheries and wildlife management 

responsibilities of U.S. v Washington including planning, negotiation, regulation, 

and enforcement. The $200,000 increase to our Self-Governance base is needed to 

implement these essential treaty fish and wildlife management services. 

Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations: 

The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the collective Tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and recommendations of the Affiliated 

Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and 

the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

National Requests and Priorities: 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget included numerous decreases for Indian 

programs. We are deeply disappointed that once again this annual budget does not 

support strong Tribal Self-Government and Self-Determination. The following highlights our top priorities: 

BIA REQUESTS1. Restore Johnson O’Malley funds ($21.4 million); and Housing 

Improvement Funds ($13.6 million) to Tribal base programs 

—The JOM is a critical Indian-specific education program, which targets Indian 

students. 

—The HIP program provides much needed housing repairs for Tribal citizens 
371 

—These programs have long been part of our Tribal Self-Governance base and we 

strongly full restoration of these programs in our base budgets. 

2. Provide $25 million for General Increase to BIA Tribal Priority Allocation for 

inflationary and fixed costs. 

—For the past 10 years in a row, TPA funding has remained flat and continues 

to lose ground to inflation. In fiscal year 2009, the administration’s request not 

only contains no general increase for TPA, but TPA allocations would decline 

8.3 percent. 

—This activity includes the majority of the funds used to support core tribal community services and programs such as housing, education, natural resources 

management and tribal government services. 

—It is not reasonable to expect the Tribes and the Bureau to maintain these critically needed services to their communities when inflation continues to erode the 

purchasing power of the dollar and these programs are already severely under 

funded. 

3. Provide $45 million increase for BIA to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC), 

including Direct CSC. 

—The BIA recently implemented a new CSC Policy, which includes indirect and 

direct CSC. 

—This funding is required to fully fund and implement this policy. 

4. $500,000 for BIA Data Management to fund the Office of Program Data Quality 

(OPDQ). 

—A persistent problem affecting all areas of Indian Country is the lack of efficient 

and effective data management and reporting. Tribes and Federal agencies 

badly need to improve capacity to identify existing needs and deficiencies. For 

instance, in the Department of Interior, Indian Affairs programs do not maintain collected data in a ready accessible format for instant analysis and reporting, which results in weeks or months of staff time to compile a report on standard program practices. 

—The Bureau’s lack of data management also leads to duplicate data calls, 

missed deadlines, and incomplete reporting. It appears that all programs collect 

standard program data on a regular basis, but fail to maintain it. 

—We strongly urge an increased investment in data management to more efficiently and effectively use program funding and enhance data credibility and 

analysis for use by decision makers in critical processes (including GPRA and 

PART). We request $500,000 to establish a centralized office within the BIA for 

data management. 

IHS REQUESTS

5. Provide $486 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth increase to maintain existing health care services. 

—Mandatory costs increases are necessary to maintain the current level of services. These ‘‘mandatories’’ are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay costs and population growth. 

—This year’s President’s budget proposes to cute $21.3 million in funding. This 

will have a detrimental effect on health services to Indian people and diminish 

any gains that the Indian health system has made over the years to address 

health disparities. 

6. Provide $152 million increase for Contract Health Service (CHS) 

—$152 million increase is needed for contract health funding. This level will allow 

those Tribes who are not served by an IHS Hospital to provide health care services at the same level as those Tribes who are served by an IHS Hospital. 

7. Provide $160 million for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC. 

—On March 1, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cherokee Nation and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes v. Leavitt lawsuit, which 

powerfully reaffirms the enforceability of government contracts between Indian 

Tribes and agencies such as IHS and BIA. 

—The Court’s ruling compels corrective action from Congress, where historically 

insufficient funds have been appropriated to pay government contracts with 

Tribes, while all other government contracts are fully paid (through supplemental appropriations, if necessary). 

8. Increase $5.0 million to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Tribal SelfGovernance. 

—In 2003, Congress reduced funding for this office by $4.5 million, a loss of 43 

percent from the previous year. In each subsequent year, this budget was further reduced due to the applied congressional rescissions. There are over 330 
372 

Self-Governance Tribes with funding totaling approximately $1.0 billion; this is 

57 percent of all federally-recognized Tribes and 33 percent of the overall IHS 

funding. Tribes continue to enter into SG resulting in a need for additional 

OTSG staffing. 

Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress of American 

Indians and National Indian Health Board. 

The leadership of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe remains actively involved in 

both NCAI and NIHB and has participated in numerous national forums to discuss 

and prioritize program funding and budgets. We are extremely supportive of the requests from these organizations. 

In conclusion, the treaties and legislation that Tribal governments have fought so 

hard to achieve with the United States Government remain the basic foundation of 

our unique governmental relationship. We strongly urge this subcommittee to honor 

these commitments and request that Tribal government operations be afforded the 

highest priority in your appropriation decisions. Thank you in advance. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE KERN COUNTY VALLEY FLOOR HABITAT

CONSERVATION PLAN

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the California Industry and Government Coalition for the Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (KCVFHCP), we are pleased to submit this statement for the record 

in support of our funding request for the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 

2009. 

First, the Coalition supports the President’s budget request for the Department 

of Interior’s Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, especially funding 

for HCP land acquisition. 

Second, the Coalition urges the subcommittee to appropriate additional funding 

for land acquisition above the funding requested by the President. The additional 

funding requested by the Coalition anticipates that $1 million will be needed by the 

Kern County program to be used for purposes of acquiring and maintaining habitat 

preserves. 

The Coalition’s request is supported by the timely need to implement the 

KCVFHCP. The County’s local oil and gas production industry and Water Districts 

have contributed over $500,000 to the development of this program. In 1997, the U. 

S. Fish and Wildlife Service allocated $500,000 of Federal Endangered Species Act 

Section 6 funds to assist in program implementation. The California State government has authorized $1 million to augment the Federal funds. In order to secure 

the $3 million total necessary to assist in the implementation of the plan, we will 

require $1 million for fiscal year 2009 and $500,000 for fiscal year 2010. 

The Coalition requests that the subcommittee appropriate the maximum possible 

amount for this program, so that the funding pool can accommodate our request and 

need. We are confident that the plan’s merits and urgency support this request. 

Kern County’s program is unique from other regions in the Nation in that it contains some of the highest concentrations of plant and animal species protected by 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the continental United States. The region 

is occupied by 11 wildlife species and 14 plant species covered as threatened or endangered under the program. The potential for conflict with the Federal ESA is 

great in Kern County because of the extensive oil and gas production activities, 

water conveyance efforts and the urbanization that is occurring. Since Kern County 

is the top oil producing county in the Nation and experiencing rapid urban growth, 

potential conflicts with the ESA and their resolution through a proactive conservation program has significant national importance. 

In recognition of the conflicts posed to economic growth by Federal and State endangered species laws, a joint agency Memorandum of Understanding was entered 

into by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, California 

Energy Commission, California Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources, 

California Department of Fish and Game and Kern County. The participating agencies agreed to develop a unified conservation strategy with the goal of providing a 

streamlined and consistent process of complying with State and Federal endangered 

species laws, yet at the same time allow important industry activities such as oil 

and gas, water conveyance and other industry activities to continue. 

Preparation of the KCVFHCP began in 1989 and involved a number of Federal, 

State and local government agencies, as well as the oil and gas industry, agricultural interests, utilities and environmental groups. 

Kern County’s Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan is one of the largest and 

most diverse endangered species conservation programs under development in the 
373 

Nation encompassing over 3,110 square miles. The program represents a departure 

from traditional endangered species conservation programs which utilize prohibitory 

controls to assure conservation of species habitat. Instead, it is based on an incentive-based system of selling or trading habitat credits in an open market. This innovative approach, for the first time, provides landowners with real incentives and 

more importantly, the ability to choose how best to manage their own private property. The KCVFHCP is in the final stages of preparation. The HCP document is 

completed. An environmental impact statement is being prepared for public review 

in the near future. Final approval will occur in 2008. 

Numerous agencies, in concert with the State of California and local government 

entities, as well as the private oil and gas industry have contributed funding, time 

and other resources toward developing the KCVFHCP. The KCVFHCP program will 

be completed in 2009, provided there is the necessary Federal funding for the acquisition of habitat to mitigate for oil and gas operations and development. Additional 

funding is critical to completing the HCP. This is one of the final steps necessary 

to implement the conservation strategy. Because of the extensive private, local and 

State government financial support that went into the development of this program, 

Federal participation in program implementation will demonstrate that the burden 

of ESA compliance is not being placed exclusively on private property owners. Program funding will also contribute to eventual species recovery. 

PROGRAM FUNDING NEEDS

In order for the KCVFHCP to be implemented, the program requires funding in 

the amount of $1.5 million (augments the $1.5 million in State and Federal funding 

received in 1997) that could be funded in increments over the first two years of the 

program. The purpose of this funding is described as follows: 

Oil Development Issue 

A mitigation strategy has been devised that is intended to acknowledge existing 

oil field activities within Kern County. The strategy proposes to acquire 3,000 acres 

of endangered species habitat to mitigate for species loss resulting from oil field development outside of established oil field production areas, but within proximity of 

those areas. This is to allow for reasonable expansion of oil field activities over the 

life of the HCP program. The program strategy allocates $3.0 million for acquisition 

and perpetual maintenance of species reserve areas. With this type of strategy, oil 

field expansion activities would be provided for in the program. This strategy would 

be of great benefit to the small independent oil and gas companies within the program area. 

Urban Development/County Infrastructure Issue 

The conservation program includes an Urban Development/County Infrastructure 

mitigation strategy that mitigates for species habitat loss through the use of an incentive-based system of selling or trading habitat credits in an open market. This 

innovative program will add market value to land that is needed by project proponents to comply with endangered species laws which will encourage the owners 

of such properties to offer lands for the benefit of species conservation. Protected 

species of plants and animals will benefit from a program that promotes private 

property owners to conserve permanent habitat preserves consistent with the objectives of the ESA. 

Water District Activity Issue 

A Water District Strategy is included in the program to address Covered Species 

protection due to the construction of new facilities and the operation and maintenance of existing water management and conveyance facilities. The Covered Species 

will benefit from reduced and less intrusive operation and maintenance measures 

than have been conducted historically due to concerns for conflicts with endangered 

species laws. 

Federal Funding Support will Augment Local Government and Private Industry Efforts to Comply with the Endangered Species Act 

The $1.5 million required for the oil field strategy would help contribute to satisfying the program’s endangered species conservation goals, while also providing for 

continued economic growth of Kern County’s oil and urban development activities. 

Protected species would benefit from a comprehensive long-term program that promotes the creation of permanent habitat preserves. 

Numerous private businesses, in concert with the State of California and local 

government entities, are attempting to do their part, and we come to the appropriations process to request assistance in obtaining a fair Federal share of financial sup-
374 

port for this important effort. This unique cooperative partnership involving State 

and local government, as well as private industry, has contributed substantial funds 

to date, to assist in the development of this program. 

The California Industry and Government Coalition appreciates the subcommittee’s consideration of this request for a fiscal year 2009 appropriation to support implementation of this significant program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LAC DU FLAMBEAU TRIBE OF LAKE SUPERIOR

CHIPPEWA INDIANS

As President of the Lac du Flambeau Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 

located in Wisconsin, I am pleased to submit this testimony, which reflects the 

needs, concerns and issues of the tribal membership arising from the President’s fiscal year 2009 Budget for BIA, IHS, EPA and NPS. We would like to thank the subcommittee for its past support, especially your support of the Lac du Flambeau 

Boarding School Project. 

We are alarmed by the slow erosion of funding for Indian programs under the 

Bush administration. While some proposed cuts are obvious (JOM, HIP, natural resource programs), the more insidious reductions are the result of the flat program 

funding and across-the-board rescissions that tribes are subject to every year. As the 

cost of living, the cost of fuel, and the cost of other resources rise over the years, 

these programs see little or no increases, and any increase that is provided is eliminated once the rescission is applied. We commend the subcommittee on its decision 

to significantly increase law enforcement funding in fiscal year 2008, but it is important to understand that other areas continue to suffer. 

Inflation, Cost of Living, and Fixed Costs.—Under the Indian Self-Determination 

Act, many tribes have assumed responsibility for providing core services to their 

members. If these services were provided by the Federal Government, employees 

would receive pay cost increases mandated by Federal law, but Congress and Interior have failed to fulfill their obligation to ensure that tribes have the same resources to carry out these functions. For example, tribes received only 75 percent 

of the pay cost adjustment in fiscal year 2002, 15 percent in fiscal year 2003 and 

30 percent in fiscal year 2004. To make matters worse, the BIA and IHS have steadfastly refused to provide tribal contractors with full contract support costs, ensuring 

that when tribes take over these programs, they will be placed in an untenable position. This inequity is undermining tribal self-determination. 

The subcommittee also has to understand the impact of the increasing cost of 

health insurance on our ability to provide services to our tribal members. In order 

for us to maintain a $10/hr employee (approximately $20,000/yr), the Tribe faces an 

associated health care benefit cost of $20,350 for a family health insurance plan. 

When the Tribe is forced to supplement under-funded BIA and IHS programs in 

order to cover these costs, direct services to our members suffer. We have less 

money available to provide counseling to students, collect water samples, put more 

officers in the field, provide basic health service, etc. Without substantial increases 

in funding, the Tribe will continue to decrease services to our tribal membership because we cannot afford to absorb these costs. We may be forced to eliminate the 

health insurance benefit, which will seriously impact our ability to recruit and 

maintain our labor force. 

Our highest priority is to keep existing programs from failing. We ask that the 

Subcommittee provide cost of living increases and fully fund contract support costs. 

Rescission Exemption.—The purpose of an across-the-board rescission is to spread 

cuts across all programs, but what may seem like a small loss to another program 

can be crippling to tribes. BIA and IHS programs have always been severely underfunded. The small increases provided in previous years have been eliminated by rescissions. This year, the President proposes to fund BIA Indian programs at $100 

million below last year and IHS programs at $20 million less. A rescission would 

take us back even further. Tribes simply cannot afford to have our limited funding 

chipped away like this. We ask that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian 

Health Service be exempted from any rescissions applied in the fiscal year 2009 bill. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PROGAMS

Education.—Because the Tribe’s member children attend public schools, Johnson 

O’Malley funding forms the core of the Tribe’s education program. The JOM program provides funding for supplemental education programs for Indian students attending public schools. At Lac du Flambeau, JOM money funds a counselor/mentor 

position at the local high school. Most of our children attend an elementary school 

that is over 90 percent Indian, and transition to a high school in which they are 
375 

a minority. The counselor/mentor provides academic support and assistance with 

this transition. The administration attempts to justify the cut by claiming that the 

Department of Education provides enough funding for all youth attending public 

school, including Indian children, so JOM funding is ‘‘duplicative.’’ This is not true. 

The Department of Education provides some funds for Indian students under Title 

VII, but the Department has not increased funding for Indian student programs for 

several years. If the JOM program were eliminated, we would lose our counselor/ 

mentor. We urge the subcommittee to restore full funding to the JOM program and 

to reject the proposed $5.9 million cut to higher education scholarships. 

Road Maintenance.—The BIA proposes an inexplicable cut to road maintenance 

funding for fiscal year 2009, slashing the program in half. As Congress well knows, 

roads in Indian country are unsafe and in dismal condition. At least $120 million 

per year is required to address the deplorable state of these roads. As with JOM 

and HIP, the administration justifies this cut by pointing to funding available from 

another agency—here the Department of Transportation. When SAFETEA–LU was 

passed, Congress permitted tribes to use up to 25 percent of DOT road construction 

funding for road maintenance in recognition of the BIA’s terrible track record and 

consistent failure to request enough road maintenance funds. Congress also made 

it clear these funds were intended to supplement, not replace BIA Road Maintenance Program dollars and placed the choice of whether to use these funds for maintenance purposes squarely with the Tribal government, not the BIA, stating that the 

agency ‘‘shall continue to retain primary responsibility, including annual funding request responsibility, for road maintenance programs on Indian reservations.’’ 23 

U.S.C. § 204(c). We ask the subcommittee to reject the proposed $13 million cut to 

road maintenance. 

Housing Improvement Program.—HIP is a critical program for Tribes like Lac du 

Flambeau, providing much-needed money to renovate dilapidated housing. This is 

an especially critical need in Northern Wisconsin, where substandard housing can 

have serious health and safety consequences in the winter. Lac du Flambeau typically receives about $38,000—enough to improve a single home. Because of limited 

funding, the waitlist for HIP services is long. This year, our funding will be used 

to provide a new roof and siding for an elderly and disabled tribal member. The administration justifies its proposed elimination by claiming that the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development will provide housing assistance. However, the administration also proposes to cut funding for Indian housing within HUD. This will 

only increase the need for HIP resources. If HIP funding is eliminated, this woman 

will have no alternative source of funding. Her home and the homes of the others 

on the waiting list will remain in disrepair. We ask the subcommittee to restore HIP 

funding to the fiscal year 2007 level of $19 million. 

Natural Resources.—Tribes are leaders in natural resource protection and BIA 

natural resource funding is essential to maintain our programs. Lac du Flambeau 

has a comprehensive Natural Resources Department and dedicated staff with considerable expertise in natural resource and land management. Our activities include 

raising fish for stocking, conservation law enforcement, collecting data on water and 

air quality, developing well head protection plans, conducting wildlife surveys and 

administering timber stand improvement projects on the 86,000-acre Reservation. 

Unfortunately, natural resource programs have been cut or flat-funded for many 

years now, and tribes have been forced to lay off staff and shut down programs, 

leaving critical resources in jeopardy. Worse yet, this year’s cuts are proposed in 

order to fund internal BIA programs like the proposed $900,000 increase to Integrated Resource Information Program, taking limited funding from tribes in order 

to fund more agency bureaucracy. We ask the subcommittee to use this funding instead to restore cuts and provide cost of living increases for natural resources programs so that these programs can continue to operate. 

We are especially concerned about the administration’s proposal to eliminate the 

Circle of Flight program. Congress has restored this funding when it was targeted 

in past years, and the Tribe would like to thank the subcommittee for understanding how important this program is in restoring and preserving wetlands and 

waterfowl populations, which are vital to the culture and economy of the Great 

Lakes region. We urge the subcommittee to restore $600,000 for the Tribal Wetland 

and Waterfowl Enhancement Initiative (Circle of Flight). 

Another area of concern is Water Management, Planning & Development funding, 

which supports tribes in their efforts to establish Clean Water Act standards. The 

Tribe was recently granted ‘‘Treatment as a State’’ status under the Clean Water 

Act, and this funding is essential to us. The program has seen more than $2 million 

in cuts over the past several years, which severely impacts tribes. We ask the Subcommittee to restore this program to fiscal year 2005 levels ($7.4 million). We also 

ask that you add language preventing the BIA from transferring Water Resources 
376 

money to fund Water Rights Litigation. This practice has created a severe drain on 

the budget for water management. It is important that the subcommittee understand that protecting the quality of water resources is as important as securing the 

right to those resources—rights are of little use if the resource is contaminated. 

The Tribe also supports the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission 

(GLIFWC) request for $4,327,000. The Tribe is a member of the Commission, which 

assists the Tribe in protecting and implementing its treaty-guaranteed hunting, 

fishing and gathering rights. 

Law Enforcement.—Conservation law enforcement officers are a significant part 

of the Tribe’s police force. These officers are primarily responsible for enforcing 

hunting and fishing regulations related to the exercise of treaty rights, but they also 

have a much larger role in law enforcement. They are often first to respond to an 

emergency situations, and would be the first line of defense for any meth labs found 

on or near the Reservation. Our conservation officers are now 100 percent dependent on tribal funds. This costs the Tribe $343,000 annually, in addition to the 

$893,000 the Tribe pays for its non-conservation law enforcement programs. We appreciate the increase provided for law enforcement in fiscal year 2008. We ask that 

the Subcommittee direct a portion of any increases in law enforcement funding to 

conservation officers. 

Indian Land Consolidation.—This program received a significant cut last year 

and the President proposes to eliminate the program entirely this year. For the Lac 

du Flambeau Tribe, this program has been very successful. With ILCA funding, we 

were able to purchase over 200 acres of fractionated land. This helps keep land in 

trust and expedites natural resource activities such as timber sales and forest development projects. We ask the subcommittee to restore this program to the fiscal year 

2007 level ($34 million). 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROGRAMS

Clean Water Program.—The Clean Water Program provides grants to tribes under 

Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems. 

The Lac du Flambeau Clean Water program maintains and improves water quality 

as development continues for the tremendous amount of surface water within the 

exterior boundaries of the Reservation. According to the 2000 Census, the Lac du 

Flambeau Reservation includes nearly one-half of all of the water area (56.34 square 

miles) within Wisconsin Indian Reservations. The Tribe’s GIS Program indicates 

that there are 260 lakes covering 17,897 acres, 71 miles of streams, and 24,000 

acres of wetlands cover within the Reservation. Surface waters cover nearly one-half 

of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation. We received $171,000 in fiscal year 2005, the 

minimum required to support the Tribe’s program. In fiscal year 2008, we will receive $161,000. We request restoration of full funding to the Clean Water Program, 

including restoration of $171,000 from this fund for the Tribe’s Water Resources 

Program. 

Indian Environmental General Assistance Program.—We support the Administration’s proposed $1 million increase to the Indian Environmental General Assistance 

Program (GAP). GAP funding is the primary federal mechanism available for tribes 

to protect our lands. These funds enable tribes to assume environmental responsibilities delegated by EPA. We ask the subcommittee to support this increase and to 

further increase funding to $68.3 million. We also ask you to clarify that GAP funding can be used for development, implementation and continued support of tribal 

environmental programs, not merely ‘‘capacity building.’’ 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PROGRAMS

Historic Preservation.—In 1995, Congress began encouraging tribes to assume historic preservation responsibilities as part of self-determination. There are currently 

76 tribes in the United States—eight in Wisconsin—approved by the Secretary to 

administer historic preservation programs. These programs conserve fragile places, 

objects and traditions crucial to tribal culture, history and sovereignty. As was envisioned by Congress, more tribes qualify for funding every year. In fiscal year 2001, 

there were 27 THPOs with an average award of $154,000; in fiscal year 2006 there 

were 58 THPOs, and Lac du Flambeau received $57,374. Paradoxically, the more 

successful the program becomes overall, the less each tribe receives to maintain professional services, ultimately crippling the programs. We thank the subcommittee 

for the $1 million increase provided to THPOs last year, but more funding is needed. 

We ask that $13.7 million be provided for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers 

(THPOs), which would provide a modest base funding amount of $180,000 per 

THPO program. 
377 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE PROGRAMS

Contract Health.—Federal funding for health services has fallen dramatically behind the rising cost of health care over the past 5 years. We anticipate the fiscal 

year 2009 shortfall to be in excess of $3 million. A much more substantial increase 

is needed to address the need across Indian county. We urge the subcommittee to 

significantly increase funding for Contract Health Services, and not to limit this increase to emergency CHEF funding, which can be difficult for tribes to access. 

Contract Support Costs.—HS estimates that it has a $107 million shortfall in contract support costs, yet it continues to request only minimal increases. We ask the 

subcommittee to consider making a portion of any unobligated balances available for 

contract support costs. 

Contacts.—Mary J. Pavel or Addie C. Rolnick at Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, 

Endreson & Perry, LLP 1425 K Street NW, Ste. 600, Washington D.C. 20005; 202– 

682–0240 (tel); 202–682–0249 (fax) mpavel@sonosky.com; arolnick@sonosky.com. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LAMOILLE COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES

CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND NATURE CENTER

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $4 million from the Forest Legacy Program to protect the 5,727-acre Eden Forest property 

in Eden, Vermont. 

I also urge your support for a significant increase in funding for the Forest Legacy 

Program in fiscal year 2009 to enable the protection of more forest resources than 

are included in the President’s budget. The budget for this year proposes a cut of 

75 percent and sets aside funds for only three Forest Legacy projects nationwide out 

of 87 submitted by the States. Without additional funds, the program will not be 

able to continue its successful partnerships with States, local communities, landowners and grassroots organizations like the Lamoille County Natural Resources 

Conservation District & Nature Center to protect valuable forestlands, while retaining, in many cases, private ownership. 

The Forest Legacy Program in Vermont seeks to achieve significant conservation 

goals for the State by protecting the following types of land: large contiguous and 

productive forest blocks, wildlife habitat dependent on large contiguous forest 

blocks, threatened and endangered species habitat, State fragile areas and undeveloped shoreline, significant wetlands, and important recreation corridors. 

The State’s top Forest Legacy Program priority for fiscal year 2009 is the 5,727- 

acre Eden Forest. Situated in Lamoille County on the spine of the northern Green 

Mountains in Eden and Johnson, this large contiguous timber tract is truly a highquality forest, which contains two unique natural communities known as red spruce 

hardwood swamp and semi-rich northern hardwood forest. The property has been 

managed for timber for over 50 years and, given the excellent condition of the forest 

and forest roads, is well positioned to continue providing forest products far into the 

future. Because the Forest Legacy Program allows for and encourages sustainable 

stand management the Eden Forest represents a potential balance of preservation 

and utilization. Funding of the Eden Forest, and other similar Forest Legacy 

Projects, bring together ecological and egalitarian needs of communities. 

Eden Forest is adjacent to 24,188 acres of conserved land and shares a common 

boundary with the Long Trail State Forest and the Long Trail corridor itself for approximately 4 miles. The Long Trail is the Nation’s oldest long-distance hiking trail 

and one of Vermont’s most cherished cultural resources. The property also contains 

portions of both Bowen and Butternut Mountain summits. Its protection would create a 30,000-acre block of protected land, a significant unfragmented ‘‘core’’ forest 

in Vermont’s northern woods. 

Eden Forest’s close proximity to such ecological hotspots as the Babcock Nature 

Preserve, the Atlas Timberlands, and Green River Reservoir State Park coupled 

with the large unfragmented nature of the property will provide a haven for many 

wildlife species such as black bear, bobcat, gray and red fox, moose, and deer. Over 

5,000 acres of the property is considered ‘‘core’’ habitat and has received a high wildlife-linkage-value rating by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife due in 

part to it being a ‘‘black bear production habitat’’ area. These areas support a relatively high density of cub-producing females. This property also has 120 acres of 

beaver wetlands that provide habitat for wood ducks, wood turtles, and many species of warblers. A rookery for great blue herons, a rare species in Vermont, was 

found at one of the property’s wetland complexes. 

The Eden Forest property also encapsulates almost the entire watersheds of two 

Gihon River headwater streams, Stony Brook and Wild Brook. It also contains ap-
378 

proximately one-half mile of frontage on both sides of the Gihon River itself, which 

is a tributary of the Lamoille River, and abuts Vermont’s scenic Route 100. The 

property also includes more than 46 miles of streams and rivers that make up part 

of the Gihon River headwaters. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation’s draft Lamoille Basin Plan recognizes the importance of protecting the 

Gihon River headwaters area for its near-pristine natural condition, wildlife and 

fish habitat value, timber value, and location adjacent to a core of protected land. 

Numerous wetlands dot the extensive property, including the six-acre Lanpher 

Meadow. Protection of the Eden Forest property and associated waters directly contributes to the water quality of Lake Champlain which is already impacted by elevated phosphorus levels associated with developed and mismanaged sub watersheds. 

Lake Champlain is often called ‘‘North America’s most historic lake’’ in addition to 

offering an abundance of recreational and natural features. 

Historically, the Eden Forest property has also provided numerous recreational 

activities such as hiking, hunting, and cross-country skiing. Snowmobiling is also allowed, and the property hosts trails that are managed by the Vermont Association 

of Snow Travelers (VAST). Lamoille County also has the largest connected network 

of cross-county ski trails in the world, and this project could help expand that network in the future. These activities all make up an important part of the local tourist economy. 

Eden Forest is under immediate pressure from development. According to 2000 

census data, the town of Eden has the second highest percentage of population 

growth in Lamoille County, and its projected population growth through 2015 is expected to continue at a higher rate than almost any other town in the county. Eden 

also had a 25 percent increase in the number of housing units from 1990 to 2000, 

indicating a high demand for new homes in the area. This type of sprawl is largely 

to blame for the fragmentation of Vermont’s forests and farms. With its first-rate 

access to Route 100, low-elevation open meadows, well-developed road network, 

southern exposure, scenic views, and proximity to the major cities in Vermont, Eden 

Forest is a prime spot for development. 

The Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District & Nature Center, 

incorporated in 1945 to represent landholders, is committed to maintain and improve the natural resources of Lamoille County and to provide our cooperators with 

resources and tools, like the Forest Legacy Program, to encourage responsible and 

sustainable management and development of natural spaces within our communities. Since the District’s incorporation over 60 years ago, the greatest change has 

been in land use; no longer are our cooperators agricultural producers and the forestry sector despite the fact that much of the Lamoille County economy is based on 

the natural environment. To respond appropriate, the Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District & Nature Center has prioritized all projects that support the traditional working landscape of agriculture and forestry. Protection of 

working forest lands like the Eden Forest will ensure the continuation of the rural 

character and wild flavor that the local communities of Lamoille County depend on. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairman for the opportunity to present this testimony 

in support of an appropriation of $4 million from the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 2009 to protect the vast 5,727-acre Eden Forest property. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LEAGUE OF AMERICAN ORCHESTRAS

The League of American Orchestras urges the subcommittee to approve fiscal year 

2009 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $176 million. Congressional support for the NEA has strengthened in recent years, evidenced 

by meaningful funding increases, particularly in fiscal year 2008 when Congress approved a $20.3 million restoration of NEA funds. Still, the NEA has never fully recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal year 1996 and the current level of 

funding for the NEA is still well below the 1992 appropriation of $176 million. 

Founded in 1942, the League of American Orchestras is the national service organization for symphony, chamber, youth, and collegiate orchestras. Orchestras exist 

in all 50 states, in virtually every community. We estimate that there are approximately 1,800 orchestras in the United States, with annual budgets ranging from 

less than $12,000 to more than $77 million. Orchestras in this country are supported by a network of citizens that advance the presence of music in their communities—instrumentalists, conductors, managers, board members, volunteers, staff 

members, and business partners. 

The arts are essential to life in American communities nationwide. From small 

towns to urban centers, communities look to the arts to generate economic activity 

and educate our Nation’s citizenry. Most significantly, as a Nation we also turn to 
379 

the arts for their unique capacity to offer comfort in times of distress, provide meaning amidst uncertainty, spark unity during conflict, and to mark many of our most 

historically significant moments. More than 40 years of support from the National 

Endowment for the Arts has fostered the development of many orchestras and has 

increased the capacity of the arts to serve and strengthen communities across our 

country. 

A significant increase in funding will expand the NEA’s ability to serve the American public through grants supporting and promoting the creation, preservation, and 

presentation of the arts in America through the NEA’s core programs—Access to Artistic Excellence, Challenge America: Reaching Every Community, Learning in the 

Arts for Children and Youth, and Federal/State partnerships—and through important national initiatives. 

In the most recently completed grant year, fiscal year 2007, the NEA’s Grants to 

Organizations included 127 grants to orchestras and the communities they serve, 

supporting arts education for children and adults, preserving great classical works, 

fostering the creative endeavors of contemporary classical musicians, composers, 

and conductors, and expanding public access to performances. 

NEA FUNDING LEADS TO INCREASED PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE ARTS

The NEA, together with the arts organizations that receive Federal support, is 

committed to improving public access to the arts. NEA grants reach every Congressional district in the country. Grants awarded to orchestras through the Access to 

Artistic Excellence program support educational activities, concerts, festivals, professional development, and residencies in communities across the country. With Federal support, orchestras are extending the reach of their activities beyond their 

home cities, bringing music to communities in surrounding towns and regions. 

—The New Mexico Symphony Orchestra, assisted by an NEA grant, has been able 

to bring its touring program to rural and underserved communities. The audiences for the public and school performances included first-time attendees and 

reflected the diversity of the local communities, which are predominantly Native 

American and Hispanic. The orchestra is committed to continuing to provide the 

diverse population of New Mexico with the highest quality live performances of 

symphonic music, to present a broad repertoire in a variety of venues, and to 

be an important educational force. NEA funding lends credibility to their ongoing efforts to secure critical operating funds, and the orchestra was able to attract funding from community partners, the Mellon Foundation, and helped persuade New Mexico legislature to re-institute touring funds for the orchestra’s 

next fiscal year. 

—An NEA grant supports the Vermont Symphony Orchestra’s (VSO) annual 

‘‘Made in Vermont Music Festival’’ statewide tour, which takes a chamber orchestra to nine small, rural communities across the state during foliage season. 

The VSO also partners with the Vermont State College (VSC) system, with 

three of the concerts taking place on VSC campuses. Because several of the performances take place on college campuses, there is always a new audience in 

attendance, year to year. Further, an expanded ‘‘Green Room Program,’’ which 

reaches local high school students, draws new student attendees. Support from 

the NEA is critical and irreplaceable to this project and assists in the orchestra’s application to the Vermont Council on the Arts for state arts support. The 

‘‘Made in Vermont Music Festival’’ will embark on its 15th annual tour September 25-October 5, 2008, with Music Director Jaime Laredo conducting and 

performing as violin soloist. 

—An NEA grant will enable the Nashville Symphony to perform for children and 

adults through outdoor concerts and participate in community-wide events in 

different communities, drawing many new audience members who are not usual 

attendees of symphony concerts in Nashville. The Nashville Symphony has been 

a grateful recipient of NEA support for almost 20 years, and the community engagement program has doubled over the last 6 years. The orchestra is asked 

by new communities on a regular basis to perform, and it makes every effort 

to accommodate these requests. In 2007–2008, the Nashville Symphony will 

visit seven counties in Middle Tennessee. NEA awards are matched by community sponsorships, and community engagement concerts are offered free of 

charge to the public, or are offered for a minimal fee that the communities 

themselves charge so that funds raised go to local arts programs and initiatives. 
380 

NEA-FUNDED ARTS PROGRAMS NURTURE THE CREATIVE POTENTIAL OF YOUNG

LEARNERS

Arts education is proven to boost the capacity of young people to succeed in school, 

work, and life. Children gain the ‘‘arts advantage’’ through NEA-funded projects 

that engage them in the creative process, spark their skills of imagination, and develop their capacity for self-discipline, perseverance, and teamwork. Young people 

benefit from participating in the vibrant network of youth orchestras in America. 

The youth orchestra field is growing—among reporting orchestras, the average 

number of students participating in conducted ensembles increased by 25.9 percent 

between the 1989–1990 and the 2004–2005 seasons. We look to youth orchestras as 

a place where young people come together from a wide variety of backgrounds—from 

countries all over the world, and from a variety of economic, social, religious and 

ethnic backgrounds. Music is a positive force for teaching people to work creatively 

together. Among America’s orchestras our youth orchestras are the most diverse. 

Orchestras are essential and active partners in increasing access to lifelong music 

education, improving the quality of life in their communities by collaborating with 

school systems and other local partners to deliver a wide array of education and 

community programs. 

—The Dubuque Symphony Orchestra received its first NEA grant to support a series of concerts featuring Gareth Johnson, a winner of the International Sphinx 

Competition that recognizes young, ethnically diverse string instrumentalists. 

This support from the NEA enabled the orchestra to support young talent and 

promote artistic diversity as part of a city-wide Multicultural Festival organized 

by the Dubuque Symphony Orchestra to commemorate Black History Month. 

Furthermore, the orchestra was able to engage underserved groups in the community while inspiring and educating audiences, many of whom experienced 

classical music for the very first time. 

NEA GRANTS UNIQUELY SUPPORT CREATIVITY IN COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE

The NEA identifies and supports projects that connect the arts—and artists—to 

their broader communities, encouraging creative collaboration and building artistic 

strength. Projects supported by the NEA must demonstrate artistic excellence and 

a strong capacity to reach new audiences. Audiences across the country are currently experiencing an NEA-funded project that exhibits the hallmarks of the agency: reaching new audiences, attracting additional financial support, and providing 

access to the arts to communities nationwide. 

—An NEA grant to the Reno Chamber Orchestra supports the second round of 

the ‘‘Ford Made in America’’ project, a collaborative commissioning, performance, and outreach project that involves 60 smaller-budget orchestras, including 

at least one from each of the 50 States, providing an opportunity to achieve together what no one of them could afford to do on their own. For orchestras with 

smaller budgets, commissioning and presenting a major new work by a nationally recognized composer can be difficult, due to budget constraints and limited 

staff resources. The largest consortium commission ever planned by American 

orchestras, Ford Made in America gives ensembles in smaller communities the 

capacity to premiere a new work by Joseph Schwantner, one of the most frequently performed composers in the United States. Alongside the NEA, the 

Ford Motor Company Fund has again contributed major funding, and the program is a partnership of the League of American Orchestras and Meet the Composer. On the local level, Ford Made in America has opened up new potential 

funding streams for participating orchestras. 

Thank you for this opportunity to illustrate the value of NEA support for orchestras and communities across the nation. The Endowment’s unique ability to provide 

a national forum to promote excellence, both through high standards for artistic 

products and the highest expectation of accessibility, remains one of the strongest 

arguments for a federal role in support of the arts. We urge you to support creativity and access to the arts by approving $176 million in funding for the National 

Endowment for the Arts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE

Thank you for allowing the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe an opportunity to submit 

our written testimony that lists the funding needs for fiscal year 2009 before this 

highly esteem committee. 

My name is Frances Charles and I am the chairwoman of the Lower Elwha 

Klallam Tribe. Our Reservation is located on and near the mouth of the Elwha 
381 

River on the North Coast of the Olympic Peninsula, about 5 miles west of the City 

of Port Angeles, Washington. I am here today to request full funding for the Indian 

Health Service in Fiscal 2009, including : —a $486,000,000 increase to cover mandatory, inflation, and population growth; 

—a $152,000,000 increase for Contract Health Services; 

—a $160,000,000 increase to fully fund Contract Support Costs; 

—a $5,000,000 increase for IHS’ Office of Self-Governance; 

—restoration of $21,000,000 for Health Care Facilities Construction; and 

—continued annual funding of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians at $150,000,000 until new authority is enacted. 

Increased funding levels are needed to maintain existing health care services; 

meet unmet health care needs in our growing population; and support Tribal Selfdetermination efforts. 

The Elwha Tribe also supports restoration of Johnson-O’Malley ($21,400,000) and Housing Improvement ($13,600,000) funds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs base programs, along with a $25,000,000 increase in the BIA’s Tribal Priority Allocation, a 

$45,000,000 increase for BIA Contract Support Costs, and $500,000 for BIA Data 

Management. In addition, we welcome the subcommittee’s support of funding for 

restoration of freshwater and marine fisheries habitat in the Port Angeles region. 

Our Tribe is a partner with the State and Federal governments in both Elwha River 

Restoration and Port Angeles Harbor Cleanup. But I want to focus my testimony 

today on health care issues. 

Prior to entering Self-Governance in the Indian Health Service in 2002, we took 

over our Tribe’s Health Services from IHS’ Neah Bay Service Unit in March 1995. 

Our clinic, located just west of Port Angeles on U.S. Highway 101, is better situated 

to provide health care services in the Port Angeles Region. The clinic serves about 

1000 member and non-member Indians, including 416 individuals who lack insurance. Ours is also the only clinic in the Port Angeles area accepting new Medicare 

and Medicaid patients, including non-Indians. In addition, under a recently negotiated Memorandum of Understanding with the Veterans Administration, our clinic 

will soon begin serving both Indian and non-Indian veterans. 

Unfortunately, our Contract Health Services Program remains seriously under- funded. For fiscal year 2007, that program received $517,175 to serve 642 eligible 

Native Americans living on reservation land. After using $197,800 to buy prescription drugs for this population, we had just $319,380 remaining for all of fiscal year 

2007. We do not collect contract support costs from our Contract Health Service allocation and are forced to use third-party revenues to attempt to make up this shortfall. 

Ever-increasing medical costs are affecting the criteria we use to select treatment 

options. For example, in fiscal year 2007 the Contract Health Service budget was 

severely impacted by two cancer patients. Because of the high cost of the medical 

treatment for one of the patients—$200,000 per month just for cancer center care, 

not including hospital and physician fees or medication—the Tribe was forced to go 

into Priority I, meaning all medical referrals were stopped except for patients requiring hospitalization or at risk for life and limb. As you can see, the medical needs 

of just one tribal member can put a substantial strain on the yearly budget, leaving 

other tribal households in jeopardy. We need more realistic funding levels. 

Increased funding would also facilitate the purchase of diagnostic equipment, such 

as lab and x-ray equipment, as well as essential medical supplies. Our veteran, 

eldercare and pediatric caseloads are all increasing. We need to keep pace in our 

clinic. And, as our service population ages, we hope to construct and operate an assisted living facility serving veterans and tribal elders. We especially honor and care 

for our veterans. We are proud that such a high proportion of Indian people have 

served, and continue to serve, in the Armed Forces. We want to provide them with 

the best medical facilities possible. 

As we enter fiscal year 2008 our Tribe is faced with many challenges regarding 

health care. The greatest challenge will be to provide Contract Health Care. We are 

told that program will only receive $500,000 for fiscal year 2008. That funding will 

be insufficient to cover our increasing medical costs for eldercare, emergency room 

visits, surgeries, orthopedics, diabetic management, cancer care, health and prevention programs. 

Mr. Chairman, you can see that we have the same health care problems as the 

country at large: increasing uninsured or under-insured veteran, eldercare and pediatric caseloads. If anything, our service population has greater health-care needs 

than the general population. But because of cuts, rather than growth, in the Indian 

Health Services budget, and because IHS requires us to subsidize contract support 

costs, we are actually forced to treat our children, elders and veterans with diminished funding. This is causing a health-care crisis, for our Tribe and for our region. 
382 

We hope that your subcommittee will not let this happen, that Congress will be able 

to provide health care funding at more realistic levels in the coming years. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my Tribe’s appreciation for Senates’ efforts toward reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Much has 

been done, and much remains to be done, to improve health care for our people. We 

know that there are many demands made upon the Federal Budget; and, we hope 

that the Senate, present and future, will continue to give high priority to Indian 

Health Care. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LUMMI INDIAN NATION

On behalf of the Lummi Indian Nation, I would like to thank the chairman and 

the distinguished committee members for the opportunity to share with you the 

funding priorities and requests of the Lummi Indian Nation for the fiscal year 2009 

Budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. 

The Lummi Indian Nation is located on the northern coast of Washington State, 

and is the third largest tribe in Washington State serving a population of over 

5,200. The Lummi Indian Nation is a fishing Nation. We have drawn our physical 

and spiritual sustenance from the marine tidelands and waters, which as surrounded us for hundreds of thousands of years. Now the abundance of wild salmon 

is gone. The remaining salmon stocks do not support commercial fisheries. Our fishers have trying to survive with shellfish products. In 1999 we had 700 licensed fishers who supported nearly 3,000 tribal members. Today, we have about 350 remaining. This means that over 400 small businesses in our community have gone bankrupt in the past 9 years. This is the basic inescapable reality of the Lummi Indian 

Nation. We are culturally a fishing society. Our people have contracted diseases that 

were unknown to us at the beginning of the 20th Century. Our people are seeking 

a return to traditional health and to practice our traditional healthy lifestyles. Our 

families are struggling to hold traditional values against the onslaught of poverty, 

drug abuse, mental and physical illness. Domestic violence among our people is 

three times the rate experienced by our non-Indian neighbors. Our children and elders go without the food clothing, shelter and community support that they desperately need. 

TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

—∂$5 million—BIA General Assistance Program 

—∂$500,000—Tribal Community Safety Center 

—∂$850,000—Water Resources Protection 

—∂$1.5 million—Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Land Acquisition 

—∂$1.6 million—Salmon Hatchery Program Maintenance 

—∂$1 million—BIA Realty 

—∂$2.5 million—Slater Road Bridge Project 

Indian Health Service 

—∂$2 million—Contract Health Funds 

—∂$600,000—Lummi Dental Facility Staffing and Equipment 

LUMMI INDIAN NATION SPECIFIC REQUESTS—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

∂$5 million.—BIA General Assistance Program 

The Lummi Indian Nation worked with the BIA General Assistance Staff to develop a plan for emergency services for our fishers. This assistance did help some 

fishers make the transition from salmon to other commercial fisheries, until the BIA 

administrative decision was made not to allow Tribes to seek assistance for economic disaster, even though it is allowable under the program regulations. Lummi 

Indian Nation is requesting that the Committee direct the Bureau to reverse this 

decision and provide the BIA General Assistance Program with an additional 

$5million to address the needs of those Tribes impacted by economic distress, such 

as the economic disaster facing the Lummi Indian Nation. 

∂$500,000.—Tribal Community Safety Center (Office of Indian Services) 

The Lummi Indian Nation has been able to organize eight federally recognized 

Tribal governments to support the development and operation of a Community Public Safety Center, which would serve as a regional alternative jail. The facility would 

feature a variety of incarceration services from the least restrictive forms of commu-
383 

nity-based services through limited maximum-security incarceration services. With 

proper planning and contract obligations the Tribes could support this operation. 

∂$850,000.—Water Resources Protection (Division of Water) 

Pursuant to the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot, an adequate quantity and quality of 

water is needed both on the Lummi Reservation to support an economically viable 

homeland for the Lummi People and in the Nooksack River watershed to support 

a sustainable, harvestable surplus of salmon and shellfish. In November 2007 the 

Federal judge approved the negotiated settlement to the lawsuit United States, 

Lummi Nation v. Washington State Department of Ecology, et al, Civil Action No. 

C01–0047Z (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington). The negotiated 

settlement resolved water rights conflicts for only a portion of the Lummi Indian 

Reservation; it did not resolve on-going conflicts for the northern half of the Reservation and it did not resolve on-going conflicts over water allocation in the 

Nooksack River watershed, which discharges through the Reservation. In addition, 

the negotiated settlement created obligations on the parties including paying for a 

Federal water master, metering all water uses, and performing additional monitoring and reporting. The Lummi Indian Nation is requesting $150,000 to pay the 

cost of these obligations due the Lummi Indian Nation. Efforts to resolve the water 

rights conflicts have been underway for many years and additional technical, legal, 

and policy support is needed to resolve these conflicts. The estimated additional annual cost for this support is $700,000. 

∂$1.5 million—Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Land Acquisition 

The Lummi Indian Nation is developing a wetland and habitat mitigation bank 

on the Reservation to restore high-value and relatively rare saltwater marsh habitat 

and to ensure no net loss of wetland areas or functions as a result of residential, 

commercial, municipal, and industrial growth on the Reservation and in surrounding areas. Although the Lummi Indian Nation already owns about half of the 

land that will be used in the wetland and habitat mitigation bank, individual tribal 

members own the remainder of the targeted land in the Lummi River flood plain. 

Purchasing this land, at fair market value, which has marginal value for agricultural purposes due to saline soils and brackish water supplies, will consolidate ownership and allow the land to be used for a purpose that provides a substantial benefit to the ecosystem and supports the residential and economic development of the 

Lummi Indian Nation and surrounding communities. 

∂$1.6 million.—Salmon Hatchery Program Maintenance (Hatchery Maintenance & 

Rehabilitation) 

The Lummi Indian Nation currently operates three salmon hatcheries that support tribal and other fisheries in the region. The tribal hatchery facilities were originally constructed in the early 1970’s. The original infrastructure needs to be repaired or replaced as it approaches the end of its useful life and other infrastructure 

needs to be developed or modified to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act 

and/or the Endangered Species Act. The existing pump station along the Nooksack 

River needs to be upgraded at a cost of approximately $600,000 and the existing 

approximately 4 mile long, 10-inch diameter asbestos-cement water supply line 

needs to be replaced with a 12-inch diameter pipeline at a cost of approximately $1 

million. 

∂$1 million.—BIA Realty (Division of Realty) 

Funding is requested to support BIA processing the backlog of Tribal fee to trust 

applications that have been accumulating for nearly 20 years. This backlog is a significant barrier to Tribal development today. 

∂$2.5 million.—Slater Road Bridge Project (Division of Transportation) 

The Lummi Indian Nation is partnering with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and neighboring Whatcom County to elevate a frequently flooded section of Slater Road. When this section of Slater Road is flooded, access to the 

Lummi Reservation, Lummi Island, the Cherry Point heavy impact industrial zone, 

and the City of Ferndale are severely limited, which threatens public health and 

safety and has substantial economic impacts. The FEMA provided a $3 million grant 

for the project through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (the maximum grant 

allowable) and Whatcom County has committed $3.66 million to the project based 

on initial project cost estimates. The design for the project has been completed but, 

due to unforeseen costs and increase material costs, the engineer’s cost estimate 

based on the 100 percent design is approximately $2.5 million greater than the 

available budget. Value engineering efforts did not substantially lower the costs and 

would have a greater environmental impact. An additional $2.5 million is needed 
384 

to construct this important project, from Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Road and 

Bridge funds. 

LUMMI INDIAN NATION SPECIFIC REQUESTS—INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

∂$2 million.—Contract Health Funds 

The Lummi Indian Nation has endured a shortage of contract health care funds 

for many years due to constantly increasing health care and health care administrative costs and a budget that does not keep pace. The Lummi Indian Nation is requesting that the Committee direct the IHS to develop an allocation plan for contract health care funds that recognizes that Tribes who are not served by an IHS 

Hospital incur greater contract health costs than those tribes who are provided services by such a facility. The Lummi Indian Nation has incurred approximately $2 

million annually in costs that are not covered by the current allocation level. 

∂$600,000.—Lummi Indian Nation Dental Facility Staffing and Equipment 

In 2008 the Lummi Indian Nation is completing the process of expanding is dental clinic facility and services. Funding for this project was generated through a 

combination of IHS facility and tribal funds. The Tribal Health Planner has determined that the Dental Clinic needs at least 12 chairs. Currently there are only four 

chairs and a 4 month waiting list for both youth and adult to see the dentists even 

though the Lummi Indian Nation has prioritized dental services for school age children. Lummi Indian Nation funds have been used to create dental clinic space sufficient for 12 chairs. The Lummi Indian Nation is requesting that the Committee direct the IHS to provide the Lummi Indian Nation with additional equipment (4 

operatories at $100,000 each) and staffing (two dentists at the rate of $100,000 annually each). 

REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUPPORTING ALL TRIBAL NEEDS

BIA Requests 

—Restore Johnson O’Malley funds ($21.4 million); and Housing Improvement 

Funds ($13.6 million) to Tribal base programs 

—Provide $25 million General Increase to BIA Tribal Priority Allocation for inflationary and fixed costs 

—Provide $45 million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC 

—$500,000 for BIA Data Management funding of Office of Program Data Quality 

IHS Requests 

—Provide $486 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth increase to maintain existing health care services (President’s budget proposes a 

cut of $21.3 million) 

—$152 million increase for Contract Health Services (CHS) 

—$160 million increase for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC 

—Increase $5 million to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Tribal Self-Governance 

—Restore $21 million for health care facilities construction 

—Maintain annual funding for Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) at $150 million until new authority is enacted (Current extended authority for 

Special Diabetes Program for Indians will expire in 2009.) 

The Lummi Indian Nation Supports the Regional Requests and Recommendations 

for 

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians 

Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

The Lummi Indian Nation Supports the National Requests and Recommendations 

for 

National Congress of American Indians 

National Indian Health Board 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MOTHER LODE CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB

The Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club supports an appropriation of $5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to the U.S. Forest Service to purchase lands in Tahoe National Forest, California. Some of these lands are in the 
385 

canyon of the Middle Yuba River, and the remainder are in the canyon of the North 

Yuba River. 

The Mother Lode Chapter also urges the subcommittee to recommend total appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund much larger than the miniscule appropriations in the President’s budget. Increased appropriations are urgently needed to reduce the enormous nationwide backlog of critical private 

inholdings that should be acquired. 

Land grants to the Central Pacific Railroad created an irrational square-mile 

checkerboard pattern of public and private lands around the railroad’s route across 

the Sierra Nevada. The checkerboard pattern of ownership makes efficient and effective management of public lands in the checkerboard to enhance forests, water 

quality, wildlife habitat, and recreation impossible. There are numerous areas in the 

checkerboard with exceptional wildlife, recreation, and scenic values. Consolidation 

of public ownership in these exceptional areas will prevent degradation of their values by development on the intervening private lands. 

Consolidation of public ownership of areas with exceptional values in the checkerboard has been a high priority of the Mother Lode Chapter for decades. 

Thanks to the foresight of past Congresses, thousands of acres of private land in 

the exceptional checkerboard areas—for example, the Castle Peak area and the 

North Fork American Wild River—have been acquired by LWCF appropriations. 

The Chapter urges you to build on these achievements by recommending the requested appropriation for fiscal year 2009. 

Checkerboard parcels along the Middle Yuba River and parcels in the watershed 

of the North Yuba River with a total area of 3,700 acres are available for acquisition 

in fiscal year 2009. 

MIDDLE YUBA RIVER LANDS

These lands lie along 12 miles of the canyon of the Middle Yuba River, a deep 

rugged canyon that includes three sheer-walled inner box canyons. This 12-mile 

stretch is the upstream end of the 39 miles of the Middle Yuba that Tahoe National 

Forest has found eligible for designation in the Wild and Scenic River System by 

virtue of its exceptional scenic qualities. Most of the parcels are on the lower slopes 

and in the bottom of the canyon. 

Bald eagles and northern goshawks reside in the canyon, which is a critical wildlife corridor. The canyon contains nesting and foraging areas for California spotted 

owls. Most of the national forest lands in the canyon are included in Tahoe National 

Forest’s Carnivore Network, lands that are to be managed to benefit habitat for 

marten and Pacific fisher. 

The entire 39 mile stretch of the Middle Yuba is considered to be a good to excellent trout stream. The first 4 miles downstream from Milton Reservoir are more accessible than the canyons further downstream, and acquisition of lands along this 

stretch would help ensure public access to almost all of it. The available lands include a stretch of Macklin Creek, which contains a self-sustaining population of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout, a federally-listed threatened species. Macklin Creek is an 

important contributor to California’s Lahontan cutthroat trout recovery program. 

The Middle Yuba canyon offers excellent opportunities for fishermen, hikers, and 

canyon explorers who enjoy solitude, strenuous adventure, and highly scenic primitive settings. There are several historic trails into the canyon. Some of them are 

presently usable, and others could be reconstructed to provide additional access. 

Acquisition of the available Middle Yuba River lands would significantly increase 

and consolidate public ownership within the canyon, facilitating coordinated management to preserve the canyon’s important wildlife habitat, watershed, and wild 

river values. If these lands are not acquired, some parcels might be sold to individuals desiring unusually isolated second-home sites. Development of these sites 

would gravely damage the pristine canyon. 

NORTH YUBA RIVER LANDS

Most of the 11 scattered parcels lie on the middle and upper slopes of the canyon 

of the North Yuba River, a few miles upstream from the town of Downieville. These 

parcels are in the middleground and background views from the North Yuba River 

canyon and heavily traveled State Highway 49, which is designated as a California 

Scenic Highway. The North Yuba River canyon is also a very popular recreation 

area. Protection of the highly scenic views from the canyon and highway is a significant public benefit. 

Acquisition of the North Yuba River parcels will substantially consolidate public 

ownership in several drainages tributary to the North Fork and facilitate coordi-
386 

nated management to preserve the scenic, watershed, and wildlife habitat values of 

these drainages, which are included in Tahoe National Forest’s Carnivore Network. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED MINE LAND

PROGRAMS

As the president of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs 

I submit this statement on the proposed fiscal year 2009 Office of Surface Mining 

budget. 

The NAAMLP is a tax-exempt organization consisting of 31 States and Indian 

tribes with a history of coal mining and coal mine related hazards. These States and 

tribes are responsible for 99.5 percent of the Nation’s coal production. A majority 

of the States and tribes within the NAAMLP administer abandoned mine land 

(AML) reclamation programs funded and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining 

(OSM) pursuant to Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

(SMCRA, Public Law 95–87). Since the enactment of the SMCRA by Congress in 

1977, the AML program has reclaimed thousands of dangerous sites left by abandoned coal mines, resulting in increased safety for millions of Americans. Specifically, more than 285,000 acres of abandoned coal mine sites have been reclaimed 

through $3.5 billion in grants to States and tribes under the AML program. This 

means hazards associated with more than 27,000 open mine portals and shafts, 2.9 

million feet of dangerous highwalls, and 16,000 acres of dangerous piles and embankments have been eliminated and the land reclaimed. Despite these impressive 

accomplishments, $3 billion priority 1 and 2 problems threaten public health and 

safety and remain unreclaimed. These hazardous sites require safeguarding by 

State and tribal AML programs. 

The 2006 Amendments to Title IV of the (SMCRA extended the Interior Department’s authority to collect Abandoned Mine Land (AML) fees through September 30, 

2021 and made the majority of the funding available to States and Tribes mandatory and without further appropriation by Congress. The 15-year extension coupled 

with increased funding will provide the States and tribes with the ability to carryout the remaining AML reclamation work. It is the intention of the States and 

tribes to continue to focus on the protection of the public health and safety to ensure 

restoration of abandoned mines. 

Beginning with fiscal year 2008, State Title IV grants are funded primarily by 

permanent appropriations. States will receive mandatory funding in fiscal year 2009 

of $298.4 million for AML reclamation work. With the funding off-budget, this will 

finally allow the States and tribes to make staffing decisions and in turn begin planning for long range design and reclamation activities. 

However, several issues remain unresolved and these items from the OSM proposed budget are of a concern to the NAAMLP. 

MINIMUM PROGRAM FUNDING

OSM proposes an amount of $30.8 million for discretionary funding related to 

OSM operations under the Title IV program, which includes funding needed for 

minimum program States. Under the new funding formula, all of the States and 

tribes will receive funding increases except for minimum program States. Under the 

2006 Amendments to SMCRA all States and tribes will receive increases in AML 

funding beginning in fiscal year 2008 (29 percent to 269 percent increases), while 

Minimum Program States will receive limited funding for fiscal year 2008 and fiscal 

year 2009. The Minimum Program States are Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, 

Maryland, Missouri, and Oklahoma. For the last 14 years, Minimum Program 

States have been critically under funded in respect to the number of Priority 1 and 

Priority 2 AML hazards that need to be reclaimed. For 3 years (fiscal year 1992, 

fiscal year 1993, and fiscal year 1994) the Minimum Program States received $2 

million annually, the amount mandated by SMCRA. Since that time the Minimum 

Program States have been limited to an annual allocation of only $1.5 million, except for a very small increase of $60,000 to $345,000, depending on the State. The 

2006 amendments increased the Minimum Program distribution to $3 million annually, a move supported by the NAAMLP. OSM has interpreted the 2006 amendments in a manner that holds the Minimum Program distribution to the previous 

level of $1.5 million per year. We urge Congress to fund these States at the statutorily authorized level of $3 million in fiscal year 2009 and allow these States to 

get on with the critical AML projects awaiting funding. 
387 

EMERGENCY PROGRAM FUNDING

Continuation of the OSM Emergency program fulfills the promise to ensure the 

highest response from Federal and State AML programs for protecting the public 

against the most serious and hazardous problems associated with abandoned mines. 

Many States and tribes continue to have AML emergencies that annually cost millions of dollars; between 2003–2007, $92.4 million was spent on funding for emergency projects in 19 States. OSM’s 2009 budget would eliminate funding for Staterun emergency programs and also for Federal emergency projects (in those States 

that do not administer their own emergency programs). The AML program is first 

and foremost designed to protect public health and safety. The majority of State and 

tribal AML projects specifically correct AML features that threaten someone’s personal safety or welfare. While State and tribal AML programs do complete significant projects that benefit the environment, the primary focus has been on eliminating health and safety hazards. Acting as an unfunded Federal mandate, the 

elimination of Federal funding for the AML emergency program would require State 

and tribal AML programs to fund emergencies from non-emergency and waterline 

project grant funding. Because of the 2006 Amendments, States will be receiving 

significant funding increases that would allow the States to address long overdue 

reclamation problems including landslides, contaminated drinking water, refuse 

piles, dangerous highwalls, mine fires, and exposed mine portals. Coupled with the 

prior loss of funding for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative, diverting these 

monies to the emergency program, as suggested by OSM’s budget, would impede the 

progress the States are about to make in addressing AML problems that have been 

awaiting funding for years. This diversion of funding will have a significant and disproportionately harmful effect on minimum program States that are currently being 

funded at a lower level. 

Prior to the proposed Federal fiscal year 2009 budget, the Federal Office of Surface Mining has complied with section 410 and funded all AML emergency program 

reclamation since the inception of SMCRA. Section 410 of SMCRA establishes emergency reclamation procedures for AML sites that pose a high risk of physical harm 

to the public health and safety and recognizes the difference between an AML problem and an AML Emergency. Also, the funding for the emergency program is separate from the State and tribal non-emergency AML grant funding since it comes 

from the Secretary’s ‘‘discretionary share’’. Funding for emergencies is provided for 

in section 402(g)(3) of SMCRA. It is unclear whether non-emergency funds received 

by the States can be used to fund emergency projects due to funding stipulations 

found in section 402(g). Furthermore, the 2006 SMCRA Amendments (Public Law 

109–432) did not include any language that would mandate or authorize the States 

and tribes to fund and/or take sole responsibility for the AML Emergency Program. 

And finally, the 2006 SMCRA Amendments (Public Law 109–432) mandate the continued collection of sufficient revenue by OSM to cover necessary expenditures 

under section 402(g)(3), including emergencies. So, at the same time OSM proposes 

to eliminate emergency funding it continues to collect sufficient revenue to fund the 

emergency program. If OSM is not going to distribute the collected revenue to the 

States to fund the emergency program, it should discontinue collecting the revenue. 

The NAAMLP urges Congress to once again include at least $21 million for the 

AML Emergency Program in OSM’s fiscal year 2009 budget and to direct the agency 

to continue this funding into the future in order to address the AML emergencies 

that require immediate action to abate the threat to the public health and safety. 

(Attached is a Resolution passed by the NAAMLP in support of this funding) 

TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING

The NAAMLP continues to support funding for OSM’s National Technical Training Program (NTTP) and the Technical Innovation Professional Services Program 

(TIPS). The NTTP has been very successful in pooling resources from OSM, States 

and tribes to provide the necessary technical expertise and training needed to enhance the skills of State and tribal abandoned mine reclamation program staffs. 

TIPS is another successful partnership between OSM, States and tribes that provides the needed upgrades to computer software and hardware along with training 

and expertise in the computer technology field. Both of these programs need continued funding. The States and tribes also need funding in order to travel to training 

and to technology transfer events. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the NAAMLP perspective. Please contact me if the NAAMLP can provide more information in any way. 
388 

A RESOLUTION CONCERNING RESTORATION OF FUNDING FOR THE AML EMERGENCY

PROGRAM

WHEREAS, The passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977, Public Law 95–87 (Title IV—Section 410) provided the Secretary of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior the authorization to expend moneys from the Abandoned 

Mine Land (AML) Reclamation fund for AML emergencies; and 

WHEREAS, many States and tribes continue to have AML emergencies that annually cost millions of dollars; and 

WHEREAS, prior to the proposed Federal fiscal year 2009 budget, the Federal Office of Surface Mining has complied with section 410 and funded all AML emergency 

program reclamation since the inception of SMCRA; and 

WHEREAS, the President’s proposed fiscal year 2009 budget eliminates all funding for the AML Emergency Program and anticipates the elimination of AML Emergency Program funding in the future; and 

WHEREAS, the elimination of Federal funding for the AML emergency program 

would necessitate that State and tribal AML programs divert funding from nonemergency reclamation and AML waterline projects to fund emergencies; and 

WHEREAS, the passage of the 2006 SMCRA Amendments (Public Law 109–432) 

did not include any language that would mandate or authorize the States and tribes 

to fund and/or take sole responsibility for the AML Emergency Program; and 

WHEREAS, the 2006 SMCRA Amendments (Public Law 109–432) mandate the 

continued collection of sufficient revenue to cover necessary expenditures under section 402(g)(3), including emergencies; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs urges Congress to restore at least $21 million for the 

AML Emergency Program in OSM’s fiscal year 2009 budget and to direct the agency 

to continue this funding into the future in order to address the AML emergencies 

that require immediate action to abate the threat to the public health and safety. 

Signed this 28th day of February, 2008 

LORETTA PINEDA, President 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN AIR AGENCIES

The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) represents the State 

and local air quality agencies in 53 States and territories and over 165 metropolitan 

areas across the country. NACAA appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony 

on the fiscal year 2009 proposed budget for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), particularly Federal grants for State and local air pollution control agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, which are part of 

the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program. NACAA recommends that 

grants within the STAG program for State and local air pollution control agencies 

under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act be increased in fiscal year 2009 

by $84.7 million above the President’s request, for a total of $270.3 million. This 

represents a restoration of the $31.2-million cut contained in the President’s request, along with an increase of $53.5 million. Additionally, NACAA requests that 

grants for the fine particulate matter monitoring program not be shifted from section 103 authority to section 105 authority, as the administration’s budget proposal 

recommends. The increase NACAA is recommending would not be an earmark because these expenditures are authorized under the Clean Air Act and the funds 

would be awarded to State and local air pollution control agencies in all 50 States. 

Thank you very much for restoring in fiscal year 2008 the grants for State and 

local air agencies that were targeted for a reduction in the President’s request last 

year. The members of NACAA were extremely gratified by your commitment to 

clean air and public health and hope you will again restore the grants that would 

be cut under the President’s request and provide an increase above last year’s 

amount to support important air quality activities that are described below. 

RESTORATION OF STATE AND LOCAL AIR GRANTS IS ESSENTIAL TO CLEAN AIR EFFORTS

For the third straight year, the administration’s budget request calls for $185.6 

million for grants to State and local air quality agencies, which is a significant reduction compared to the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level—a cut of over 14 percent. These grants, provided under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, are 

critical to State and local agency efforts to implement the many complex requirements of our Nation’s clean air program. Reductions of this magnitude would have 

a devastating effect on our clean air efforts across the country. 
389 

When EPA proposed similar cuts in each of the last 2 years, NACAA members 

analyzed the specific impacts the reductions would have on their programs and reported very disturbing results (see www.4cleanair.org/ 

StateandLocalExamplesofImpactsofCuts.pdf and www.4cleanair.org/documents/ 

FY2008budgetanalysisfinal022607.pdf). Because the proposed budget for fiscal year 

2009 is the same, similar negative impacts would be expected. For example, most 

State and local air agencies reported that the reductions would force them to lay 

off valuable staff or leave current vacancies unfilled. Many agencies would shut 

down existing monitors or otherwise curtail monitoring programs. Many inspection 

and enforcement activities would be impaired. Permits for minor sources would take 

longer to process and customer service would diminish. Some smaller local agencies 

might even be forced to cease operations entirely—a loss with significant negative 

consequences for those areas. Finally, the proposed cuts would deprive the Regional 

Planning Organizations of necessary tools and resources to help State and local 

agencies carry out technical activities related to regional haze that they have done 

so successfully for years. 

The impact of the proposed decreases would be exacerbated by the proposal to 

shift grants for the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) monitoring program from section 

103 authority (which does not require a 40-percent match from State and local recipients) to section 105 authority and reduce them by the amount of the 40-percent 

match. Because of the inability of some State and local air agencies to provide 

matching funds specifically dedicated to PM2.5 monitoring, there would be significant cuts to this important program, and some agencies could be forced to turn away 

much-needed grant funds and cease monitoring efforts for this pollutant. PM2.5 is 

very damaging to public health, even leading to thousands of premature deaths. The 

air quality monitoring program is the foundation of State and local air agencies’ efforts to understand the nature of the PM2.5 problem and address it. Dedicated funding under section 103 has enabled States and localities to build a strong PM2.5 monitoring program. NACAA urges you to retain the PM2.5 monitoring program under 

section 103 authority. 

ADDITIONAL FUNDS ABOVE FISCAL YEAR 2008 LEVELS ARE NEEDED FOR CONTINUING

AND NEW ACTIVITIES

In addition to restoring the proposed cuts, NACAA recommends that Federal 

funding for State and local air programs be increased. While the need for additional 

funding for air programs is great, we recognize that there are many competing 

claims on Federal resources and that full funding is not possible in the current economic climate. Therefore, NACAA is requesting only a portion of the optimal 

amount. However, the following information is provided as context, to illustrate that 

the amount NACAA is requesting is truly a fraction of what is needed. 

Section 105 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the Federal Government to provide 

grants for up to 60 percent of the cost of State and local air quality programs, while 

States and localities must provide a 40-percent match. In reality, the Federal Government provides only about 25 percent of the total (not including Title V permit 

fees, which State and local agencies collect from major sources and can use to fund 

only permit-related activities). The total amount needed to fund State and local efforts to implement the Clean Air Act is estimated at over $1 billion each year. If 

the Federal Government were to provide 60 percent of that amount, as the Clean 

Air Act envisions, Federal grants would equal approximately $600 million annually. 

However, Federal grants have been only about one-third of this total in recent 

years. To make matters worse, over the past 15 or 20 years, Federal grants for State 

and local air pollution control agencies to operate their programs have decreased by 

approximately one-third in terms of purchasing power. 

While significant grant increases are needed to carry out State and local agencies’ 

existing obligations, they are facing several important new responsibilities that will 

even further strain their budgets. For example, State and local agencies are in the 

midst of developing State Implementation Plans for haze, PM2.5 and ozone, requiring new activities for each program, all of which are time-consuming, labor intensive 

and costly. These include, among others, emission inventory development, emissions 

and air quality modeling to determine what reductions are needed, development of 

strategies to decrease emissions, adoption of regulations, stakeholder outreach, and 

coordination with EPA to ensure the plans are acceptable. 

Additionally, EPA has just tightened both the PM2.5 and ozone standards. The 

new standards will require States and localities to greatly expand their ambient 

monitoring networks, necessitating additional equipment and staff. With regard to 

ozone, over 250 additional counties are expected to violate the just-promulgated primary health standard. Additional monitors will be needed in these areas, as well 
390 

as in numerous counties across the country where there is currently no data being 

collected. Further, as a result of the lower standard, a month has been added to 

the ozone season in many areas, meaning that more staff and resources will be 

needed to sample during the longer season. It is estimated that an additional $15– 

20 million will be needed for these ozone monitoring activities. The existing PM2.5

network is also inadequate, especially in light of the recently tightened daily standard. An estimated $10–15 million in additional funds are needed to ensure that the 

PM2.5 monitoring network is sufficient. 

Another example of additional workload is the implementation of standards for 

smaller—or ‘‘area’’—sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), many of which have 

not been regulated before. Pursuant to a court order, EPA is issuing 50 standards 

to reduce HAP emissions from area sources that, in the aggregate, are responsible 

for significant emissions. For State and local agencies that will implement the 

standards, locating facilities, providing compliance assistance and outreach, permitting and enforcing requirements will be labor intensive. Because most of these 

sources are too small for the Title V permit program, they will not pay permit fees. 

Thus, State and local agencies will need additional grant funds to take delegation 

of this new program. 

WHY IS AIR POLLUTION A CONCERN?

With all the competing requests facing Congress, it is appropriate to ask why air 

pollution activities should receive additional funding. The answer is that dirty air 

poses a significant risk; tens of thousands of people die prematurely every year and 

many more suffer ill-health as a result of air pollution. In fact, it would be fair to 

say that more people die from exposure to air pollution than from almost any other 

problem that this subcommittee addresses. 

While great progress has been made under the Clean Air Act, millions of people 

in this country continue to breathe unhealthful air. Over 150 million people live in 

areas that violate at least one of the six health-based National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). Exposure to these pollutants causes a host of problems including aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, damage to lung 

tissue, impaired breathing, irregular heart beat, heart attacks, lung cancer and 

death. The pollutants covered by the NAAQS are not the only problems this country 

faces. EPA’s own data on toxic air pollution estimate that more than 270 million 

people in this country live in census tracts where the combined upper-bound lifetime 

cancer risk exceeds 10 in 1 million (1 in 1 million is generally considered ‘‘acceptable’’). Further, over 92 percent of the population lives in areas with ‘‘hazard index’’ 

values for respiratory toxicity above 1.0—the level above which adverse effects to 

the respiratory system occur. 

DIESEL RETROFIT FUNDING SHOULD BE INCREASED

NACAA is a member of a broad coalition of over 200 groups, representing publicinterest, environmental, business and governmental organizations, among others. 

The coalition recognizes the importance of adequate funding for State and local air 

quality agencies and recommends that Federal grants to them be increased. The coalition also recommends that Congress provide $70 million in fiscal year 2009 for 

programs authorized by the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA). The DERA 

programs are intended to decrease the amount of harmful microscopic particles in 

the ambient air resulting from diesel exhaust. NACAA urges Congress to provide 

this funding to these important efforts. Additionally, because the funds provided for 

the DERA activities will support more than just State and local air agencies, 

NACAA recommends the program be funded through an EPA account other than 

STAG. 

EPA SHOULD OBTAIN STATE AND LOCAL CONCURRENCE FOR EARMARKS

NACAA believes Congress’ intention in providing grant funds is to support the activities of State and local air agencies. Accordingly, EPA should not dictate precisely 

how these funds must be spent without considering the recommendations of State 

and local air agencies and the fact that each area may have different air quality 

priorities. When EPA earmarks new or existing grant funds for very specific projects 

or initiatives without first consulting with State and local agencies, the result can 

be an allocation of resources that is inefficient and ineffective. It would be helpful 

if this subcommittee reminded EPA of the need to discuss with and obtain prior concurrence from State and local air agencies on any earmarks for specific activities 

or programs. 
391 

CONCLUSION

The President’s budget request calls for a significant decrease in grants to State 

and local air agencies at a time when these entities are required to take on significant new responsibilities. This would make it difficult, if not impossible, for many 

State and local clean air agencies to carry out the tasks that are essential to their 

mission, which is protecting public health by achieving and maintaining improvements in air quality. Not only would budget decreases at this time be intolerable, 

but air agencies require additional resources to meet their responsibilities. 

NACAA recommends that the fiscal year 2009 budget for Federal grants to State 

and local air quality agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act be 

increased above the President’s request by $84.7 million (from $185.6 million to 

$270.3 million). This represents a restoration of the $31.2 million cut contained in 

the President’s request, along with a modest increase of $53.5 million. Additionally, 

grants for the PM2.5 monitoring program should not be shifted from section 103 authority to section 105 authority. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on this important issue and 

for your careful consideration of the impacts that deficient funding will have on air 

quality and public health. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOREST SERVICE RETIREES

(NAFSR) 

The following recommendations relate to all programs of the U.S. Forest Service. 

In developing these recommendations, we used the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriation, as enacted, as the starting point. We find the administration’s fiscal year 

2009 budget proposals for the Forest Service to be irresponsible. We believe the base 

funding for all programs should be the fiscal year 2008 appropriation level adjusted 

for pay act and other uncontrollable costs (an increase of $77 million across all program areas). We recommend the following increases to the base funding level: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Amount 

Wildland Fire Management: Fully fund implementation of the National Fire Plan ................................................ ....................

National Forest System: 

Land Management Planning ........................................................................................................................... 10 

Inventory and Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 10 

Recreation, Wilderness, and Heritage Management ....................................................................................... 20 

Wildlife and Fisheries Management ............................................................................................................... 10 

Forest Products ............................................................................................................................................... 10 

Vegetation and Watershed Management ........................................................................................................ 15 

Land Ownership Management ........................................................................................................................ ....................

Research: 

Resource Management and Use ..................................................................................................................... 10 

Water, Air, Soil ................................................................................................................................................ 10 

State and Private Forestry: 

Forest Stewardship .......................................................................................................................................... 10 

Forest Health—Federal Lands ........................................................................................................................ 10 

Forest Health—Coop Lands ............................................................................................................................ 5 

Capital Improvements and Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 25 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Fire Operations—Suppression 

The most critical issue that needs to be addressed in the Forest Service budget 

is the funding of fire suppression. The current procedure of including the 10-year 

average cost of fire suppression within the agency’s discretionary budget is destroying the capability of the Forest Service to carryout the remainder of its statutory 

missions. From 25 percent in fiscal year 2000, fire funding is now approaching 50 

percent of the budget. The suppression cost trend means the 10-year average is 

going to continue to grow, further cannibalizing funding for other programs. While 

the overall Forest Service budget has increased 9 percent over the last 6 years, the 

diversion of funds to fire suppression has had a major impact on the workforce 

available to carry out the multiple-use mission of the agency. The number of foresters, biologists, and other resource specialists, along with supporting technicians, 

is a good measure of the capability of a resource management agency to carry out 
392 

its mission. As illustrated in the following table, the capability of the Forest Service 

has been seriously compromised. 

FOREST SERVICE STAFF LEVEL (FTE) 

Fiscal year Percent 

reduction 2002 2008 

Research .................................................................................................... 2,494 2,283 ¥9 

State and Private Forestry ......................................................................... 909 739 ¥19 

National Forest System .............................................................................. 17,094 11,156 ¥35 

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOREST SERVICE RETIREES (NAFSR) RECOMMENDS THAT

FIRE SUPPRESSION COSTS BE SEGREGATED FROM THE OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS OF THE FOREST SERVICE. NAFSR RECOMMENDS FULL FUNDING OF THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

National Forest System 

Land Management Planning 

The National Forest Management Act requires that all activities on the National 

Forests be conducted in accordance with approved Land Management Plans. It requires revision of these plans at 10 to 15 year intervals in order to reflect changing 

conditions, new knowledge, and changing public needs and desires. Revisions of 60 

percent of the Plans are overdue. Revisions must be completed to comply with the 

law, avoid legal challenges, and to keep National Forest management relevant to 

the needs of the people. 

NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION FOR LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Inventory and Monitoring 

Regular monitoring of forest resource conditions and the results of management 

activities is fundamental to sound forest management. It is particularly important 

during this period of climate change. Further implementation of ecosystem management and use of adaptive management, key to obtaining public acceptance of vegetation management projects, cannot be accomplished without assurance of appropriate 

inventory and monitoring of resources and project outcomes. The number of resource 

specialists and technicians available for inventory and monitoring declined by 44 

percent between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2008. 

NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION FOR INVENTORY AND MONITORING

Recreation, Wilderness, and Heritage Management 

The National Forests include some of the most scenic, historic, and culturally important recreation areas of our country. Some 192 million visitors enjoy camping, 

hiking, fishing, hunting, skiing, visits to cultural sites and visitor centers, and other 

activities each year. But the quality of facilities is declining and access to recreation 

opportunities is being lost. Personnel available to administer and care for recreation 

facilities and resources dropped by 28 percent between 2002 and 2008. The capacity 

of recreation sites managed to standard declined from 93,600,000 PAOT in fiscal 

year 2002 to 70,230,000 in fiscal year 2008. Priority Heritage Sites managed to 

standard declined from 8,112 to 2,294, and the miles of trail maintained to standard 

has declined 30 percent in this period. 

NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $20 MILLION FOR RECREATION, WILDERNESS, AND

HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management 

The National Forest System includes some of the most important wildlife and fish 

habitat in the nation. There are thousands of miles of streams, millions of acres of 

big game habitat, and thousands of species of plants and animals. Proper stewardship of these resources requires on the ground management by biologists and technicians. But while the pressure on these important resources continues to grow, the 

personnel available to care for the habitat has declined. From 2002 to 2008 the wildlife and fisheries staff was reduced by 39 percent. 
393 

NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION FOR WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

MANAGEMENT

Forest Products 

There is wide spread recognition of the need to thin our overstocked forests to reduce their vulnerability to fire, insects, and disease. Funding for hazardous fuel reduction is important and must be continued, but it is only scratching the surface. 

Annual growth on the currently roaded portion of the timberlands on the National 

Forests is about 4 billion cubic feet. Not all of the material that needs to be removed 

has economic value, but portions are suitable for conventional wood products. Much 

more is suitable for energy production, including ethanol. Capturing these economic 

values is essential for making real progress in improving the conditions of our forests. It can also contribute to meeting our energy needs. 

NAFSR RECOMMENDS THE FOREST SERVICE ASSESS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MARKET MATERIAL THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE FOREST FOR CONVENTIONAL WOOD

PRODUCTS, ENERGY, AND OTHER USES. NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10

MILLION FOR CONVENTIOAL SALES OR STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING FOR MATERIAL

THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE FOREST TO PROMOTE FOREST HEALTH

Vegetation and Watershed Management 

One of the primary purposes for which the National Forests were established is 

to provide favorable conditions of water flow. Our forested watersheds provide much 

of the water that meets the needs of our growing population, particularly in the 

West. Resource management specialists and supporting technicians available to protect and enhance our watersheds have declined by 44 percent in the last 6 years. 

This decline must be reversed. 

With the serious fire seasons of recent years, the backlog of reforestation needs 

is growing, but the reforestation program is shrinking. The Forest Service estimates 

the backlog of needed reforestation at more than one million acres, but reporting 

is not up to date. The capacity to monitor reforestation needs, maintain adequate 

nursery capacity, and operate a program to eliminate the backlog in a reasonable 

time must be redeveloped and maintained. 

NAFSR RECOMMENDS THAT THE CONGRESS REQUIRE THE FOREST SERVICE TO REPORT

REGULARLY ON ITS CAPACITY TO MONITOR REFORESTATION NEEDS AND TO PROMPTLY

REFOREST AREAS FOLOWING DEFORESTATION. NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF

$15 MILLION FOR VEGETATION AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Land Ownership Management 

The National Forest System is a vast estate. Millions of acres of land share thousands of miles of property boundaries with other agencies, small, and large property 

owners. Proper stewardship of this Federal estate requires maintenance of property 

lines, monitoring for trespass, and administering thousands of special use permits. 

The National Forests should be good neighbors to adjacent landowners and communities. With a 19 percent reduction in staffing for this activity in the last 6 years, 

it is instead becoming an unresponsive, absentee landlord. 

NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION FOR LAND OWNERSHIP

MANAGEMENT

Research 

Quality management of our forest resources requires up to date scientific knowledge. Forest research in this country has declined substantially as major forest 

product companies have divested ownership of their timberlands and terminated 

their research efforts. Funding for research at universities has declined. With retrenchment elsewhere, the 9 percent reduction in research scientists and support 

personnel in the Forest Service research organization has been particularly untimely. We urgently need more information on the response of forest resources to 

changing climate and the refinement of management practices to respond to these 

changes. We urgently need to develop forest products that use the immense volume 

of small material that needs to be removed from our forests to reduce their vulnerability to fire, insects, and disease. Economically viable uses for this material for 

energy, such a cellulosic ethanol, would permit treatment of the thousands of acres 

that need thinning and at the same time help meet the energy needs of our country. 
394 

NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $20 MILLION FOR RESEARCH WITH EMPHASIS ON

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND DEVELOPING ECONOMIC USES FOR SMALL DI- AMETER MATERIAL

State and Private Forestry 

Two-thirds of our Nation’s forests are in small non-industrial ownerships. This 

land is vital to meeting our Nation’s needs for wood products and for providing other 

forest values. The importance of proper management of these forest lands is growing 

as the forest industry continues to divest its timberlands. The continued fragmentation of ownership of these lands presents serious challenges to assuring proper stewardship and sustainable management. The State and Private Forestry program, in 

cooperation with State Foresters, has a proven record in helping to promote sustainable forest practices on these lands. Continuing drought conditions have increased 

fire, insect, and disease problems on private lands, just as they have for Federal 

lands. Continued attention is needed so that private owners can be encouraged to 

make long-term investments in the management of these lands. 

NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION FOR THE STATE AND PRIVATE FOR- ESTRY PROGRAM FOR FOREST STEWARDSHIP. NAFSR RECOMMENDS FULL FUNDING FOR

THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN. NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION FOR

FOREST HEALTH ON FEDERAL LANDS AND $5 MILLION FOR FOREST HEALTH MANAGE- MENT ON COOP LANDS

Capital Improvements and Maintenance 

Over the years the Congress has made substantial investments in developing the 

infrastructure necessary for the protection and use of the National Forests and 

Grasslands. Unfortunately, funds have not been provided to maintain these facilities 

adequately. The public is losing access and use through deterioration of roads, 

trails, campgrounds, and visitor centers. One-third of the recreation facilities are in 

poor condition. Inadequately maintained roads and other facilities result in damage 

to watersheds and fisheries habitat. Inadequate access increases the cost of management activities. 

NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $25 MILLION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND

MAINTENANCE

Miscellaneous 

NAFSR Recommends that Restrictions on Contracting out be Retained 

The National Association of Forest Service Retirees believes that the National 

Forests and Grasslands should be managed so they are an asset to the communities 

within and adjacent to these lands. In too many instances, rather than being an 

asset, the overstocked, insect-infested, poorly maintained, understaffed Forests are 

becoming a liability. We believe the funding increases recommended above will 

begin the process of restoring the capability of the Forest Service to provide proper 

stewardship for these national treasures. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE ENERGY OFFICIALS

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, I am Dub Taylor of Texas, and 

Chair of the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO). NASEO represents the energy offices in the States, territories and the District of Columbia. 

NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of funding for the Energy Star program (within the Climate Protection Division of the Office of Air and Radiation) at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO supports funding of at 

least $103 million, including specific report language directing that the funds be utilized only for the Energy Star program. We were extremely disappointed with the 

$44.2 million fiscal year 2009 request and the $48.2 million funding level established in fiscal year 2008. At the present time, Congress is seriously considering climate legislation. The Energy Star programs are successful and cost-effective. They 

should be expanded, not reduced. With oil prices at $117/barrel, gasoline prices 

nearing $4/gallon, and large spikes in natural gas, heating oil and propane, Energy 

Star can help consumers quickly. 

The Energy Star program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce the use of 

energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and works with States, 

local governments and business to achieve these goals in a cooperative manner. 

NASEO has worked very closely with EPA and over 40 States are Energy Star Partners. In 2005, EPA and NASEO announced a new Clean Energy and Environment 

State Partnership program, which already has almost 20 State members, including 
395 

California. We are working closely with EPA on the new National Action Plan for 

Energy Efficiency, the Energy Star Challenge, Home Performance with Energy Star, 

etc. We worked with EPA to have over half the States declare ‘‘Change a Light’’ 

Day. With very limited funding, EPA’s Energy Star program works closely with the 

State energy offices to give consumers and businesses the opportunity to make better energy decisions, without regulation or mandates. 

Energy Star focuses on energy efficient products as well as buildings. In 2006, 300 

million Energy Star products were purchased. The Energy Star label is recognized 

across the United States. It makes the work of the State energy offices much easier, 

by working with the public on easily recognized products, services and targets. In 

order to obtain the Energy Star label a product has to meet established guidelines. 

Energy Star’s voluntary partnership programs include Energy Star Buildings, Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Small Business and Energy Star Labeled Products. 

The program operates by encouraging consumers, working closely with State and 

local governments, to purchase these products and services. Marketplace barriers 

are also eradicated through education. 

In addition to the State partners, the program has more than 9,000 company partners. More than 750,000 families now live in Energy Star homes, saving $170 million annually. The ‘‘Home Performance with Energy Star’’ activity allows us to focus 

on whole-house improvements, not simply a single product or service. This will be 

extremely beneficial to homeowners. Pilots have already been undertaken in New 

York, Illinois, Maryland, Texas and Wisconsin. A Mid-Atlantic regional effort has 

just started. We are also working closely with EPA in the implementation of the 

Energy Star Challenge, which is encouraging businesses and institutions to reduce 

energy use by 10 percent or more, usually through very simple actions. We are 

working with the building owners to identify the level of energy use and compare 

that to a national metric, establish goals and work with them to make the specified 

improvements. Again, this is being done without mandates. 

The State energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at EPA and in 

our States to promote programs to make schools more energy efficient, in addition 

to an expanding Energy Star business partners program. This expansion will continue. EPA has been expanding the technical assistance work with the State energy 

offices in such areas as benchmark training (how to rate the performance of buildings), setting an energy target and training in such areas as financing options for 

building improvements and building upgrade strategies. 

The State energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers in the State environmental agencies and State public utilities commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies are developed recognizing both energy and 

environmental concerns. We have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues. The level of cooperation from the agency has been extraordinary 

and we encourage these continued efforts. 

STATE EXAMPLES

Considering Alaska’s extreme climate, Energy Star has been a very helpful tool 

in promoting energy efficiency. Approximately 11,400 Alaska homes have earned 

Energy Star. In Alaska the penetration rate of Energy Star homes for single-family 

site-built housing is 20 percent, well above the 12 percent national average. 12 million square feet of buildings have also been rated utilizing the EPA performance rating system and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation has utilized its rating software to qualify more than 10,000 Energy Star homes. 

In California, residents and businesses are projected to save over $14 billion 

through the Energy Star investments that have already been made. Approximately 

110,000 California homes have earned the Energy Star. California also has a tax 

credit for the construction of a new, or purchase of an existing, Energy Star Home. 

The State Green Building Action Plan requires State agencies to only lease Energy 

Star space and purchase Energy Star equipment. The State also has an Energy Star 

Residential Fixture promotion program. 

In Colorado, Energy Star investments in qualified products, homes and buildings 

are projected to save over $2 billion over the life of these efforts. 9,000 homes in 

the State have earned the Energy Star and another 900 buildings (over 130 million 

square feet) have been rated utilizing the performance rating system. Eighty-six 

Colorado companies are now building Energy Star rated homes. Aggressive Energy 

Star efforts are occurring in Stapleton, Jefferson County Public Schools, Poudre 

School District, Colorado Springs School District and Falcon School District. With 

the passage of new State legislation and actions by the Governor, aggressive new 

Energy Star promotion activities have had a significant impact. 
396 

Maryland has just passed a group of major energy bills promoted by the Governor. 

The Maryland Energy Administration is tasked with leading the charge to promote 

energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption quickly. 140 companies and public 

entities are participating in Energy Star in the State. 130 million square feet of 

buildings in Maryland have been rated for energy efficiency. Tax incentives are also 

available to consumers for the purchase of Energy Star qualified products. 

Thirty companies and public entities in Mississippi are participating actively in 

Energy Star product promotions. 11 million square feet of buildings have been rated 

for energy efficiency. The State is also working with other southeastern States to 

promote energy efficiency in commercial buildings through the Southeast Rebuild 

Collaborative. The State Energy Office (Mississippi Development Authority) has 

been providing training to schools and government agencies in Energy Star 

tools.$600 million will be saved in the Energy Star investments that have already 

been made in Nebraska. 21 million square feet of buildings in the State have been 

rated using energy performance rating system tools. The Nebraska Energy Office 

has also been promoting the program and sponsored an energy-efficient prototype 

home in Lincoln that is demonstrating affordable yet energy-efficient housing techniques. The Energy Office provides loans to finance residential energy efficient improvements. 22 companies are now building Energy Star homes in the State. 

Seventy-eight companies and public entities in New Hampshire have been actively 

promoting Energy Star. 2,000 homes so far have earned the Energy Star and 14 million square feet of buildings have been rated. The Governor announced (Executive 

Order 2005–4) a specific State commitment to encourage the purchase of Energy 

Star products and participation in the Energy Star challenge. Forty-three New 

Hampshire companies are building Energy Star homes and the first three residence 

halls in the country to earn the Energy Star are located on the University of New 

Hampshire campus in Durham. In New Mexico, businesses and residents will save more than $500 million 

through Energy Star investments that have already been made. This will reduce 

emissions by 1 million metric tons. Thirty-nine companies participate in Energy 

Star and over 3,300 homes are Energy Star compliant. New Mexico has 63 buildings 

with over 9 million square feet that have been rated for energy efficiency, with 6 

buildings earning the Energy Star for superior efficiency. Public Service Company 

of New Mexico offers cash rebates for water heater wraps and Energy Star programmable thermostats. 

Rhode Island businesses and residents will save more than $390 million through 

Energy Star investments they have already made. Approximately 2,000 homes have 

been rated utilizing Energy Star tools. The State has held a sales tax holiday for 

Energy Star labeled products. The State, in cooperation with National Grid, has 

been promoting Home Performance with Energy Star. 

Five million square feet of building space in South Dakota has been rated for energy efficiency utilizing EPA’s performance rating system. The State has been aggressively promoting a variety of Energy Star efforts, including Energy Star Change 

a Light Day. Two of the entities that have taken advantage of energy savings 

through Energy Star, include Yankton Public Schools and Watertown Middle School. 

In Tennessee, 120 companies and public entities, including significant numbers of 

small businesses, have been participating in Energy Star. Businesses and residents 

are projected to save $2 billion through Energy Star investments that have already 

been made. The State Energy Office has taken the lead in promoting the Energy 

Star Challenge and the Change a Light campaign, urging consumers to shift to 

CFLs. Participants in the program range from Nashville Habitat for Humanity to 

Clayton Homes, Inc. 

Utah residents and businesses will save $700 million through investments they 

have already made in Energy Star products, homes and buildings. 120 companies 

are actively participating in the Energy Star program. 7,500 Utah homes have 

earned the Energy Star and over 17 million square feet has been rated for energy 

efficiency in the State. Energy Star success stories have included Ence Homes, 

Rocky Mountain Power, the Cottonwood Corporate Center, etc. 

Vermont has aggressively promoted energy efficiency for many years and 58 public entities and companies have been involved in the program. 4,600 homes in the 

State have earned Energy Star, which is a high percentage. In addition, 120 buildings covering 8 million square feet have been rated for energy efficiency utilizing 

EPA’s energy performance rating system. As a result of an Executive Order (14– 

03), State agencies are only permitted to purchase Energy Star products. 

Residents and businesses in West Virginia will save over $400 million as a result 

of Energy Star investments that they have already made. Over 13 million square 

feet of building space has been rated utilizing EPA’s energy performance rating system. The State Energy Office (West Virginia Development Office) has been helping 
397 

county school systems throughout the State by providing both Energy Star 

benchmarking tools and other financial mechanisms to help implement improvements. Giant Eagle and Food Lion have been Energy Star leaders in the State. 

Wisconsin has 490 companies and public entities that have been promoting Energy Star. 8,000 homes have earned Energy Star and 180 million square feet of 

building space, across 1,500 buildings, have been rated for energy efficiency. Energy 

Star is now part of the State’s procurement guidelines. A 2005 study found that 

Wisconsin Energy Star new homes utilize 23 percent less energy per square foot for 

heating than older Wisconsin homes, even though the new homes are generally 22 

percent larger. 

We can provide a myriad of other State examples at your request. 

CONCLUSION

Significant increases in funding for the Energy Star programs are justified. 

NASEO endorses these activities and the State energy offices are working very 

closely with EPA to cooperatively implement a variety of critical national programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND

LAND-GRANT COLLEGES (NASULGC), BOARD ON NATURAL RESOURCES (BNR) 

On behalf of the NASULGC Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank you 

for your support of science and research programs within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We appreciate 

the opportunity to provide detailed recommendations for: $1.3 billion for the USGS 

and $781 million for the EPA Science and Technology budget. Within USGS, we ask 

for support of $8.8 million for the Water Resources Research Institutes, $32.1 million for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, and $61 million for 

the Mineral Resources Program, including $5 million for a Mineral Resources External Grants program. Within EPA, we ask for support of $100 million for the EPA 

Science to Achieve Results competitive grants and $10 million for the STAR Graduate Fellowships. NASULGC Recommends $1.3 Billion for the United States Geological Survey.— The fiscal year 2008 enacted level was $1.01 billion while the President’s fiscal year 

2009 request is $969 million. This increase is necessary to cover inflation and rising 

fixed costs such as salaries and rent and to accomplish core tasks that have been 

under-funded for years. 

NASULGC supports this amount in coordination with the USGS Coalition, an alliance of organizations united by a commitment to the continued vitality of the 

unique combination of biological, geographical, geological, and hydrological programs 

of the USGS. 

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the USGS was praised for quickly arriving on 

the scene and providing reliable data that assisted recovery teams. As members of 

academic community that have partnered with the USGS for the past several decades, we were very pleased with their performance during this catastrophe. 

We have worked with the USGS to provide the public and private sector, as well 

as policymakers, with crucial information about natural resources, natural hazards 

and wildlife diversity. Furthermore, the USGS provides geospatial data, from maps 

to satellite images, for improved land and wildlife management. The USGS plays 

a key role in assessment of global climate change. Our universities provide necessary expertise to complement the USGS workforce. We further recommend that 

part of the $1.3 billion request be used to support the following requests: 

The NASULGC BNR Requests $8.8 Million for the Water Resources Research Institutes (WRRI).—The fiscal year 2008 enacted level is $6.404 million and the President’s fiscal year 2009 request is $0. The NASULGC BNR request is based on the 

following: $7,000,000 in base grants for the WRRI as authorized by section 104(b) 

of the Water Resources Research Act, including state-based competitive grants; and 

$1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of the act, and a national competitive grants program. 

The administration’s proposal to eliminate funding for this excellent partnership 

with State governments and universities is unjustified. Federal funding for the 

WRRI program is the catalyst that moves States and cities to invest in universitybased research to address their own water management issues. State WRRI take 

the relatively modest amount of Federal funding appropriated, match it 2:1 with 

State, local, and other funds and use it to put university scientists to work finding 

solutions to the most pressing local and State water problems that are of national 

importance. The Institutes have raised more than $15 in other funds for every $1 

funded through this program. 
398 

The added benefit is that often research to address State and local problems helps 

solve problems that are of regional and national importance. Many of the projects 

funded through this program provide the knowledge for State or local managers to 

implement new Federal laws and regulations. Perhaps most important, the Federal 

funding provides the driving force of collaboration in water research and education 

among local, State, Federal, and university water professionals. 

This program is essential to solving State, regional, and inter-jurisdictional water 

resources problems. Institutes in Louisiana, California, and North Carolina, for example, made major contributions in emergency planning and hurricane recovery, 

protecting groundwater aquifers from sea water intrusion and reducing water treatment costs. The institutes also train the next generation of water resource managers 

and scientists. 

The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources also supports funding at a level of $32.1 million for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) 

within the USGS budget.—The fiscal year 2008 enacted level is $26.6 million while the President’s fiscal year 2009 request is $27.4 million. The mission of the NCGMP 

is to provide accurate geologic maps that help sustain and improve the quality of 

life and economic vitality of the United States and mitigate geologic hazardous 

events and conditions. Universities are involved in this program in two ways. First, 

universities participate through the production of new geologic maps to meet needs 

in stewardship of water, energy, and mineral resources; risk reduction from natural 

hazards such as earthquakes and landslides; and environmental protection. Second, 

through EDMAP, universities train the next generation of geologic mappers through 

a competitive matching-fund grant program. Since EDMAP’s inception in 1996, 

more than $5 million from the NCGMP have supported geologic mapping efforts of 

more than 600 students working with more than 220 professors at 136 universities 

in 44 States plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. A 2007 survey by 

NCGMP demonstrated that students who participated in EDMAP (1) fall well above 

the national average for pursuing advanced academic degrees in the geoscience field, 

(2) easily obtain geoscience positions due to the knowledge gained through EDMAP, 

and (3) frequently use the skills gained through EDMAP. The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources supports $61 million for the Mineral 

Resources Program (MRP).—The fiscal year 2008 enacted level is $50.8 million, while the administration’s fiscal year 2009 request is $26.3 million. The 2008 National Research Council’s (NRC) report ‘‘Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. 

Economy’’ clearly lays out the danger of continuing cuts to the services this program 

provides to our nation’s economy. Items such as LCDs, catalytic converters, rechargeable batteries, and other electronics all use minerals designated as ‘‘critical’’ 

based on the risk that they may become unavailable for any number of reasons. The 

role of minerals information is becoming ever more vital as the Nation works to remain competitive and searches for emerging technologies to solve some of our most 

pressing environmental issues. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2009 request cuts by 63 percent (210 FTE) the 

number of professionals in the MRP. This is on top of substantial cuts to this program since 1996. At the same time, the NRC report cited above calls for the ‘‘need 

to maintain adequate, accurate and timely information and analysis on minerals at 

a national level in the Federal Government with additional, not fewer, professionals 

having appropriate backgrounds to perform the work.’’ For example, as society 

pushes toward sustainability, the importance of experts designing products with an 

eye toward recycling minerals will only increase. Currently, only a few formal training programs have emerged to train a new generation in the field. For this reason, 

we request support for Mineral Resources External Grants programs of at least $5 

million. The USGS committed $1,000,000 toward Mineral Resources External Research for fiscal year 2006, but cut the program to $0 in fiscal year 2007 and committed only $250,000 in fiscal year 2008. The administration again proposes to cut 

the program to $0 for fiscal year 2009. Sustained and additional funds are needed 

to expand upon the first step in fiscal year 2006. Apart from this small program, 

there is virtually no funding to sustain applied science research and education related to mineral resources. 

Furthermore, the establishment of a consistently well-funded Minerals Resources 

External Grants program would follow the recommendations of three recent NRC 

reports and would help arrest the dramatic decline of minerals expertise in the 

United States. Funding levels of $5 million in fiscal year 2009, and $8 million in 

fiscal year 2010, is an appropriate ramp-up for the external grants program, which 

ideally should reach a level of $20 million per year. Modest levels of external research funding by the MRP in fiscal year 2006 ($1,000,000) to 15 universities and 

in fiscal year 2008 ($250,000) to 3 universities supported graduate student research 

and education. 
399 

With regard to EPA, NASULGC supports a request of $809 million in fiscal year 

2009 for Science and Technology (S&T).—The fiscal year 2008 enacted level is $785.7 million while the administration’s fiscal year 2009 request is $790 million. 

The BNR requested amount provides an increase of 3 percent to maintain ongoing 

programs and keep up with inflation. Without sound science, EPA will be unable 

to correctly identify and develop sound management and mitigation strategies for 

critical environmental problems. NASULGC recommends that the Committee restore STAR funding to $100 million for competitive grants and $10 million for STAR graduate fellowships.—The fiscal 

year 2008 enacted levels are $54.7 million and $7.3 million respectively, while the 

President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request is $55.3 million and $5.9 million respectively. One of the most effective programs for improving the agency’s science capabilities is the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. In 2003, the National Research Council strongly endorsed STAR in its report, ‘‘The Measure of STAR.’’ The 

investment EPA ORD makes in STAR is especially significant and effective, because 

STAR is not a stand-alone grants program. It is coordinated with EPA program and 

regional offices, and targeted at high-priority needs that support the agency’s mission. The program is leveraged by the participation of other Federal agencies and 

the private sector, and involves thousands of research scholars in universities. 

NASULGC universities have used STAR extramural research funding to accomplish the following: develop evaluations of U.S. estuarine and coastal water quality 

degradation; analyze ecosystem health and impairment; establish effective multiuniversity research collaborations; and develop techniques to assess the risks to fish 

in the Great Lakes associated with exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals 

STAR graduate fellowships are also an excellent investment in the next generation of scientists and engineers, and provide opportunities for some of the brightest 

minds to develop the skills to enhance and replenish this Nation’s environmental 

science expertise. Moreover, these grants are often a way to get minority graduate 

students engaged in high-level scientific research. STAR funding is a very important 

tool in the effort to address the future workforce needs of EPA. These investigatorinitiated research grants are significantly expanding the number of scientists conducting EPA-related research and enhancing the overall quality of EPA S&T. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with the committee. 

ABOUT NASULGC

NASULGC is the Nation’s oldest higher education association. Currently the association has over 200 member institutions—including the historically black landgrant institutions—located in all 50 States. The Association’s overriding mission is 

to support high quality public education through efforts that enhance the capacity 

of member institutions to perform their traditional teaching, research, and public 

service roles. 

ABOUT THE BOARD ON NATURAL RESOURCES

The Board’s mission is to promote university-based programs dealing with natural 

resources, wildlife, ecology, energy, and the environment. Most NASULGC institutions are represented on the Board. Present membership exceeds 500 scientists and 

educators, who are some of the Nation’s leading research and educational expertise 

in environmental and natural-resource disciplines. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC

PRESERVATION OFFICERS

REQUEST

—$50,000,000 for State Historic Preservation Offices, and 

—$5,000,000 for competitive grants to States for historic site survey fieldwork and 

digitization of documents. 

The programs are funded through the U.S. Department of the Interior’s, National 

Park Service Historic Preservation Fund and authorized by the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act. 

The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement for the record regarding the funding 

request for State Historic Preservation Offices and for historic site survey fieldwork 

and digitization. NCSHPO is the professional association of the State government 

officials who carry out the national historic preservation program as delegates of the 

Secretary of Interior pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

(NHPA). The NCSHPO acts as a communications vehicle among the State Historic 
400 

Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and their staffs and represents the SHPOs with Congress, Federal agencies and national preservation organizations. 

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT—NPS LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY

In 1966 Congress recognized the importance of preserving our past by passing the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA16 USC 470), which established today’s 

Historic Preservation program. The NHPA directs State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) to carry out the Federal preservation program: (1) Locate and record 

historic resources; (2) Nominate significant historic resources to the National Register of Historic Places; (3) Foster historic preservation programs at the local government level and the creation of preservation ordinances; (4) Provide funds for 

preservation activities; (5) Comment on federal preservation tax projects; (6) Review 

all federal projects for their impact on historic properties; and (7) Provide technical 

assistance to Federal agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector. 

SHPO FUNDING—DOLLARS WELL SPENT

For such a small program, SHPOs have extensive and wide ranging support— 

from within Congress, to State and local governments, community organizations and 

individuals across the country. Brent Warr, Mayor of Gulfport Mississippi said that 

through the Historic Preservation Fund’s hurricane Relief Grant Program, ‘‘The historical character of our community is being renewed, distinguishing us from others 

and preserving our heritage so that it can be shared with future generations.’’ 

Historic preservation is a sound investment and as an economic tool has proved 

its worth. Since 1981, rehabilitation activities in Colorado have created almost 

29,000 jobs and generated a total of over $2 billion in direct and indirect economic 

impacts. In Florida, an examination of the assessed values of mainly residential 

property in eighteen historic districts found that in at least 15 cases, property in 

historic districts appreciated greater than comparable, targeted non-historic districts 

and that there was no case where historic district designation depressed the property values. In 2007, HPF programs such as the Rehabilitation Tax Credit stimulated $4.35 Billion in private investment and at the same time produced 6,553 low 

and moderate income housing units, a 17 percent increase over 2006, and created 

an estimated 40,755 jobs. 

Though often unglamorous, SHPOs work is fundamentally essential to the preservation of our heritage. From 2002 to 2007, the number of section 106 reviews conducted increased 104 percent to 129,200 while SHPO funding decreased by nearly 

5 percent over the same time period. In 2007, SHPOs also provided nearly 82,000 

National Register eligibility opinions, assisted in creating 58 new Certified Local 

Governments and provided technical assistance and preservation policy guidance to 

hundreds of thousands of communities and individuals nationwide. 

INVENTORY FUNDING—NPS STEPS UP TO THE PLATE

Many of the programs discussed above could be done much more effectively and 

efficiently if States had an accurate inventory of their historic resources in a 

digitized format. Knowing what you have and defining the location and significance 

of the Nation’s historic assets, is fundamental for all historic preservation activity. 

Further, having electronic access to that data is essential for Federal project planning. We are pleased and encouraged that the NPS is ‘‘stepping up to the plate’’ 

and fulfilling its 40-year old commitment to find America’s historic places by acknowledging and responding to the strong recommendations of the 2006 Preserve 

America Summit and by requesting inventory funding in fiscal year 2008 and for 

fiscal year 2009. 

While, a select few SHPOs have made remarkable progress assembling a patchwork of funding to initiate digital access to inventory information, other SHPOs 

around the country are not as fortunate. After 40 years of the national preservation 

program we, as a Nation, still don’t know the location of hundreds of thousands of 

our historic resources. 

Support for inventory funding exists within Congress, State and local governments, and the private sector and while we are pleased that the Administration has 

requested funding we are disappointed in the proposed amount of $2 million. We 

believe a minimum of $5 million (the administration’s fiscal year 2008 unfulfilled 

request) a year for 5 years is needed. 

Specifically, inventory funds would be used for two purposes (1) to conduct inventory fieldwork, filling in the current patchwork of identified sites which is essential 

for Federal project review (section 106) and lays a foundation of every future preservation activity, e. g., National Register) and (2) to convert existing paper records to 

electronic formats (data bases, GIS). 
401 

1 NAPA, ‘‘BACK TO THE FUTURE: A Review of the National Historic Preservation Programs’’ December 2007, p. 29. 

Recent natural disasters have also exposed the adverse consequences of the void 

in historic resources information. In the Gulf, in 2005 aid to victims and FEMA responses were delayed because digitized historic site locations were not available. 

The NPS detailed staff to do after the fact digitization of the location of historic 

places. The result of the work—on line access to maps of historic sites—led to a dramatic reduction in project review, from weeks to hours. 

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REPORT—CONFIRMS NCSHPO REQUEST

Federal funding for SHPOs is money well spent. Under the administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool, management of Historic Preservation Programs received a score of 89 percent indicating exemplary performance of mandated activities. Reinforcing this finding is the December 2007 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report ‘‘BACK TO THE FUTURE: A Review of the National 

Historic Preservation Program.’’ 

NAPA, a non-profit, independent coalition of top management and organizational 

leaders, found that the National Historic Preservation Program ‘‘stands as a successful example of effective Federal-State partnership and is working to realize Congress’ original vision to a great extent. And while the program’s basic structure is 

sound, it continues to face a number of notable challenges.’’ The Panel concluded 

‘‘that a stronger Federal leadership role, greater resources, and enhanced management are needed to build upon the existing, successful framework to achieve the full 

potential of the NHPA on behalf of the American people.’’ 1

Report recommendations specific to SHPOs included the following: 

—the NPS request funding and FTE increases sufficient to address the increased 

workload since fiscal year 1981 in National Register eligibility opinion, tax credit reviews, section 106 reviews, and HPF grants administration and to redress, 

at least in part, the significant decline in inflation adjusted funding; 

—the NPS build upon the National Preservation program’s success by providing 

a stronger national leadership role in consultation with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) and other national partners as appropriate; 

—the NPS expand its mission to make building the capacity of State Historic 

Preservation Officers and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers a top priority 

and that it pursue this goal aggressively in cooperation with its national partners; 

—the Department of the Interior and the NPS strengthen the performance of the 

National Historic Preservation program and expand resources based on its demonstrated effectiveness in cooperation with the ACHP; and 

—the NPS improve the efficiency of national historic preservation efforts by taking full advantage of information technologies. 

On behalf of the States, NCSHPO is working in concert with the NPS to 

strategize on implementing the recommendations. However, Congress ultimately decides funding levels and without additional funding, many of these recommendations are unattainable. 

CONCLUSION—HPF: A WISE FEDERAL INVESTMENT AND THE RIGHT THING TO DO

Congress stated in 1966 that ‘‘The spirit and direction of the Nation are founded 

upon and reflected in its historic heritage.’’ Historic preservation recognizes that 

was common and ordinary in the past is often rare and precious today, and what 

is common and ordinary today may be extraordinary, 50, 100 or 500 years from now. 

NCSHPO thanks the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony and for 

their commitment to historic preservation. The Federal Government plays an invaluable role in preserving our Nation’s history and through our partnership, State 

Historic Preservation Officers stand committed to identify, protect, and maintain 

our Nation’s historic heritage. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

On behalf of the tribal nations of the National Congress of American Indians 

(NCAI), we are pleased to present our recommendations on the administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget for Indian programs. At the recent State of Indian Nations address, NCAI President Joe Garcia spoke about the special place of honor children 

hold in American Indian and Alaska Native cultures. He discussed the community’s 
402 

1 Riley, M. (2007, November 11–14). Lawless Lands. The Denver Post. Retrieved February 11, 

2008, from www.denverpost.com. 

sacred obligation to instill in them the traditional knowledge of past generations so 

their innocence and laughter may develop into wisdom as they become the leaders 

of the future. He stressed our belief that every Indian child should have the right 

to community-based, culturally appropriate services that help them grow up safe, 

healthy, and spiritually strong—free from abuse, neglect, and poverty. Unfortunately, all too often Native children are born into circumstances that may be rich 

in culture and love, but fail to meet their basic needs of health, shelter, safety, and 

education. Our communities have a vision of a restored, safer, healthier Indian 

Country for our children, but the President’s budget request fails to move us in the 

direction of that vision and will leave Indian children in poverty and at risk. 

This NCAI fiscal year 2009 testimony highlights key aspects of the vision tribal 

leaders have expressed to create a safe, healthy Indian Country for our children. 

In developing these recommendations we recognize that chipping away at the years 

of under-funding and backlogs that plague Indian Country will be accomplished over 

time. The requests that follow do not reflect the full need in Indian Country, but 

rather are achievable first steps that we believe Congress and the President should 

be able to support this year. 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE

The administration of justice in Indian Country is clearly in crisis. Across the Nation, tribal leaders have called for more resources, making public safety and justice 

the top priority in budget consultations over the years. The current lack of resources 

for public safety poses a direct threat to Native children and the future of Indian 

Country. 

Recent media attention has highlighted the unconscionable breakdown in public 

safety in tribal communities. Although U.S. attorneys have the sole authority to 

prosecute felony crime on most reservations, the Denver Post’s article, ‘‘Lawless 

Lands,’’ details how U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute 65 percent of all reservation cases between 1997 and 2006, twice the rate of declination for all other federally prosecuted crime.1Federal agents focus on terrorism and organized crime, while 

the investigation of serious crimes on reservations sits for years, leaving suspects 

free to commit other crimes. Tribal leaders point out that Federal prosecutors respond least to the kinds of crime that most affect Indian reservations: aggravated 

assault, domestic assault, sex crimes, and drug crimes. The Department of Justice 

simply is not meeting its responsibilities to Indian Country. Hundreds of these serious cases are sent through tribal misdemeanor courts instead, over-taxing the tribal 

courts and jails. 

Law Enforcement.—Although tribal law enforcement officers have limited authority under Federal law, they are often the first responders to reservation crime. Yet, 

according to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Country has a 42 percent unmet 

staffing need for police departments. To put this in perspective, 2,555 Indian country law enforcement officers make up about 0.004 percent of the total 675,734 State, 

city, and county law enforcement officers in the United States, yet they patrol approximately 2 percent of the landmass of the United States and 1 percent of the 

population. 

In fiscal year 2008, the Department of Interior (DOI) launched a Safe Indian 

Communities initiative, with much needed increases for law enforcement funding. 

DOI States it proposes to continue this initiative for fiscal year 2009, however, the 

actual funding overall for the BIA public safety and justice category would decline 

by $882,000. Meanwhile, at the Department of Justice, the President’s proposal 

would eliminate all of the tribal set-asides that currently exist in any of the DOJ 

grant programs and would effectively zero out a number of programs critical to tribal governments including: COPS, Byrne Grants, Grants to Tribal Governments 

under the Violence Against Women Act, incarceration on tribal lands, and tribal 

courts funding. NCAI urges Congress to include a 10 percent increase for BIA law 

enforcement in fiscal year 2009 and in the future until the gap in law enforcement 

funding for tribal communities is closed. 

Tribal Courts.—Tribal courts are overwhelmed with hundreds of serious cases declined by U.S. attorneys as well as increasing meth and drug crimes. Tribal courts 

have been level funded for at least the last five years. The fiscal year 2008 Omnibus 

spending bill increased tribal court funding by $2.3 million. However, the fiscal year 

2009 budget request would eliminate $2.3 million. NCAI urges Congress to reject 

this cut to tribal courts and add 10 percent to this item. 
403 

Detention Facilities.—In September 2004, the U.S. Department of Interior Inspector General’s Office issued a report, Neither Safe Nor Secure: An Assessment of Indian Detention Facilities, which outlined the deplorable and life-threatening conditions of Indian jails. The report detailed the stark realities: 79 percent of facilities 

fall below minimum staffing levels on a regular basis; poorly maintained facilities 

that provide ample opportunity for escape are common; unusually high rates of suicide, a trend that generally correlates with reduced staff supervision and the influence of drugs and alcohol; and jails dilapidated to the point of condemnation. Recent 

testimony by the BIA suggests that as many as 90 percent of tribal detention facilities operated by the BIA may need to be closed because of their condition. Indian 

tribes report having to let dangerous criminals go free because of a lack of bed 

spaces in tribal jails. NCAI urges adequate funding to address the backlog of detention facility construction and staffing in Indian Country. To address the DOJ-documented crisis in Indian Country detention facilities, funding for at least 15 new facilities, including both tribal and BIA facilities, should be provided in the upcoming 

year. 

Johnson O’Malley.—Once again, the President proposed to completely eliminate 

the JOM program at the BIA. JOM provides supplemental funds to address the 

unique educational and cultural needs of Native children attending public school. 

What is different about JOM is that its ‘‘special and unique needs’’ are determined 

not by the school boards, but instead through parent committees that each JOM 

program is required to have, as well as completing need assessments where parents 

have a say in what their children need to complete for the school year. NCAI urges 

full restoration of JOM to $21.4 million in fiscal year 2009, including the self-governance compacts and Consolidated Tribal Government Program contracts that fund 

JOM. 

Tribal Colleges.—Funding for the United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) and 

Navajo Technical College (NTC) were eliminated entirely from the budget. The BIA 

funding (eliminated from the President’s budget since fiscal year 2003) and the Carl 

Perkins funds (Section 117 for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions) are eliminated from the President’s budget for fiscal year 2009. 

These funds form the core of the operating budgets for both UTTC and NTC. Taken 

together, the funds eliminated from the budget represent the entire core operating 

budgets for UTTC and NTC. This is the first year the Carl Perkins funds were also 

eliminated for UTTC and NTC. NCAI urges Congress to work out how to restore 

funding for these two colleges. NCAI also supports the requests of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium for tribal colleges and universities. 

Bureau of Indian Education.—NCAI recommends Congress restore $5.9 million reduction proposed for scholarships as well as restore $5.9 million for the Scholarships and Adult Education in the BIE budget. 

Indian Health Service.—The 2008 budget request for IHS is $4.3 billion, maintaining fiscal year 2008 levels. The administration’s budget proposes $21 million reduction in construction costs due to the completion of project stages funded in fiscal 

year 2008. NCAI urges Congress to fund the IHS at a level in fiscal year 2009 to 

maintain existing services and accommodate population growth. 

Facilities Construction.—This section of the budget includes construction of new 

facilities, such as inpatient hospitals, outpatient hospitals, staff quarters for health 

professionals, regional treatment centers and joint venture construction programs. 

It also includes the small ambulatory program and the construction of dental facilities. These elements constitute the entire physical infrastructure of the health care 

delivery system in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. NCAI urges 

Congress to restore the facilities construction funding. 

Contract Support Costs.—An increase in contract support costs (CSC) is necessary 

as tribal governments continue to assume control of new programs, services, functions, and activities under Self-Determination and Self-Governance. Tribal programs 

have increased the quality and level of services in their health systems under these 

policies. Failure to adequately fund CSC defeats the very programs that appear to 

be helping improve health conditions for American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

NCAI urges Congress to fully fund BIA and IHS contract support costs in fiscal year 

2009. 

Urban Indian Health.—Urban Indian Health Programs have a profound effect on 

their communities by providing culturally sensitive, non-duplicative services. They 

promote good family living essential to the prosperity of Native children. They help 

to educate local health care providers about the needs and the cultural conditioning 

of the urban Indian population. The President once again proposes to eliminate this 

program in fiscal year 2009. NCAI urges Congress to restore the program and provide $40 million in fiscal year 2009 to help close the gap in funding for Urban programs. 
404 

Indian Land Consolidation: One of the most disappointing proposed cuts in the 

President’s fiscal year 2009 budget for Indian programs is the proposal to eliminate 

the budget for Indian land consolidation. Land consolidation is critical for addressing the problem of fractionation, which creates an accounting nightmare for the Federal Government and enormous difficulties for Indian land owners in putting land 

to economic use. Land consolidation improves Federal administration and management, and saves substantial Federal dollars that currently go to tracking tiny land 

interests. The investment in land consolidation will do more to save on future trust 

administration costs than any other item in the trust budget. 

It is particularly surprising that the administration would propose to completely 

eliminate this budget. Over the past decade, even in years when there was little attention paid to land consolidation, the budget always received $8 to $13 million annually. But during the passage of the American Indian Probate Reform Act (AIPRA) 

in 2004, the administration realized the importance of land consolidation and agreed 

to significantly increased budgets. Both Interior and the Office of Management and 

Budget negotiated and agreed to authorizations of $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, 

$95,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and $145,000,000 for each of fiscal year 2007 

through fiscal year 2010. The increased commitment to land consolidation was a 

part of the agreement to AIPRA, where tribes and individual land owners have also 

taken on increased responsibility for land consolidation. But the increases came for only 2 years—$34.5 million in fiscal year 2006 and the 

same in fiscal year 2007. The land consolidation funding did a great deal of good 

in those years, buying back millions of fractionated interests, and the program was 

scaling up its efforts in anticipation of increased budgets in the future. During the 

formation of the fiscal year 2008 budget, Indian country was in serious negotiations 

with the administration and Congress for settlement of the Cobell trust fund accounting litigation, and it was widely anticipated that land consolidation funds 

would be included in the settlement—perhaps a billion or more. This was the rationale we were given for the decrease in the fiscal year 2008 land consolidation budget 

to $10 million—a sufficient amount to keep the program operating while the new 

funds from the settlement were negotiated. 

But the settlement did not materialize, and now the administration wants to 

eliminate the program. We have not seen any analysis by the administration which 

warrants a drastic change in direction from the AIPRA agreement. We also do not 

believe that a tribal effort at land consolidation will be supported unless there is 

a commitment from the Federal Government to do its part in addressing fractionation. We strongly urge Congress to return to the levels anticipated under AIPRA, 

and fund land consolidation at $50 million for fiscal year 2009. 

BIA Rights Protection Implementation.—This program in the BIA budget supports 

the exercise of off-reservation hunting, fishing, and gathering rights for 49 tribes located in the Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes regions and their 5 umbrella intertribal fish and wildlife organizations. Despite the critical role tribes play in managing the resources on tribal land and surrounding areas, BIA resources have eroded in recent years. The administration proposed reducing this item by $3.5 million 

in fiscal year 2009. NCAI urges Congress to restore the base funding for Rights Protection Implementation. 

Endangered Species.—The President proposed reducing Endangered Species Act 

funding by nearly $1 million. Funding for Endangered Species Act compliance must 

be increased to $6.6 million so the BIA can meet its otherwise unfunded mandates 

under the ESA. 

BIA Indian Reservation Roads.—The Department of Interior intends to reduce the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Road Maintenance budget by $13 million, or 50 percent. 

The justification for this reduction is that ‘‘Tribes could use about $100 million in 

Department of Transportation funds for Indian Reservation Roads.’’ As Congress 

and the President consider how to stimulate our economy, providing more funds— 

not less—to address the multi-billion dollar BIA road maintenance backlog will increase jobs in often impoverished reservation economies and will allow the BIA and 

Tribal governments to replace inefficient and antiquated road maintenance equipment. By cutting the budget request for the BIA Road Maintenance Program in 

half—and by justifying the reduction by reference to Tribal authority to use IRR 

Program construction funds for maintenance—the President’s budget ignores a Congressional mandate and seeks to shift responsibility for maintaining Indian reservation roads to the overburdened Highway Trust Fund. As far back as 2003, the BIA 

formally acknowledged that at least $120 million per year was needed to maintain 

BIA-owned roads and bridges to a safe standard and $50 million per year was needed for bridge rehabilitation and replacement. This estimate does not take into account the millions needed to address the road maintenance backlogs that have accumulated as a result of the BIA’s inability to meet existing need under its current 
405 

budget. NCAI urges Congress to at least restore the $13 million to IRR funding in 

the fiscal year 2009 budget. 

CONCLUSION

The NCAI has gathered the input of tribal leaders and native organizations in the 

creation of these budget recommendations and we are honored to submit this document on their behalf. Native peoples have endeavored to live and work along side 

non-native peoples as well as defend our freedoms and communities in this diverse 

nation. We are determined to address the long-standing challenges in our communities and provide for the health, education, public safety and economic development 

needs of our tribal citizens. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COOPERATORS’ COALITION

Madam Chairwoman and Senator Allard: We write to ask that you increase the 

fiscal year 2009 funding for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) $8 million above the budget request. The continued 

austere budget requests by USGS and the administration for the system are inadequate to maintain this highly valued partnership. 

The CFWRUs are crucial to successfully addressing the natural resource management challenges posed by climate change, energy development needs, invasive species, infectious diseases, wildfire, and increased demand for limited water resources. 

These challenges also include replacing the unprecedented number of natural resource professionals who will be retiring over the next 10 years. CFWRU’s have established a record of educating new natural resource professionals who are management-oriented, well-versed in science, grounded in State and Federal agency experience, and able to assist private landowners and other members of the public. 

As you know, each of the CFWRUs in 38 States is a true Federal-State-universityprivate partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey, a State natural resource 

agency, a host university, and the Wildlife Management Institute. The CFWRUs 

build on these partner contributions to leverage more than three dollars for every 

dollar appropriated to the program by Congress. 

Finding workable solutions to our natural resource challenges requires the 

CFWRU’s management-oriented, community-based approach to research, which relies on interdisciplinary efforts, collaborations and accountability. The role of the Cooperative Research Unit System in facilitating these kinds of solutions and training 

the wildlife managers of tomorrow, who will be leading the way, should not be compromised. The Unit’s contribution to natural resource agencies through its scientific 

capabilities, expertise, technical assistance and the training of personnel is required 

for responsive, science based management. 

To begin meeting these high priority research and training needs in fiscal year 

2009, we ask that you establish a competitive, matching fund program within existing CFWRU legislative authority that would make available $5 million annually in 

new funds beyond base operational costs. These new funds would support future cooperative, high priority research efforts and essential training of new natural resource professionals to replace the large number who will retire within the next decade. 

We greatly appreciate the addition by Congress of nearly $1 million to the fiscal 

year 2008 USGS requested funding level. Those added funds are making it possible 

to begin the process of filling current scientist vacancies and restoring seriously 

eroded operational funds for each CFWRU. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2009 

USGS budget request fails to retain this increase, which jeopardizes the continued 

integrity of the CFWRUs. Approximately one fifth of all Coop Unit scientist positions are vacant due to erosion of funding since fiscal year 2001. To restore the necessary capacity in the CFWRU program for it to meet the Nation’s research and 

training needs, the fiscal year 2009 USGS appropriation needs to provide approximately $3 million more than the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level. An increase 

in funding also would ensure that the Interior Department provides the Federal scientist staffing agreed to with partners so that the return on their continuing investment in the CFWRUs is realized and fully leveraged. 

We urge you to make greater use of this important research and training partnership, which already brings together State fish and wildlife agencies, State universities, and Federal agencies around a local, applied research agenda. With your assistance, the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units can make the best use 

of Federal funds, becoming even more effective in using science and collaboration 

to address the natural resources challenges facing the Interior Department, other 

Federal, State, local agencies and this country’s citizens. 
406 

Thank you for consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CENTER, WEST

VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, MORGANTOWN, WV 

Chairwoman Feinstein, ranking member Allard, and members of the sub- committee: We request an appropriation of $2 million in fiscal year 2009 to assist 

small communities in meeting their wastewater treatment needs under the programs of the National Small Flows Clearinghouse and the National Environmental 

Training Center for Small Communities. Both programs are administered by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Environmental Programs 

and Management (EPM) account. 

INTRODUCTION

My name is Richard Bajura and I serve as executive director of the National Environmental Services Center. Our center is home to both EPA and USDA funded programs that provide comprehensive environmental services to small communities and 

rural areas. Our work is focused mainly on drinking water, wastewater, and municipal solid waste. Two of our major programs, the National Small Flows Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) and the National Environmental Training Center for Small 

Communities (Training Center) are the subjects of this testimony. These first two 

pages outline the need and justification for our request; the last two pages of our 

testimony provide background information about the Clearinghouse and Training 

Center programs. 

NEED

According to EPA’s Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress, small communities in the United States (populations less than 10,000) need $17 billion for wastewater services. However, State and Federal funds available to help 

meet these needs have decreased, and competition among the communities for these 

monies has intensified. Small and rural communities require assistance in developing, maintaining, and managing infrastructure for municipal wastewater treatment facilities that protect public health and meet environmental regulations. These 

communities are most often characterized as being rural, having few financial resources, and as being overseen by elected officials who have limited time and support personnel to make decisions in these matters. 

Given the limited funding available to assist communities, our programs provide 

information, services, and access to expertise that enable these communities to 

maximize the benefits from their available funds. The congressionally directed funding requested in our testimony will enable us to help these communities with services they will not otherwise obtain. 

EPA is charged with developing implementation and management strategies and 

technical assistance services for decentralized wastewater treatment systems for 

small and rural communities. However, EPA has an insufficient number of staff to 

carry out this responsibility. EPA has relied on the Clearinghouse and the Training 

Center to provide information services, technical assistance, and training for small 

communities and for service providers. While Congress has charged the EPA with 

these responsibilities, the administration routinely does not provide financial support for such programs and congressional action is required each year to support 

Clearinghouse and Training Center services. 

SUPPORT FOR EPA NATIONAL PRIORITIES

As part of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) initiated by EPA, the National Environmental Services Center, which houses both programs, joined with 7 

other national organizations to assist the agency in meeting its strategic goals under 

its Decentralized Treatment Program. Services provided by both programs are the 

underpinning for the activities of many of the MOU partners in achieving their respective goals in the MOU partnership. Continued support for the Clearinghouse 

and the Training Center is important to EPA in meeting its national goals under 

its water programs. 

REQUEST

Congressional support to continue the work of the Clearinghouse and Training 

Center is imperative because the State agencies and communities these programs 

assist cannot pay on a fee-for-service basis to obtain assistance. By virtue of the congressional appropriation, we are able to offer most of our services free of charge. 
407 

Without congressional support, the Clearinghouse and Training Center programs 

will be unable to attain sufficient funding to continue in the near term. In the 

longer term, the Clearinghouse can be supported under the funding formula provided for the Clearinghouse through renewal of the State Revolving Loan Fund 

(SRF) financing section of the Clean Water Act [H.R. 720] that was passed by the 

House in March of 2007. While EPA has a mandate to protect drinking water and 

manage wastewater discharges, the administration budget request typically does not 

include funding for water programs that serve small and rural communities. Given 

the absence of funding in the President’s budget, Congress regularly adds funds 

each year to the EPA budget to continue service provider programs to meet the 

goals established by EPA. In the past, funding for the Clearinghouse and Training 

Center has been included among the congressional priorities for water-related programs such as the National Rural Water Association, Rural Community Assistance 

Partnership, Groundwater Protection Council, and similar organizations. The Clearinghouse and the Training Center are national programs that serve the same constituencies as the aforementioned programs by providing complementary services 

and should be similarly supported. 

We are requesting funding at a total of $2.0 million for the National Small Flows 

Clearinghouse and the National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities programs to support our work until the Clean Water SRF legislation is reauthorized and enacted. Thank you for considering our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1957 

As officers of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) Local 1957, 

we are once again writing on behalf of the bargaining unit for the Minerals Information Team (MIT), Geologic Division, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reston,VA. We 

are concerned that the President’s proposed fiscal year 2009 budget for the USGS 

includes a $5.1 million cut (33 percent) to the MIT’s current funding level of $15.4 

million, and $25.5 million (48 percent) from the entire Mineral Resource Program 

(MRP), of which we are a part. 

NFFE is concerned that the proposed MRP budget cut would irrevocably harm 

MIT through a Reduction in Force and elimination of valuable information for analysis of global mineral supply. This is a 50 percent slash from fiscal year 2006 levels. 

The USGS could not fulfill its mandate by Congress to assure there is an adequate 

and reliable supply of mineral materials for national defense, as established by The 

Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (1980 and 1992). 

MIT is relied upon as an objective source of minerals information and expertise 

by Federal, State, and Local Governments, as well as by private, academic, and nongovernmental organizations. MIT produces more than 500 publications per year covering most nonfuel minerals, including Mineral Commodity Summaries for the Congressional Offices. Our web site provides approximately 1.4 million publication 

downloads per year and nearly double the number of hits. 

The proposed fiscal year 2009 budget would decimate MIT and MRP by eliminating at least 210 of 334 occupied scientific positions from across the country, 

about 43 of which would be from MIT. MIT would have to severely reduce its core 

function—the collection and dissemination of data on domestic and international 

production and consumption of mineral commodities—and cease research on mineral 

and material life cycles, flows, and future demand and uses. 

MIT is already laboring under a severely constrained budget that has declined by 

about 27 percent in real dollars to $11.6 million since 1996, the year the group was 

moved to the USGS. The proposed fiscal year 2009 budget would reduce MIT funding 51 percent from that of fiscal year 1996 to $7.8 million (real dollars). 

Compounding the problem, MIT has had to absorb mandated increases in salaries 

and cost of living adjustments. Not surprisingly, filled FTE positions have fallen by 

about 27 percent (47). Quite frankly, MIT is now at the point that even flat levels 

of funding will prevent the group from fully accomplishing its mission. 

All this is occurring at a time of increasing globalization and materials competition from developing countries such as China and India that has led to global supply 

constraints, record-high metals prices, and increasing concern over the adequacy of 

mineral materials necessary to fuel technological innovation. Currently, the United 

States import dependence for most strategic and critical nonfuel minerals exceeds 

75 percent, which is greater than the country’s dependence on foreign oil. Information and analysis of domestic and international markets is increasingly important 

to assure an adequate supply of minerals for the Nation’s economic and defense 

needs. In 2006, MIT found that the Nation relied more than 50 percent on imports 
408 

to meet their needs for 45 of 81 nonfuel mineral commodities essential to the economy, and of those, was 100 percent import reliant for 17 and 80 percent for another 

13. 

The administration’s continuous lack of support is summed up by the Office of 

Management Budget’s (OMB) position ‘‘. . . if the work of the MRP is truly of great 

value another non-Federal entity will pick up the work. The expertise does exist 

within state geological surveys and universities to conduct this work, however the 

funding does not. OMB believes that other entities can find the money to conduct 

the research through partnerships with private industry. Some say that this may 

call the impartiality of the research into question.’’ 

We are puzzled by OMB’s reasoning. Like other Federal agencies that collect and 

analyze statistical information, MIT provides a fundamental service to the Nation 

that cannot be duplicated in the private sector or by other levels of government. It 

takes a Federal organization to coordinate and analyze mineral surveys data on a 

national level, including that from foreign sources. Mineral companies and foreign 

governments would understandably be reluctant to report proprietary or business 

sensitive data to private sector organizations. 

MIT’s mission is similar to that of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

under the Department of Energy (DOE). EIA was, in fact, part of MIT prior to its 

creation in 1977. Like MIT, the EIA has become a recognized provider of data and 

value-added analysis on the Country’s and the world’s supply of energy minerals. 

Unlike MIT, however, EIA has had increased funding from $78 million in fiscal year 

2001 to $95.5 million in fiscal year 2008 (22.4 percent). 

The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) in an October 2007 report ‘‘Minerals, 

Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy’’ recommended that ‘‘the Federal Government should enhance the types of data and information it collects, disseminates, and 

analyzes on minerals and mineral product, especially as these data and information 

relate to minerals or mineral products that are or may become critical. . . . Decision makers in both the public and private sectors need continuous, unbiased, and 

thorough information on the uses and possible supply restrictions of nonfuel minerals. The U.S. Geological Survey’s Minerals Information Team is the most comprehensive source for this sort of information.’’ The NAS further recommended ‘‘that 

the Federal Government give the necessary authority and funding to USGS or 

whichever agency will ultimately be responsible to collect minerals information.’’ 

In 2006, Congress rejected a similar reduction proposed by the administration. In 

rejecting that proposed cut, the congressional joint committee wrote ‘‘[we] strongly 

disagree with the administration’s proposed reductions to the mineral assessment 

program and believe it irresponsible for the administration to decrease or eliminate 

funding for what is inherently a Federal responsibility.’’ NFFE now urges Congress 

to do the same in fiscal year 2009, and restore the group’s ability to function effectively by further increasing MIT’s budget to $23 million. 

We thank you for your consideration of these issues that affect both our Union’s 

and the Nation’s interests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2009 Department of Interior Appropriations and funding for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). 

We appreciate the subcommittee’s past support and respectfully request your approval of funding at the following levels: 

—$10 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Resource Management 

General Administration appropriation; 

—$3 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Resource Management 

Endangered Species appropriation to conserve and restore Pacific salmon in 

Washington State; 

—$4 million through the Bureau of Land Management’s Management of Lands 

and Resources appropriation; and 

—$4 million through the Forest Service’s National Forest System appropriation. 

This funding request for fiscal year 2009 is well within the authorized levels and 

would allow the Foundation to uphold our mission and expand our successful partnerships with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Forest Service (FS). Madam Chairman, I want to make one very 

important point: we are asking for your support of well-established conservation 

programs with national significance. The Foundation is an honest broker for the 

Federal agencies and we have a remarkable track record of bringing private partners together to leverage Federal funds and maximize conservation impacts. 
409 

Since the Foundation’s establishment by Congress in 1984, the Foundation has 

built strong partnerships with the FWS, BLM, and FS by convening cooperative efforts to further the conservation of fish, wildlife and plants. The Foundation continues to excel in grant-making while providing thought leadership, accountability 

and sustainable conservation outcomes. Our unique ability to organize Federal 

agencies and private partners to work together to achieve mutual conservation goals 

through on-the-ground and in-the-water grant programs is notable and there is significant potential to advance these efforts in fiscal year 2009 and beyond. 

In addition to FWS, BLM and FS, the Foundation works closely with other Department of Interior agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and USDA’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), among others. On average, every Federal dollar is leveraged with three or more matching dollars from the non-Federal sector. Therefore, 

an appropriation of $21 million in fiscal year 2009 would turn into a minimum of 

$42 million, according to the Foundation’s Congressional Charter which requires a 

minimum of a 1:1 match, and have the potential to turn into $84 million or more 

for on-the-ground conservation. Funds appropriated by this subcommittee are exclusively dedicated to grants and are not spent on overhead expenses of the Foundation. 

This subcommittee’s funding has been critical to our success in attracting additional funding for conservation through corporate sponsorship, legal settlements, 

and direct gifts. Through our targeted grants, the Foundation strategically invests 

the Federal funds entrusted to us to achieve measurable success in ‘‘moving the needle’’ on collaborative conservation objectives over the next 5- to 10-year period. 

In fiscal year 2007, the Foundation awarded $12.2 million of our FWS, FS, and 

BLM appropriations to support 267 projects. FWS, BLM and FS funds were leveraged with $41 million in other Foundation Federal funds, corporate contributions, 

and matching funds. The remaining $1.7 million in appropriated funds will be obligated for our spring 2008 projects. When these projects are approved, the FWS, 

BLM and FS appropriations of $13.9 million for fiscal year 2007 will have been leveraged into more than $65 million in on-the-ground projects. 

CONSERVING FISH, WILDLIFE, PLANTS AND HABITATS

Fiscal year 2009 appropriations through FWS, BLM and FS will be focused on 

mutually agreed upon projects across the country according to our Keystone Initiatives and the objectives of the Foundation’s Special Grant Programs, which are specific to a geographic area, group of species, or conservation concern. The Keystone 

Initiatives represent the new core portfolio of the Foundation’s grant making with 

clearly defined long-term goals, well-articulated strategies, and defined budgets to 

reach desired outcomes. In 2007 the Foundation continued implementing a new 

strategic plan and developing targeted Keystone Initiatives, with the goal of achieving sustainable and measurable conservation impacts. 

Four Keystone Initiatives were launched by the Foundation in 2007: (1) Birds (2) 

Wildlife and Habitats (3) Fish and (4) Marine and Coastal Conservation. Each grant 

approved under a Keystone Initiative will be designed to provide a measurable outcome that brings us one step closer to the final long-term conservation goal of the 

Initiative. Achieving success through our Keystone Initiatives will also help to fulfill 

the objectives of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, and Partners in Flight, among others. 

With continued support through FWS, BLM, and FS appropriations, the Foundation can accelerate our collaborative efforts to achieve long-term conservation impacts for fish and wildlife through our Keystone Initiatives. Increased funding in fiscal year 2009 will also help to strengthen the Foundation’s Special Grant Programs, 

a few of which are highlighted below: 

—The Washington State Community Salmon Fund was established in 2000 to 

award community-based grants to assist rural communities, farmers, ranchers 

and other private landowners with salmon habitat conservation projects. With 

continued support from this subcommittee, the program has expanded to include funding and participation from the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding 

Board, the Washington Conservation Commission, King County, WA and Pierce 

County, WA. More than 300 grants have been awarded through the partnership 

to benefit every major salmon-bearing watershed across Washington. The program helps to implement local salmon recovery projects identified as priorities 

in Federal and State agency approved recovery plans. Projects also provide numerous benefits for other aquatic and riparian wildlife species as well as improved water quality. 
410 

—The Great Lakes Watershed Restoration Fund is a partnership between FWS, 

FS, EPA, NOAA and NRCS to promote ecosystem restoration in the Great 

Lakes watershed. Since 2005, the Foundation has leveraged $1.9 million in Federal funds with $3.8 million in partner contributions and matching funds to 

support 36 projects throughout the watershed. In 2008, the program is anticipated to award an additional $1.5 million to restore and enhance fish and wildlife habitat in the Great Lakes Basin. In January, the Foundation announced 

a new corporate partnership with ArcelorMittal, an international steel company, 

who will provide an additional $2.1 million over the next 3 years for grants in 

the watershed and help to implement the habitat objectives of the Great Lakes 

Regional Collaboration. 

—The International Sea Turtle Conservation Fund supports projects for the six 

species of sea turtles found in the Western Hemisphere, all of which are considered endangered or threatened. Since 1998, grants have been awarded for more 

than 100 projects in over 25 countries, representing a total of $6.2 million in 

funding from both Federal and non-Federal sources. Projects focus on key nesting and foraging areas for species survival as well as local capacity building and 

outreach with fisherman to increase awareness and minimize damage caused by 

certain fishing techniques to marine turtle populations. This collaborative effort 

with NOAA and FWS is the leading source of funding for sea turtles in the 

Western Hemisphere. 

Other Special Grant Programs, including Bring Back the Natives, Pulling Together Initiative, Long Island Sound Futures Fund, Delaware Estuary Watershed 

Grants Program, and Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund, continued positive results 

in 2007 with grantee requests far exceeding available funds. The Foundation strongly supports collaborative efforts that integrate conservation practices on agricultural, ranching, and forestry operations, with the goal of improving the ecological 

health of working lands. fiscal year 2009 appropriations through FWS, BLM and FS 

will allow the Foundation to continue our investment in common-sense, innovative, 

cooperative approaches that directly benefit diverse habitats and a wide range of 

fish and wildlife species. 

A TRADITION OF SUCCESSFUL AND ACCOUNTABLE PERFORMANCE

Since 1984, the Foundation has awarded nearly 9,500 grants to over 3,000 organizations in the United States and abroad and leveraged—with our partners—more 

than $400 million in Federal funds into over $1.3 billion for conservation. NFWF 

is recognized by Charity Navigator with a 4-star rating for efficiency and effectiveness. 

The Foundation has taken important strides to improve our grant review and contracting process to ensure we maximize efficiency while maintaining strict financial 

and evaluation-based requirements. Interactive tools through our website have improved communication with our stakeholders and helped to streamline our grantmaking process. We expect that as of spring 2008, the Foundation will be operating 

under a paperless application system. 

Grant-making through our Keystone Initiatives and Special Grant Programs involves a thorough internal and external review process. Peer reviews involve Federal and State agencies, affected industry, non-profit organizations, and academics. 

Grants are also reviewed by the Foundation’s Keystone Initiative staff, as well as 

evaluation staff, before being recommended to the Board of Directors for approval. 

In addition, according to our Congressional Charter, the Foundation provides a 30- 

day notification to the Members of Congress for the congressional district and State 

in which a grant will be funded, prior to making a funding decision. 

Once again, Madam Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued support and 

hope the subcommittee will approve funding for the Foundation in fiscal year 2009. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL HUMANITIES ALLIANCE

Chairwoman Feinstein and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the National Humanities Alliance and its 93 member organizations and institutions, I am 

pleased to testify for the record in support of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Our members, and the thousands of teachers, scholars, humanities 

organizations and institutions they represent, use NEH grants to maintain a strong 

system of academic research, education and public programs in the humanities. The 

Alliance respectfully urges the subcommittee to support funding of $177 million for 

NEH in fiscal year 2009, an increase of about $32 million above the fiscal year 2008 

appropriation and the President’s request. 
411 

SUMMARY

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget requests $144.4 million for NEH in fiscal 

year 2009, approximately the same amount as in fiscal year 2008. The President 

would offset increases for overhead costs and administration priorities with nearly 

$7 million in cuts to two of NEH’s core programs, Preservation & Access and Challenge Grants. NEH’s other core programs, which include Education, Public Programs, Research, and the Federal-State Partnership, would receive level funding in 

the President’s Budget. We strongly oppose the President’s proposed cuts and urge 

increased funding for all core programs. 

As the single largest source of humanities funding in the United States, NEH 

plays a pivotal leadership role in the education of our Nation’s citizens; the creation 

and dissemination of new knowledge; and the preservation and enrichment of American intellectual and cultural life. Our Nation’s schools and universities are falling 

behind in almost every aspect of humanities education and research. A serious reinvigoration of the Nation’s investment in the humanities is desperately needed if we 

are to keep pace with the rapidly transforming global environment, and its pressures on our economy, citizens and civic institutions. 

Increased NEH funds will enable the agency to sustain its core programs, while 

extending the reach of its two major initiatives: We the People (along with a new 

WTP program, Picturing America), and the Digital Humanities Initiative. The Alliance applauds the agency’s responsiveness to national needs. We support the increased funding for special initiatives included in the President’s fiscal year 2009 

Budget. However, we believe funding for these initiatives should be in conjunction 

to, not in competition with, NEH’s core programs. We are extremely concerned 

about the proposed elimination of a critical Preservation grant competition, Stabilizing Humanities Collections, and urge Congress to instruct the agency not to terminate or substantially reduce this program in fiscal year 2009. 

FUNDING ANALYSIS

NEH is funded at a level of $144.7 million in fiscal year 2008, an increase of $3.6 

million over the previous fiscal year (a 2.6 percent increase over fiscal year 2007), 

including an additional $2.5 million for program funds and $1.1 million for administration. The humanities community deeply appreciates this increase. The combined 

impacts of inflation and budget cuts over the last two decades have seriously eroded 

NEH’s ability to carry out its congressional mandate. NEH reached its nominal 

funding peak of $177.5 million in fiscal year 1994, the benchmark set by the humanities community to begin restoration of the agency’s budget. However, NEH reached 

its real historical peak in fiscal year 1979; if funded at the 1979 level, NEH today 

would have a budget of more than $400 million. 

The NEH’s current funding level is not adequate to meet the needs of humanities 

practitioners and the communities they serve. There is significant, unmet demand 

in this country for new knowledge and programming in the humanities—from history and literature, to world cultures, foreign languages, philosophy, and ethics. In 

fiscal year 2007, NEH was only able to make $118 million in new awards, but it 

received more than $440 million in funding requests. 

NATIONAL CORE PROGRAMS

The NEH’s national, core program competitions are at the center of the agency’s 

mission to create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge in the humanities. However, 

since 1994, these programs have suffered disproportionately from budget cuts and 

inflation. In fiscal year 1994, appropriations for the national NEH core program divisions (Research, Education, Preservation & Access, Public Programs and Challenge Grants) totaled $116.3 million. In fiscal year 2008, appropriations for these 

divisions totaled only $66.0 million—a 43 percent decline in nominal funding. 

Preservation and Access Programs.—The NEH Preservation and Access Division 

supports the preservation of materials important to research, education, and public 

programming, including: books, journals, newspapers, manuscript and archival collections, maps, photographs, films, sound recordings, oral histories, and objects of 

material culture. NEH works with the community to preserve these resources and 

supports the creation of reference materials and new methods to increase access to 

them. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget requests $13.9 million for the Preservation and Access Division, a decrease of $4.5 million from the fiscal year 2008 level. 

In addition, the administration proposes to eliminate an important grant competition, Stabilizing Humanities Collections—a program funded at a level of $3.6 million 

in fiscal year 2007. We are extremely concerned about the President’s proposal, and 
412 

ask for Congress’ assistance in restoring funds to the Preservation & Access Division, and in ensuring that the Stabilization grants are not cancelled in fiscal year 

2009. 

The President’s proposed reduction is an inappropriate response to documented 

needs for the preservation and dissemination of our Nation’s cultural heritage. In 

fiscal year 2007, the Preservation Division reviewed 564 applications, representing 

more than $100 million in requested funding. Of these requests, 56 applications 

were submitted for Stabilization grants, totaling more than $15.7 million (only 11 

were funded). Stabilization grants provide libraries, museums, and historical societies with hard-to-raise funds necessary to improve housing and storage, environmental conditions, security, lighting, and fire protection of collections. According to 

the Heritage Health Index, a 2004 survey conducted by Heritage Preservation, only 

37 percent of collecting institutions in the United States report adequate storage 

and over one-half report damage to collections due to poor environmental conditions 

for their collections. 

Challenge Grants.—The Challenge Grant program helps local, State and national 

institutions secure their humanities resources and activities for the long term 

through fundraising as a means of building permanent resources for the future. 

Grant uses include: establishing or augmenting an endowment to pay for humanities staff and programming, renovation or construction of facilities, purchase of capital equipment, upgrade of technology, and additions to collections. Challenge grants 

are a cost-effective investment of taxpayer dollars. First-time challenge grant recipients must match every $1 Federal with $3 non-Federal; recipients of subsequent 

awards must raise $4 non-Federal for every $1 Federal. Since the program started, 

NEH Challenge grants have leveraged $1.58 billion in non-Federal support. 

Over the years, Challenge Grants have made an extraordinary contribution toward strengthening the institutional base of the humanities. Unfortunately, the 

President’s fiscal year 2009 Budget requests $7.1 million in funding for Challenge 

Grants, a decrease of $2.2 million from the fiscal year 2008 level. In fiscal year 

2009, the administration plans to decrease both the number (reduced to 10) and size 

of challenge grants, particularly de-emphasizing endowment grants. We oppose 

these cuts. Challenge Grants are among the most valued NEH grants by our members. In fiscal year 2007, NEH received 113 application requests for this division 

totaling more than $63 million (20 were funded)—nearly nine times the amount recommended by the administration. 

We also strongly disagree with the administration’s assessment that endowmentbuilding grants ‘‘consume a significant amount of Federal resources in their first few 

years while returning only modest benefits as the endowment accumulates earnings’’. Endowment building allows institutions to realize years of return on an initial 

investment, as opposed to a one-time expenditure. Moreover, the increased organizational capacity afforded by the annual return on endowment funds often allows institutions to further expand humanities programming and activities well beyond the 

scope of the original challenge grant. 

Research.—NEH Research grants are among the most coveted and prestigious 

awards for scholars. They support fellowships, stipends, collaborative research, and 

scholarly editions. Investing in humanities research yields new knowledge, consumed by the public in the form of books, TV/radio documentaries, museum exhibits, course materials, and web resources. The President’s fiscal year 2009 Budget requests level funding of $13.0 million for Research. Research has been among the 

hardest hit areas of the Endowment. In fiscal year 1994 NEH made 1,054 research 

awards, including fellowships and stipends, totaling $31.6 million. In fiscal year 

2007, the NEH Research Division made only 309 new awards totaling $15.6 million 

(including additional We the People funds). NEH research grants are the most competitive offered by NEH, with demand far outstripping supply. In fiscal year 2007, 

NEH considered 2,537 research applications representing over $107 million—a 12 

percent success rate. By comparison, in fiscal year 2006, the National Science Foundation made awards to 25 percent of proposals. 

Education.—The Division of Education Programs supports professional development opportunities for teachers and faculty members, model curricula, and classroom resources for the humanities. Education grants strengthen teaching and learning in the humanities through all grade levels, from kindergarten to graduate level 

education. The President’s fiscal year 2009 Budget requests level funding of $12.6 

million for Education programs. In contrast, the fiscal year 1994 budget allowed 

NEH to award $29.1 million for 352 education projects, including seminars and institutes. In fiscal year 2007, NEH was only able to make 104 new education awards 

totaling $13.3 million (including additional We the People funds). The division received 429 applications in fiscal year 2007 for $54 million in requested funds. 
413 

Public Programs.—It is through NEH-funded public humanities programs that 

the Endowment works most directly with the American public. From traveling exhibits in local museums and libraries to film, television and radio productions, NEH 

public programs reach literally millions of Americans each year. The President’s fiscal year 2009 Budget requests level funding of $12.7 million for Public Programs. 

In contrast, the fiscal year 1994 budget allowed NEH to award $27.5 million for 201 

public program projects. In fiscal year 2007, NEH was only able to make 113 new 

public program awards totaling $13.7 million (including additional We the People 

funds). The division received 494 applications in fiscal year 2007 representing more 

than $70 million in requests. 

We support significantly increased funding for NEH’s competitive, peer-reviewed 

grant programs through each of the agency’s national core programs. 

STATE PROGRAMS

Federal/State Partnership.—The NEH Federal/State Partnership is a collaborative effort of the NEH and the 56 State humanities councils to ensure the delivery 

of high-quality humanities programming to communities throughout the country. 

State councils are nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations governed by local volunteer 

boards; every Federal dollar received by a council for operating support is matched 

equally by local contributions of cash, goods, or services. The President’s fiscal year 

2009 Budget requests flat funding for the Federal/State Partnership at $31.7 million. We support significantly increased funding for the State councils through NEH. 

NEH PROGRAM INITIATIVES

Digital Humanities Initiative (DHI).—Launched in fiscal year 2007, DHI offers 

grants to support the use of digital technologies in conducting research and presenting scholarship. This area has been identified as a high priority by the National 

Humanities Alliance membership. The President’s fiscal year 2009 Budget recommends essentially flat funding of $2 million for the newly renamed Office of Digital Humanities. We support the agency’s modest request for this initiative and encourage further investment in the digital humanities throughout NEH. 

We the People (WTP).—We the People is an NEH initiative established in 2002 

to boost the teaching, study, and understanding of American history and culture. 

Over the last 5 years, We the People funds have been used largely to support grants 

made through the agency’s regular program divisions. The President’s fiscal year 

2009 budget requests an additional $5 million to support We the People and allow 

full implementation of the NEH’s new Picturing America initiative—an agency-directed program to distribute reproductions of American masterpieces to schools and 

libraries nationwide beginning in 2008. We support the requested increase for We 

the People, but urge that new funds be found without drawing resources away from 

other NEH programs. 

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

The well-being of this country depends now, as perhaps never before, on our ability to understand the history, cultures and languages of the world’s diverse societies. We appreciate Congress’ request last year for an evaluation by NEH of its 

global society activities. We look forward to the release of the agency’s report, and 

to working with Congress and the NEH on the future enhancement of the agency’s 

international education programs. 

We recognize that Congress faces difficult choices this year. We are asking the 

subcommittee to recommend a significant funding increase for the National Endowment for the Humanities of $32 million in fiscal year 2009, as a necessary investment in the Nation’s education and research infrastructure. We appreciate the subcommittee’s outstanding support for the arts and humanities in America. Thank you 

for your consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATURAL SCIENCE COLLECTIONS ALLIANCE

The Natural Science Collections Alliance (NSC Alliance) encourages Congress to 

provide the United States Geological Survey (USGS) with at least $1.3 billion for 

fiscal year 2009. From this amount, we encourage you to provide at least $230 million for the programs and functions of the Biological Resources Discipline (BRD). 

The NSC Alliance is a nonprofit association that supports natural science collections, their human resources, the institutions that house them, and their research 

activities for the benefit of science and society. Our members are part of an international community of museums, botanical gardens, herbariums, universities and 
414 

other institutions that house natural science collections and utilize them in research, exhibitions, academic and informal science education, public service, service 

to governmental entities such as public health, agriculture, homeland security, defense, natural resource conservation, and outreach activities for the betterment of 

society. 

The USGS provides independent research, data, and assessments needed by public and private sector decision-makers. A unique combination of biological, geographical, geological, and hydrological research programs enable USGS scientists to 

utilize innovative interdisciplinary research techniques to answer important questions. For instance, USGS data are essential to informing our understanding of how 

species and ecological systems may respond to climate change and how ecological 

systems may be able to help ameliorate the effects of environmental change. Moreover, the USGS collects data that other Federal agencies and nongovernmental scientists do not collect. We cannot afford to sacrifice this information; rather, we 

should increase our investments in this work for it is vital to scientific, social, and 

commercial advancement. 

Natural resource managers demand reliable, relevant, and timely information. 

The Biological Informatics Program develops and applies innovative technologies 

and practices to the management of biological data, information, and knowledge. For 

instance, the NSC Alliance has worked with USGS personnel to try to identify barriers to the digitization of data associated with the tens of millions of specimens in 

natural science collections. Such specimens become increasingly valuable each year 

as new techniques permit the vast storehouse of information locked in these specimens to be accessed for scientific research. These efforts offer the potential for 

USGS and academic researchers to use these data to improve our understanding of 

the distribution and habitat requirements of species, thus improving our ability to 

efficiently and effectively develop conservation and management policies. 

Increased funding for the USGS would enable the Biological Informatics Program 

to continue on-going activities and begin to implement initiatives that the resource 

management and research communities have identified as priorities. For example, 

the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) program within the Biological Informatics office provides scientists and managers access to existing data. 

In the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request, NBII was cut by $2.9 million. 

This cut will have a significant negative impact on this important program. Full 

funding for NBII would permit the establishment of a more interconnected and accessible information system and would provide for the continued operation of important efforts, such as the National Framework for Early Detection, Rapid Assessment, and Rapid Response to Invasive Species (EDDR). The National EDDR framework would assist scientists and resource managers in correctly identifying invasive 

species, which are estimated to cost the United States $138 billion each year in 

health care, lost income, and environmental consequences. 

USGS scientists work collaboratively and are vital members of the research community. Through offices and science centers located in every State and through partnerships with more than 2,000 Federal, State, local, tribal, and private organizations, the USGS has built the capacity to leverage additional research expertise. For 

example, through the Cooperative Research Units program USGS scientists are stationed at many universities. This proximity to academic researchers heightens the 

intellectual and technical resources devoted to answering biological and natural resource questions. Moreover, Cooperative Research Units are a vital component of 

our Nation’s education and training infrastructure, helping to develop the skills that 

graduate students need to become the natural resource professionals that government agencies require. 

Biological science programs within the USGS gather long-term data not available 

from other sources. Such data have contributed in a fundamental manner to our understanding of bird migratory patterns and the status and dynamics of biological 

populations, and have improved our understanding of how ecosystems function. This 

array of research expertise not only serves the core missions of the Department of 

the Interior, but also contributes to management decisions made by other agencies 

and private sector organizations. In short, we need to increase our investments in 

these important research activities. 

The USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of the Nation’s biological and 

environmental challenges, including energy independence, climate change, water 

quality, endangered species, introduced pest species, emerging diseases, and conservation of biological diversity. USGS research in biology and ecosystem science 

provides data on the potential impacts to ecosystems that could result from global 

climate change or from particular land management practices. Additional studies 

conducted by the USGS related to global change indicate that sea-level rise will continue to impact coastal areas. These studies will provide critical data for resource 
415 

managers as they develop adaptive management strategies for restoration and longterm use of the Nation’s natural resources, including its coastlines. 

Funding for the USGS has remained flat for nearly a decade. The situation is 

even more critical when the budget is adjusted for inflation. The President’s fiscal 

year 2009 budget request for the USGS is $969 million, $38 million below the fiscal 

year 2008 enacted budget and more than $6 million below the fiscal year 2008 operating plan. Despite inadequate budget requests from the present and prior administrations, Congress has demonstrated its recognition of the importance of USGS 

science by restoring proposed cuts. In response, the USGS has made every effort to 

be responsible stewards of public funds and has sought to leverage its limited 

human and financial resources to the greatest extent possible. 

There is growing concern from within the government and from outside that funding for the USGS must improve if it is to continue to serve its mission. Without an 

increased investment in USGS science, core missions and national priorities will 

suffer. Thus, any effort that Congress can make to fundamentally improve funding 

for the USGS will be appreciated. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. If you require additional information, please contact us at 202–628–1500 x 250. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION

Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) and its membership comprised of current 

and former refuge professionals, 154 refuge Friends organization affiliates and thousands of concerned citizens throughout the United States, thank you for your leadership and strong support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) including 

the enacted $39 million increase for fiscal year 2008. Thank you for the opportunity 

to offer comments on the fiscal year 2009 Interior Appropriations bill. Specifically, 

we respectfully request that the subcommittee support the following: 

—An overall funding level of $514 million for the operations and maintenance 

(O&M) budget of the National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); 

—An allocation of $55.1 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, 

of which $2 million be allocated to conduct strategic habitat conservation 

around national wildlife refuges through partnerships among the FWS, refuge 

Friends and other national, regional and local interests that work with States, 

counties and municipalities to identify, prioritize and implement land and water 

conservation opportunities beyond refuge boundaries; 

—An allocation of $1 million to continue to support the Volunteers and Invasives 

Program which utilizes Friends and volunteers to identify and eradicate 

invasive species on and in connection with refuges; 

—An allocation of $100 million in the FWS land acquisition budget through the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire vital habitat from numerous willing sellers across the country; 

—An allocation of $25 million for the NWRS construction budget to prevent further degradation of Refuge System infrastructure; 

—An allocation of $85 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program; 

—An allocation of $10 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

(NFWF) in the FWS’ Resource Management General Administration appropriation; 

—Include language prohibiting use of funds for a land exchange at the Izembek 

NWR in Alaska; 

—An allocation of $30 million for Climate Change Planning for refuges. 

The NWRA is the chair of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

(CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 wildlife, hunting, fishing, conservation, and scientific organizations representing more than 14 million members and supporters. A 

comprehensive analysis by CARE determined that the Refuge System needs $765 

million in annual operations and maintenance funding by 2013 to properly administer its nearly 100 million acres and provide the full spectrum of wildlife dependent 

recreation identified in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. To reach this reasonable goal, we respectfully request that you provide $514 million in fiscal year 2009 

for Refuge System Operations and Maintenance (O&M). 

Recent years of stagnant budgets have caused the System O&M backlog to rapidly 

escalate to more than $3.5 billion. This huge backlog has forced the FWS to initiate 

plans for a dramatic 20 percent workforce downsizing. Visitors often show up to find 

roads and visitor centers closed, parking lots and boat launches in disrepair, and 

habitat restoration projects put ‘‘on-hold’’ or eliminated. Invasive plant species con-
416 

tinue to encroach on the Refuge System lands and undermine their ability to fulfill 

their mission. In addition, a serious staffing deficiency in biologists and law enforcement officers has caused biological monitoring and habitat management to diminish 

and allowed illegal activities such as poaching and trespassing to increase. All of 

these shortcomings have reduced the opportunity for wildlife dependent recreational 

opportunities on Refuge System lands. Creating and enhancing these opportunities 

is critical to connecting people to our natural resources. We are grateful for the 

much-needed budget increase that Congress provided the Refuge System for the current fiscal year, and we respectfully urge the Congress to build upon this important 

step toward restoring the Refuge System by carefully considering our request in the 

fiscal year 2009 budget. 

While providing adequate funding to operate and maintain the Refuge System is 

of vital importance, most refuges are too small in size to achieve their conservation 

mission and objectives alone. Their integrity depends on the health of surrounding 

State, Federal, and private lands and waters. Consequently, there is a growing need 

to provide funding to ensure that lands and waters beyond refuge boundaries are 

conserved. Today, the alarming rush to convert rural land to subdivisions and strip 

malls has caught wildlife managers off guard and requires quick action. In response, 

NWRA launched Beyond the Boundaries, a campaign designed to identify and 

prioritize crucial additions to the nation’s conservation estate, improve connectivity 

between refuges and other conservation lands, and protect buffer zones. Beyond the 

Boundaries employs sound conservation science to integrate State Wildlife Action 

Plans (SWAP), refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) and other conservation planning tools, and engages diverse stakeholders at the State and local levels 

to develop bold strategies for protecting critical wildlife habitat. All while strengthening economies through improved quality of life, clean water and outdoor recreation and appreciation. 

Accordingly, for fiscal year 2009 we respectfully ask that the subcommittee appro- priate $55.1 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, of which $2 million be allocated specifically to conduct strategic habitat conservation around national wildlife refuges that engages refuge Friends and other national, regional and 

local interests that work with States, counties, and municipalities to identify, 

prioritize and implement land and water conservation opportunities beyond refuge 

boundaries. These local initiatives will result in strategic visions which will serve 

as blueprints for use of State, Federal, and private conservation dollars, and will 

expedite implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans. 

We also encourage the subcommittee to continue its strong support ‘‘for cooperative projects with [F]riends groups on invasive species control’’ in the Volunteers 

and Invasives Program by again appropriating $1 million for this valuable program. 

With annual allocations by Congress since fiscal year 2003, more than 207 separate 

refuges have taken actions to control invasives, and the Refuge System has identified approximately $166 million of invasive species projected needs. A competitive 

grants program for cooperative invasive species projects with refuge Friends and 

volunteers constitutes the majority of previous allocations. Over the past 3 years, 

funding awarded to refuges through this program for engaging volunteers in 

invasive species management has enabled 2,750 volunteers to contribute more than 

49,000 hours to the treatment, inventory, and restoration of over 211,000 acres of 

refuge lands. In fiscal year 2006, a total of 917 volunteers contributed 22,239 hours 

and participated in the treatment, inventory and restoration of 73,909 refuge acres. 

Likewise, the Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring Program has demonstrated powerful results at the 32 participating refuges. A partnership among the 

NWRA, FWS, United States Geological Survey (USGS) and The Nature Conservancy, the program trains refuge volunteers to identify invasives and collect extensive data using inexpensive but sophisticated global positioning system (GPS)/geographic information system (GIS) data-collection equipment. To date, an estimated 

24,000 acres of refuge lands, in addition to hundreds of water bodies, have been 

inventoried and mapped by a corps of nearly 200 trained volunteers contributing 

8,000 hours. Refuges participating in the program have used the data to engage an 

additional 887 volunteers in invasive plant management actions such as control and 

restoration measures. Importantly, the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Wildlife Refuge Caucus have recognized the value of this program, including it as a component 

of the House passed ‘‘REPAIR Act’’ (H.R. 767) that directs the Secretary to establish 

a Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring and Control Program to document 

and combat invasive species in and near national wildlife refuges. 

The NWRA encourages the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding to assess 

and purchase high-priority water rights and high-priority lands and conservation 

easements through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Inadequate 

water quantity and quality represent some of the biggest obstacles for refuges to 
417 

overcome and unfortunately, many refuges do not own the water rights on the refuge or they are not guaranteed an allocation of water from a river or stream. The 

FWS is currently compiling a needs-based priority database of where water rights 

need to be secured, and we urge the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding to 

allow the FWS to acquire these essential rights while they are available and affordable. In some cases, if we fail to act, refuges will be left high and dry. The Refuge System land acquisition backlog is estimated at more than $4 billion, 

with over 15 million acres remaining to be acquired within approved refuge boundaries. While a full suite of conservation strategies should be employed in working 

with private landowners, in cases where fee title acquisition is preferred by the 

landowner and the refuge has identified it as a top priority, the FWS should acquire 

the land. The NWRA believes that $100 million should be allocated toward Refuge 

System land acquisition, yet even at that annual rate, it would take at least 40 

years to acquire priority lands. Within this request, the NWRA encourages the subcommittee to provide funding for the following projects which have willing sellers 

and are immediately available for purchase: $5.6 million for Crystal River NWR 

(FL); $6 million for Stewart B. McKinney NWR (CT); $2.15 million for Rappahannock River Valley NWR (VA); $1 million for Lake Umbagog NWR (NH); $2.5 million 

for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (MA); $1.1062 million for Bayou Sauvage NWR (LA); $3.5 

million for Rachel Carson NWR (ME); $2 million for Pelican Island NWR (FL) and 

$6 million for James Campbell NWR (HI). 

We encourage the subcommittee to resist the zeroing out of the Refuge System’s 

construction budget proposed in the president’s fiscal year 2009 budget request and 

instead allocate $25 million. The FWS has identified over $1 billion in construction 

projects, which in many cases will result in replacement of quickly deteriorating 

structures that are becoming more expensive to maintain. 

The NWRA urges the subcommittee to appropriate at least $85 million for the 

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program in fiscal year 2009 to implement statewide conservation plans, supporting projects to keep common species common and 

develop partnerships. These State-based plans can dovetail with refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) and help fulfill the shared Federal/State responsibility for keeping our Nation’s wildlife from becoming endangered. 

We encourage the subcommittee to allocate $10 million for the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation through the FWS’ Resource Management General Administration appropriation. Each year, NFWF receives more project proposals than they are 

capable of funding. Adequate funding will ensure NFWF has the ability to leverage 

resources to fund projects that directly benefit diverse species in, around and outside of national wildlife refuges across the country. 

The NWRA is strongly opposed to a proposed land exchange at the Izembek NWR 

on Alaska’s peninsula, which would allow a road to be built through the biological 

heart of the refuge. This exchange is in the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget justification and has also been introduced as legislation in both the House and Senate 

(H.R. 2801 and S. 1680). 

And perhaps most importantly in this era of uncertainty related to climate 

change, we urge the subcommittee to allocate $30 million in dedicated funding to 

allow the FWS to create a plan for how to manage refuges in such a way that would 

allow them to adapt to anticipated changes. Work currently conducted by scientists 

including Dr. Michael Scott, Senior Scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and 

Professor of Wildlife Biology at the University of Idaho, show how models for individual refuges can be made that simulate rising water levels, increased temperatures, and how species are expected to react. While these innovative tools are now 

readily available, without dedicated funding, refuge staff is simply unable to take 

full advantage. Refuges are perhaps our best natural laboratories on a national level 

to assess impacts to wildlife and habitat as a result of global climate change; a 

small investment could yield valuable insights that will guide wildlife management 

and land use planning well into the future. 

In conclusion, the National Wildlife Refuge Association believes the National 

Wildlife Refuge System can meet its important conservation objectives only with 

strong and consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work of refuge volunteers. 

We extend our appreciation to the Subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to our 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (Department), I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2.6 million appropriation from the 
418 

Land and Water Conservation Fund for critical land protection efforts by the Forest 

Service in the Cibola National Forest near Gallup, New Mexico. 

The Department completed the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for 

New Mexico in 2005, combing input from over 125 public, private, and tribal interests, as a guide to collaborative and coordinated conservation activities in the State. 

Identified through the planning process were Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

and key wildlife habitats throughout New Mexico. One of those Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need is Zuni bluehead sucker, a species listed as endangered by the 

State of New Mexico and a candidate for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. Zuni bluehead sucker is found only in about 9 miles of habitat in the headwaters and isolated springs of the upper Zuni River watershed. Preservation of existing habitat and reduction of threats to the population from habitat destruction, 

fragmentation, and demands on the water supply to the river and springs are critical to keeping this species from extinction. 

The Department, under the guidance of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy for New Mexico and the Zuni Bluehead Sucker Recovery Plan, is working 

closely with State, Federal, and Tribal agencies and private organizations and individuals to forward our common wildlife conservation initiatives. The partnerships 

that have formed to protect habitat in the headwaters of the Zuni River are some 

of the broadest and most diverse in the State, including The Nature Conservancy, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.A Forest Service, and the Pueblo of Zuni. Priorities include restoration of the watershed and protecting habitat by purchase to 

prevent imminent threats of water and housing development. Among ongoing efforts, the Department is working with The Nature Conservancy to acquire 440 acres 

of land along the Rio Nutria, the major tributary to the Zuni River. This purchase, 

using the State Natural Lands Protection Act and funded by a special land conservation appropriation and the Duke Foundation, will add to the 1,300-acre Rio 

Nutria Preserve previously acquired by the State of New Mexico and The Nature 

Conservancy. Additionally, the Pueblo of Zuni, The Nature Conservancy, and the 

Department are working to restore and manage habitat for protection of the sucker 

on both the Preserve and within Zuni tribal lands. This is a unique opportunity to 

engage tribal government in support of the State’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 

The proposed Forest Service acquisition will continue the partners’ efforts to acquire and preserve habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker and other important species. The two sections of land that make up the proposed Forest Service acquisition 

are important tributary drainages in the Zuni River watershed. Tampico Draw bisects the section that would be acquired in the first phase of the acquisition and 

drains directly into the Rio Nutria. The second section is on the headwaters of 

Grasshopper Canyon that also drains into Rio Nutria. Protection of these areas will 

help to protect downstream habitat occupied to by Zuni bluehead sucker. 

In fiscal year 2009, $2.6 million is required for the Forest Service from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund to acquire and conserve the first 640 acres of the 

1,280-acre Tampico Spring property. This will preserve critical wildlife habitat, protect an important watershed, and facilitate improved management of national forest 

lands in New Mexico. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony 

in support of this important Land and Water Conservation Fund project in New 

Mexico. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION

SUMMARY

This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2009 appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control program activities of the Bureau of Land Management. I urge that $5,900,000 be appropriated for the Bureau of Land Management 

for activities that benefit the control of salinity in the Colorado River Basin, and 

of that amount, $1,500,000 be marked specifically for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. In addition, I support the President’s requested appropriation of $34,029,000 for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management, but request an increase of $700,000 in that amount to provide for the 

needed Colorado River Basin salinity control activities of the Bureau of Land Management for a total appropriation of $34,729,000. 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is comprised of representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States appointed by the respective 

Governors of the States. The Forum has examined all of the features needed to con-
419 

trol the salinity of the Colorado River. Those features include activities by the cooperating States, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The salinity control program has been 

adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the EPA as a 

part of each State’s water quality standards. Also, water delivered to Mexico in the 

Colorado River is subject to Minute 242 of the United States treaty with Mexico 

that sets limits on the salinity of the water. 

About 75 percent of the land in the Colorado River basin is owned, administered 

or held in trust by the Federal Government. BLM is the largest landowner in the 

Colorado River Basin, and manages public lands that are heavily laden with salt. 

When salt-laden soils erode, the salts dissolve and remain in the river system, affecting the quality of water used from the Colorado River by the Lower Basin States 

and Mexico. BLM needs to target the expenditure of at least $5.9 million for activities in fiscal year 2009 that benefit salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. In 

addition, BLM needs to target the expenditure of $1,500,000 of the $5.9 million specifically for salinity control projects and technical investigations. Experience in past 

years has shown that BLM projects are among the most cost-effective of the salinity 

control projects. 

As 1 of the 5 principal Soil, Water and Air Management program activities, BLM needs to specifically target $5.9 million to activities that benefit the control of salinity on lands of the Colorado River Basin. In the past, BLM has allocated $800,000 

of the Soil Water and Air Management appropriation for funding specific project 

proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM salinity control coordinator. However, 

some of that funding has been eliminated in recent years by budget rescissions or 

transfers to other uses to balance budget needs. Consequently, the $800,000 allocated by BLM from the Soil, Water and Air Management Subactivity for Colorado 

River Basin salinity control has been reduced, limiting the implementation of needed salinity control efforts. The recently released annual report of the federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council reports that BLM has 

identified projects that could utilize funding in the amount of $1.5 million for fiscal 

year 2008. Consequently, I request that $1.5 million of the Soil, Water and Air Management Subactivity be marked specifically for Colorado River Basin salinity control 

activities. Achieving this level of appropriation for the critically needed cost effective 

salinity control work by BLM requires an increase of $700,000 in the BLM budget 

request of $34,029,000 for the Soil, Water and Air Management Subactivity. 

I believe and support past Federal legislation that finds that the Federal Government has a major and important responsibility with respect to controlling salt discharge from public lands. Congress has charged the Federal agencies to proceed 

with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River Basin with a strong 

mandate to seek out the most cost-effective solutions. BLM’s rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures 

available. In addition, these programs are environmentally acceptable and control 

erosion, increase grazing opportunities, produce dependable stream run-off and enhance wildlife habitat. 

The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin States contain 

a plan of implementation that includes BLM participation to implement cost effective measures of salinity control. BLM participation in the salinity control program 

is critical and essential to actively pursue the identification, implementation and 

quantification of cost effective salinity control measures on public lands. 

Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from the Colorado 

River to United States water users are about $330 million per year. Unquantified 

damages increase the total damages significantly. For every increase of 30 milligrams per liter in salinity concentration in the waters of the Colorado River, an increase in damages of $75 million is experienced by the water users of the Colorado 

River Basin in the United States. Control of salinity is necessary for the Basin 

States, including New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. The Basin States are proceeding with an independent 

program to control salt discharges to the Colorado River, in addition to up-front cost 

sharing with Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Agriculture salinity control 

programs. It is vitally important that BLM pursue salinity control projects within 

its jurisdiction to maintain the cost effectiveness of the program and the timely implementation of salinity control projects to avoid unnecessary damages in the United 

States and Mexico. 

At the urging of the Basin States, BLM has created a full time position to coordinate its activities among the BLM State offices and other Federal agencies involved 

in implementation of the salinity control program. The BLM’s Budget Justification 

documents have stated that BLM continues to implement on-the-ground projects, 

evaluate progress in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. 
420 

Department of Agriculture and reports salt retention measures to implement and 

maintain salinity control measures of the Federal salinity control program in the 

Colorado River Basin. BLM is to be commended for its commitment to cooperate and 

coordinate with the Basin States and other Federal agencies. The Basin States and 

I are pleased with the BLM administration’s responsiveness in addressing the need 

for renewed emphasis on its efforts to control salinity sources and to comply with 

BLM responsibilities pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, as 

amended. While it is commendable that BLM’s budget focuses on ecosystems and 

watershed management, it is essential that funds be targeted on specific subactivities and the results of those expenditures reported. This is necessary for accountability and effectiveness of the use of the funds. 

I request the appropriation of at least $5.9 million in fiscal year 2009 for Colorado 

River salinity control activities of BLM, and that $1,500,000 of that amount be 

marked specifically for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, including projects and technical investigations. In addition, I request the appropriation of 

a minimum of $34,029,000 for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air 

Management as requested by the President. However, I request that $34,729,000 be 

appropriated for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management 

to provide for the increase of $700,000 needed for a total of $1.5 million marked specifically for Colorado River salinity control activities without causing any reduction 

of other activities funded from the Soil, Water and Air Management appropriation. 

I very much appreciate favorable consideration of these requests. I fully support the 

statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum submitted by Jack 

Barnett, the Forum’s Executive Director, in request of appropriations for BLM for 

Colorado River salinity control activities. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and the other honorable members of the committee, I am Billy 

Frank, Jr., chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). It is 

indeed a privilege and an honor to be able to submit written testimony of our 

present funding requests to this committee on behalf of Native American people. On 

behalf of the membership of the NWIFC, our natural resource management funding 

requests for the fiscal year 2009 Budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are as follows: 

SUMMARY OF NWIFC SPECIFIC APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS

—Secure and Enhance Western Washington Fisheries Management Base Funding 

—$7.50 million Enhancement of Western Washington Fisheries Management 

Base Funding: BIA/Natural Resource Management/Rights Protection 

—$1.8 million—restore reduction incurred in the President’s fiscal year 2009 

Budget: BIA/Natural Resources Management/Rights Protection 

—$.075 million—Salmon & Steelhead Habitat Inventory Assessment Program 

(SSHIAP): BIA/Natural Resource/Forestry Projects 

—Maintain the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program 

—$1.74 million Timber-Fish-Wildlife (TFW) Program: BIA/Natural Resource 

Management/Rights Protection 

—Maintain the Mass Marking Program 

—$2.4 million Mass Marking Program: BIA/Natural Resource Management/ 

Rights Program 

—Protect Marine Resources of Puget Sound and Co-manage Natural Resources 

—$2.0 million: EPA/National Estuaries Program/Puget Sound Partnership 

—Recover Salmon through Hatchery Maintenance/Rehabilitation and Reform 

—$1.5 million Hatchery Maintenance/Rehabilitation: BIA Hatchery Maintenance/Rehabilitation & Reform 

—$2.43 million Hatchery Reform Implementation: BIA/Natural Resource Management/Fish and Wildlife Projects 

—Strengthen Tribal Wildlife Management and Assure Treaty-Protected Hunting 

Rights 

—$5 million Tribal Wildlife Management—Treaty Hunting Rights: BIA/Natural 

Resource Management/Rights Protection 

SUPPORT OF NATIONAL TRIBAL APPROPRIATIONS

—Support Tribal requested funding levels within BIA for Trust Responsibility, 

Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) and Self-Governance that pertains to Fisheries 

Management and Implementation of the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty 
421 

—$160 million to fully fund BIA Contract Support Cost 

—Provide necessary pay cost adjustments for existing and emerging programs 

—Support full funding of EPA’s Indian General Assistance Program (GAP) 

THE NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION

Indian tribes have always inhabited the watersheds of western Washington, their 

cultures based on harvesting fish, wildlife, and other natural resources in the region. In the mid-1850s, when the United States Government wanted to make Washington a State, a series of treaties were negotiated with tribes in the region. 

Through the treaties, the tribes gave up most of their land, but also reserved certain 

rights to protect their way of life. The promises of the treaties were quickly broken 

in the decades that followed as the tribes were systematically denied their treatyprotected rights by the State of Washington. The struggle to obtain recognition of 

those rights climaxed in the ‘‘Fish Wars’’ of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when 

tribal members were arrested and jailed for fishing in defiance of State law. In 

1974, the tribes won a major victory in U.S. v. Washington (Boldt Decision), which 

reaffirmed their treaty-protected fishing rights. The ruling—which has been upheld 

by the U.S. Supreme Court—established the tribes as co-managers of the resource 

were entitled to 50 percent of the harvestable number of salmon returning to Washington waters. Following the ruling, the tribes created the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) to assist them in conducting orderly and biologically 

sound fisheries. More recent Federal court rulings upholding treaty-reserved shellfish harvest rights have further expanded the role and responsibilities of the tribes 

as natural resource managers. Those rulings, combined with the interconnectedness 

of all natural resources, mean that tribal participation is today necessary in nearly 

all aspects of natural resource management in the region. 

REQUESTS JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS/NATURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT/RIGHTS PROTECTION

—$1.8 MILLION RESTORATION OF CUT IN THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET.— 

This reduction, which targeted the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty, would 

affect the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, as well as the Columbia 

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and the Metlakatla Indian Community. The 

NWIFC portion of this cut is about 67 percent, or a reduction of $1.2 million. 

Tribes receive important value from the PST monies through direct contracts 

from the BIA for research and monitoring work, as well as from NWIFC policy 

coordination, technical assistance, and personnel contract support. These monies are critical for the successful renegotiation of portions of the treaty that are 

set to expire. 

—$7.5 MILLION ENHANCEMENT OF WESTERN WASHINGTON FISHERIES 

MANAGEMENT BASE FUNDING.—The Tribes and the NWIFC request an increase of $4.0 million for the base program funding due to increased management obligations and costs. Base funding levels for Tribal Natural Resources 

was initially set more than 30 years ago. Funding declines in recent years are 

attributable to many reasons; inflationary costs, rescissions and the overall appropriations climate. Hence, today we are receiving less funding than we did 

three decades ago but the level of management responsibility has dramatically 

outpaced the level of funding. There have been occasional cost of living adjustments and some new monies have been added to core base, level funding over 

the years. 

The tribes request an increase of $2.0 million for base program funding to 

support increased shellfish management needs. In 1999, the Supreme Court denied cert. and let stand the favorable decision of the 9th Circuit Court which 

included guaranteed Tribal rights to harvest and gather shellfish for their commercial, ceremonial and subsistence needs. Tribes need monies to implement 

this right, in much the same way as they did after the original U.S. v. Washington case was decided. Several dozen regional shellfish management plans 

have been successfully negotiated with Tribal and State agencies, and Tribes 

have redirected efforts to conduct the minimum management needed for their 

fisheries. Tribes need new resources to collect information to assess treaty/nontreaty sharing arrangements, to implement the shellfish sanitation consent decree and to better monitor and enforce Tribal regulations on deep-water fisheries. Without new resources our current successful implementation of the 

agreement will be short-lived. 

The tribes request an increase of $1.5 million for base program funding to 

support increased groundfish management needs. This appropriation would 

fund groundfish management activities for the four coastal Treaty Tribes who 
422 

do not currently receive funds for these activities such as data collection, analysis and monitoring. These activities are funded from other existing fishery program funds which are inadequate and pose challenges to Tribes to meet their 

management needs and responsibilities. The transition to greater regional- and 

species-specific management increases the demand for information and staff. 

Groundfish biologists, technicians and enforcement personnel are all critical for 

an effective groundfish management program. —$1.74 MILLION TO MAINTAIN TIMBER-FISH-WILDLIFE (TFW) PROGRAM.—TFW has served as the cornerstone-funding source for Tribal habitat 

management capabilities for almost 20 years. Since 2000, Congress has provided an allocation for additional Tribal participation in TFW and the Forest 

and Fish Report (FFR) development. Originally at $3.08 million, this level was 

decreased in fiscal year 2006, but has been supplemented by a special request 

for funds from the State of Washington. In an effort to make the TFW program 

whole and allow Tribes to continue to implement TFW and the adaptive management provision in the FFR plan, which has been adopted as a HCP under 

the Endangered Species Act, an additional $1.74 million is needed to supplement the funds received by the Tribes from the State of Washington. —$2.4 MILLION TO MAINTAIN THE MASS MARKING PROGRAM.—These 

funds are needed to fully mark salmon at tribal hatcheries and to use these 

marked fish to scientifically monitor salmon populations and watersheds in 

Western Washington. Federal requirements to mass mark Pacific Salmon raised 

in facilities funded in whole or in part by Federal dollars require program funding for Tribes. Tribes have agreed to mark salmon at their facilities, but require 

necessary funding to do so. It is also critically important to scientifically monitor salmon populations through spawning escapement studies to determine how 

the marking program and marked selective fisheries may be affecting existing 

data and assumptions. New plans to implement more extensive selective fisheries require additional funding and the cost for this task has increased since 

initial funding levels, and is expected to be at least $2.4 million in fiscal year 

2009. 

—$5.0 MILLION TRIBAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT—TREATY HUNTING 

RIGHTS.—Wildlife Management is a new initiative. Existing sources within the 

BIA to address wildlife management issues have been eliminated at the same 

time Tribal treaty rights to hunt are being constantly challenged either through 

unfriendly legal processes or through loss of important habitat and access to 

open and unclaimed lands. An appropriation of $5.0 million would provide each 

of the member Tribes with a basic infrastructure to deal with Tribal wildlife 

management and treaty hunting rights. We also recognize that the USFWS 

Tribal Wildlife Grants, by themselves, are neither adequately funded nor are 

they designed to support long-term tribal staff infrastructure. This package supports basic infrastructure at each tribe and the NWIFC, as well as provides a 

pool of project monies for competitive grants. Further, the continued elimination 

of $320,000 from the Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights line item will impact the Tribes ability to develop in-common and co-management databases 

with the State of Washington to work through hunting and wildlife management issues. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS/NATURAL RESOURCE/FORESTRY PROGRAMS

—$75,000 SALMON & STEELHEAD HABITAT INVENTORY ASSESSMENT 

PROGRAM (SSHIAP).—We are requesting an increase of $75,000 for a total of 

$475,000 for the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory Assessment Program 

(SSHIAP). The SSHIAP program is an integrated data base/GIS program that 

allows tribes, the State and local governments, and other partners with real 

time information to make critical decisions regarding watershed restoration, 

funding priorities, etc. This collaborative program with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and other agencies, such as Department of Energy, 

Puget Sound Partnership, U.S. Geological Service, National Information Network and Environmental Protection Agency is funded within the BIA Natural 

Resources Management—Forestry—Special Projects account. The SSHIAP has 

become the basic habitat management tool of choice in salmon and watershed 

recovery, water quality and quantity issues and resource monitoring efforts in 

the State of Washington. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS/HATCHERY MAINTENANCE/REHABILITATION & REFORM

—$1.5 MILLION SALMON HABITAT RESTORATION.—BIA HATCHERY 

MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION 
423 

—$2.43 MILLION SALMON HABITAT RESTORATION.—BIA/NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT/FISH AND WILDLIFE PROJECTS HATCHERY 

REFORM IMPLEMENTATION OR NOAA/PACIFIC SALMON/PACIFIC 

COASTAL SALMON RECOVERY FUND [PCSRF] 

This package includes coordinated efforts underway addressing salmon recovery. 

It supports Hatchery Maintenance and Rehabilitation and Hatchery Reform Implementation. Funding for the tribal hatcheries has, in recent years, come from both 

the BIA/Fish Hatchery Repair and the NOAA Fisheries/PCSRF accounts. The level 

of funding from within the BIA/Fish Hatchery Repair account is very small and 

shared with other tribes nationally. The NOAA Fisheries/PCSRF account funds not 

only hatchery reform efforts, but is also the overall account from which tribes directly receive salmon recovery monies and indirectly compete through the State of 

Washington Salmon Recovery Fund process. It is necessary to identify and access 

additional funding sources to allow Tribes to continue in the recovery efforts. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/NATIONAL ESTUARIES PROGRAM/PUGET SOUND

PARTNERSHIP

—$2.0 MILLION PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP.—Marine resources are essential to all NWIFC tribes. Two geographical areas help define this package—the 

Pacific Coast and Puget Sound. In Puget Sound, the emerging Puget Sound 

Partnership conveniently brings together key marine issues requiring salmon 

recovery, management and regulatory changes, and the need for additional 

funding. Tribes will need to be funded so that they can participate in the necessary scientific work and process and policy discussions that this partnership 

entails. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (GAP)

—We support full funding of EPA’s Indian General Assistance Program (GAP) as 

this funding is critical to the tribes’ ability to sustain their important water resources programs. 

Again, thank you for allowing me to submit these requests to you today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OPERA AMERICA

Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful 

for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of OPERA America, its board of 

directors, and its 114 American member companies. We strongly urge you to support 

an increased appropriation of $176 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. 

This testimony and the funding examples described below are intended to highlight 

the importance of Federal investment in the arts so critical to sustaining a vibrant 

cultural community throughout the country. 

Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the diverse needs and 

backgrounds of our communities. New opera companies are being established in 

communities that have never before had access to live performances. Seventy percent of the opera companies in existence today have been established since 1960. 

The growth of the field corresponds to the establishment and growth of the NEA. 

Over the last 20 years, a rich repertoire of American operas has been created by 

composers who communicate the American experience in contemporary musical and 

dramatic terms. The growth in the number and quality of American operas corresponds directly to the investment of the NEA in the New American Works program of the former Opera-Music Theater Program. 

Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts organizations, artists, schools, and teachers collaborated to provide opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond to artistic works. NEA funding has also made 

the art form more widely available in all States, including isolated rural areas and 

inner cities, indeed, NEA funded projects cross all racial, geographic, and socioeconomic lines. 

The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on opera programs 

in 2008 from the NEA’s 2008 Access to Artistic Excellence Program: 

Amarillo Opera, Inc. 

Amarillo, TX 

$7,500 

To support a production of Carlisle Floyd’s Cold Sassy Tree. The work will be conducted by James Lowe who worked with the composer on the original production. 

Cedar Rapids Opera Theatre 

Cedar Rapids, IA 
424 

$10,000 

To support a production of Verdi’s Aida. An admission-free performance will be 

presented for youth and adult participants of three nonprofit organizations that support underserved communities; Big Brothers Big Sisters, Osada, and the McAuley 

Center for Women. 

Central City Opera House Association 

Denver, CO 

$17,500 

To support a new production of Britten’s The Rape of Lucretia. The opera will 

take place during the National Performing Arts Convention, a convening of the national service organizations and their memberships of arts professional from across 

the performing arts, including opera, music, dance, and theater. 

Intermountain Opera Association of Bozeman 

Bozeman, MT 

$10,000 

To support performances of Bizet’s Carmen and related educational activities. 

Three performances will take place at Willson Auditorium utilizing a core group of 

professional singers, augmented by local instrumentalists and singers. 

Michigan Opera Theatre 

Detroit, MI 

$35,000 

To support a revival of Margaret Garner by composer Richard Danielpour and librettist Toni Morrison. The three-act opera is based on the true story of a slave 

woman’s quest for freedom. 

Opera Company of Philadelphia 

Philadelphia, PA 

$25,000 

To support the East Coast premiere of Cyrano by composer David DiChiera and 

French librettist Bernard Uzan. The project is a collaboration among the Opera 

Company of Philadelphia, Michigan Opera Theatre, and Florida Grand Opera. 

Opera Omaha, Inc. 

Omaha, NE 

$12,500 

To support a new production of Verdi’s Aida. As part of the company’s 50th anniversary season, the production will be designed by local sculptor and installation 

artist Catherine Ferguson. 

Pensacola Opera, Inc. 

Pensacola, FL 

$18,000 

To support the commissioning and premiere of The Widow’s Lantern by composer 

and librettist David Ott and based on Florida history. Collaborations with. West 

Florida History Preservation, the University of West Florida, and Okaloosa-Walton 

College will provide performance venues and production support. 

Pittsburgh Opera, Inc. (Consortium) 

Pittsburgh, PA 

$25,000 

To support the creation of a new production of Saint-Saens’ Samson and Delilah. 

Co produced with Minnesota Opera, the project will draw upon the shared expertise 

of both companies and will provide a creative opportunity that will strengthen both 

organizations. 

Portland Opera Association Inc. 

Portland, OR 

$10,000 

To support the Portland Opera Studio Artists (POSA) and the POSA Chamber 

Opera. The training program provides education and performance opportunities for 

young artists while the chamber ensemble presents more intimate chamber operas. 

San Francisco Opera Association 

San Francisco, CA 

$100,000 

To support the world premiere of The Bonesetter’s Daughter by composer Stewart 

Wallace and librettist Amy Tan. Education and outreach programs will include a 

panel discussion with members of the cast and the creative team, preview lectures 

at Bay Area locations, pre-performance lectures. 

Seattle Opera 

Seattle, WA 

$45,000 

To support a production of Bellini’s I Puritan. Performances of the opera will be 

accompanied by preview talks, lectures, and radio broadcasts. 
425 

Tacoma Opera Association 

Tacoma, WA 

$10,000 

To support performances of Rossini’s Il Barbiere di Siviglia (The Barber of Seville). Educational outreach to the community includes teacher workshops and Student Night at the Opera. 

Union Avenue Opera Theatre 

St. Louis, MO 

$7,500 

To support productions of Donizetti’s L’Elisir d’Amore, Massenet’s Werther, 

Puccini’s Il Tabarro, and Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Sorcerer. The first two works 

will be fully staged and orchestrated operas, and the latter two works will be minimally staged with piano accompaniment. 

Virginia Opera Association, Inc. 

Norfolk, VA 

$12,500 

To support a new production of Tchaikovsky’s Eugene Onegin to be part of Virginia Celebrates Russia, an initiative to encourage collaborative programming statewide during an event celebrating the 200th anniversary of the establishment of 

U.S.-Russia relations. 

Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending Federal tax 

dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, and its programs are seriously underfunded. With a $20.3 

million increase for the NEA in fiscal year 2008, Congress began to lay the foundation for full restoration of the agency. We urge you to continue towards restoration 

and increase the NEA funding allocation to $176 million for fiscal year 2009. 

On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OREGON WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS

I am Anita Winkler, executive director, Oregon Water Resources Congress. This 

testimony is submitted to the United States Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, regarding the fiscal year 2009 budget 

for the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) was established in 1912 as a 

trade association to support member needs to protect water rights and encourage 

conservation and water management statewide. OWRC represents non-potable agriculture water suppliers in Oregon, primarily irrigation districts, as well as other 

special districts and local governments that deliver irrigation water. The association 

represents the entities that operate water management systems, including water 

supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower production. 

RE: FRIMA PROGRAM—U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2009 REQUEST

Request 

The Oregon Water Resources Congress is requesting $25 million for the full funding in fiscal year 2009 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation program as authorized in the Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) in November 2000 as Public Law 106–502 (H.R. 1444). The administration has not requested any funding in the fiscal year 2009 Budget submission for this program. 

FRIMA created a new Federal partnership fish screening and passage program 

in the Pacific Ocean drainage areas of Idaho, Oregon, Washington and western Montana, administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service and partnered through State 

fishery agencies. 

The original legislation was supported and requested by the Pacific Northwest 

Partnership, a coalition of local governmental entities in the four Northwest States. 

As one of the members of that coalition, we appreciate your consideration of this 

request. 

Need 

Our association has represented irrigation districts in Oregon since 1912. About 

half of those districts are affiliated with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The remainder of the districts were not developed under the Reclamation program. There 

are over 200 irrigation districts in Oregon that provide water supplies to over one 

million acres of cropland in the State. Almost all of these districts are affected by 

either State or Federal Endangered Species Act listings of Salmon and Steelhead, 

Bull Trout or other sensitive, threatened or endangered species. 
426 

Fish passage and fishscreen needs have become critical to fishery protection: 

—to keep protected fish species out of water canals and delivery systems; 

—to allow fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and facility structures; and 

—to eliminate water quality risks to fish species. 

Oregon irrigation districts anticipate no less than $500 million in funding will be 

required to develop fish passage and fishscreen needs. Limited cost-share funds are 

available from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) program in Oregon, but primarily the cost share for passage and screening needs has been provided by the districts and their water users. Although many districts already have 

screening facilities in place, requirements for screening have changed to meet Federal agency requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, driven by implementation of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) so 

that existing facilities must be upgraded at significant cost. 

Background of Public Law 106–502 

FRIMA was enacted November 2000, creating a voluntary cost-share fish screen 

construction program for water withdrawal projects in Idaho, Oregon, Washington 

and western Montana. The Fish and Wildlife Service is to implement this program 

through the fishery agencies in the four States. The funding is to go to local governments for construction of facilities. Irrigation districts and other local governments 

that divert water for irrigation, can access the funding; individual irrigators can access funding through their local Soil and Water Conservation District. (SWC Districts are local governments affiliated with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service). 

Funding 

The legislation calls for $25 million annually, to be divided among the four States, 

from 2001 forward. The Service has never included funding in its budget requests 

since passage of the legislation. Congress provided the first funding in 2001 through 

a write-in of $4 million to be shared among the four States. The agency did not get 

the program up and running until late 2002, so the first monies were distributed 

then. In the following years, funding for FRIMA was provided as a congressional 

write-in in each year. OWRC appreciates Congress’ continued funding for the 

FRIMA program each year. That funding has begun to address the need for fish 

screens and fish passages to protect sensitive, threatened, and endangered fish species in the States in the Northwest, but there is still significant need. 

In 2000, in its report accompanying the legislation, the Congressional Budget Of- fice (CBO) estimated outlays of $70 million between 2001 and 2004. The actual appropriation was only $8.8 million during that time period and all of the money was 

a write-in. For fiscal year 2005, Congress provided $2 million for the program in 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act and, $2 million in fiscal year 2006. The fiscal 

year 2007 funding of $1 million was part of an appropriation to the Fish and Wildlife Service but was not a separate, designated appropriation. As you can see from 

the total amount of money that Congress has written in for the program, such 

amounts are woefully inadequate for what was anticipated for the program, yet still 

appreciated. The Administration did not request funding for the program for fiscal 

year 2009, consistent with its past budget submittals, despite widespread benefits 

from the money that Congress has provided. 

A recently produced report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service covering the program years fiscal year 2002–2004 provides State-by-State coverage of how the congressionally provided funding has been used in the program. The program has been 

extremely beneficial in the State of Oregon. 

Funding funneled through the Service to State fishery agencies is distributed on 

the basis of an application and approval process that is based on a ranking system 

implemented uniformly among the States, including the following factors: 

—fish restoration benefits; 

—cost effectiveness; and 

—feasibility of planned structure 

Each State is allocated 25 percent of the annual program funding. Agency administrative costs cannot exceed 6 percent of the funding. 

Project Benefits 

The project must provide improved fish passage or fish protection at water diversion structures and must benefit fish species native to and present in the area, including those listed on State or Federal endangered species or conservation lists. 

The project must meet applicable State and Federal requirements for project construction and operation. Projects will increase the survival of many native fish species in a relatively short period of time. Compared to other recovery strategies, the 

risks posed by these activities are low and the assurance of success in increasing 
427 

numbers of fish is high. Dislocation of existing social and economic activities is 

minor. Screening and passage can make a very substantial contribution utilizing existing implementation mechanisms and methods well accepted by landowners and 

rural communities. 

Cost Share 

FRIMA provides for a maximum Federal cost-share of 65 percent. The applicant’s 

cost-share is 35 percent plus the on-going maintenance and support of the structure 

for passage or screening purposes. Applicants operate the projects and the State 

agencies monitor and review the projects. For more information, see the Service’s 

Fishery Resources website for the Pacific Region at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/FRIMA. This program is headquartered in the Portland, Oregon regional office 

of the Service. 

Oregon’s Project Benefits 

Twenty-five fish screens or fish passage projects in Oregon have been funded 

using funding from FRIMA for part of the project since the start of the FRIMA program. In addition, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has used some of 

the FRIMA funding to develop an inventory of need for fish screens and passages 

in the State. In that time, the local match has averaged 51.5 percent, well over the 

amount required under the act. In other words, each Federal $1 invested in the 

FRIMA program generates a local investment of just over $1 for the protection of 

fish species in the Pacific Northwest. 

The following are examples of how Oregon has used some of its FRIMA money: 

Santiam Water Control District Project.—Fishscreen project on a large 1050 cfs 

multipurpose water diversion project on the Santiam River (Willamette Basin) near 

Stayton, Oregon. Partners are the Santiam Water Control District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marion Soil and Water Conservation District, and the 

City of Stayton. Approved FRIMA funding of $400,000 leverages a $1,200,000 

project. Species benefited include winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow trout, 

and cutthroat trout. 

South Fork Little Butte Creek.—Fishscreen and fish passage project on a 65 cfs 

irrigation water diversion in the Rogue River Basin near Medford, Oregon. Partners 

are the Medford Irrigation District and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Approved FRIMA funding of $372,000 leverages a $580,000 total project cost. Species benefited include listed summer and winter steelhead, coho salmon, and cutthroat trout. 

Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project.—Fishscreen project on a 60 cfs irrigation 

water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath Falls, Oregon. Partners 

are the Wocus Drainage District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and JeldWen Ranches. Approved FRIMA funding of $44,727 leverages a $149,000 total 

project cost. Species benefited included listed red-band trout and short-nosed sucker. 

Lakeshore Gardens Project.—Fishscreen project on a 2 cfs irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath Falls, Oregon. Partners are the 

Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Approved FRIMA funding of $5,691 leverages a $18,970 total project cost. Species 

benefited include red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost River sucker. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Inventory Project.—An inventory to be 

conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify FRIMA-eligible 

passage and screening projects within the Rogue and Klamath basins of southwestern Oregon. Approved FRIMA funding is $76,000. Estimated total project cost 

is $125,000. 

WHY FUND NOW

Dollar-for-dollar, providing screening and fish passage at diversions is one of the 

most cost-effective uses of restoration dollars, creating fishery protection at low cost, 

with low risk and significant benefits. That is why it is important that this program 

be funded now. We urge the full authorization funding of $25 million for fiscal year 

2009 and urge Congress’ oversight in encouraging the Service to budget for this successful program in the future. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the hearing record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OUTDOOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

On behalf of the Outdoor Industry Association I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present this written testimony. Outdoor Industry Association respectfully recommends the following funding levels for fiscal year 2009: 
428 

—The U.S. Forest Service’s Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness 

programs should be funded at $285 million; Capital Improvement and Maintenance/Trails program at $85 million; and fire suppression should be taken ‘‘offbudget’’ so that Forest Service leadership can undertake strategic planning for 

other important programs managed by the agency, including placing a needed 

focus on the Recreation and Travel planning that is occurring in forests across 

the nation 

—Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Assistance program at $125 million 

—Fund the Bureau of Land Management National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) at $70 million 

—Support the proposed operating increase ($161 million) for the National Park 

Service under the Centennial Initiative 

Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) is a national trade association whose mission 

is to ensure the growth and success of the outdoor industry. OIA’s members include 

the leading manufacturers and retailers of outdoor recreation equipment and services such as The North Face, Columbia Sportswear, Timberland, Patagonia, WL 

Gore, Cabela’s, REI, LL Bean and many more. 

Active outdoor recreation plays a large role in the lives of Americans. Three out 

of four Americans participate in active outdoor recreation each year. Popular outdoor activities such as hiking, biking, camping and wildlife viewing generate enormous economic power. 

The numbers tell the story. Active outdoor recreation: 

—Contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy 

—Supports 6.5 million jobs across the United States 

—Generates $88 billion in annual State and national tax revenue 

—Rings up $289 billion annually in direct retail sales and services. 

In summary, active outdoor recreation touches more than $1 in every $12 circulating in the economy. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

The vast majority of outdoor recreation occurs on our magnificent public lands 

and in order for the recreation economy to continue to grow as well as for Americans 

to enjoy the health and spiritual benefits of outdoor recreation, we as a nation must 

invest in the management of these wonderful resources. 

One of USDA Forest Service’s seven goals in its fiscal year 2009 budget proposal 

is to ‘‘Sustain and Enhance Outdoor Recreation Opportunities.’’ Unfortunately, the 

administration’s budget fails to provide the resources required to meet this important goal. Although recreation generates the greatest use and economic product of 

U.S. Forest System lands, the Recreation Program continues to be chronically under 

funded. 

The administration’s budget recommends a 10 percent decrease for recreation 

which amounts to a reduction of $25.6 million. This includes the elimination of 296 

employees. 

The Forest Service trails program is slated to be cut by 34 percent from $76 million to $50 million. This proposed cut will further increase the maintenance backlog 

as the Forest Service struggles to keep up with the 140,000 miles of trails it manages. 

Finally, the Forest Service will once again face uncertainty and an inability to undertake meaningful long-term planning as fire suppression costs dominate the budget, making planning difficult and distracting the leadership of the Forest Service. 

Appropriate funding will ensure that forests such as the Allegheny National Forests in Pennsylvania, the George Washington National Forest in Virginia, as well 

as the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri will receive the proper maintenance 

so citizens will be able to enjoy these special places for years to come. 

Outdoor Industry Association strongly urges Congress to fund the U.S. Forest 

Service’s Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness programs at $285 million; the Capital Improvement and Maintenance/Trails program at $85 million; and 

fire suppression taken ‘‘off budget’’ so that leadership can manage other programs 

more efficiently. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The Stateside Land and Water Conservation program is the government’s primary 

investment tool for ensuring that kids and families have access to close-to-home 

recreation. The LWCF stateside program has funded over 41,000 projects including 

sports fields, outdoor recreation facilities and trails. Outdoor Industry Association 
429 

is working to rejuvenate the program as part of its goal to bring quality parks and 

trails within 15 minutes of every child in the United States. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was established by Congress in 

1964 to meet America’s needs for outdoor recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat 

conservation and open space. The LWCF Act directed Congress to allocate royalties 

from offshore oil and gas development for the purchase of land, waterways, wetlands, and other resource lands and to provide matching grant assistance for State 

and community open space and recreation projects. 

Despite this strong record of success, our Nation’s need for recreation infrastructure continues to grow. In its 2007 Annual Report on the LWCF State assistance 

program, the National Park Service reported that States estimated their unmet 

need for outdoor recreation facilities and parkland acquisition at $15.6 billion. Additionally, 42 of 50 States meet only 20 percent or less of their total estimated need 

for local outdoor recreation facilities and parkland acquisition. Clearly the need for 

matching Federal investment is profound. 

The bottom line is that Congress still has a responsibility to dedicate funding for 

stateside LWCF through the annual appropriations process. 

The stateside LWCF program is authorized by Congress to receive $450 million 

annually in funding, a level that has been met only once in its 30 year history despite a designated funding source. 

Between 2002 and 2005, the President requested, and Congress appropriated between $89 million and $140 million per year for the LWCF stateside program. In 

contrast, between 2006 and 2008, funding averaged only $27 million. Therefore we 

find the elimination of all funding for this program, as called for in the President’s 

fiscal year 2009 budget, completely unacceptable. 

A few examples of successful recreational areas that were a direct result of the 

LWCF Stateside Program include: Reid Park in Riverside County, California; the 

Rio Grand Trail in Eagle County, Colorado; Sand Hill Park Sprayground in 

Chittenden County, Vermont; Harborside Park in Rockingham County New Hampshire; Rolling Mill Farm in Baltimore County, Maryland; Grand Vue Park in Marshall County, West Virginia; and Henry Horton State Park in Marshall County, 

Tennessee. 

Outdoor Industry Association strongly urges Congress to fund the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program at $125 million for fiscal year 

2009. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM

Over the past 50 years, recreation has clearly emerged as a major use of Bureau 

of Land Management lands. Unfortunately, staffing and funding for recreation 

doesn’t match up to this reality. 

In June 2000, the National Landscape Conservation System was established to 

encompass the crown jewels of these BLM lands. The 26 million acres that comprise 

the NLCS represent just 10 percent of BLM lands, yet account for one-third of 

BLM’s total recreation use and generate one-half of the BLM’s total recreation fees. 

However, less than 4 percent of BLM’s funding is invested back into the Conservation System. A lack of funding means that vandalism, unmanaged recreation, increasing energy development, and neglect are harming these special places. 

Legislation has been recently introduced to give the NLCS congressional recognition which will ensure these lands remain a high priority for BLM and the Department of Interior. Unfortunately the legislation does not address budget shortfalls. 

The proposed funding level for fiscal year 2009 is set at $51.8 million, which if enacted, would be the lowest funding for the Conservation System since its creation 

in 2000. 

With 11 of the 15 fastest growing States in the country in the west, the NLCS 

is a new backyard for recreation and should be adequately funded. 

While the Conservation system is exclusively found in the Western part of the 

United States they are some of our most beautiful places. They include California 

Coastal National Monument in California; as well as the El Camino Real de Tierra 

Adentro National Historic Trail, the Old Spanish National Historic Trail, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National 

Monument in New Mexico. 

Outdoor Industry Association strongly urges Congress to fund the Bureau of Land 

Management National Landscape Conservation System at $70 million for fiscal year 

2009. 
430 

NATIONAL PARK SERIVCE

OIA supports the administration’s proposed increase of $161 million for the operations of the National Park Service. However, we are concerned that the proposed 

operations increase is offset by cuts to other important NPS programs such as recreation and preservation, land acquisition and maintenance. 

Outdoor Industry Association strongly urges Congress to increase funding for the National Park Service at the administration requested $161 million for fiscal year 

2009. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PACIFIC SALMON COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the committee, my name is W. Ron 

Allen and I serve as an Alternate Commissioner on the Pacific Salmon Commission 

(PSC) and as the Chair of the U.S. Section’s Budget Committee. The U.S. Section 

prepares an annual budget for implementation of the Treaty. The integrated budget 

details program needs and costs for Tribal, Federal, and State agencies involved in 

the Treaty. Under the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, the U.S. Section recommends that Congress: Fund the tribes’ program at a restored funding level of $4,800,000 for tribal research projects and participation in the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty process, 

an increase of $730,500 over fiscal year 2008, plus pay-cost adjustments for the 

U.S./Canada Salmon Treaty line item, a subcategory under the Rights Protection 

Implementation, Wildlife and Parks, Other Recurring Programs Area. 

Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section recommends that 

Congress: Provide base funding of $445,000 for USFWS participation in the Treaty process, and provide funding of $250,000 for the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Regional Mark Center. 

This base funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will pay for the critically 

important on-going work. The funding for Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Regional Mark Center is utilized to meet Treaty requirements concerning 

data exchange with Canada. These program recommendations are integrated with 

those of the State and Federal agencies to avoid duplication of effort and provide 

for the most efficient expenditure of scarce funds. 

A copy of the integrated U.S. Section Budget Justification has been made available to the Committee. The budget summary justifies the funding we are recommending today. All of the funds are needed for critical data collection and research 

activities directly related to the implementation of the Treaty and are used in cooperative programs involving Federal, State, and Tribal fishery agencies and the Department of Fisheries in Canada. The monetary commitment of the United States 

is matched by the commitment of the Government of Canada. 

The U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission is recommending a substantial 

adjustment to the funding for the work carried out by the twenty-four treaty tribes’ 

that participate in the implementation of the Treaty. Programs carried out by the 

tribes are closely coordinated with those of the States and Federal agencies, but the 

tribes’ efforts are now being hampered by forced staff reductions due to continuing 

reductions in funding for the Treaty program. We are strongly recommending maintaining base funding of $445,000 for the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service so the United States can maintain the critical database 

to implement the Treaty. We also strongly recommend funding of $250,000 to allow 

continuation of work carried out by the Regional Mark Processing Center. This 

work, maintaining and updating a coastwide computerized information management 

system for salmon harvest and catch effort data as required by the Treaty, has become even more important to monitor the success of management actions at reducing impacts on ESA-listed salmon populations. Canada has a counterpart database. 

The database will continue to be housed at the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will contract with the PSFMC to provide this service. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States and Canada established the Pacific Salmon 

Commission, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985, to conserve salmon stocks, 

provide for optimum production of salmon, and to control salmon interceptions. 

After more than 20 years, the work of the Pacific Salmon Commission continues to 

be essential for the wise management of salmon in the Northwest, British Columbia, 

and Alaska. For example, upriver Bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford 

Reach of the Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian 

waters. Tribal and non-tribal fishermen harvest sockeye salmon from Canada’s Fraser River in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in Puget Sound. Canadian trollers off 
431 

of the west coast of Vancouver Island catch Washington coastal coho salmon. In the 

Northern Boundary area between Canada and Alaska, fish from both countries are 

intercepted by the other country in large numbers. The Commission provides a 

forum to ensure cooperative management of salmon populations. In 1999, the 

United States and Canada successfully concluded lengthy negotiations to improve 

this management, including the adoption of coastwide abundance-based management for Chinook salmon and a framework for abundance based management for 

southern coho populations. That agreement expires at the end of 2008 and negotiators are diligently working to complete a revised agreement. 

Before the Treaty, fish wars often erupted with one or both countries overharvesting fish that were returning to the other country, to the detriment of the resource. At the time the Treaty was signed, chinook salmon were in a severely depressed state as a result of overharvest in the ocean as well as environmental degradation in the spawning rivers. Under the Treaty, both countries committed to rebuild the depressed runs of chinook stocks, and they recommitted to that goal in 

1999 when adopting a coastwide abundance based approach to harvest management. Under this approach, harvest management will complement habitat conservation and restoration activities being undertaken by the States, tribes, and other 

stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest to address the needs of salmon listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. The combination of these efforts is integral to achieving success in rebuilding and restoring healthy, sustainable salmon 

populations. 

Finally, you should take into account the fact that the value of the commercial 

harvest of salmon subject to the Treaty, managed at productive levels under the 

Treaty, supports the infrastructure of many coastal and inland communities. The 

value of the recreational fisheries, and the economic diversity they provide for local 

economies throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, is also immense. The value 

of these fish to the twenty-four treaty tribes in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho goes 

far beyond their monetary value, to the cultural and religious lives of Indian people. 

A significant monetary investment is focused on salmon as a result of listings of Pacific Northwest salmon populations under the Endangered Species Act. Given the 

resources, we can continue to use the Pacific Salmon Commission to develop recommendations that help to ensure solutions that minimize impacts on listed stocks, 

especially if we are allowed to work towards the true intent of the Treaty: mutually 

beneficial enhancement of the shared resource. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for consideration 

by your Committee. I want to thank the Committee for the support that it has given 

the U.S. Section in the past. Please feel free to contact me, or other members of 

the U.S. Section, through the Office of the U.S. Section Coordinator to answer any 

questions you or Committee members may have regarding the U.S. Section of the 

Pacific Salmon Commission budget. 

SUMMARY OF TRIBAL AND FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PROGRAMS UNDER THE U.S.-CANADA 

PACIFIC SALMON TREATY 

Fiscal year 

Base increase 2008 actual 

appropriation 

2009 

recommendation 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Implementation: 

BIA ................................................................................... $4,069,500 $4,800,000 $730,500 

2006 actual 

appropriation 

2007 

recommendation 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anadroumous Fisheries: 

USFWS ............................................................................. $445,000 695,000 $250,000 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Madame Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for the 

National Trails System appreciates your support over the past 14 years, through operations funding and dedicated Challenge Cost Share funds, for the national scenic 

and historic trails administered by the National Park Service. We also appreciate 
432 

your increased allocation of funds to support the trails administered and managed 

by the Forest Service and your support for the trails in the Bureau of Land Management’s National Landscape Conservation System. To continue the progress that you 

have fostered, the Partnership requests that you provide annual operations funding 

for each of the 25 national scenic and historic trails for fiscal year 2009 through 

these appropriations: 

—National Park Service.—$14.546 million for administration of 20 trails and for 

coordination of the long-distance trails program by the Washington office. Construction: $2.095 million for the Appalachian, Ice Age, Overmountain Victory, 

Continental Divide and Pacific Crest Trails. Feasibility Studies & Plans: $1.061 

million for the Lewis & Clark, Overmountain Victory, and North Country 

Trails. 

—USDA Forest Service.—$4.49 million to administer four trails and $1 million to 

manage parts of 16 trails administered by the NPS or BLM; Construction: 

$2.505 million for the Continental Divide Trail, $1.35 million for the Florida 

Trail, and $1 million for the Iditarod Trail. 

—Bureau of Land Management.—To coordinate its National Trails System Program: $250,000; to administer the Iditarod National Historic Trail: $648,000, 

the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail: $230,000, the Old 

Spanish National Historic Trail: $331,000 and $2.379 million to manage portions of 10 trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest Service; 

$1,640,000 for operating five National Historic Trail interpretive centers; Construction: $300,000 for the Continental Divide and $200,000 for the Pacific 

Crest Trails. 

—We ask that you appropriate $4.5 million for the National Park Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to direct one-third ($1,500,000) for national scenic and historic trails or create a separate $1.5 million National Trails 

System Challenge Cost Share Program. 

—We ask that you add $500,000 to the Bureau of Land Management’s Challenge 

Cost Share Program and allocate it for the national scenic and historic trails 

it administers or manages. 

—We ask that you appropriate $1.253 million to the National Park Service Conservation and Outdoor Recreation office to support the second year of a five-year 

interagency project to develop a consistent system-wide National Trails System 

Geographic Information System (GIS). 

We ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 

land acquisition: 

—to the Forest Service: $16.25 million for the Pacific Crest Trail, $7 million for 

the Florida Trail; $10.645 million for the Appalachian Trail; $8.25 million for 

three National Forests for the North Country Trail; 

—to the Bureau of Land Management: $5 million for the Oregon Trail in Oregon 

and $2 million for the Nez Perce Trail in Montana; 

—to the Park Service: $4.75 million to grant to the State of Wisconsin to match 

state funds for the Ice Age Trail and $2 million to grant to 7 states for the 

North Country Trail; $4.275 million for the Appalachian Trail; $1 million for the 

Overmountain Victory Trail. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

We request $1.253 million to fund the second year of a 5-year interagency effort 

to develop a consistent GIS for all 25 national scenic and historic trails as described 

in the August 2001 report (requested by Congress in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation) ‘‘GIS For The National Trails System.’’ This builds upon work underway on 

the Ice Age, Appalachian, Florida, Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony 

Express Trails to develop consistent information gathering and mapping that can 

be applied across the National Trails System. This funding will be shared with the 

Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. 

We support the administration’s proposed $837,000 for the Connect Trails to 

Parks project to enhance the public’s understanding of the National Trails System 

and its relationship to the National Park System. 

The $14.546 million we request for Park Service operations includes increases for 

some of the trails to continue the progress and new initiatives made possible by the 

$975,000 funding increase provided for nine of the trails in fiscal year 2001, the 

$500,000 increases provided in fiscal year 2004, fiscal year 2005, and fiscal year 

2006, and the $2,421,000 increase in fiscal year 2008—all provided by Congress. 

We request an increase of $727,000 to continue and expand Park Service efforts 

to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200 sites along the Santa Fe Trail, to 

develop GIS mapping, and to fund public educational outreach programs of the 
433 

Santa Fe Trail Association. An increase of $826,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable the Park Service to work with the Trail of Tears Association to develop a GIS 

to map the Trail’s historical and cultural heritage sites to protect them and to develop interpretation of them for visitors. Our requested increase of $298,000 for the 

Ala Kahakai Trail will enable the Park Service to work with E Mau Na Ala Hele 

and other community organizations to care for resources on the land and with the 

University of Hawaii to conduct archaeological and cultural landscape studies along 

the trail. 

The $921,000 we request for the 4,200 mile North Country Trail will enable the 

Park Service and Forest Service to collaborate more effectively while also providing 

greater support for the regional GIS mapping, trail building, trail management, and 

training of volunteers led by the North Country Trail Association, hastening the day 

when our nation’s longest national scenic trail will be fully opened for use. 

The $898,000 we request includes an $110,000 increase to enable the Park Service 

to develop and begin to implement an Interpretive Plan for the Ice Age Trail. The 

other ongoing funding will help further development of the Trail GIS and continue 

to assist the Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation to better equip, train and support 

the volunteers who build and maintain the Trail and manage its resources. 

Feasibility and Planning Studies.—We request $250,000 to study the feasibility 

of an eastern extension of the Lewis & Clark Trail and $200,000 for a feasibility 

study of the location for a headquarters and visitor contact site for the Overmountain Victory Trail. We also request $611,000 for route planning, NEPA compliance 

work, a natural and cultural resource inventory, and community economic impact 

studies for the North Country Trail. 

Construction.—We request that you appropriate for construction and land stewardship projects $1.39 million for the Appalachian Trail, $250,000 for the Ice Age 

Trail, $100,000 for the Overmountain Victory Trail, $155,000 for the Continental Divide Trail, and $200,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail. 

Challenge Cost Share programs are one of the most effective and efficient ways 

for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of projects for public benefit while 

also sustaining partnerships involving countless private citizens in doing public 

service work. The Partnership requests that you appropriate $4.5 million in Challenge Cost Share funding to the Park Service for fiscal year 2009 as a wise investment of public money that will generate public benefits many times greater than 

its sum. We ask you to continue to direct one-third of the $4.5 million for the national scenic and historic trails to continue the steady progress toward making these 

trails fully available for public enjoyment. We suggest, as an alternative to the annual allocating of funds from the Regular Challenge Cost Share program, that you 

establish a separate National Trails System Challenge Cost Share program with 

$1.5 million funding. 

USDA—FOREST SERVICE

As you have done for several years, we ask that you provide additional operations 

funding to the Forest Service for administering three national scenic trails and one 

national historic trail, and managing parts of 16 other trails. We ask you to appropriate $4.49 million as a separate budgetary item specifically for the Continental Divide, Florida and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce National 

Historic Trail. Full-time managers have been assigned for each of these trails by the 

Forest Service. Recognizing the on-the-ground management responsibility the Forest 

Service has for 838 miles of the Appalachian Trail, more than 650 miles of the 

North Country Trail, and sections of the Ice Age, Anza, Caminos Real de Tierra 

Adentro and de Tejas, Lewis & Clark, California, Iditarod, Mormon Pioneer, Old 

Spanish, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Trail of Tears and Santa Fe 

Trails, we ask you to appropriate $1 million specifically for these trails. We also 

request$1 million for the Chugach National Forest to begin to develop the Southern 

Trek of the Iditarod National Historic Trail. 

Work is underway, supported by funds you provided over the past seven years, 

to close several major gaps in the Florida National Scenic Trail. The Florida Trail 

Association has built 100 miles of new Trail across Eglin Air Force Base, in the 

Ocala National Forest, Big Cypress National Preserve and along Lake Kissimmee 

and the Choctawahatchee River. FTA volunteers helped clear trees and other debris 

scattered across 850 miles of trail by four hurricanes in 2004. The Partnership requests an additional $1.35 million for trail construction in fiscal year 2009 to enable 

the Forest Service and FTA to build 21 more miles and to manage 3,418 acres of 

new Florida Trail land. 

The Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with Forest Service assistance and funding 

from the outdoor recreation industry, surveyed the entire 3,200 mile route of the 
434 

Continental Divide Trail documenting $10.3 million of construction needed to complete the Trail. To continue new CDT construction, begun with fiscal year 1998 

funding, we ask you to appropriate $2.505 million to build or reconstruct 220 more 

miles. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

While the Bureau of Land Management has administrative authority only for the 

Iditarod, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and the Old Spanish National Historic 

Trails, it has on-the-ground management responsibility for 641 miles of three scenic 

trails and 3,115 miles of seven historic trails administered by the National Park 

Service and U.S. Forest Service. The significance of these trails was recognized by 

their inclusion in the National Landscape Conservation System and, for the first 

time, in fiscal year 2002, by provision of specific funding for each of them. The Partnership applauds the decision of the Bureau of Land Management to include the 

national scenic and historic trails in the NLCS and to budget specific funding for 

each of them. We request that you provide funding for the Bureau to begin to implement its 10 Year ‘‘National Scenic & Historic Trails Strategy and Work Plan.’’ We ask that you increase funding by $18.2 million to provide$70 million as new 

permanent base funding for the National Landscape Conservation System and that 

you appropriate as new permanent base funding $250,000 for National Trails System Program Coordination, $648,000 for the Iditarod Trail, $230,000 for El Camino 

Real de Tierra Adentro Trail, $331,000 for the Old Spanish Trail, and$2,379,000 for 

management of the portions of the 10 other trails under the care of the Bureau of 

Land Management. We request $300,000 for construction of new sections of the Continental Divide Trail, $200,000 for maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail; 

$1,640,000 to operate five historic trails interpretive centers and $1,500,000 for exhibits for the new California Trail Center in Elko, Nevada. 

We ask you to add $500,000 to the Challenge Cost Share program and direct the 

money for the National Trails System as you have done for many years with the 

Park Service’s Challenge Cost Share program. 

To promote greater management transparency and accountability for the National 

Trails and the whole National Landscape Conservation System, we urge you to request expenditure and accomplishment reports for each of the NLCS Units for fiscal 

year 2008 and to direct the Bureau to include unit-level allocations by major subactivities for each of the scenic and historic trails, and wild and scenic rivers—as 

the Bureau is proposing to do for the monuments and conservation areas—within 

a new activity account for the National Landscape Conservation System in fiscal 

year 2009. Existing accounts for Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas 

should also be included in this new National Landscape Conservation System activity account. The Bureau’s lack of a unified budget account for National Trails prevents the agency from efficiently planning, implementing, reporting, and taking advantage of cost-saving and leveraging partnerships and volunteer contributions for 

every activity related to these national resources. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

The Partnership requests that you fully appropriate the $900 million annual authorized appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and that you 

make the specific appropriations for national scenic and historic trails detailed at 

the beginning of this statement, below, and in Attachment #2. 

Forest Service.—The $16.25 million we request for the Pacific Crest Trail will continue to support the work and acquisition underway by the Forest Service Lands 

Team and the Park Service National Trail Land Resources Program Center, protecting 12 miles of PCT in Washington and taking 34 miles off of roads in southern 

California. The $7 million requested for the Florida Trail will continue another successful collaboration between these two agencies to protect another 13 miles of Trail 

and the $10.645 million requested will protect sections of the Appalachian Trail in 

three national forests in two States. The $8.25 million requested for the Ottawa, Superior, and Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests will protect areas adjoining the 

North Country Trail in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. 

Bureau of Land Management.—The $5 million requested for the Sandy River 

project will also preserve a section of the Oregon National Historic Trail in Oregon 

and the $2 million requested for the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Montana will preserve a significant site along the Nez Perce National Historic Trail. 

Park Service.—The National Trails System Act encourages States to assist in the 

conservation of the resources and development of the national scenic and historic 

trails. Wisconsin has matched $12.3 million of fiscal year 2000 fiscal year 2006 and 
435 

fiscal year 2008 LWCF funding with $18 million to help conserve the resources of 

the Ice Age National Scenic Trail by purchasing 35 parcels totaling 6,539 acres. Another 40 parcels are under negotiation, appraisal or option to purchase. All of the 

LWCF funds appropriated for the Ice Age Trail have been spent. The requested 

$4.75 Million Land and Water Conservation Fund grant to Wisconsin will continue 

this very successful Federal/State/local partnership for protecting land for the Ice 

Age Trail. 

We also request $2 million to provide similar grants to the seven states along its 

route to close gaps in the North Country Trail and $4.275 million for the Park Service to acquire one parcel in New Hampshire and two in Virginia for the Appalachian 

Trail. The $1 million requested for the Overmountain Victory Trail will protect key 

links and sites in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. 

The essential funding requests to support the trails are detailed in Attachment 

#2. 

PRIVATE SECTOR SUPPORT FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public agencies have 

been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the Trails System and the trail communities 

that sustain it by combining the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide a way 

to enlist private financial support for public projects, usually resulting in a greater 

than equal match of funds. 

The private trail organizations’ commitment to the success of these trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress’ support for the trails has grown. In 

2007 the trail organizations fostered 720,935 hours—an increase of 5 percent over 

2006—of documented volunteer labor valued at $13,540,396 to help sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also raised private sector contributions of $8,064,293 to benefit the trails. These contributions are documented in 

Attachment #1. 

ATTACHMENT 1.—CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2007 TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM BY 

NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS 

Organization Volunteer 

hours 

Estimated 

value of 

volunteer labor 

Financial 

contributions 

Appalachian Trail Conference .................................................. 196,620 $3,690,557 $3,856,000 

Camino Real Trail Association ................................................ 1,717 32,228 3,104 

Continental Divide Trail Society .............................................. 1 1,500 28,155 3,000 

Continental Divide Trail Alliance ............................................. 37,490 703,687 641,877 

Florida Trail Association .......................................................... 69,900 1,312,023 374,296 

Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation ............................................. 48,188 904,489 382,842 

Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc. ........................................ 1,900 35,663 1 80,000 

Amigos De Anza & others ........................................................ 6,789 127,430 ..............................

Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona ................................................ 3,232 60,665 ..............................

Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation ................................ 24,038 451,193 227,404 

Mormon Trails Association ....................................................... 3,164 67,835 7,318 

Iowa Mormon Trails Association .............................................. 750 14,078 1 1,820 

Nebraska Mormon Trails Association ...................................... 125 2,346 1 2,580 

National Pony Express Association .......................................... 34,275 643,342 146,180 

Nez Perce Trail Foundation ...................................................... 8,250 154,852 12,256 

North Country Trail Association ............................................... 44,000 825,880 273,000 

Old Spanish Trail Association ................................................. 23,718 445,187 110,024 

Oregon-California Trails Association ....................................... 56,400 1,058,628 729,500 

Overmountain Victory Trail Association ................................... 8,960 168,179 19,324 

Pacific Crest Trail Association ................................................ 62,515 1,173,406 867,000 

Potomac Heritage Trail Association ......................................... 3,686 69,186 820 

Santa Fe Trail Association ....................................................... 47,115 884,349 277,626 

Trail of Tears Association ........................................................ 36,603 687,038 48,322 

TOTALS ........................................................................ 720,935 13,540,396 8,064,293 

1 Estimate. 
436 

ATTACHMENT 2.—PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2009 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM 

Agency/Trail 

Fiscal year 

Project/programs possible with increased funding 2008 

Congressional 

appropriation 

2009 

Administration 

request 

2009 

Partners 

request 

PARK SERVICE 

Ala Kahakai ........................................................................ $420,000 $422,000 $720,000 Work with community partners to preserve resources; archaeological & cultural studies; Appalachian ........................................................................ 1,327,000 1,481,000 1,719,000 Support ‘‘A Trail to Every Classroom’’ project with teachers and children, resource monitoring 

through AT Mega-Transect project, & Comprehensive Facility Management; 

Natchez Trace ..................................................................... 29,000 29,000 29,000 Planning & building new trail & bridges; backlog maintenance with SCA; El Camino Real Tejas ......................................................... 176,000 176,000 176,000 Start up administration for new national historic trail; El Camino Real Tierra ........................................................ 271,000 271,000 271,000 Full-time administrator; implement CMP with Bureau of Land Management California ............................................................................ 323,000 323,000 323,000 Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guides for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada; Captain John Smith ............................................................ 349,000 351,000 351,000 Begin administration & Comprehensive Management Plan for new national historic trail; Ice Age ................................................................................ 788,000 796,000 898,000 Develop and begin to implement a Trail-wide Interpretive Plan; Juan Bautista de Anza ....................................................... 505,000 510,000 510,000 Trail site protection, interpretation & development projects; Outreach to schools; Lewis & Clark ..................................................................... 2,026,000 2,036,000 2,036,000 Planning, coordination & support for local L&CNHT projects after the Bicentennial; Mormon Pioneer .................................................................. 205,000 205,000 205,000 Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guide for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada; North Country ...................................................................... 873,000 869,000 921,000 Provide regional services, GIS, and technical assistance for volunteers and partners; Old Spanish ........................................................................ 227,000 227,000 227,000 Full-time administrator; continue preparing CMP with Bureau of Land Management; Oregon ................................................................................. 378,000 387,000 387,000 Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guides for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada; Overmountain Victory .......................................................... 273,000 275,000 275,000 New route signs & interpretive exhibits; Historic Preservation Study of Gilbertown; Pony Express ....................................................................... 229,000 229,000 229,000 Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guides for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada; Potomac Heritage ............................................................... 278,000 397,000 397,000 Assistance to local agencies & organizations for planning & educational projects; Santa Fe ............................................................................. 935,000 974,000 1,701,000 Preserve cultural resources; GIS mapping; produce interpretive media with SFTA; Selma to Montgomery ......................................................... 584,000 699,000 699,000 Trail interpretation in collaboration with citizen support organizations & local agencies; Trail of Tears ...................................................................... 424,000 424,000 1,250,000 Develop GIS mapping, interpret Trail sites & provide new visitor facilities with TOTA; National Trails to Parks ..................................................... 837,000 837,000 837,000 Projects to connect National Scenic or Historic Trails to National Parks. NTS-Washington Office ....................................................... 366,000 371,000 385,000 Program coordination and funding for special projects and training for staff & partners. 

National Trails System .......................................... 11,823,000 12,289,000 14,546,000 Total National Trails System operations funding 

Challenge Cost Share ......................................................... 2,343,000 2,380,000 4,500,000 One-third of $4.5 million for the National Trails System Feasibility Studies, Plans & Projects ................................. ........................ ........................ 1,061,000 Feasibility Studies: Lewis & Clark NHT—$250,000; Overmountain Victory NHT—$200,000; Route 

Planning, NEPA, Studies: North Country NST—$611,000 

Trail Construction ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,095,000 Appalachian NST—$1.39 million; Ice Age NST—$250,000; Overmountain Victory NHT—$100,000; 

Continental Divide NST—$155,000; Pacific Crest NST—$200,000; 

Interagency GIS Project ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 2 1,253,000 Development of GIS for National Trails System; 
437 

BLM 

Iditarod Trail ....................................................................... 599,000 248,000 648,000 Collaborative management with other Federal agencies, Iditarod Trail organizations and State of 

Alaska; bridges and cabins; Interpretive Plan; Iditarod Centennial activities; 

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro ..................................... 15,000 15,000 230,000 Collaborative administration and management with National Park Service; Full-time Trail Administrator; Site certification and protection; Old Spanish ........................................................................ 331,000 325,000 331,000 Full-time Trail Administrator; Collaborative administration and management with National Park 

Service; Comprehensive Management Plan; Site interpretation; 

Continental Divide .............................................................. 383,000 280,000 450,000 Planning 71 miles of CDNST in Idaho, Montana and New Mexico; Full-time Liaison; Pacific Crest ....................................................................... 189,000 65,000 100,000 PCNST maintenance in California and Oregon; Interagency management collaboration; Juan Bautista de Anza ....................................................... 116,000 76,000 100,000 Interpretive exhibits for Anza Trail in Arizona and California; California ............................................................................ 179,000 126,000 179,000 California NHT resource inventories in Utah, Nevada and California; Lewis & Clark ..................................................................... 620,000 647,000 750,000 Revise Comprehensive Management Plan; Coordinate with Nez Perce NHT & CDNST; Mormon Pioneer .................................................................. 307,000 227,000 250,000 Mormon Pioneer NHT resource inventories in Utah and Wyoming; Nez Perce ............................................................................ 179,000 76,000 190,000 Revise Comprehensive Management Plan; Develop Interpretive Plan for Trail; Oregon ................................................................................. 40,000 24,000 210,000 Interagency management collaboration and Oregon NHT resource inventories; Pony Express ....................................................................... 115,000 105,000 147,000 Marking Pony Express Trail in Utah and Nevada; Potomac Heritage ............................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 NTS—Coordinator ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 250,000 Program coordination and funding for special projects and training for staff & partners; 

National Trails System .......................................... 3,076,000 2,216,000 3,838,000 Total National Trails System operations funding 

Challenge Cost Share ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 500,000 Projects along the various national scenic and historic trails; Interpretive Centers ............................................................ 2,628,000 1,240,000 3,140,000 Operating California, Casper, Oregon, and Sacajawea Interpretive Centers; Includes $1.5 million 

for exhibits for California NHT Center in Elko, Nevada; 

Construction of: 

Pacific Crest Trail ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 200,000 Funding for maintenance and re-construction of Pacific Crest NST in California; Continental Divide Trail ............................................. ........................ ........................ 300,000 Funding for construction and re-construction of 71 miles of Continental Divide NST in Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico; 

FOREST SERVICE 

Continental Divide ..............................................................Florida .................................................................................Pacific Crest .......................................................................Nez Perce Trails ..................................................................

2,000,000 1,500,000 

2,000,000 

640,000 

1,200,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 

300,000 

1,200,000 

650,000 

2,000,000 

640,000 

Continued support for full administrative responsibility and for consistent interagency collaboration for each trail; support for consistent management with trail organization and local agency 

partners; trail brochures, signs, project planning etc.; Also $250,000 to administer new miles of CDT; $200,000 for work of full-time Trail administrator and $100,000 for Optimal Location Planning for PCT and $100,000 to increase Trail maintenance by volunteers coordinated by PCTA; $650,000 to certify 150 miles of the Florida Trail and continue collaboration with Florida Trail Association to inventory 430 miles and further develop Trail GIS; $92,000 for Nez Perce Trail Foundation education and public outreach work and other projects; 
438 

ATTACHMENT 2.—PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2009 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM—Continued 

Agency/Trail 

Fiscal year 

Project/programs possible with increased funding 2008 

Congressional 

appropriation 

2009 

Administration 

request 

2009 

Partners 

request 

Total ...................................................................... 3 6,140,000 3 3,700,000 3 4,490,000 

Appalachian, North Country, Ice Age, Iditarod, California, 

Juan Bautista de Anza, Caminos Real Tierra Adentro & Tejas, Lewis & Clark, Oregon, Old Spanish, Mormon Pioneer, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Santa Fe, Trail of Tears.

1,015,000 300,000 1,000,000 Improved trail maintenance, marking, interpretation, archaeological studies, historic site protection and trailhead facilities for trail segments in National Forests; $200,000 to address deferred maintenance, remove blowdown trees on 30 miles of trail, make improvements and provide liaison for collaborative management of the North Country Trail with National Park Service; 

Re-location and reconstruction of sections of the Appalachian Trail, replacement of major bridges and installation of toilets at shelters; 

Construction of: New trail construction and re-construction throughout these national trails. 

Continental Divide Trail ............................................. ........................ ........................ 2,505,000 Trail construction projects along the Continental Divide Trail: reconstructing or building 220 miles 

of trail in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico; 

Florida Trail ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,350,000 Trail construction projects totaling 21 miles of new trail, three bridges and boardwalks, two 

trailheads and management of 3,418 acres in 33 tracts acquired by the Forest Service for the Florida National Scenic Trail; 

Iditarod Trail .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,000,000 Construction of the Southern Trek of the Iditarod NHT in the Chugach National Forest; 

National Trails System .......................................... 7,155,000 4,000,000 10,345,000 Total: National Trails System funding. 

Nat. Forest System Capital Improvement & Maintenance—Trails. 76,365,000 50,041,000 85,000,000 Trail maintenance and new trail construction throughout the National Forest System. LWCF grant—FS Pacific Crest ........................................... 1,600,000 ........................ 16,250,000 Forest Service acquisition of lands in southern California (Tejon Ranch & Agua Dulce), Oregon, 

and Washington to preserve the scenic integrity of the Pacific Crest Trail. 

LWCF grant—FS Florida ..................................................... 580,000 ........................ 7,000,000 Forest Service acquisition of lands in the Northwest Florida Greenway near Eglin Air Force Base, 

along Suwannee River, and adjacent to St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge. 

LWCF grant—FS Appalachian ............................................ 3,100,000 ........................ 10,645,000 Forest Service acquisition of 10,020 acres in the Cherokee NF in Tennessee, 442 acres of Roan 

Highlands in the Pisgah NF in North Carolina, and 75 acres at Wesser Bald in North Carolina. 

LWCF grant—NPS Appalachian ......................................... ........................ ........................ 4,275,000 Park Service acquisition of 4,772 acres at Mahoosucs Gateway in New Hampshire, 485 acres at 

New River Crossing and the 170 acre Nelson Tract in Virginia. 

LWCF grant—FS North Country ......................................... 1,000,000 ........................ 8,250,000 Forest Service acquisition of 2,000 acres in the Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness Area in the Ottawa NF in Michigan; 90 acres at Chainsaw Sisters/Wolf Island in the Superior NF in Minnesota; and 1,429 acres in the Chequamegon-Nicolet NF in Bayfield County, Wisconsin will protect viewsheds along the North Country Trail. 
439 

LWCF grant—NPS North Country—States ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,000,000 Assistance provided to the States of Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, 

Ohio, and Pennsylvania to protect threatened North Country Trail corridor and connect trail segments across private land. 

LWCF grant—NPS Ice Age—Wisconsin 4 ........................... 1,378,000 ........................ 4,750,000 Assistance provided to State of Wisconsin to protect threatened Ice Age Trail corridor and connect 

trail segments across private land in Dane, Chippewa, Kewaunee, Langlade, Lincoln, Manitowoc, Marathon, Polk, Portage, Sheboygan, Taylor, Washington, Waupaca and Waushara Counties. 

LWCF grant—BLM Oregon ................................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000,000 BLM acquisition of land along the Sandy River and Oregon Trail in Oregon. LWCF grant—NPS Overmountain Victory ........................... ........................ ........................ 1,000,000 Park Service acquisition of land to protect key links in the Overmountain Victory Trail near North 

Cove in North Carolina and other sites in Tennessee and Virginia. 

LWCF grant—BLM Nez Perce ............................................. ........................ ........................ 2,000,000 BLM acquisition of land at Cow Island (a major site along the Nez Perce Trail) in the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument in Montana. 

Total ...................................................................... 7,658,000 ........................ 61,170,000 

1 Includes $261,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail. 2 Funding request reflects budget detailed in Park Service GIS report delivered to Congress in January 2002. 3 Appropriation includes: funding for administration of the Continental Divide, Florida, and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail by full-time administrators for each trail and land acquisition teams 

for the Florida and Pacific Crest Trails. 

4 This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1. 
440 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PELICAN ISLAND PRESERVATION SOCIETY

REQUEST

(1) Increase operations and maintenance funding for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System to $514 million in fiscal year 2009 

(2) Provide $2 million of LWCF funding for land acquisition at the Pelican Island 

National Wildlife Refuge in fiscal year 2009 The Pelican Island Preservation Society, an all volunteer friends group with over 350 members, mission is to support 

the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. Our organization is greatly concerned 

about the major funding deficit for operations and maintenance (O&M) facing the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), and the severe impact this is having on 

the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge and other refuges in the System. Our 

request is that O&M funding for the NWRS be increased to $514 million in fiscal 

year 2009, an increase of $80 million over the fiscal year 2008 funding level. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service reacted to the current funding crisis by developing 

workforce management plans last year. That process identified a total of 565 positions within the Refuge System which would either be left vacant or eliminated by 

2009. Staff reductions of this magnitude are of special concern since most refuges 

were already understaffed when the process began. As an example of local impacts, 

the comprehensive conservation plan for the Pelican Island Refuge calls for a staff 

of nine permanent full time employees. As part of the build up to the 2003 centennial celebration of the establishment of the NWRS, and the Pelican Island Refuge, 

the staff was increased to six. Since then two positions have been lost. The workforce plan calls for the elimination of two more positions by 2009. In total, this represents a loss of 66 percent of the staff positions since 2003, and will leave only two 

employees to manage two urban refuges (the Pelican Island staff also manages the 

Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge). Also, as part of the workforce plan, these refuges have been complexed under the Merritt Island Refuge which is located 50 

miles to the north—not an effective management arrangement. No one on the Pelican Island Refuge staff has law enforcement authority. 

These kinds of personnel losses, plus the general lack of O&M funding, has resulted in major impacts on the protection and management of our magnificent wildlife refuges. Refuges cannot absorb personnel reductions of the magnitude being experienced and be expected to meet their wildlife objectives and their obligations to 

the American public. For example, public use programs will be reduced on many refuges, and eliminated on others. Environmental education programs for our children 

will be reduced. Habitat management needed to improve conditions for wildlife will 

be severely diminished. Surveys needed to monitor wildlife populations will be reduced. The control of invasive species will be cut back, resulting in the degradation 

of wildlife habitat. The ability to enforce regulations concerning trespass, dumping, 

boundary encroachment, etc., will be diminished. 

We are concerned regarding the inequitable distribution of resource management 

dollars among the four major Federal land management agencies. On a per acre 

basis, funding to manage national wildlife refuges is significantly lower than that 

allocated to manage national forests, national parks, and BLM lands. For example, 

The NWRS receives slightly over $4 per acre while the National Parks are allocated 

about five times that amount. We are not suggesting that the funding level should 

be the same, as the missions vary; however, the current disparity is totally unreasonable and the Congress should restore some equity as it contemplates future allocations. 

Invasive species are a major continuing problem facing refuge managers. Despite 

added emphasis on identification and control, valuable wildlife habitat continues to 

be lost. We urge the subcommittee to continue its strong support for the control of 

invasives. There is a critical need for land acquisition at the Pelican Island National 

Wildlife Refuge. In the late 1990’s the integrity of the refuge was threatened by the 

proposed development of approximately 300 acres of private lands which were surrounded by refuge and other public lands. In response to the emergency, the Congress, beginning in fiscal year 1999, appropriated sufficient funds to acquire most 

of the acreage. Unfortunately, one key tract of 47 acres was purchased by a developer and could not be acquired at that time. Fortunately, the tract has not been 

developed and is now available. In its comprehensive conservation plan, the refuge 

ranked the property as its highest priority for land acquisition. Containing 1,500 

feet of natural mangrove shoreline along the Indian River Lagoon, the tract will 

serve as an important wildlife corridor to other refuge and public lands. The property has a high potential for habitat restoration based on work on similar properties. A contribution of Federal and nonfederal sources will be used to protect the 

47 acres in its entirety. A $2 million appropriation from the Land and Water Con-
441 

servation Fund in fiscal year 2009 will begin the acquisition of this important property. 

In summary, the NWRS is facing a severe funding crisis which must be addressed 

quickly. We ask that the Subcommittee increase O&M funding for the NWRS to 

$514 million in fiscal year 2009. Further, we ask that the subcommittee support the 

goal of reaching an O&M funding level of $765 million by fiscal year 2013. Also, 

we ask that the subcommittee allocate $2 million from the LWCF in fiscal year 2009 

to begin acquisition of a key parcel adjacent to the Pelican Island National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PENOBSCOT RIVER RESTORATION TRUST

The Penobscot River Restoration Trust, a not-for-profit organization whose members include the Penobscot Indian Nation and six conservation organizations, respectfully seeks your support for the request from Senator Snowe (ME) and Senator 

Collins (ME) for $1,000,000 from the USFWS Recovery Resource Management Account and $1,000,000 from the National Fish Passage Program. As part of this request, we urge you to restore the Fish Passage Program to its fiscal year 2008 level 

of $11 million and reject the administration’s attempt to cut $6 million from this 

successful program for fiscal year 2009. 

The Penobscot River Restoration Project is a nationally significant, large-scale, 

private-public collaboration to vastly improve migratory access to nearly 1,000 miles 

of historic habitat for sea-run fish. Working together, industry, the Penobscot Indian 

Nation, State and Federal Government, conservation groups and a diversity of public and private interests seek to restore the Nation’s last, struggling runs of Atlantic 

salmon and 10 other species of sea-run fish to the Penobscot River. The project is 

designed to both maintain hydropower generation and restore native sea run fisheries, with benefits to fish, people and wildlife throughout the river ecosystem to the 

sea. 

To date, more than $10 million in private funds and $15 million in public funds 

(NOAA, USFWS) have been raised for dam purchase. The Penobscot Trust aims to 

exercise its option to purchase the dams as soon as possible, then implement the 

project by removing two dams and installing a fish bypass around a third as key 

steps to open up access to key fisheries habitat. 

A 2004 National Academy of Sciences report specifically mentioned the Penobscot 

Project as a key step towards restoring endangered Atlantic salmon. The project also 

promises to diversify and improve river-based recreation and related economic opportunities, and has received strong support from the public, communities and businesses within the Penobscot watershed. This project provides the USFWS and other 

Federal partners, with an effective plan to restore Atlantic salmon by opening up 

vast amounts of their blocked spawning habitat in the Penobscot. 

The project will also provide unique benefits to the Penobscot Indian Nation; a 

federally recognized sovereign tribe whose Reservation literally consists of islands 

and surrounding waters in the river. The project will render meaningful the Tribe’s 

federally recognized sustenance fishery rights and reinvigorate river-dependent cultural and spiritual practices. 

The Penobscot River Restoration Project was recently awarded the Department of 

Interior’s 2008 Cooperative Conservation Award and has been hailed as a landmark 

project of national significance. Given its potential use as a national model and its 

far reaching benefits, we urge the committee to continue its strong support for the 

project by funding it in fiscal year 2009. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Dillon, Sr., Puyallup Tribal Chairman. We 

thank the committee for past support of many tribal issues and in your interest 

today. We share our concerns and request assistance in reaching objectives of significance to the Congress, the Tribe, and to 25,000∂ Indians (constituents) in our 

Urban Service Area. 

U.S. Department of Interior—Bureau of Indian Affairs.—The Puyallup Tribe has 

analyzed the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget and submits the following detailed 

written testimony to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment 

and Related Agencies. We look forward to working with Congress to insure that 

funding levels for programs necessary for the Puyallup Tribe to carry-out our sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for the benefit of the 

3,705 Puyallup tribal members and the members from approximately 355 federally 
442 

recognized Tribes who utilize our services are included in the fiscal year 2009 budget. 

Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement.—The Puyallup Reservation is located in the 

urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of Washington. The 18,061 acre reservation and related urban service area contains 25,000∂ Native Americans from over 

355 Tribes and Alaskan Villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division 

currently has a Chief of Police, 26 commissioned officers and two reserve officers 

to cover 40 square miles of reservation in addition to the usual and accustomed 

areas. Due to limited federal funding for law enforcement in Indian Country, only 

two officers are funded with Public Law 93–638 funds. The officers are charged with 

the service and protection of the Puyallup Reservation seven days a week, 24 hours 

a day. With the continuing increase in population, increase in gang related activities 

on the Puyallup Reservation and the impact of the manufacturing of 

methamphetamines in the region, the services of the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division are exceeding maximum levels. 

A major area of concern is the status of the Tribe’s Detention Facility. Due to 

damages from the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake, we have had to relocate to 

modular/temporary facilities. Operated as a ‘‘regional detention facility’’ the Puyallup Tribe was able to provide detention service to surrounding Tribes. Since the 

relocation to modular facilities the Tribe’s ability to effectively and safely incarcerate detainees has been compromised due to the condition of the temporary detention facilities. These and other issues regarding the deplorable conditions existing 

in Indian Detention facilities are documented in the September 2004 report issued 

by the U.S. Department of Interior Inspector General’s Office. In an effort to protect 

the safety and welfare of the native community the Puyallup Tribe has initiated the 

design and construction of a 28,000 square foot ‘‘Justice Center’’ to be located on 

the Puyallup Indian Reservation. The Justice Center will provide necessary facilities 

for the delivery of judiciary services including a Tribal Court, Court Clerk, Prosecution, Probation, Public Defender and Law Enforcement services including Police 

Headquarters and a 7,000 square foot, 28 cell ‘‘Adult Detention facility’’. As stated 

earlier, the current facility is inadequate in size/number of beds, was designed as 

a temporary facility and was not built to any Federal/State or tribal health or construction standards. The pre-planning phase for this project has been completed, an 

architectural firm has been hired to perform design services and it is anticipated 

that the Puyallup Justice Center will be completed in October 2009. 

—Request subcommittee support to fund the BIA Public Safety and Justice Law Enforcement activities at the $229 million level proposed in the fiscal year 2009 

budget to operate law enforcement services. While this amount only funds 60 

percent of law enforcement needs in Indian Country, the Subcommittee is encouraged to issue directive language to the BIA to include additional funding 

for law enforcement staffing in the fiscal year 2010 budget; 

—Support from the subcommittee on the Tribes request to the subcommittee on 

Commerce, Justice and Science for funding in the amount of $5.25 million to 

construct the ‘‘detention’’ portion of the Justice Center. The Tribe has committed $9.75 million in tribal revenue to construct the remainder of the facility; 

—Support from the subcommittee to restore proposed funding cuts to the Tribal 

Courts budget in the amount of $2.4 million for a total fiscal year 2009 budget 

of $14,447,000 and at a minimum, request that the Subcommittee issue directive language to the BIA to include this amount as line item funding for the 

Tribal Courts in the fiscal year 2010 budget. 

Fisheries & Natural Resources Management.—The Puyallup Tribe as steward for 

land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish and shellfish areas has 

treaty and Governmental obligations and responsibilities to manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the regional community. Despite our diligent program 

efforts, the fisheries resource is degrading and economic losses are incurred by Indian and Non-Indian fisherman, and surrounding communities. Our Resource Management responsibilities cover thousands of square miles in the Puget Sound region 

of the State of Washington with an obligation to manage production of anadromous, 

non-anadromous fish and shellfish resources. Existing levels of support are inadequate to reverse the trend of resource/habitat degradation. Resource management 

is constrained due to funding shortfalls. We seek support and endorsement in the 

following areas: 

—Tribal Fisheries Resource Management, Hatchery Operation and Maintenance 

funding via Public Law 93–638 contracts have not increased substantially since 

establishment of base budgets in 1984. The demand on Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Program has grown exponential since the eighties and is currently faced 

by Endangered Species Act listings on numerous species. This demand is increased due to the urbanized setting of the Tribe’s Usual and Accustomed treaty 
443 

areas in the Pacific Northwest Tribe. We request Committee support to increase 

base contract funding in the amount of $350,000 for additional fisheries staff. 

We further support the existing BIA hatchery maintenance budget be increased 

to $1.5 million per year for the next decade to meet basic infrastructure maintenance costs for tribal hatcheries; 

—Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program.—U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty. The TFW and the U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty programs has allowed 

for the expansion of tribal participation in the state forest practice rules and 

regulations and participate in inter-tribal organizations to address specific treaties and/or legal cases which relate to fishing rights, harvest and management. 

Tribes bring a high level of skills and technical capabilities that if appropriately 

funded, would greatly facilitate and enhance a successful outcome in forest 

practices, regulations and greater fisheries protection. However, base funding 

for these programs are eliminated in the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget. We 

request Committee support to restore base funding of $1,713,000 for TFW and 

$1,772,000 for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty fiscal year 2009 budget. We 

further support the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission’s request that the 

Subcommittee issue directive language to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to include this amount in their fiscal year 2010 budget; 

—Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights Program.—The Medicine Creek Treaty 

secured the Puyallup Tribe and other tribes the right to hunt on open and unclaimed lands. This treaty right is reserved in the same paragraph that also reserved the right to fish and gather shellfish. Unfortunately, the BIA program 

that is designed to support this treaty activity has not received adequate, if any, 

appropriations in the last several years. Funds that were made available to 

tribes have been on a competitive basis with a maximum amount per program 

due to limited funding. The Puyallup Tribe has established a Hunting-Wildlife 

Management program that works cooperatively with signatory Tribes to the 

Medicine Creek Treaty, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. For further development and participation in unresolved hunting issues, the Puyallup Tribe is requesting Committee support to establish annual base funding of $95,000 for the HuntingWildlife Management Program. 

Operation of Indian Programs & Contract Support Costs.—The President’s fiscal 

year 2009 budget calls for $2.2 billion to be allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is $100 million less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Specifically 

for the Operation of Indian Programs, the Budget provides $1.98 billion, which is 

an overall decrease of $60 million from current levels. For the fiscal year 2009 budget, the Department of Interior reformulated its presentation of the Operation of Indian Programs funding. Previous formulations were based on Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA). The Interior’s new format groups program funding according to functions which are; Tribal Government; Human Services; Trust-Natural Resources 

Management; Trust-Real Estate Services; Education; Public Safety and Justice; 

Community and Economic Development; and Executive Direction and Administrative Services. These budget functions include the majority of funding used to support on-going services at the ‘‘local tribal’’ level, including; law enforcement, natural 

resources management (fisheries), child welfare, housing, tribal courts and other 

tribal governmental services. These functions, as detailed in previous ‘‘TPA’’ allocations have not received adequate funding to allow tribes the resources to fully exercise self-determination and self-governance. Further, the small increases ‘‘TPA’’ has 

received over the past few years has not been adequate to keep pace with inflation. 

At a minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the following; 

—Support by Congress to fund the Operation of Indian Programs fiscal year 2009 

request, at a minimum, at the enacted level in fiscal year 2008 of $2,047,809, 

an increase of $59,519,000 over the fiscal year 2009 President’s request; 

—Support by Congress to restore funding for the Johnson O’Malley Program in 

the amount of $16 million. 

Another concern the Puyallup Tribe has with the fiscal year 2009 budget request 

is the on-going issue of contract support costs. The President’s fiscal year 2009 

budget request for contract support is for $147,294,000 which is the same as the 

enacted level in fiscal year 2008. At a minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the following; 

—The Puyallup Tribe requests support by Congress to fund BIA Contract Support 

Costs for fiscal year 2009 at $186,628,000, a $39,334,000 increase over the 

President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request. Full funding of Contract Support 

is a mandate towards the full realization of Self-determination and Self-governance. 
444 

DHHS Indian Health Service.—Funding for the Indian Health Service fails to 

meet the needs of health services for Native Americans. The Puyallup Tribe has 

been operating their health care programs since 1976 through the Indian Self-determination Act, Public Law 93–638. The Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) operates a comprehensive ambulatory care program to an expanding population in Tacoma and Pierce County, Washington. There are no IHS hospitals in the Portland 

Area so all specialties and hospital care have been paid for out of our contract care 

allocation. In recent years our Health Authority has had the highest patient visits 

in both medical and dental services in the Portland Area of Washington, Oregon and 

Idaho. It is operating at twice the capacity it was designed and staffed for. The Puyallup Tribe is now faced with having to subsidize the Puyallup Tribal Heath Authority when it’s own tribal members constitute only 14 percent of the patient population. Because of the excessive demand for service we have added staff without the 

IHS funding to match the workload. An additional $5,317,945 million is needed to 

operate at this rate. The IHS Budget request is for $4.3 billion, an overall decrease 

of $21 million from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Budget analysis by the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board indicate that it will take an increase of 

$455 million to maintain current facilities and services in fiscal year 2009. We request congressional support for the fiscal year 2009 IHS budget in the following 

areas; 

—Fund IHS Contract Support Costs at 100 percent. While the President’s budget 

includes an increase of $4.238 million for Contract Support Costs funding, this 

will not fund tribe’s actual contract support costs. It is estimated that Contract 

Support Costs shortfall has accumulated over the years in the amount of $158.3 

million. Support from the subcommittee is requested to eliminate the Contract 

Support Costs shortfall in the amount of $158.3 million and fund IHS Contract 

Support Costs at $280.8 million; 

—We oppose the proposed elimination of the Urban Indian Health Program, 

which was funded at $34.547 million in fiscal year 2008. We urge the subcommittee to restore funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget for the Urban Indian Health Program, at a minimum $34.547 million, and issue directive language to the Indian Health Service to include this amount in their fiscal year 

2010 budget; 

—Fund the Puyallup Tribal Health Authority contract health care fund an additional $5,317,945 to match documented expenditures paid with Puyallup Tribal 

resources; 

—Index Contract Care to population growth and the medical inflation rate. Contract care is most vulnerable to inflation since services are provided by vendors 

constrained by IHS guidelines. There are no IHS hospitals in the Pacific Northwest which makes our clinic dependent on Contract Care for necessary specialty 

referrals and hospital care. Contract Health Services should be funded at $605.7 

million for fiscal year 2009; 

—We oppose the elimination of the Diabetes Grant program and request the Subcommittee to restore funding for this important and effective program in the fiscal year 2009 budget in the amount of $150 million; 

—The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Public Law 94–437) provides funding for the Indian Health Services and has been pending re-authorization since 

fiscal year 2000. Recently, the U.S. Senate passed their version of the IHCIA 

and the U.S. House has pledged to pass a companion bill this session. The Puyallup Tribe of Indians supports all efforts by Congress and the administration 

to pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act during the 110th session of 

Congress. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION

As the President of the Quinault Indian Nation, I am submitting the priorities 

and funding requests for the 2009 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services Budgets as identified by my Tribal membership. 

SUMMARY OF QUINAULT INDIAN NATION TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS

—$2.21 Million McBride Road Maintenance and Emergency Reservation Exit 

Route BIA/Roads Maintenance Program 

—$762,000 for Blueback Restoration—BIA/Natural Resource Management/Rights 

Protection 

—$529,500 Methamphetamine Initiative/Prescription Drugs—BIA/Office of Indian 

Services and IHS/Office of Behavioral Health 
445 

REGIONAL AND NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 

BIA Requests: 

1. Restore Johnson O’Malley funds ($21.4 million); and Housing Improvement Funds ($13.6 million) to Tribal base programs, 2. Provide $25 million General Increase to BIA Tribal Priority Allocation for inflationary and fixed costs, 3. Provide $45 million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost (CSC), including 

Direct CSC, 

4. $500,000 for BIA Data Management funding of Office of Program Data Quality, 

and 

5. Support increases in the Office of Self-Governance for IT and Staffing. 

IHS Requests: 

6. Provide $486 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth increase to maintain existing health care services (President’s budget proposes a cut 

of $21.3 million), 

7. $152 million increase for Contract Health Services (CHS), 

8. $160 million increase for IHS for 100 percent Contract Support Costs (CSC), 

including Direct CSC, 

9. Restore $21 million for health care facilities construction, and 

10. Maintain annual funding for Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) at 

$150 million until new authority is enacted (Current extended authority for Special 

Diabetes Program for Indians will expire in 2009.) 

THE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION (QIN)

Located on the southwestern corner of the Olympic Peninsula, the Quinault Reservation is a land of magnificent forests, swift flowing rivers, gleaming lakes and 

23 miles of unspoiled Pacific coastline. Our boundaries enclose over 208,150 acres 

of some of the most productive conifer forest lands in the United States. We were 

once sustained by the abundance of salmon runs, the land and trade with neighboring Tribes. The pride of our Nation is our people, our youth and our elders. We 

are the ‘‘Canoe People’’, the people of the cedar tree. The Quinault Indian Nation 

consists of the Quinault and Queets Tribes and descendants of five other coastal 

Tribes: Quileute, Hoh, Chehalis, Chinook and Cowlitz. There are 2,782 enrolled 

members of the Quinault Indian Nation and 1,929 living with the service area. 

Nearly 700 people, both Indian and non-Indian, are employed by the Nation and its 

enterprises. 

TRIBAL SPECIAL REQUESTS JUSTIFICATION

$2.21 Million McBride Road Maintenance and Emergency Reservation Exit Route 

BIA/Roads Maintenance Program 

The Quinault Reservation is located in Grays Harbor County in the village of 

Taholah, Washington; a rural isolated and economically deprived area. The village 

of Taholah lies in a tsunami danger zone. The site of the village is barely above 

sea level and experts have determined that the sea level is rising because of global 

warming patterns. For Taholah, tsunami is a health and safety risk factor that we 

must live with everyday. The Quinault Reservation is interlaced with thousands of 

miles of roads that are left over from large logging contracts that ended in about 

1980. Most of these roads do not have the required right-of-way and do not receive 

funding for maintenance. 

The village of Taholah is accessible via SR 109 that parallels the Pacific Ocean. 

The McBride Road, a single forest road, is the only escapement route available to 

the 1,000 community members of the Quinault Indian Nation living in the village 

of Taholah. Its state of disrepair necessitates that immediate action be taken to 

bring the road up to a Class B gravel road status to be used in cases of emergency. 

The cost for this project is $876,500 to repair 10.75 miles and could be accomplished 

within a 3-month time frame during dry weather conditions. The Project will create 

four new jobs in right-of-way acquisition and road engineering. And will impact 

about 400 jobs of timber workers, fishermen, and fishing guides that rely on these 

roads for their livelihood. 

Major portions of this route are at sea level. What is particularly important to 

understand is that the portions of this road above sea level are susceptible to 

mudslides. Two such mudslides have occurred in the past 2 years; the most recent 

occurrence was early December 2007. The road blocked access for 3 days. Medical 

needs for village people became an issue, while those in need of kidney dialysis were 

particularly affected. Some tribal members were able to evacuate the village by 

using another, longer alternate route. Still, this application is unsafe for use by the 
446 

general public because the forest roads are not patrolled, well maintained, have limited signage and cell reception. 

The President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 has a huge reduction in the 

BIA Roads Maintenance Program indicating that Roads Maintenance is within the 

Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) provisions of the SAFETEA–LU. The funding for 

roads maintenance of the BIA Roads System is severely inadequate and only 25 percent of the needed IRR Road Construction funds can be used. 

$762,000 for Blueback Restoration—BIA/Natural Resource Management/Rights Protection 

The Quinault River Blueback (Sockeye Salmon) Restoration Initiative is planned 

and designed to restore the production of sockeye (blueback) salmon in the Quinault 

River to historic levels. This unique and valuable stock of salmon is near collapse 

due mostly to degraded habitats in the upper Quinault River basin and in Lake 

Quinault. This habitat loss has occurred over the past century due to historic timber 

harvesting, property development, and infrastructure construction. Natural processes on the floodplain began unraveling in the late 1800s and the deterioration is 

continuing in the present time. 

An important and necessary component to the Blueback Restoration Initiative is 

the construction and development of a wastewater and water treatment facility at 

Amanda Park, a community where Lake Quinault meets the headwaters of the 

Quinault River. The system will serve tribal and surrounding community residents 

and eliminate raw sewage disposed into Quinault Lake/River. 

Currently, the conditions of exposed raw sewage in Amanda Park pose substantial 

and significant health and safety risks to our natural resources, the residents and 

our children. Last year, we closed a portion of Lake Quinault and the Quinault 

River to all swimming and water activities due to dangerous levels of e coli. Residents have had to clear their sidewalks and driveways of exposed raw sewage. 

In the final analysis, the Blueback Restoration Initiative is designed to halt the 

current habitat loss and deterioration and to repair and restore natural habitat 

forming processes and sockeye production on the Quinault floodplain. The project 

will help to restore the natural beauty and productivity of the Quinault River Valley, thus making it a more attractive tourism destination. Conditions that will result from implementation of this program will benefit other salmon stocks in the 

system and will serve to protect private property and public infrastructure. In addition, the program will provide local construction jobs during its implementation 

phase, and the restoration program will result in conditions that will improve and 

sustain commercial and sport fishing on the Quinault River. 

The project will also benefit local residents and businesses by reducing the likelihood of flooding. Implementation of the restoration program will help to avoid the 

burdensome and restrictive consequences of having the Quinault sockeye listed as 

threatened or endangered under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. It will 

protect and restore livelihoods of 100 commercial fishermen and 25 sport fishing 

guides in Grays Harbor County and the Quinault Indian Reservation. The program 

will also contribute partial support for approximately 20 jobs in the fish processing 

industry in western Washington. The program will provide employment for 10–30 

laborers and equipment operators in Grays Harbor and Jefferson counties during 

construction phases of individual projects. 

The program plan calls for formation of public and private coalitions and partnerships to implement restoration actions. These relationships are being formed with 

the U.S. Forest Service other Federal and State agencies, North American Salmon 

Stronghold Partnership, and private property owners. 

This funding request is for implementation of current habitat restoration program 

plans and will include project design, engineering and construction, nutrient application to selected habitat areas, acquisition of data and materials for further planning and construction. 

$529,500 Methamphetamine Initiative/Prescription Drugs—BIA/Office of Indian 

Services and IHS/Office of Behavioral Health 

QIN Facts: 

—In 2004, tribal youth accounted for more than 40 percent of the drug and alcohol related arrests 

—80 percent of students miss school because of alcohol or drug abuse problems 

in the home 

—An Estimated 2 of every 5 children experiment with drugs or alcohol by the age 

of 10 years old 

—The youngest self admitted user of Meth on our Reservation was 14 years old 
447 

The QIN is designing a methamphetamine initiative to be responsive to the needs 

of the community it serves. This project will integrate and strengthen existing services that help to prevent and treat addiction, as well as coordinate and intensify efforts to reduce the access to and use of methamphetamine; thus reducing the harms 

associated with drug abuse. Approximately 227 activities are scheduled for this 

project and will effectively leverage the resources of existing service providers in our 

community. Activities will occur within six domains including: Prevention, Education, Treatment, Support Services, Law Enforcement and Supply Interdiction. 

New programs, that are culturally competent, will be introduced in our community 

to help those in treatment, children affected by meth, family members and elders, 

who are often mistreated and abused by addicted family members. Similarly, revised tribal codes are in place to support supply interdiction and drug trafficking 

on the reservation. 

The Quinault Nation Public Safety Division is partnering with multiple departments within the Nation to further develop the methamphetamine strategic plan. 

To date, they are drafting a Community Action Plan (CAP) that will incorporate 

local media, local departments, and the justice programs to educate members about 

the dangerous effects of drugs and alcohol. In addition, the Quinault Nation Public 

Safety is planning a mass mailing to its local members with regard to Turn- In-aPusher (TIP). 

In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to submit our national priorities and 

requests. We truly appreciate the difficult position you’re in when evaluating competing interests. We also recognize that you work very hard to meet the needs of 

every community and we trust that during your deliberations, you will do right by 

Indian Country and give the right level of deference to our needs. Thank you for 

this opportunity. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Chairman Feinstein, ranking member Allard, and members of the subcommittee: 

I wish to thank you for providing the opportunity to testify regarding the fiscal year 

2009 appropriations for the National Wildlife Refuge System. On behalf of the over 

100 members of the Red River Refuge Alliance, the friends organization that supports the Red River National Wildlife Refuge in northwestern Louisiana, we request 

that the subcommittee support an overall funding level of $514 million for the operations and maintenance budget of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is vitally important to our Nation’s 

wildlife and provides unparalleled opportunities to hunt, fish, watch wildlife, and 

educate children about the environment. Our 548 refuges encompass almost 100 

million acres; without increased funding, wildlife conservation and public recreation 

opportunities will be jeopardized. The NWRS suffers from a $3.5 billion operations 

and maintenance funding backlog. This backlog will only grow larger if current 

funding levels continue. While refuges received a substantial $39 million increase 

for fiscal year 2008, this funding level when adjusted for inflation still does not 

equal that of the refuge system centennial year of 2003. Because of this, refuges 

such as Red River struggle to meet basic wildlife conservation objectives. Funding 

shortfalls have led to downsizing of the refuge system workforce, the decline of refuge habitats and wildlife populations, aging facilities and infrastructure, the cancellation of many of the refuge system’s public use programs, and increased crime 

on our public lands. Some refuges have been forced to close their doors to the public. 

Others have lost their onsite refuge managers. In many cases, one refuge manager 

has the responsibility for managing the operations and maintenance of multiple, 

often far-flung, refuges. 

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2007 Banking on Nature report, 

nearly 35 million people visited national wildlife refuges in the lower 48 States in 

fiscal year 2006, generating over $1.7 billion of sales in regional economies and $185 

million in tax revenues and supporting over 27,000 private sector jobs and almost 

$543 million in employment income. This economic benefit is almost four times the 

amount appropriated to the Refuge System in fiscal year 2006. Eighty-seven percent 

of all refuge visitors travel from outside the local area. These visitors contribute to 

the local economy through patronage of local hotels, restaurants, outfitters, and gas 

stations, to name just a few examples. Refuges as local economic engines are especially important in Louisiana, the sixth poorest State in the Nation, according to the 

most recent information from the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Our refuges are much more than economic engines and their value can’t be measured in purely economic terms. In a world where development continues to encroach 
448 

on what remains of our wild places, refuges provide havens for wildlife and places 

of peace and beauty where people can go to renew their spirits. 

Our own refuge, the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, was created by Congress 

at the request of local citizens and the act creating it was signed into law on October 13, 2000. The refuge was established on August 22, 2002. According to the legislation, the refuge shall consist of approximately 50,000 acres of Federal lands and 

waters. To date, only one fifth of the total area authorized, or approximately 10,000 

acres, has been acquired. These lands were made unprofitable for agriculture due 

to the construction of the Locks and Dams on the Red River which raised the water 

table in low-lying adjacent farms. Continuation of the land acquisition process 

seems the fair thing to do for the land owners who are willing sellers to the refuge 

system. Tax increases were imposed on land owners adjacent to the waterway to 

fund many waterway improvement projects, due to the increased value of the land. 

The longer funding is delayed for the remaining authorized acreage, the more costly 

these acquisitions will be. 

Situated at the confluence of the Central and Mississippi Flyways, Red River 

NWR is the only refuge located in northwestern Louisiana, serving an area with a 

population of over 500,000 people. The congressionally mandated purpose of the Red 

River NWR is to provide for the restoration and conservation of native plant and 

animal communities on suitable sites in the Red River basin; provide habitat for migratory birds; and provide technical assistance to private land owners in the restoration of their lands for the benefit of fish and wildlife. 

Currently, the refuge consists of four management units: Headquarters in Bossier 

Parish, Bayou Pierre in Red River Parish, and Spanish Lake Lowlands and Lower 

Cane River in widely separated corners of Natchitoches Parish. These four separate 

noncontiguous units are spread out along 100 miles of the Red River. The North 

Louisiana Refuges Complex that provides additional support for our refuge is 100 

miles from the closest refuge unit of the Red River NWR and 200 miles from the 

farthest unit. All this presents major logistical and maintenance challenges for Red 

River’s refuge manager, challenges that have been magnified by the lack of funding 

for any additional personnel for the refuge. Recently, our refuge manager took a position in the FWS Southeast Regional Office and Red River Refuge currently has 

no staff at all until a new manager is selected. This situation, coupled with the limited resources of the Complex, which must provide support for four other refuges 

in the northeastern part of Louisiana, means that needed wildlife habitat maintenance and restoration, infrastructure maintenance, and visitor services projects are 

suffering. 

The Red River Refuge Alliance, which I am honored to serve as President, is one 

of more than 230 refuge Friends groups, representing over 40,000 individuals 

throughout the United States who provide volunteer support for the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Alliance’s 

members are dedicated wholeheartedly to the Red River National Wildlife Refuge 

and its mission. Our former refuge manager often worked many hours above and 

beyond what was required of him, including working weekends and on his day off, 

to carry out the mission of the refuge. We supported him in his efforts in any way 

we could as we will continue to do with his successor. To that end, we have contributed major financial support and manpower for the complete renovation of a building on the refuge for use as a temporary office and visitor center at the Headquarters unit of the refuge. We have contributed significant volunteer hours cleaning and landscaping a farm house on the Bayou Pierre unit of the refuge. We conduct bird surveys on the refuge; conduct outreach and environmental education in 

the local community on behalf of the refuge, and sponsor and staff public events on 

the refuge. One of our members spent many hours last year repairing and maintaining the irrigation system, water control structures, and refuge moist-soil impoundments that provide resting areas for waterfowl and wading birds. 

Friends groups can only do so much; the refuge cannot operate efficiently if it is 

too dependent on volunteer labor and outside funding. In order to provide the support and management needed to provide visitor services and wildlife protection at 

Red River, there is currently a need to secure sufficient, permanently assigned personnel. The personnel needs of the refuge include an administrative assistant, an 

assistant refuge manager, an outdoor recreation specialist, a wildlife biologist, a refuge law enforcement officer, an engineering equipment operator, and a maintenance 

worker. In contrast with its needs, Red River has been operating with a staff of one, 

the refuge manager, who has had the sole responsibility for caring for the refuge’s 

widely distributed 10,000 acres. 

Because of this, many programs necessary to carry out the mandates of the refuge 

have not been possible or have not been able to be implemented on a timely basis. 

For example, active moist-soil management for the benefit of wintering waterfowl 
449 

and other birds that utilize this type of habitat has not been attainable to date. Currently, grain production is used to address the shortages to effectively manage 

moist-soil habitat on the Lower Cane River unit. Under current funding/staffing limitations, cooperative farming is the only option available to the refuge to produce 

crops. Cooperative farmers for the Spanish Lake Unit and the Bayou Pierre Unit 

have not been located. These units both have moist-soil impoundments and the refuge does not have the funding to plant without assistance from local farmers. . 

The earliest explorers of the Red River Valley characterized the area as a floodplain forest rich in biological diversity. Over a period beginning in the late 1700’s 

and early 1800’s, some of this forest was gradually cleared. Then, in the 1960’s and 

1970’s, mass clearing of marginal bottomlands took place to make way for agriculture, mostly soybeans. Most of the land that is now part of the Red River NWR 

consists of these degraded former agricultural lands, some of which have already 

been replanted in bottomland hardwood trees through carbon sequestration partnerships. This renewed forest on refuge lands will remove carbon from the atmosphere, 

providing cleaner air, in addition to providing shelter and food for refuge wildlife. 

New funding is necessary to continue the reforestation where appropriate and to restore other types of natural habitat on refuge land, including native prairies, which 

once grew in lush abundance. 

Invasive species control has been instituted but without personnel and funding for 

adequate and consistent control, invasive species, such as Chinese tallow trees and 

kudzu, will continue to crowd out native vegetation, resulting in habitat degradation. Ongoing biological monitoring is needed to protect and preserve native species 

of flora and fauna on the refuge and the FWS has partnered with local universities 

to conduct biological studies on the refuge. 

The Red River National Wildlife Refuge is located at the confluence of the Central 

and Mississippi Flyways and, as such, is part of a corridor of public and private 

lands and waters throughout Louisiana that provides critical stopover habitat for 

migrating birds. It is estimated that as many as half of all land birds that breed 

in eastern North America pass through Louisiana during migration. Habitat loss is 

the primary factor in the decline of both migratory and resident birds. Without 

funding for native plant community restoration and preservation and control of 

invasive species, the refuge might fail in its mission to provide habitat for these 

birds. 

Refuge roads and the area around buildings must be mowed regularly and hundreds of acres of moist-soil impoundments must be mowed and/or bush hogged annually so that willows will not grow up in the impoundments; in 2007 this was able 

to be accomplished only with the major assistance of a volunteer and the impoundments had to be flooded for the fall influx of wintering waterfowl area with an incomplete job. This will make the 2008 maintenance work more difficult because the 

willows are capable of surviving flooding and will be a year older. 

There are currently no facilities open for public use on Red River NWR; however, 

funding has been secured to build an education and visitor center at the Headquarters unit. This facility will be located within the Shreveport-Bossier metropolitan area with an estimated population of almost 400,000 people, and has the ability 

to attract thousands more annually because of its convenient location near the convergence of two interstate highways. The center is planned to be an educational resource for all visitors and especially school children to learn about, experience, and 

appreciate the unique Red River Valley and the natural world. The center with associated nature trails and other visitor amenities is expected to be completed by late 

2010. Without increased funding for operations and personnel, including educational 

and outdoor recreation staff, there will be no way to serve the thousands of visitors 

expected when the center opens. 

Additional staff, equipment, and funding is also needed to adequately maintain 

existing needs and develop future infrastructure for public use activities and habitat 

management, including maintenance and construction of new roads and trails, construction of observation platforms, maintenance of water control structures, levees 

and refuge facilities, and maintenance of equipment and vehicles. Some refuge 

boundaries remain unmarked, which has created a law enforcement problem. At a 

minimum, roads must be maintained for access for FWS personnel for habitat maintenance and law enforcement. Although additional funding and personnel have been 

allocated by the North Louisiana Refuges Complex in years past for very minimal 

maintenance, a total of $20,000 a year, it is far from what is needed to meet FWS 

management goals. Routine maintenance jobs go undone for the simple lack of anyone to oversee them. 

The Red River National Wildlife Refuge although unique in several ways among 

refuges is not unique in its struggle to survive and thrive with insufficient staff and 

funding. On behalf of the Alliance, the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, and the 
450 

entire National Wildlife Refuge System, I respectfully request that members of the 

Subcommittee will agree with us and increase funding for the NWRS in fiscal year 

2009 to $514 million. This funding is so very vital for conserving and maintaining 

America’s beautiful wildlife and natural resources not only for our generation to 

enjoy, but for future generations as well. Thank you for all that you do to ensure 

this. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ROCK POINT COMMUNITY SCHOOL, NAVAJO NATION, 

ARIZONA

Rock Point Community School asks you to fund the following Bureau of Indian 

Education Programs at the levels noted: 

Requested 

Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF) ................................................................................................. $382,783,800 

ISEF Program Enhancements ....................................................................................................................... 12,000,000 

Administrative Cost Grants .......................................................................................................................... 66,000,000 

Student Transportation ................................................................................................................................ ( 1 ) 

Facilities Operations .................................................................................................................................... 67,000,000 

1 $3.15 per mile. 

On behalf of the Rock Point Community School Board, I appreciate the opportunity to submit these views on the fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Bureau 

of Indian Education. Rock Point is a K–12 school responsible for the education of 

more than 400 Navajo children. Rock Point is a small community near Chinle in 

a remote part of the vast portion of the Navajo Reservation located in Arizona. For 

over 30 years the school has been operated by an elected all-Navajo school board 

through an Indian Self-Determination Act contract issued by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. Rock Point relies exclusively on Federal appropriations as the school is not 

part of the Arizona public school system. 

INDIAN SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FORMULA (ISEF)

The ISEF appropriation funds our educational program. But year after year the 

amount supplied is insufficient to enable our school to provide the quality education 

program we want for Navajo children. It was most discouraging to learn that the 

fiscal year 2009 request—which will fund our SY2009–2010 programs—does not request any boost in program funding; its only increase is to cover ‘‘fixed costs.’’ Compared with the funding supplied 6 years ago, the fiscal year 2009 request of $364.5 

million is a mere 5.3 percent higher. This means that we are not even keeping up 

with inflation, so the allotment we will get for SY2009–2010 will effectively be less 

than the amount supplied 6 years ago. Our costs, on the other hand, steadily increase. Quite frankly, it’s as if the Federal officials who prepared this budget are 

saying that Indian children do not matter. 

Rock Point has not made Adequate Yearly Progress for the last 6 years. The biggest impediment in our drive to meet AYP goals is our inability to attract and hold 

on to experienced, high quality teachers, as academic achievement must occur in the 

classroom or it does not occur at all. Without a sizeable increase in ISEF funding, 

we cannot hope to compete for staff with BIA-operated schools and public schools 

which pay far higher salaries than we are able to afford. 

For us, teacher recruitment is made even more difficult by our remote location. 

The small Rock Point community offers no housing market. Fortunately, some of our 

teachers come from Rock Point or nearby communities, but for those who do not we 

must provide housing in the Federally-owned quarters units on our campus. These 

rental units are very old and badly in need of repairs and upgrades, but they are 

all we have to offer. The housing units are literally crumbling and have become severe health hazards, as they were constructed using asbestos-containing materials. 

By most of today’s construction codes, these units would be condemned. The substandard condition of our housing and the remoteness of the school from the amenities offered by even a small town compound our recruitment issues. Why do we continue to stay here despite these deplorable conditions? We believe that Indian children do matter. Please don’t mistake the dedication we hold to our students as complacency with or acceptance of our situation, though. We continue despite our conditions because our children are important to us. We firmly believe that we should 

not be subjected to and persist with the conditions under which we currently live 

and work. We cannot do justice to either our staff or our students under the current 

budget constraints. 
451 

Even a modest increase of 5 percent to the ISEF would greatly help Rock Point 

and other schools in the BIE system to meet their obligation to offer challenging 

academic programs, provide remedial education services for children who need extra 

help, and enable our students to achieve at the high levels we know they are capable of. We can put every additional dollar to use immediately—to fill chronic vacancies in the teaching staff, reduce staff turnover, and provide our students with modern educational tools. 

Our request.—We hope this committee will heed our prayers by increasing the 

ISEF budget by at least 5 percent this year and in the coming years as well. We 

need the Federal Government to make a firm commitment to the education of Indian children and to sustain that commitment over the long term. Please do not 

send the message that Indian children do not matter to you. 

ISEF PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS

Rock Point applauds the committee for the ‘‘education program enhancements’’ 

funds it has supplied and strongly urges you to continue this funding. We cannot 

understand why BIE seeks to cut these enhancement funds by more than 50 percent. 

Our School received $150,000 in enhancement funds this year. With these resources and with the support of BIE program personnel, we are developing a Navajo 

reading program for our K–3 classes. Our theory is that by enhancing Navajo reading and literacy skills and fostering a love of reading in young children, their ability 

to become proficient readers in both Navajo and English will be enhanced. We hired 

a reading coach/translator who is translating reading materials into Navajo, and the 

teachers selected for the program are receiving professional development in the 

Reading First model. We are very excited about launching this innovative approach. 

But if funding for it is not continued in the new budget, we cannot offer the program 

and the investment we and you have made in it will have been wasted! 

Our request.—Please continue to fund ‘‘educational program enhancements’’ at least at the $12 million level set in the fiscal year 2008 budget. 

ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS AND BIA EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PAY

Once again, the BIA budget ignores the Federal law that requires the agency to 

fund the administrative costs of tribal organizations such as the Rock Point School 

Board who have taken over operation of schools under the Indian Self-Determination Act. The agency requests only level funding for these Grants—$43.4 million— 

despite the fact that five more schools will be taken over by tribes next year. This 

means that the agency thinks it is acceptable to support 130 schools next year with 

the same amount used to support 125 this year. 

As it is, BIA is only paying AC Grants at 65 percent of the level Federal law directs. See 25 USC Sec. 2008. When five more schools have to be supported from the 

same amount of money, the percentage supplied will likely fall below 60 percent. 

On the one hand the Indian Self-Determination Act encourages tribes to have direct, 

hands-on responsibility for program operations, but on the other hand, and in defiance of the law, BIA consistently refuses to supply administrative funds to make 

those program operations possible. This is unconscionable. 

It is ironic that the only budget impact the agency mentions about the five schools 

that will convert to tribal operation is the need to pay the severance costs of the 

Federal employees at those schools who will be laid off. The $1.5 million BIA seeks 

for this is an administrative cost to the agency. How discouraging it is that BIA expects full funding for its administrative obligations, but pays no heed to the administrative cost needs of tribes and tribal organizations who operate the agency’s programs. We hope you will move the $1.5 million requested for employee severance 

to the AC Grant account instead. 

AC Grant funding is supposed to cover all aspects of administering the school program, such as executive direction; accounting; auditing; financial, personnel and 

property management; and contract compliance. Our administrative budget is already at a bare-bones level. The further reductions the budget request would 

produce will severely compromise tribal schools’ ability to properly administer programs and maintain prudent internal controls. 

Our request.—Please increase the AC Grant appropriation and require BIA to pay 

our administrative costs at 100 percent. Full funding will require at least $66 million so we ask you to consider that figure. 

STUDENT TRANSPORTATION

We don’t understand how the BIA can ask to cut $1 million from student transportation when it knows that the cost of vehicle fuel continues to escalate and it 
452 

will be even higher next year when SY2009–2010 begins. Rock Point school buses 

travel approximately 600 miles every day; 60 percent of those miles are over rough, 

unpaved roads which means we have constant bus maintenance issues. When we 

do not receive sufficient resources to cover our transportation costs, we have to 

make up the shortfall out of our education dollars from the ISEF. 

Please increase student transportation funding to a level that enables us to receive $3.15/mile for our bus routes. We should not have to use our scarce education 

funds to help cover bus fuel, maintenance and driver salary costs. 

FACILITIES OPERATIONS

This is another account where BIA provides far less than the amount of calculated 

need. In the SY07–08 constrained budget, Rock Point received only 52 percent of 

the amount the facilities formula says we need to properly operate the buildings on 

our campus. Nearly every dollar we receive must be used to pay utility costs—which 

leaves very few dollars for other facilities operations, maintenance, and repairs. We 

are unable to conduct preventative maintenance, which poses great risk, as our boilers and other essential equipment are also old. We are so far behind in our upkeep 

and preventative maintenance, and we are getting further behind with each passing 

year because of insufficient funding and the OFMC backlog. Our school buildings, 

like our housing units, were constructed with asbestos-containing materials. We 

have had two incidents with asbestos being released at school, the most recent occurring the summer of 2006. Although the U.S. EPA determined in the 90s the 

health risk that asbestos poses in most Navajo schools, the issue persists still to this 

day. 

We urge the committee to give this long-ignored facilities operations account renewed attention. It has had no meaningful increase in many years. Our schools are 

Federally-owned buildings and were built with Federal funds. They should be as 

safe, clean, well-maintained and comfortable for our occupants as any other Federally-owned building, including the Department of the Interior and Congressional office buildings. 

Our request.—Our suggestion is to add $10 million to the Facilities Operations 

item and fund it at $67 million. 

CONCLUSION

We at Rock Point do not take pleasure in having to beg Congress for funding year 

after year. But since the BIA school system is the exclusive responsibility of the 

United States (not of any State), it is our obligation to tell you what our true needs 

are since the BIA does not do so. Please carry out the United States’ responsibility 

through its treaty obligations and its ethical duty to properly fund this school system so Indian children have an equal chance as that of their peers to learn and succeed in their educational pursuits and compete in the job market. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHORELINE EDUCATION FOR AWARENESS

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service needs a minimum operating budget 

of $514 Million for the National Wildlife Refuge System. This funding is essential 

for implementing the National Wildlife Refuge System Workforce Plan. Many refuges are critically understaffed. The ability of individual refuges to deal with research, wildlife habitat restoration and protection, invasive species, encroachments, 

and a multitude of other issues has been greatly compromised due to past years 

budget cuts. As a result, wildlife populations are under stress with limited ‘‘safe havens’’ to recover. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SKOKOMISH TRIBE OF WASHINGTON STATE

My name is Dave Hererra, I serve as the Fish and Wildlife Policy Representative 

for the Skokomish Tribe. I am here to present testimony on behalf of Denese 

LaClair, Chair of the Skokomish Tribe of Washington State. The Skokomish Indian 

Reservation is a rural community located at the base of the Olympic Peninsula with 

a population of over 1,000 people. The 5,300 acre Reservation is a fraction of the 

2.2 million acre of the Tribe’s Treaty area. The Skokomish Tribe appreciates the 

work of the Subcommittee and asks that you provide increased funding in areas 

that are key to the continuing development of tribal communities. 
453 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PROGRAMS

Indian Reservation Road Maintenance.—While many of the cuts in the President’s 

fiscal year 2009 Budget proposal we have seen in the past, for the first time the 

administration has proposed a 50 percent reduction in the BIA road maintenance 

funds, from $26 million to $13 million. The administration’s justification for this cut 

is that SAFETEA–LU provided that 25 percent of the funding available to tribes 

for construction can now be used for road maintenance. Not only is the administration’s proposal contrary to SAFETEA–LU but to the overwhelming statistics regarding the State of roads in Indian country. For the period between 1975–2002, while 

the incident of fatal crashes on Federal highways decreased by 2.2 percent, the 

number of fatal crashes on Indian reservations increased by 52.4 percent. The National Congress of American Indians has asked for the IRR maintenance program 

to be funded at $100 million. While this may not be possible, it certainly illustrates 

the absurdity of the administration’s cut. 

For Skokomish, we have made road improvements and maintenance a high priority, because we know too well the impacts of having unsafe roads. Just last 

month, a 10-year-old boy was hit by a car riding his bicycle. If we had a shoulder 

and a sidewalk where the little boy entered the road, it is very likely that he would 

not have been hit by the car. However, under the administration’s proposal instead 

of making these important road improvements, we will be forced to use these limited resources for road maintenance. 

Law Enforcement.—The Skokomish Tribe respectfully requests increased funding 

for our law enforcement programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We commend the BIA’s requested increase of $2.9 million for law enforcement services, but 

more needs to be done. 

In the last 11 years, the Skokomish Department of Public Safety has grown from 

1 untrained officer, to a force of 10 Washington State certified/Washington State 

equivalency trained or BIA certified law enforcement officers. To be fully staffed at 

a baseline minimum for the area and scope of service that the Skokomish Department of Public Safety is tasked with, we need a total of 18 officers. Thus, we are 

almost 50 percent below what is needed to safely serve our community. 

To address this, we join in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs’ request for 

a $10 million increase over the fiscal year 2008 funding level. We also join the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in its request that this funding be allocated proportionately to BIA and Tribal law enforcement agencies. Currently, the BIA proposes 

to use any increase to fill BIA law enforcement personnel positions, while the majority of law enforcement activity (78 percent) is undertaken by tribally operated police 

agencies. Thus, we propose that at least 78 percent of any increase should be allocated to tribal law enforcement agencies. 

Tribal Courts.—The administration’s proposed increase for policing, comes at the 

cost of Tribal Courts. The administration proposes a $2.5 million cut to the tribal 

court program. Having a fair and qualified judiciary is the bedrock of any government’s justice system. Skokomish has long understood this. In 1963, the Skokomish 

Tribe was the first Tribe in the Northwest (and one of the first in the country) to 

institute a tribal court to address fishing violations on the Skokomish River. The 

first Tribal Judge was a 33 year old nurse and mother of five (at that time), Anne 

Pavel. Mrs. Pavel was not law trained nor had she received any judicial training. 

She was simply a dedicated tribal member, who understood the importance of regulating fishing on the Skokomish River. She held her first hearing in a building heated by a coal stove, with her brother as her court reporter. 

While the responsibility and scope of tribal courts have greatly increased in the 

45 years since Mrs. Pavel’s first hearing, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has not provided these important institutions with the commensurate level of funding. Today, 

Tribal Courts handle huge criminal, civil and juvenile dockets, which could not be 

handled by the already over burdened State and Federal courts. It is a sad reality 

that many tribal courts are still housed in ramshackle buildings. Most of our courts 

cannot afford to provide public defenders and many do not have law trained prosecutors. Fortunately, through the dedicated work our Tribal leaders most of our 

judges are now law trained. Nevertheless, the administration proposes a $2.5 million cut to this program. We urge the committee to reject this cut and to fund this 

program to at least $15 million—which is $700,000 more than last year’s level. 

Education.—We remain disappointed by the administration’s repeated proposed 

cuts to critical education programs like Johnson O’Malley and Higher Education. 

The Johnson O’Malley program provides funding to local public schools to provide 

outreach and academic assistance to Indian children attending these schools. The 

Skokomish Tribe is equally disappointed that the administration proposes a $6 million cut to scholarships and adult education. For any of our people who are lucky 
454 

enough to be accepted into a 4 year college or a community college, it is important 

that the Tribe have some resources to help them succeed. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The Skokomish Tribe would like to thank the committee for your commitment to 

maintaining funding for key environmental programs and in particular for the State 

Tribal Assistance Grant provided to the Skokomish Tribe for the development of our 

wastewater system. This effort is the linchpin to our collaborative efforts to the restore the health of the Hood Canal, the jewel of the Puget Sound. The Tribe, the 

County and the PUD are now working on an amendment to our historic tri-party 

agreement, which will facilitate the implementation of the STAG grant. 

The Hood Canal is threatened by the Low Dissolved Oxygen levels (LDOL), which 

means this vital ecosystem is essentially suffocating. LDOL is caused by many 

things, but primarily the cause is the sewage that is discharged directly into the 

Hood Canal. LDOL has caused a number of fish kills in the Hood Canal and the 

Hood Canal to be closed to other seafood harvesting throughout the year. This impacts the economy of not only the Skokomish Tribe but the entire region. But to 

the Skokomish, it is much bigger than our economy it is our culture. The Hood 

Canal is the place where we have for centuries gathered and prayed. In recent times 

this has not always been possible. Just this year, one of our ceremonial women leaders had to step over dead fish to enter the water to pray. This is unconscionable 

and the dedicated effort to address this issue must continue. 

We urge the committee to reject the administration’s proposed $134 million cut 

to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Again, the Skokomish Tribe greatly appreciates the State Tribal Assistance Grant provided by the committee, but we have 

encountered a great deal of red tape at EPA in seeking to implement this grant, 

in particular with regard to the matching funds requirement. EPA requires that all 

the matching funds be in as we expend the EPA grant on a dollar for dollar basis. 

We would urge that that this requirement be changed so that the matching funds 

requirement be shown to have been met by the end of the grant. In alternative, the 

Tribe and the County have expended more than $600,000 to date in funds in planning and design of the wastewater system, which we would like EPA to consider 

as fulfilling the matching fund requirements. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

The need for increased funding for health care throughout Indian country is well known. Yet the administration proposes an overall net decrease of $21.3 million in 

funding for the Indian Health Service. This overall decrease does not even reflect 

the true cut that tribal programs will experience as a result of inflation and population increases. The Indian Health Service estimates that it needs a $144.1 million 

increase to provide for IHS and tribal pay costs, medical inflation and population 

growth. This shortfalls will result in reductions in health services to patients and 

the reduction in health status for Indian people overall. 

At Skokomish, like Indian people throughout the Nation, we face disproportionately higher rates of diabetes and the complications associated with diabetes. Heart 

disease, cancer, obesity, chemical dependency and mental health problems are also 

prevalent among our people. We supports the unified tribal effort to increase funding so that all tribes receive 100 percent of the Level of Need Formula (LNF), which 

is absolutely critical for tribes to address the serious and persistent health issues 

that confront our communities. We understand that an additional $800 million is 

necessary to bring tribes to this level. 

CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

For both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service it is critical 

for the committee to fully fund Contract Support Costs. Currently IHS is facing a 

$110 million shortfall in Contract Support Cost funding and the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs is facing a $40 million backlog. This backlog has resulted in IHS refusing 

to enter into any new Indian Self-Determination Act contracts, which a Federal 

court has found to be illegal. The Indian Self-Determination Act, which allows tribes 

to take over BIA and IHS programs, is the only Federal program that has truly 

worked in Indian country. Study after study has shown that tribal governments operate these programs more efficiently and more effectively than the Federal Government. A key to this success is full funding for Contract Support Costs, which is to 

afford a tribe all the resources that the Federal Government would have to operate 

a program. Unfortunately year after year, Contract Support Costs are not fully 

funded and tribal programs are forced to absorb these costs through cuts in programs. 
455 

TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

In 1995, Congress began encouraging tribes to assume historic preservation responsibilities as part of self-determination. There are currently 76 tribes in the U.S. 

approved by the Secretary to administer historic preservation programs. These programs conserve fragile places, objects and traditions crucial to tribal culture, history 

and sovereignty. As was envisioned by Congress, more tribes qualify for funding 

every year. In fiscal year 2001, there were 27 THPOs with an average award of 

$154,000; there are now more than 50 THPOs, with the average now receiving approximately $50,000. Paradoxically, the more successful the program becomes, the 

less each tribe receives to maintain professional services, ultimately crippling the 

programs. We thank the Subcommittee for the $1 million increase provided to 

THPOs last year, but more funding is needed. We ask that $13.7 million be provided 

for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), which would provide a modest 

base funding amount of $180,000 per THPO program. 

CONCLUSION

I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony on 

these important issues. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS

The Society of American Foresters (SAF), with over 14,000 forestry professionals 

located across the country in all segments of the profession, believes in sound and 

scientifically-based management and stewardship of the nation’s public and private 

forests. Funding for the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the USDA Forest 

Service (USFS), both contained within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, play particularly important roles in maintaining, conserving, and improving the Nation’s forests. 

The 755 million acres of forests in the United States are undergoing constant 

pressures from wildfires, insect infestations, and other catastrophic disturbances, 

conversion to competing non-forest land uses, and the effects of climate change on 

forest types and health, as well as on wildlife habitat. Simultaneously, our Nation’s 

forests are expected to provide recreational opportunities (more than 137 million annual visits to national forests alone), as well as supply the economic services and 

goods demanded by society. However, the direction in which Federal budgets are 

moving makes resisting these pressures and delivering these forest goods all the 

more difficult—in large part due to the increasing percentage of the agencies’ budgets consumed by wildfire preparedness and suppression. 

The SAF remains concerned and committed to the sustainability of our Nation’s 

forests. Such sustainability implies and demands a balance of the social, environmental and economic values realized from forests—a balance that is presently at 

risk of being upset. To help resist these pressures, to ensure the sustainable delivery of forest-related goods and services, and to ensure the future of this critical natural resource, the SAF urges a focus in three funding areas and the range of programs within the DOI and USFS budgets that address these key areas (as outlined 

below). The SAF’s key priorities are: 

1. Forest health on both public and private forests 

2. Forest research and inventory 

3. Private forest conservation 

FOREST HEALTH

Today, more than 190 million acres of Federal forests and over 90 million acres 

of non-federal forests are threatened by a potent combination of wildfire, insects, 

diseases, invasive species, and other factors. To address these ongoing threats, sufficient resources must be allocated to management programs capable of preparing 

and mitigating for their effects. To adequately address these issues, the SAF urges 

funding levels above the administration’s fiscal year 2009 proposed budgets for the 

forest health programs and wildland fire accounts in both the Forest Service and 

the Department of the Interior as outlined in detail below. 

Wildfire Suppression.—The SAF remains deeply concerned over the rising costs 

of wildfire suppression efforts, and more importantly, the increasing percentage of 

the agencies’ budgets devoted to that activity. 

The borrowing of funds from non-wildfire accounts during the course of each fire 

season presents severe challenges to the agencies’ other programs. This leads directly to the inability to deliver the goods and services demanded by society, and 

that are crucial to the agencies’ missions. This is no more apparent than in the case 
456 

of the Forest Service: the percentage of the agency’s budget dedicated to wildland 

fire suppression has risen to 43 percent for fiscal year 2009. Suppression costs in 

the Forest Service alone are nearly $1 billion, up from less that $600 million only 

7 years ago. This trend is forcing the agency to retreat to what it considers its ‘‘core’’ 

missions—which will in turn force undesirable effects on a large portion of the agency’s programs, and on the forests that depend on those programs. Congress must, 

therefore, both address the consumption of critical agency programs by the ever-expanding wildfire budget, as well as continue to urge the agencies to adopt cost-containment measures and increased accountability for wildfire suppression activities. 

Reducing Hazardous Fuels.—Any effort to address wildfire threats mandates addressing the accumulation of hazardous fuels on the forested landscape. The USFS 

and the DOI programs to do so are critical components to ensuring forest health 

and reducing suppression costs over the long-term. Efforts by the agencies to treat 

such fuels should be prioritized to focus on Condition Class 3 lands, on restoring 

natural fires regimes, on mitigating and adapting to the anticipated effects of climate change on fire hazards, and on protecting at-risk communities where appropriate. The agencies should also be encouraged to better coordinate the expanded 

use of wildland fire to meet fuel reduction goals where suitable. The SAF supports 

the fiscal year 2008 enacted levels for hazardous fuels accounts for both the USFS 

and DOI, and suggests fiscal year 2009 funding at or above those levels. 

FOREST RESEARCH AND INVENTORY

With 58 million acres of forest at significant risk for insect or disease mortality 

and with the available dollars for forest-related research falling nationwide, it is imperative that the funding for research provided by both the USFS and DOI not likewise diminish. Investments in forestry research are investments in the future 

health and suitability of both public and private forests nationwide. The Nation’s 

forestry research is conducted by a number of entities, including Federal agencies, 

universities and private industry, with the majority of the Federal funding focused 

within the USDA Forest Research and Development Program. USFS R&D conducts 

essential research on pressing topics such as climate change, insect infestations and 

pathogen treatments, renewable energy development and woody biomass conversion 

technology, forest products research to maintain the competitiveness of the U.S. industry, and in areas such as social science to better understand how to improve the 

agency’s relationship with the public and to better meet the public’s needs. SAF 

urges a moderate elevation in funding to a level of $290 million for the USFS Research and Development program. 

Forest Inventory and Analysis.—Though now included within the broader Inventory and Monitoring R&D, the USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program 

is the backbone of forestry knowledge in the United States providing the only national census of forests across all forest ownerships. The program forms the foundation of much of the analysis that is occurring on national trends affecting forest 

lands, including forest fragmentation, forest health, and climate change effects. 

Through FIA, the USFS partners with State forestry agencies and the private sector 

in a unique data sharing relationship whereby the Nation as a whole truly benefits 

from this research. We strongly urge Congress to fully support the administration’s 

proposed increase of $1.9 million and fully fund the FIA program at $73 million in 

fiscal year 2009—any FIA decreases resulting from proposed decreases in State and 

Private Forestry should be considered so that the FIA program does not see a net 

decline in funding. 

PRIVATE FOREST CONSERVATION

Private forests comprise some 427 million acres in the United States. All of these 

forests face a suite of challenges: forest health concerns, pressures to convert to nonforest uses as land values rise, and changing markets for forest products and overseas competition. Forty-four million acres of these forests are at substantial risk of 

increases in housing density in the next 30 years. In many ways these private forest 

are some of the nation’s most important, as they can be managed for the broadest 

array of outputs—they are the source of the majority of the nation’s wood supply, 

and provide recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, and are a source of clean 

air and water, as well as an important aesthetic component to urban, suburban, and 

exurban regions. Programs within the USFS State and Private Forestry help encourage private forest landowners to continue to manage their lands as forests, and 

in a sustainable fashion. Maintaining these forests is becoming even more critical 

in light of the role of forests in carbon sequestration, and the resultant carbon emissions when those forests are lost. We are deeply concerned that the administration 

proposes such a drastic cut in the programs critical to private landowners within 
457 

the State and Private area. The SAF strongly urges restoring the State and Private 

forest program to $207.5 million. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

[In millions of dollars] 

Program 

Fiscal years 

2008 

enacted 

2009 

proposed 

2009 SAF 

recommendation 

DOI Wildland Fire Management Total ........................................................ 808.0 850.1 941.1 

Preparedness .............................................................................................. 276.5 277.7 300.7 

Suppression ................................................................................................ 289.8 335.2 350.2 

Hazardous Fuels ......................................................................................... 199.6 202.8 250.8 

Joint Fire Science ....................................................................................... 5.9 ........................ 5.0 

BLM Public Domain Forest Management .................................................. 10.6 9.5 10.6 

BLM OR and CA Grant Lands Total .......................................................... 108.5 108.3 109.0 

Forest and Rangeland Research (R&D) .................................................... 285.9 263.0 290.9 

State and Private Forestry ......................................................................... 262.8 109.5 207.5 

Forest Health Management—Fed .............................................................. 54.1 45.0 50.0 

Forest Health Management—Coop ........................................................... 44.5 10.0 40.0 

State Fire Assistance ................................................................................. 32.6 25.0 30.0 

Volunteer Fire Assistance .......................................................................... 5.9 5.0 5.0 

Forest Stewardship .................................................................................... 29.5 5.0 20.0 

Forest Legacy ............................................................................................. 52.3 12.5 45.0 

Urban and Community Forestry ................................................................. 27.7 5.0 15.0 

Economic Action Programs ........................................................................ 4.2 ........................ ........................

International Forestry ................................................................................. 7.4 2.0 2.0 

National Forest System Total ....................................................... 1,469.6 1,344.5 1,358.5 

Land Management Planning ...................................................................... 48.8 52.6 52.6 

Inventory and Monitoring ........................................................................... 166.6 146.5 160.5 

Recreation, Wilderness & Heritage ............................................................ 262.6 237.0 237.0 

Forest Products .......................................................................................... 322.5 322.7 322.7 

Vegetation and Watershed Management ................................................... 177.4 165.3 165.3 

Wildland Fire Management Total ................................................. 1,943.5 1,976.6 2,107.6 

Preparedness .............................................................................................. 665.8 588.4 675.4 

Suppression ................................................................................................ 845.6 993.9 993.9 

Hazardous Fuels ......................................................................................... 310.1 297.0 325.0 

Rehab & Restoration ................................................................................. 10.8 ........................ 10.0 

Fire Research and Development ................................................................ 23.5 22.0 23.0 

Joint Fire Sciences Program ...................................................................... 7.9 8.0 8.0 

NFP Forest Health—Fed ............................................................................ 14.0 14.3 14.3 

NFP Forest Health—Coop Lands ............................................................... 9.9 10.0 10.0 

NFP State Fire Assistance ......................................................................... 50.0 35.0 40.0 

NFP Volunteer Fire Assistance ................................................................... 7.9 8.0 8.0 

Capital Improvement & Maintenance .......................................... 488.8 405.8 410.8 

Facilities ..................................................................................................... 121.8 119.6 119.6 

Roads ......................................................................................................... 227.9 227.0 227.0

Trails .......................................................................................................... 76.4 50.0 55.0 

Deferred Maintenance ................................................................................ 9.0 9.1 9.1 
458 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: As a Trustee of 

the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy I appreciate the opportunity to 

provide testimony on behalf of an important land acquisition funding need in the 

Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina. I am supporting an appropriation of 

$1.875 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year 

2009 to acquire the 290-acre Roan/Atria parcel in the Roan Highlands. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 

Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2009. 

Modern American forestry began in what is now the Pisgah National Forest. This 

‘‘Cradle of Forestry’’ came into being when the Biltmore Forest School—the first 

American school of forestry—was opened in 1898 on property owned by George Vanderbilt. After Vanderbilt’s death in 1914, the area was sold to the Federal Government and became one of the first portions of the Pisgah National Forest. The first 

forest supervisor was Gifford Pinchot, who later became the first chief of the U.S. 

Forest Service. 

The Toecane Ranger District of the Pisgah National Forest lies north of Asheville 

between the Blue Ridge Parkway just and the Tennessee State line. Its name is a 

combination of the names of the two main rivers in the area, the Toe River and the 

Cane River. With its spectacular wildflowers, the Toecane Ranger District contains 

some of the most beautiful mountain scenery in the east. Some of the main identifying features of the district are Roan Mountain, which straddles the North Carolina-Tennessee border, and Mt. Mitchell, the highest point in North Carolina. 

The Appalachian National Scenic Trail is the Nation’s oldest and most revered 

long-distance trail. Established in 1925, it was designated the Nation’s first national 

scenic trail in 1968. The Appalachian Trail crosses six national parks, eight national 

forests, 14 States, and numerous State and local forests and parks. Recreation opportunities along the trail include hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, observing wildlife, rock climbing, and picnicking. The trail as a whole includes lands containing 

more than 2,000 rare, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species. The Appalachian Trail covers 17 miles over the Roan Highlands, which include 

Roan Mountain in the Toecane Ranger District of the Pisgah National Forest. This 

section of the trail over the Roan Highlands contains some of the most scenic views 

on the entire trail. 

The Roan Highlands are home to the best remaining examples of three endangered high-elevation ecosystems: grassy balds, red spruce/Fraser fir forests, and 

granite outcrops and cliffs. On the Roan massif there are more nationally or regionally ranked rare species then at any other site in the Southern Appalachians. The 

Roan Highlands also contains the world’s largest natural rhododendron garden, covering 600 acres. 

The 290-acre Roan/Atria tract on Big Yellow Mountain is located within the Roan 

Highlands and makes up fifty-percent of the viewshed from the Appalachian Trail’s 

Overmountain Shelter. Additionally, it is within the viewshed—and joins the corridor—of the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail, which follows the Revolutionary War route of Patriot militiamen. The tract comprises much of the east 

slope of Roaring Creek Valley, which was identified as the ‘‘Prettiest Valley in 

America’’ by Backpacker Magazine in October 2007. The Roan/Atria tract is comprised of northern hardwood forest, old-growth beech and oak groves, and includes 

portions of the globally imperiled Southern Appalachian Grassy Bald ecosystem. 

Home to black bear, ruffed grouse, wild turkey, the tract is part of a critical wildlife 

corridor identified in the State Wildlife Action Plan. It also contains Sandbank 

Creek, which holds the native Southern Appalchian Brook Trout, and hosts the 

upper watershed of the North Toe River, a high quality trout stream. The entire 

tract is identified as an Audubon IBA (Important Bird Area.) The Roan/Atria acquisition would join 17,000 acres of already protected lands, including adjacent Pisgah 

National Forest lands, the Nature Conservancy’s Big Yellow Mountain Preserve, 

and preserves owned by the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy. 

This subject land is under immediate threat of development into vacation homes. 

The landowner has already received county approval on plans for 107 home lots. In 

fiscal year 2009, $1.875 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund di-
459 

rected to the Pisgah National Forest is needed to permanently acquire and protect 

the Roan/Atria tract and preserve the Appalachian Trail viewshed for future generations. These funds will be matched by $1.85 million in private donations, significantly reducing the cost of acquisition to the federal agency. In addition, the funds 

will leverage a 150 acre donated conservation easement from the landowner, bringing to 442 acres the area under protection. The contract agreement, which is currently being reduced to writing, secures the site until December 31, 2008. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony 

in support of protecting this important property in western North Carolina. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIE SPRINGER

Madam Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I am grateful to 

have the opportunity to submit testimony for public witness on Department of the 

Interior agencies. I write to you in support of $1,006,500,000.00 last year’s level and 

$38 million more than the $968,500,000.00 of the Presidents budget for the United 

States Geological Survey, fiscal year 2009. Their focus is on research as a priority 

for fiscal year 2009. I would like to see the Biological Information Management and 

Delivery Department be funded at $22,596,000 at last years level with a staff of 72, 

this department is suffering staffing cuts as every other department in the USGS 

is. The information these people produce is essential to the overall well being of the 

citizens of this country, just as the Centers for Disease Control is essential to the 

health an well being of the American public. The USGS is the one Federal Agency 

that conducts and maintains data in a uniform consistent system available for all 

agencies and the general public. 

I am a Beekeeper. By now, I am sure you have all heard of Colony Collapse Disorder, of the Honey Bee. There have been many hearings on this issue and some 

funds have been awarded for research on this matter. The Honey Bee is only one 

pollinator of many in our country. Many researchers feel they are all in decline. 

Bees and wasps are a linchpin species in the ecological system, meaning the rest 

of the food chain depends on them for their food sources. Seventy five percent of 

all human food sources are pollinated by bees or wasps. Honey bees are just one 

of about two dozen introduced species of bees to this continent. Besides the honey 

bees there are about 800 native bees on the Eastern side of the United States and 

more than 2,000 on the West coast of our country. Wasps are another family that 

also pollinate and serve a beneficial purpose in the food chain. We need accurate 

counts on all these pollinators, in order to fully understand declines in populations 

and their influence on pollination of crops. 

The United States Geological Survey, with many partners, is conducting a Native 

Bee Survey, nationwide. This research sampling collecting and compiling is being 

done by the USGS, the United States fish and Wildlife Service, national Parks Service Army Scientists, Smithsonian, the American Museum of Natural History many 

Universities and their Graduate and Doctoral students, Interns as well as average 

Joe-citizen volunteers, like me. 

This research requires individuals going out into the field every few weeks to trap 

and collect bee specimens. After cleaning drying and pinning the specimens there 

are hours of identification under a microscope. The USGS, with its partners, have 

held and continue to hold Bee Identification courses for free in order to have enough 

researchers with the skills to identify the many bee species. 

The research is not only significant to the over all environment but also specifically to agriculture industry. Honey Bees will always be vulnerable to pathogens 

and parasites because they are not native and their immune systems are more vulnerable than native species. CCD has made it clear we must ready our selves with 

alternative sources for pollinating crops. The USGS is conducting that research in 

coordination with other agencies. We must perform more research on the types of 

bees and the quantities of native bee species. We need accurate numbers to determine if we have lost species since the last studies were performed 40 years ago. 

With this information we can begin to chart what bees pollinate what plants. There 

are plant species that are also diminishing, we can begin to look at whether or not 

those plant species are loosing their pollinators. We also need this data to determine 

what invasive plant species are being pollinated by which bee species. 

The USGS is charged with performing Surveys and data collection that are used 

by other Federal agencies such as United States Fish and Wildlife, Department of 

Agriculture, Department of Forestry, National Parks, Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land management, Department of Commerce, 

NASA, Water Resources, many non-governmental environmental organizations as 

well as State and local governments and private industry. Just as the bees are a 
460 

linchpin species in the environment, the USGS is a linchpin in Federal Agencies and 

the source for scientific data. The USGS data collection is the basis for much of the 

scientific and environmental priorities in our Nation. This country is completely dependent on the research and data collection of the USGS. Please take this into consideration in your funding priorities. 

Thank you for taking the time and consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE

Thank you distinguished members of this subcommittee for allowing me to submit 

my testimony on behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribe for our funding requests in the 

fiscal year 2009 Budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian 

Health Service (IHS). 

TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS

1. 12 percent increase in Contract Health Service in the IHS to address inflation 

and shortfall in the IHS Operating Plan. 

2. $750,000 for Public Health and Safety of the Squaxin Island Community in the 

BIA. 

3. Fulfill Puget Sound Regional Shellfish Settlement Commitment in the BIA. 

SUPPORT REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board 

2. Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians 

3. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

SUPPORT SELF-GOVERNANCE AND NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Indian Health Service 

1. $160 million increase for 100 percent full funding for IHS Contract Support 

Cost 

2. $486 million increase for IHS mandatory, inflation and population 

3. $152 million increase for Contract Health Service in IHS to support total request of President and House/Senate Indian Affairs Committees of Jurisdiction 

4. Increase $5 million to the Indian Health Service Office of Tribal Self-Governance 

5. Restore funding for Urban Indian Health Program 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

1. $25 million increase for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)—general increase for 

core programs 

2. $50 million increase for 100 percent full funding of direct and indirect contract 

support costs 

3. Tribal Government—Self-Governance: Restore $13.6 million in Housing Improvement Program (HIP) in BIA-Tribal Priority Allocation Account and $21.4 million in Johnson O’Malley Assistance Grants (JOM) 

4. Address 45 percent unmet need for Law Enforcement officers and provide annual increases in Tribal Public Safety and Health programs for Tribal communities 

5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board 

The Squaxin Island Tribe, a signatory of the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty, is located in Kamilche, Washington in SE Mason County. The 2008 year-end Tribal 

member enrollment was of 930. Squaxin has an estimated service area population 

of 2,767, a growth rate of about 10 percent, and an unemployment rate of about 30 

percent, according to the BIA Labor Force Report. According to the Mason County 

Economic Development Council, Squaxin is the largest employer in Mason County. 

RESCISSIONS ON FUNDING FOR INDIAN PROGRAMS

The Squaxin Island Tribe requests that the Committee includes language in the 

appropriations bill that will direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian 

Health Service not to impose rescissions on funds for Indian programs. Funds that 

are already inadequate to address the level of need of the Tribal beneficiaries should 

not be subjected to additional reductions. However, if a mandatory rescission is applied to all Federal programs, we ask that Indian programs not be required to absorb a disproportionate loss of funds with a double rescission on these funds. 
461 

TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS JUSTIFICATIONS: 

1. 12 percent increase in Contract Health Service in the IHS to address inflation 

and shortfall in the IHS Operating Plan.—The Squaxin Island Tribe’s Sally Salvage 

Clinic serves approximately 2,000 patients every year. Twenty-three percent of the 

patients are children under 18 and about 20 percent are over age 55. The President’s budget proposes a $9.0 million increase over the 2008 enacted level, which 

is still insufficient to address the need that exists and continues to rise in Indian 

Country. For contract health-dependent areas like the Northwest with no IHS hospitals in the area, we have to purchase specialists’ services, laboratory and radiological services and hospital care at undiscounted rates. The proposed increase for 

2009 will be less than an $11,000 increase in our Contract Health Services budget 

will not cover our increased costs for radiology or labs, much less the increases we 

expect to pay for hospital care. 

The Squaxin Island Tribe, despite redirecting own-source revenues to its health 

program, continues to defer needed medical care for its tribal members and other 

Indian patients. Despite innovative practices and the addition of a one day a week 

Indian Medical Doctor this year, the Tribe’s contract health services budget is insufficient to pay for needed care. The Tribe would much prefer to provide care through 

its IHS program, but the reality is that many will have to forgo needed care, apply 

for hospital charity care, or see their hospital bills go to collections. The main reason 

is the 7 year deterioration in funding for the IHS budget, particularly the underfunding of the Contract Health Services line item. It is this line item that pays for 

the care we do not provide in our clinic. The Tribe supports the recommendations 

of the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board in its fiscal year 2009 IHS 

Budget Analysis and Recommendations. That analysis finds that a $355 million increase is needed to maintain current services. Our Tribe supports that level of funding as the minimum required in fiscal year 2009. 

2. $750,000 for the Squaxin Island Department of Public Health and Safety to hire 

six (6) additional FTE officers for 24-hour coverage in order to ensure the safety of 

the community and a Public Defender.—Public Safety is a high priority for the 

Squaxin Island Tribe. The Squaxin Island Tribal Public Safety and Justice Department is dedicated to protecting lives, maintaining peace and ensuring that the property and resources of the Squaxin Island Tribe are protected through the enforcement of the laws and regulations set forth by the Squaxin Island Tribal Council. 

Law enforcement officers patrol the reservation, South Puget waterways and usual 

and accustomed hunting areas, protecting human life and natural resources upon 

which Tribal members rely on for cultural and economic sustenance. 

The Squaxin Island Public Safety and Justice Department has continued to operate on funding levels insufficient to meet the needs of this Department and our community. This has resulted in operating a program at minimum capacity, which has 

placed a negative impact on the service level provided to the Squaxin Island Community. The process of protecting the public is hampered by the lack of officers to 

provide the 24-hour coverage, which is very critical in life and death situations. 

The Public Safety Department successfully manages Squaxin Island Tribal Court, 

which consists of three divisions: a tribal court, an appeals court and an employment court. The Department also manages a shellfish and geoduck harvesting monitoring program. Officers are trained in scuba diving and assist with compliance and 

safety issues. 

A Public Defender is needed for the justice program. Currently the Tribe is under 

contract to provide legal representation to the community members. The court caseload and number of police calls continue to grow at an increasing rate. Current 

funding is inadequate to meet the needs of the growing community, protect natural 

resources and to fully participate in regional and homeland security programs and 

initiatives. 

The Tribe is enhancing the shellfish habitat and production programs, which has 

increased the demand on the water enforcement program to address issues of illegal 

harvesting. With current funding and staffing levels, it will be almost impossible to 

adequately protect the Tribe’s investment in enhancing natural resources. The 

Squaxin Island Tribe is seeking both long-term and immediate assistance. 

In the long term, BIA funding for law enforcement and public safety programs 

needs to be significantly increased. According to a gap analysis performed by the 

BIA in 2006 based on the FBI’s 2004 Uniform Crime Report (UCR), there is a 42 

percent unmet need of law enforcement officers in Indian Country. And, the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant program that has benefited Tribal 

communities and law enforcement hiring and staffing needs is recommended for termination under the PART fiscal year 2008 Performance Budget. 
462 

3. $5 million to fulfill Puget Sound Regional Shellfish Settlement Commitment.— The BIA Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements Account must include $7 million for the Puget Sound Regional Shellfish Settlement. The Federal Government is 

committed under terms of recently enacted legislation to fully fund the shellfish settlement. To complete the Federal obligation, $7 million is due in fiscal year 2008 

and $5 million for fiscal year 2009—fiscal year 2011. 

Squaxin Island Tribe Supports Regional Requests and Recommendations 

1. Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board 

2. Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians 

3. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE SUPPORTS SELF-GOVERNANCE AND NATIONAL REQUESTS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

1. Restore Johnson O’Malley funds ($21.4 million); and Housing Improvement Funds ($13.6 million) to Tribal base programs 2. Provide $25 million General Increase to BIA Tribal Priority Allocation for inflationary and fixed costs 

3. Provide $45 million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost (CSC), including 

Direct CSC 

4. $500,000 for BIA Data Management funding of Office of Program Data Quality 

Indian Health Service 

5. Provide $486 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth increase to maintain existing health care services (President’s budget proposes a cut 

of $21.3 million) 

6. $152 million increase for Contract Health Services (CHS) 

7. $160 million increase for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC (recent increases have been dedicated for new and expended 

Public Law 93–638 programs and will require Tribes to waive their rights to CSC 

as a condition to the award of any new Self-Determination or Self-Governance 

agreements. It is because of this waiver requirement that Tribes have refrained 

from assuming programs under Public Law 93–638. Further such a requirement is 

contrary to the intent of Congress and the principles of ISDEAA. We request that 

Congress intervenes and prohibits the IHS new waiver policy and address the funding of CSC for new initiatives) 

8. Increase $5 million to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Tribal Self-Governance (Restore $4.7 million decrease in fiscal year 2002 and $.3 million in shortfalls, pay costs increases and inflation. Self-Governance serves as a model initiative 

for Federal outsourcing, which supports the strengthening of Tribal infrastructure 

and provides quality health services to Tribal members.) 

9. Restore $21 million for health care facilities construction (Due to the completion 

of project construction stages for health care facilities, the administration proposes 

to reduce the 2008 level of $37 million by $21 million in fiscal year 2009. These 

funds are critical to address the health facilities construction priority system that 

has been under a moratorium since 1992. Until the existing listing is updated and 

completed, the new facility construction requests comprise a plethora of health facilities construction needs in Indian Country.) 

10. Maintain annual funding for Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) at 

$150 million until new authority is enacted (Current extended authority for Special 

Diabetes Program for Indians will expire in 2009) 

On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribal Council and Tribal members, thank you 

for this opportunity. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBAL

My name is Ron His Horse Is Thunder. I am the chairman of the Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe. I am honored to report on the conditions of the Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe as they relate to the programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the 

president’s fiscal year 2009 budget. I want to thank this subcommittee, its chairman 

and members, for their steadfast support of Indian tribes. We need your continued 

vigilance to ensure that the Federal Government honors its trust responsibility to 

the Nation’s First Americans. 

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is situated in North and South Dakota. The Reservation comprises 2.3 million acres, of which 1.4 million acres is Tribally owned 

and Tribal owned allotted lands. About 10,000 Tribal members and non-members 
463 

reside on the Reservation in eight communities and in smaller towns. The Tribe’s 

primary industry is cattle ranching and farming. We operate the Standing Rock 

Farms, two Tribal casinos, and a sand and gravel operation which help us supplement services and programs for our nearly 14,000 enrolled members. We are a ‘‘direct service’’ Tribe for the delivery of health care services from the Indian Health 

Service and law enforcement services from the BIA. While the Tribe is making its 

best effort to remediate the social and economic challenges we face, we continue to 

lag behind every national standard which measures health and prosperity of Americans. 

We have persistent unemployment, a high drop out rate among our high school 

students, and over 40 percent of Indian families on our reservation live in poverty. 

In 2007, over 1,000 member households on Standing Rock had family income of 30 

percent-80 percent of median family income in the area. The majority of our Tribal 

elders suffer from diabetes, heart disease and hypertension. Less than 4 percent of 

our members are above the age of 65. Accidents are the leading cause of death 

among our members. Despite the well documented needs in Indian country for basic 

governmental services, the president’s fiscal year 2009 budget further reduces the 

Federal Government’s commitment and trust responsibility to Native people. It is 

time to reverse this harmful trend so that Indian Tribes and our members can compete in today’s global economy. During economic downturns, it is rural America, and 

Indian reservations in particular, which are hit especially hard. 

I will focus my remarks on my Tribe’s needs in the areas of Public Safety, Education, Economic Development, and Natural Resources Development. 

PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS

Last month, I traveled to Washington, D.C. with members of the Tribal Council 

to meet with our elected representatives and officials of the BIA to request funding 

to combat the breakdown in public safety on our Reservation. At Standing Rock, we 

have 10 staffed, full time police officers to patrol our 2.3 million acre reservation 

and 2,500 miles of roads. That averages to about 2–3 officers per eight-hour shift. 

Nearly one-half of our resident Tribal members are under the age of 25. There is 

no effective law enforcement for youth offenders at Standing Rock, who are released 

if there are no facilities to house them. Violent crime rates are increasing. From 

January to June 2006, BIA police documented the commission of 1,247 offenses on 

our reservation, the vast majority involving alcohol and drugs. We are a rural community, but our crime rate parallels that of a major city. 

We sought from the BIA: (1) their assurance to increase the number of law enforcement officers on our Reservation, (2) funds to supplement Tribal and Justice 

Department monies to complete construction of an 18-bed juvenile detention center 

for young offenders where individual and family counseling can reverse destructive 

behavior, and (3) funds to conduct a staffing and a spacing needs assessment to assist us design and build a modern Tribal Justice Center to house Tribal Courts, the 

BIA police department, and an adult detention center. There is simply no money 

within the BIA for these programs. If the BIA will not ask for adequate funding, 

Congress must step in. 

The administration is not implementing the recommendations of a 2006 ‘‘Gap 

Analysis’’ the BIA commissioned to identify and review current policing and detention capacity in Indian Country and to compare what is available to what is needed. 

The results are shocking. The report found that BIA District 1, which encompasses 

an eight State region including North and South Dakota, had 108 Law Enforcement 

Officers (LEOs), but needs over four times that amount (483 LEOs). A 1997 Justice 

Department study found that Indian Country had 1.3 officers for every 1,000 inhabitants, versus 2.9 officers in non-Indian jurisdictions. BIA District 1 is among the 

areas with the greatest need. 

Between 2004 and 2007, United States attorneys declined to prosecute 62 percent 

of reservation criminal cases referred to their offices and there has been a 27 percent decrease in Indian Country criminal investigations by the FBI from 2001–2006, 

during the period when violent crimes in reservation communities are increasing. 

This must change. 

We recommend that BIA Criminal Investigations and Police Services should be 

funded at $162.275 million, $25 million over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. BIA 

Detention/Corrections should be increased to $89 million, a $25 million increase over 

the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. We recommend the BIA Public Safety and Justice 

Facilities Improvement and Repair program be funded at $50 million above the fiscal year 2008 level, and we request $20 million in annual funding for the Tribal 

Justice Support program to improve Tribal Courts. These increases should continue 

each year until the recommendations of the Gap report are met. 
464 

EDUCATION NEEDS

According to NCAI, Native Americans attain bachelor and higher education degrees at half the rate of their non-Indian counterparts. At Standing Rock, our Tribe 

has provided $3 million over 3 years to support a scholarship program to provide 

over 300 students with grants of between $3,000–$3,500/semester which allow them 

to pursue degrees from accredited colleges, universities and vocational schools. BIA 

financed scholarships total about $500,000 per year (meeting 25 percent of need). 

By providing scholarships to our students, they are able to remain in school and 

obtain a degree and education that can open doors to life-time careers. We want to 

break the cycle of joblessness that exists on our reservation. With scholarships, we 

monitor the progress of each recipient as they pursue their degree, review student 

degree plans and provide guidance if a student is not progressing toward their degree. We cannot do this alone and require increased funding for this vital program. 

We oppose the administration’s fiscal year 2009 BIA education budget, which proposes $33.85 million in cuts for Indian education: a $5.9 million reduction in Scholarships and Adult Education (TPA), the elimination of all $5.9 million for the Tribal 

Technical Colleges, flat lining funding for Special Higher Education Scholarships; a 

$10.8 million reduction in elementary and secondary BIA programs, including cuts 

in Early Childhood Development ($2.75 million reduction); and elimination of Johnson O’Malley funds. 

We recommend fully restoring and increasing, by an additional $50 million, BIA 

funding for education as well as seeking increased funding for construction, operation, maintenance and repair of BIA schools. You cannot start early enough to instill in a child a love of learning. The future of Indian communities rests on their 

young shoulders. As the past president of Sitting Bull College, I know how hard Indian students work to succeed. They face many obstacles to achieve and excel; they 

live in two worlds—one Indian and one non-Indian. They need to succeed in both 

if they are to live up to their full potential and lead healthy lives. They deserve our 

full support. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

When Indian Tribes can provide basic governmental services to their reservation 

communities—law enforcement and courts, housing, adequate infrastructure, including roads, potable water, electricity, and health services—they make possible the 

conditions for economic development. 

We recommend restoring the Administration’s $13 million proposed cut and adding $10 million to the BIA Community and Economic Development Program, add 

$10 million above last year’s level for the BIA’s ‘‘477’’ Job Placement and Training 

Program and Economic Development Program so that these programs achieve their 

goals—to increase educational levels, job readiness skills, job placement, and to promote economic growth in Indian country. 

We also oppose reducing by half, to $13 million, funding for the BIA Road Maintenance Program. As a rural community, whose main industry is agriculture and 

ranching, our farmers and ranchers also need safe roads to get their goods to markets. The Administration’s justification for the reduction, to reflect the increased assumption of the BIA Road Maintenance Program by Indian tribes, is incorrect. 

Tribes assume the ‘‘Secretarial amount,’’ the amount available to the Secretary of 

the Interior to carry out the program under the Indian Self-Determination Act. We 

contracted the program in 2007 and now face losing half our BIA funding. Maintaining roads is common sense. 

Standing Rock testified last summer before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee 

regarding the unacceptable high rate of traffic accidents and deaths on Indian Reservation Roads caused in part by poor road maintenance. Statistics from the Center 

for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) show that injury and death rates among Native American motorist and 

pedestrians are two and three times the national average. We support the request 

by NCAI to increase funding for the BIA Road Maintenance Program to at least 

$100 million annually. 

NATURAL RESOURCES NEEDS

We are working with the Bureau of Reclamation to extend irrigation systems to 

cover 1,550 acres of 2,380 eligible acres as part of the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act. We have received about one-half of the $20 million in BOR funds 

required to construct irrigation lines for all 2,380 acres. With more lines, however, 

our operation, maintenance and repair (OM&R) costs increase. The BIA provides no 

funds for our annual OM&R costs ($750,000). Standing Rock Farms is becoming one 
465 

of North Dakota’s premier agricultural producers with a multi-million dollar impact 

on the economy. It is a producer of jobs and revenues on our reservation. 

The Tribe would also like to be part of a demonstration program in Indian Country to use satellite imaging technology to assist the Tribe inventory and manage 

Tribal resources. Using Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies, our 

Tribe would like to access satellite data to identify and catalogue Tribal resources 

to improve land management programs on our reservation. BIA maps are outdated 

(sometimes by decades). As revenues are generated from the increased use of Tribal 

resources, the Tribe can assume a greater share of the program’s cost. 

As with other programs intended to benefit Native Americans, the Administration 

proposes further reductions to the BIA’s Natural Resources Management programs. 

We encourage Congress to expand funding for BIA programs such as Natural Resources, Irrigation Operation and Maintenance, Agriculture and Range, Tribal Management/Development Program, Integrated Resources Management Plans, Water 

Resources, and Minerals and Mining Program, to improve Tribal management of 

our natural resources and promote economic development of these resources. We 

support the full restoration of the administration’s proposed budget cut of $7 million 

and recommend an increase of $50 million over last year’s funding level for these 

programs so that more Indian tribes can improve resource management techniques 

and practices. 

Working with Tribal governments, the United States needs to attend to the basics—ensure safe communities free from crime, safe homes with clean drinking 

water where children grow and learn from their parents and Tribal elders in a 

healthy environment, preventive health care to promote longer and healthier lives, 

safe roads so we do not lose members to preventable accidents, and modern schools 

where our children are eager to learn and where they are given the resources they 

need to succeed. If we can promote Indian family-friendly programs that help us 

maintain and strengthen the social fabric of our reservations, we will create a 

strong foundation to build upon. 

Thank you for affording me this opportunity to present my Tribe’s views on the 

fiscal year 2009 budget for the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

The State of Colorado is an active participant in Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, both of which are recognized throughout the country as models for 

endangered species conservation and recovery. These Programs have developed collaborative solutions to pursue endangered species recovery while allowing water development to continue in our arid Rocky Mountain States. 

I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2009 to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) for both of these Programs. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2009 includes FWS funding for these programs at 

the levels I am requesting. I request support and action by the Subcommittee that 

will provide the following, as authorized by Public Law 106–392, as amended. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Resource Nianagement Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $68,067,000 item entitled ‘‘Recovery Program’’) to the 

U.S. Fish and ldlife Service (FWS) for fiscal year 2009 tp allow FWS to continue its 

essential participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same level of funding provided to the Recovery Program in fiscal 

years 2004 through 2008. 

2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery System Operations Sub activity; $475,000 within the 

$45,147,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery Operations’’) to support 

theongoing operation of the FWS’ Our-ay National Fish Hatchery in Utah during 

fiscal year 2009. 

3. Allocation of $200,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2009 to meet FWS’s Region 

2 expenses in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery actions. 

Substantial non-federal cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is embodied in 

both of these programs. 

These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing partnerships among 

the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal 

agencies and water, power and environmental interests. The Programs’ objectives 
466 

are to recover endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds 

in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. These recovery programs have become national models for collaboratively working to recover endangered species 

while addressing water needs to support growing western communities. Since 1988, 

these programs have provided ESA compliance for over 1,600 Federal, tribal, state 

and privately managed water projects depleting more than 3 million acre-feet of 

water per year. 

The Upper Colorado and San Juan Programs bring a diverse group of people and 

interests together to resolve potential conflicts over endangered species recovery and 

water development. The endangered fish species are returning, and water development is proceeding in accordance with State law and interstate compacts. These arc 

the kinds of programs that I support. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs—I thank you for that support 

and request the subcommittee’s assistance for fiscal year 2009 funding to ensure 

FWS’ continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Chairman Feinstein and Senator Allard: I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2009 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal 

year 2009 includes FWS funding for these programs at the levels I am requesting. 

The State of New Mexico requests support and action by the subcommittee that will 

provide the following: 

1. Allocation of $200,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2009 to meet FWS’s Region 

2 expenses in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery actions. 

2. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; within the $68,417,000 item entitled ‘‘Recovery’’) to the FWS for fiscal year 

2009 to allow FWS to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same level of funding appropriated to the Recovery Program for this purpose in fiscal years 2004 through 2008. 

3. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery System Operations Subactivity; within the $43,507,000 item 

entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery Operations’’) to support the ongoing operation of 

the FWS Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah during fiscal year 2009. 

These highly successful cooperative programs are ongoing partnerships among the 

States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and environmental interests. The programs continue to meet 

their objectives of working to recover endangered fish species while water use and 

development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The Department of the Interior has recognized the Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs as national models for collaboratively working to recover endangered species 

while addressing water needs to support growing western communities. These programs have provided ESA compliance (without litigation) since 1988 for over 1,600 

Federal, tribal, State, and privately managed water projects depleting more than 3 

million acre-feet of water per year. Substantial non-federal cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is embodied in both of these programs as authorized by Public 

Law 106–392, as amended. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs. On behalf of the citizens of 

New Mexico, I thank the Subcommittee for your past assistance and again seek the 

subcommittee’s assistance this year to ensure adequate FWS funding for the upcoming Federal fiscal year. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Chairman Feinstein and Senator Allard: I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2009 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal 

year 2009 includes FWS funding for these programs at the levels I am requesting. 
467 

The State of Wyoming requests support and action by the subcommittee that will 

provide the following. 1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; within the $68,417,000 item entitled ‘‘Recovery’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) for fiscal year 2009 to allow FWS to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the 

same level of funding appropriated to the Recovery Program for this purpose in fiscal years 2004 through 2008. 

2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery System Operations Subactivity; within the $43,507,000 item 

entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery Operations’’) to support the ongoing operation of 

the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah during fiscal year 2009. 

3. Allocation of $200,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2009 to meet FWS’s Region 

2 expenses in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery actions. 

These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing partnerships among 

the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal 

agencies, and water, power and environmental interests. The programs continue to 

be meeting their objectives of working to recover endangered fish species while 

water use and development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species 

Act. The Department of the Interior has recognized the Upper Colorado and San 

Juan recovery programs as national models for collaboratively working to recover 

endangered species while addressing water needs to support growing western communities. Since 1988, these programs have provided ESA compliance (without litigation) for over 1,600 Federal, Tribal, State, and privately managed water projects depleting more than 3 million acre-feet of water per year. Substantial non-Federal 

cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is embodied in both of these programs as 

authorized by Public Law 106–392, as amended. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs. We in Wyoming gratefully 

thank you for that support and request the subcommittee’s assistance for fiscal year 

2009 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SWAN ECOSYSTEM CENTER

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify in support of continued Federal investment in the Swan Valley, Montana and to specifically urge a fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $1.92 million to the State of Montana from the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) and an $8.0 

million appropriation to the U.S. Forest Service from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the Swan Valley conservation effort. The Swan Valley is 

unique in Montana because the land is exceptionally good at growing trees, the rich 

and diverse habitat provides for a diversity of species, and the scenic and recreation 

amenities are superb. The people in the Swan Valley care deeply about this place 

and need your help protecting it. 

Swan Ecosystem Center formed in 1996 as an inclusive 501(c)(3) nonprofit watershed group in the Swan Valley of northwest Montana. Anyone who lives in the 

Swan Valley and participates is a member. Swan Ecosystem Center has an office 

and visitor center in the U.S. Forest Service Condon Work Center through a partnership with the Forest Service. According to surveys, most people in the Swan Valley want to protect forests, wildlife and public access. This request is for funding 

to fulfill a multi-stakeholder conservation strategy, in keeping with the Swan Ecosystem Center Mission: We, citizens of the Upper Swan Valley, Montana, have a 

self-imposed sense of responsibility to maintain a strong, vital community, one involved in setting its own destiny through partnerships that encourage sustainable 

use and care of public and private land. 

The Swan Valley conservation effort is a cooperative venture among private landowners, public land management agencies, public resource management agencies, 

the community, and non-governmental organizations. These groups are working to 

protect the significant ecological and recreational resources of the Swan Valley, 

while promoting the sustainable management of the valley’s forest resources. This 

process has included a science-based assessment of wildlife and fisheries resources, 

timber productivity, and recreational activities, as well as considerable input from 

a broad base of Swan Valley residents. Conservation strategies include: 
468 

—Land and Water Conservation Fund program to protect critical habitat and public recreation opportunities through Forest Service acquisitions. 

—Forest Legacy Program to protect working timberlands with multiple resource 

values through conservation easements and limited acquisitions by the State of 

Montana. 

—Residential land conservation easement program through local land trusts. 

—Habitat Conservation Plan program and other mitigation programs to protect 

core habitat for threatened or endangered species. 

—Special conservation areas to be managed by a nonprofit community group with 

a broad representation of interests and backgrounds. 

—Private foundation funding and investment capital to further conservation objectives. 

This year, three properties totaling 1,222 acres are available for acquisition 

through the Land and Water Conservation Fund to continue the conservation efforts 

in the Swan Valley. The parcels are located within grizzly bear habitat and are important for species recovery. Some parcels also contain stream reaches important for 

bull trout habitat and other native species, important habitat for elk and other big 

game, and/or recreation resources important to Montana residents and visitors 

alike. These acquisitions will prevent further fragmentation of forestland ownership 

and land uses, and improve coordinated land management through blocking up of 

public ownership in areas of checkerboard ownership. This proposal was ranked 

third priority by the USFS—Northern Region. 

The Swan Forest Legacy Program conservation easements and acquisitions will 

promote a sustainable working forest in the Swan Valley in order to maintain the 

forest-based economy of the Valley by protecting the most productive forestlands 

from conversion to non-forest uses. This year’s proposal helps to protect access to 

public lands, maintain traditional outdoor recreation activities and conserve important wildlife and fisheries habitats. The proposal includes acquisition of 446 acres 

of Plum Creek lands within the Swan River State Forest checkerboard area, which 

would be conveyed to the State of Montana for on-going forest management. This 

proposal was ranked first by the State of Montana ranking committee and ninth by 

the USFS national ranking committee. 

It should be noted that private investment and commitment to conservation in the 

Swan Valley plays a significant role alongside the public conservation efforts. There 

is growing recognition that the conservation resources of the area blanket much of 

the Swan Valley, regardless of land ownership boundaries and that effective resource protection requires a multi-faceted approach. The efforts of private landowners, the Swan Ecosystem Center, other organizations, and private foundations 

are all contributing toward successful implementation of the conservation strategy. 

The funding this committee has most generously provided for fee and easement 

acquisitions in the Swan Valley in previous fiscal years has reduced the checkerboard ownership pattern in the area, protected sensitive habitat and recreation 

lands from development, and protected forestlands from conversion to non-forest 

uses. We are extremely grateful for those past appropriations, and we ask you for 

your continued support as the committee considers the fiscal year 2009 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation bill. 

Please support the Swan Valley conservation effort. Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TAMARAC INTERPRETIVE ASSOCIATION

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the Tamarac 

Interpretive Association, the friend’s organization of the Tamarac National Wildlife 

Refuge in Minnesota, I am submitting testimony for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. We support a funding 

level of $514 million in fiscal year 2009 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

(FWS) National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account and adequate funding for Visitor Services. 

Last year Congress responded to years of inadequate funding with an increase of 

$39 million, bringing funding to the National Wildlife Refuge System to $434 million. The Presidents proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 of $434.1 million represents the same level of funding as the current fiscal year. In order to maintain 

services and programs from the previous year, the National Wildlife Refuge System 

budget must increase by $15 million each year. The $15 million amount is derived 

from increases for cost-of-living for FWS personnel, growing rent and real estate 

costs, increasing energy prices, and other cost increases, while sustaining current 

levels of visitor services and wildlife management. The crisis that the Refuge Sys-
469 

tem faces is that multiple years of stagnant budgets prior to fiscal year 2007 have 

resulted in a $3.5 billion Operations and Maintenance backlog. Backlogs, and what 

amounted to budget cuts prior to fiscal year 2007, have forced plans for a 20 percent 

downsizing of the workforce. Across the Refuge System, refuge visitors often show 

up to find roads and visitor centers closed, observation platforms and hiking trails 

in disrepair, and habitat restoration and school education programs eliminated. 

Invasive plant species are taking over and with a deficiency of more than 500 law 

enforcement officers, illegal activities such as poaching and trespass are on the rise. 

The $514 million target includes the required annual $15 million increase plus begins to address the backlog crisis so that the Refuge System can fulfill its responsibility to administer nearly 100 million acres, nature programs, habitat restoration 

projects, and more. 

Focusing on the challenges in the Midwest region, a year ago, the 20 percent 

workforce reductions required 71 positions to be cut, including 27 in Minnesota. 

These Minnesota lost positions included 9 managers/resource specialists, 6 park 

rangers, 6 biologists/biology technicians, 3 maintenance workers, and 3 administrative staff. In addition to position cuts in the field, reductions also included Region 

Office management divisions. Minnesota’s 15 refuges alone have 441 unfunded, yet 

essential projects, totaling $51.5 million. In the maintenance area of operations for 

Minnesota overall, the backlog exceeds $64.0 million, which severely impedes refuge 

staff from protecting wildlife habitat and providing for recreational opportunities. 

The impact of this budgetary operations and maintenance backlog is also felt at 

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge. The loss of one of the station’s maintenance positions (that has yet to be refilled), has resulted in creating a backlog of repairs and 

regular maintenance of facilities, vehicles, refuge roads, parking areas, and hiking 

trails. Since the remaining maintenance position is seasonal, there has been reduced 

snow removal on refuge roads, parking areas, and at the Refuge Headquarters/Visitor Center. With public lake accesses not being plowed on a regular bases, ice fishermen have had a more difficult time getting out on the ice to fish. During the muzzleloader deer season some hunters were unable to access portions of the refuge because of snow-blocked roads where no one was available to plow. Deer hunting on 

the refuge is not just a recreational opportunity, but it is critical for management 

of the deer population and conserving a healthy habitat. Maintenance backlogs include the need to repave our Visitor Center parking lot and our Chippewa picnic 

area restrooms need to be updated. At our Visitor Center/Refuge Headquarters, continuing water leakage has caused an assortment of damage and problems, including 

the lost productivity from moping up water after each heavy rain. 

Our wider community, with Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, as its commercial and population center, is also host to Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge and the Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District. The budget crisis has resulted in the lost 

of one staff position at the nearby Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District 

causing the elimination of biological surveys used to influence wildlife habitat restoration and land protection activities. Local partnerships have been strained due 

to lack of staff. In addition, the entire staff of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge was reassigned to Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District along with the 

elimination of the Hamden Slough’s refuge manager position. This transfer of refuge 

staff has resulted in a diminished capacity to intensively manage Hamden Slough 

habitats. These staff reductions and reorganizations have also impacted Tamarac 

National Wildlife Refuge. Not only must Tamarac refuge staff deal with backlog and 

reduced operational funding, but their duties frequently now included those of Hamden Slough and the Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District, further decreasing 

wildlife management at Tamarac. 

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938 to serve as a breeding 

ground and sanctuary for migratory birds and other wildlife. Tamarac Refuge’s 

42,724 acres lies in the heart of one of the most diverse vegetative transition zones 

in North America, where tall grass prairie, northern hardwood and boreal forests 

converge. These transitional habitats provide a haven for a diversity of wildlife species and some, such as the timber wolf, are at the extreme edge of their range in 

Minnesota. While the needs of wildlife are the first priority, Tamarac Refuge also 

provides many opportunities for visitors to enjoy and learn about our natural world 

through wildlife-compatible activities. These six priority public uses, set by legislation, include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation. 

Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, found that national wildlife refuges are major economic engines for their communities. Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge generated 

final demand totaling nearly $1.6 million with associated employment of 24 jobs, 
470 

$491,200 in employment income and $235,600 in total tax revenue. Put another 

way, for every $1 of budget expenditure there was a $2.5 economic effect. 

Public visitation at Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge continues to rise, going 

from 58,500 in fiscal year 2006 to 63,000 visitors in fiscal year 2007. Our Visitor 

Center received 6,950 visitors in fiscal year 2007. While the number of ‘‘visitors’’ are 

the actual count of people, the number of ‘‘visits’’ indicates the number of times people participate in an activity. The total estimated visits for the refuge in fiscal year 

2007 were 87,146. Available data from fiscal year 2006, show 3,800 people visited 

the refuge for big game hunting, 1,300 for small game, 1,525 for migratory bird 

hunting, 4,000 for fishing, 31,700 for wildlife observation, 15,000 for birding, and 

6,000 for hiking nature trails. The Banking on Nature 2006 study determined that 

this visitation resulted in $1,211,700 of recreation expenditures, of which $1,045,700 

were from non-residents. 

The lakes area in Northwestern Minnesota, like the areas around other refuges 

near populated areas, has been rapidly developing with lakeside and rural seasonal 

and year-round homes. With diminishing habitat, Tamarac’s 42,724 acres are a key 

‘‘refuge’’ for migratory bird and other wildlife production. Due to the same developmental pressures, the Tamarac NWR is also increasingly an island of relatively natural forests, lakes, marshes, and prairie. Development and ‘‘No trespassing or hunting’’ signs proliferating across the landscape also make Tamarac NWR an important 

remaining public hunting area. Several lakes on the refuge are open to fishing, providing a fishing experience on a more pristine lake. Tamarac NWR also has an active visitor services and education program, with interpretive trails, observation 

decks, guided tours, special weekend interpretive opportunities, and a visitor center. 

Last year, Tamarac staff provided programs for over 4,000 students and adults. 

With the refuge’s primary purpose of migratory bird and wildlife production, these 

additional and sometimes competing uses are managed well. Tamarac NWR, as all 

refuges, is completing a Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan with input from 

public hearings, to better balance public use while maintaining its first priority of 

the protection of wildlife and habitat. Increasing visitation makes the job of balancing wildlife and people evermore important; a critical time for needing staff and 

resources. 

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge is also a key resource for area schools and 

science education. In fiscal year 2007, 4,100 school children participated in environmental education programs at Tamarac and 2,795 off-site. Other educational programs for families in 2007, accounted for 2,636 additional participants. For example, 

first graders from Frazee, Minnesota, come each May to plant trees, finding the 

funding themselves for the seedlings. Aida wrote back to the refuge the following: 

I learned about planting pine trees. I heard the male frogs singing a song to the 

lady frogs in the pond. I learned about ant hills. I learned how trees grow. I also 

learned about deer scat. I saw ducks in the pond. Last year, third graders visited 

Tamarac NWR from Moorhead, Minnesota, saw Eagles and Osprey for the first 

time, and marveled at a giant nine foot high beaver dam. The most creative were 

teachers and students from Detroit Lakes (Minnesota) Middle School that combined 

multiple subjects in completing several global positioning system exercises at the 

refuge. In addition to math, science, and technology, their work included writing, 

two examples follow: Tamarac, By Levi Johnson: As I stepped off the bus. To my 

wonder. Bright red and golden leaves hanging from the trees. Sun so bright. Crisp 

fall air. Crisp, crunchy leaves under my feet. Friends laughing as they walk. Back 

to the bus we go. Tamarac, By Rheanna Lind. I slowly strolled through the tall 

grasses; Hoping not to trip and fall, Listening to the leaves crack under my feet, 

watching a mouse, my heart skips a beat. I gaze around watching the grass sway; 

My director yells it’s time to go away; I look around one last time; goodbye wildlife, 

goodbye Tamarac. Without needed refuge funding that deals with the operational 

deficit and maintenance backlog, for school groups, it could be a more permanent 

goodbye. 

The Tamarac Interpretive Association, the friends group of the Tamarac National 

Wildlife Refuge, was founded in 1992. Our mission is to facilitate activities and programs that interpret, protect and restore the natural and cultural resources of the 

refuge. We work to support the refuge in any way we can and that is requested. 

We have been involved in assisting with interpretive and educational programs, improving of visitor center exhibits, assisting with special events, developing a library 

of educational materials, and we support the refuge’s volunteer program. We operate a gift shop of wildlife and nature themed books, clothing, and other items. All 

proceeds, along with friends’ group dues and other contributions, go to help us in 

our refuge supporting mission. With the mounting pressure on refuge budgets and 

staff, our friends group wrote and received a grant that helped to equip our friend’s 
471 

office with needed technology and upgraded our gift shop cash register and inventory system, all with the goal of enabling to do more. 

Our friends group has no paid employees; all our time is volunteer time. In fiscal 

year 2007, 109 volunteers at the Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge donated 4,584 

hours, up from 3,860 the year before. Forty-eight people volunteered regularly. Individuals assist the refuge with biological field studies, environmental education, facility maintenance, visitor center hosts, leading tours, and many other functions. In 

2006, a FWS funded observation deck was totally constructed with volunteer labor. 

With the savings, binoculars and spotting scopes were purchased for the visitor 

services program. Last fiscal year, I was able to provide 1,376 volunteer hours and 

this fiscal year I have 978 to date. I’ve only been volunteering a few years, but then 

there are others who have been volunteering for many years. Ruth Dienst, for example, has volunteered leading refuge tours since 1992, and organized refuge tours 

from area resorts starting 16 years earlier. Health almost stopped her volunteering, 

but last summer she was driven to the refuge for each week’s refuge tour. She delights visitors with her knowledge of plants and wild edibles, and she always brings 

her wild jams and teas for visitors to sample. There are many individual stories of 

commitment from dozens of hours a year to hundreds a year. Across the refuge system in 2006, 36,169 volunteers contributed 1,447,421 hours with a value of 

$26,111,475. 

We as volunteers and we as refuge friends groups can only do so much. Refuge 

system funding that amounts to annual cuts have not only eliminated any slack, 

but has produced maintenance and program backlogs. The refuge system faces a 

crippling budget backlog of more than $3.5 billion. Funding pressures on our Nation’s wildlife refuge system are no longer a matter for refuge staff doing more with 

less, simply, less will be accomplished. As volunteers and members of friends 

groups, this situation severely stresses us. Our role is not to fill in staff and budget 

shortfalls. Yet, we try and do what we can. 

We are exceedingly grateful for the subcommittee’s support of $451 million for fiscal year 2008. As dedicated friends groups and volunteers, there is no greater affirmation of our work and our shared commitment to our Nation’s refuges. We urge 

funding our refuge system in fiscal year 2009 at the $514 million level. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE NATIONAL STEERING

COMMITTEE

On behalf of the Teaming with Wildlife National Steering Committee, we urge you 

to support funding in the amount of $85 million for the State Wildlife Grants Program in the fiscal year 2009 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 

Teaming with Wildlife is a coalition of more than 5,500 organizations, agencies 

and businesses who support increased funding for State-level wildlife programs of 

conservation, education, and recreation aimed at keeping wildlife from becoming endangered. The Teaming with Wildlife coalition includes wildlife biologists, hunters 

& anglers, birdwatchers, hikers, visitors’ bureaus, nature-based businesses and 

other conservationists who believe that working together to advance proactive wildlife conservation will save both wildlife and tax dollars over the long term. 

The State Wildlife Grants Program supports proactive on-the-ground conservation 

projects aimed at declining fish and wildlife species and their habitats. State Wildlife Grants is not just a grants program. It is the Nation’s core program for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered in every State. As a coalition of conservation organizations, wildlife management professionals, outdoor enthusiasts, 

and other supporters of wildlife conservation we have seen the tangible benefits of 

these projects in the communities where we live and work. Now, in response to a 

charge from Congress, the State wildlife agencies and their many conservation partners have worked together to complete Wildlife Action Plans for every State and territory. These plans were all officially approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

in January 2007. Organizations like ours and the State wildlife agencies we work 

with are eager to take the next step and begin implementation, but we are counting 

on funding from the State Wildlife Grants Program to help us put these plans into 

action. It is the only funding nationwide that is dedicated for this purpose. 

We understand the difficult decisions you have to make during this time of tight 

budgets. Now more than ever, Congress should be focusing limited resources on this 

kind of smart, proactive conservation investment. Experience shows that efforts to 

restore imperiled wildlife are difficult and costly. State Wildlife Grants enable 

States to be proactive and avert such conservation catastrophes, concurrently saving 

wildlife and taxpayer dollars, and improving our quality of life by conserving wild-
472 

life for the benefit of millions of Americans. The program also leverages significant 

funding from private, State, and local sources to magnify the impact of Federal dollars. The Wildlife Opportunities Action Fund is one such effort that has helped support over 35 initiatives in 2006 and 2007 and disbursed more than $3.2 million to 

projects across all States and territories. Thanks to the Doris Duke Foundation and 

the Wildlife Conservation Society, efforts of this kind help to honor the commitment 

of the Federal Government to support projects on the ground in every State and territory. 

Since the beginning of the State Wildlife Grants Program, almost $500 million 

has flowed to the States for the development of their wildlife action plans and for 

on-the-ground projects to benefit native wildlife and their habitats. Projects providing benefits for both wildlife and people are underway in every State across the 

Nation. This work could not be done without support from the State Wildlife Grant 

program. 

—Henslow’s sparrows and other grassland wildlife are species of greatest conservation need in Arkansas’ wildlife action plan. Thanks to a State Wildlife 

Grants project, several unknown populations of breeding Henslow’s sparrows 

were revealed in northwest Arkansas, with the largest in Cherokee Prairie Natural Area. This vital information will help biologists, land stewards, and conservation planners conserve important grassland habitat and wildlife before 

they become more rare and more costly to protect. 

—Most of the freshwater mussels in Virginia are listed as species of greatest conservation need in the State wildlife action plan. The health of freshwater mussels is often an early indicator for disease and pollution that affect us all. Of 

the 81 species of mussels that live in Virginia, half are federally or State listed 

as endangered or threatened species and others are declining at an alarming 

rate. State Wildlife Grants are being used to propagate mussels in a hatchery 

and then release them into streams to bolster and restore these declining populations. This is a proactive approach that will prevent more mussels from becoming endangered, and benefit the health of wildlife and people while saving 

taxpayer money. 

We are very pleased that the President has recognized the significance of this program and supported $73.8 million for State Wildlife Grants, which matches the level 

of funding provided in the final budget for fiscal year 2008. A funding level of $85 

million would help bring this program back up to the highest level of funding it has 

ever received, in fiscal year 2002, and would send an important message about the 

Congress’s commitment to following through on providing the support needed to implement the State wildlife action plans. By restoring funding to this program at this 

critical juncture in the program, the Congress would help protect the foundation of 

the investment it has made in this program to date. We are pleased that 62 Senators have formally signed on to this commitment in the form of a letter to the subcommittee and we hope you will match that strong demonstration of support. 

We are very grateful for your leadership in funding this program over the last 

several years. You have helped make this program and its emphasis on preventive 

conservation a priority for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although the budget 

is tight, we look forward to the U.S. Congress continuing to provide reliable and 

adequate funding to ensure the continued success of the State Wildlife Grants Program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity 

to present The Nature Conservancy’s recommendations for fiscal year 2009 appropriations. My name is Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr. and I am Director of Federal Programs at the Conservancy. 

The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit conservation organization 

working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. We are best known for our science-based, collaborative 

approach to developing creative solutions to conservation challenges. Our on-theground conservation work is carried out in all 50 States and more than 30 foreign 

countries and is supported by approximately 1 million individual members. We have 

helped conserve nearly 15 million acres of land in the United States and Canada 

and more than 102 million acres with local partner organizations globally. 
473 

USGS—CLIMATE CHANGE

The Conservancy appreciates the subcommittee’s leadership in highlighting the 

need for increased investments in climate change science through the National 

Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center. We support a robust increase in funding for this and other programs that will guide science-based investments necessary 

to meet the critical needs of fish and wildlife adaptation in a world whose climate 

is changing. We look forward to working with the subcommittee as it addresses this 

increasingly vital conservation challenge. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

Thank you for your action last year to reverse the decline in funding for key conservation programs, including LWCF. We look forward to the subcommittee providing far greater support for this program than is proposed in the President’s budget, one of the lowest requests for Federal land acquisition funding in decades. 

We recommend a funding level of $278 million for the Federal side of LWCF. This 

year, the Conservancy is specifically recommending 18 biologically rich land acquisition projects totaling $39 million. Priorities include completing the BLM’s portion 

of a large multi-year project in Montana’s Blackfoot River Watershed and continuing 

large-scale projects in New England’s Silvio O. Conte NFWR and Montana’s Rocky 

Mountain Front Conservation Area. We are also supporting projects in Hawaii’s 

James Campbell NWR, Washington’s Willapa NWR, Georgia’s Chattahoochee NF, 

New Jersey’s Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Idaho’s Henry’s Lake 

ACEC and Iowa’s Driftless Area NWR. We also urge the subcommittee to restore 

funding for the State-side of LWCF. 

FOREST LEGACY

For fiscal year 2009, 87 projects were submitted by States to the Forest Service 

with a total funding request of $200.5 million to protect nearly 400,000 acres. The 

huge potential of this program to achieve conservation goals while maintaining sustainable use of private lands requires a significant funding increase. We strongly 

support $120 million for this program, and are specifically proposing 16 projects totaling $39 million. The 127,000 acre Northern Cumberlands project is the largest 

conservation deal in Tennessee since the creation of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The State has provided $82,000,000 towards this 127,000 acre project, 

while private equity investers and philanthropy have leveraged an additional 

$45,000,000. Other priority projects include California’s Chalk Mountain Area, West 

Virginia’s South Branch, Michigan’s Northern Great Lakes Forest Maine’s Machias 

River project. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Wildfire costs continue to rise with continued residential growth in forested and 

fire-prone areas, coupled with a lengthening fire season in a warmer climate. The 

Conservancy recommends focused investments in four Forest Service and Department of the Interior fire programs. First, increase Hazardous Fuel Reduction to 

$560 million to address the accumulation of forest fuels (USFS: $341.1 million; DOI: 

$219.6 million). Second, increase State Fire Assistance to $42.4 million to address 

the need for planning, treatments, education, and efficient fire response in the WUI 

(USFS: $35.9 million; DOI RFA:$6.5 million). Third, increase Rehabilitation and 

Restoration to $38.5 million to assure native seed supplies and prevent non-native 

plant invasions in burned areas (USFS: $11.9 million; DOI: $26.6 million). Fourth, 

develop market incentives to reduce the cost of mechanical treatments, including $7 

million for biomass utilization grants. Finally, the Conservancy recommends setting 

clear priorities for hazardous fuel reduction and biomass utilization funding and focusing mechanical treatments where fuel loads and large populations intersect and 

to use managed fire to reduce fuels where it can be managed safely. 

FOREST HEALTH MANAGEMENT

America’s forests face a growing number of non-native pests and diseases. The 

Conservancy appreciates the subcommittee’s leadership in consistently providing 

funding significantly above the President’s request. The Forest Health Management 

program should receive at least last year’s enacted level of $122.5 million so that 

it may effectively address economically and ecologically damaging pests, including 

the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Sudden 

Oak Death and Laurel (or Redbay) Wilt. 
474 

FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH PROGRAM

We recommend an increase of $3 million above the request for the ‘‘Invasives 

R&D’’ line item within the Forest Service Research program. This would permit 

maintaining at current levels research to improve detection and control methods for 

the Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid and other non-native forest pests 

and diseases. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Conservancy supports an increase for the FWS’s Cooperative Endangered 

Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) to at least $96.2 million. Our requested increase reflects the unmet public funding needs of the CESCF, and recognizes the 

important role States, municipalities, and non-Federal partners play in conserving 

threatened, endangered and at-risk species on non-federal lands. The Conservancy 

and its partners, including multiple State and county governments, have used the 

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Recovery Land Acquisition Programs to secure key habitat for numerous threatened, endangered and at-risk species. In recent 

years, CESCF funds have been used to provide permanent habitat protection for 

California’s Ramona Grasslands, ensuring intact habitats remain in place for numerous listed species. Washington’s Tieton River Canyon and Montana’s Blackfoot 

Valley have also been the focus of attention for fee-title and conservation easements 

under the CESCF program. The Conservancy has also worked with States to develop and implement HCP Plans funded by this program, including an ongoing 

multi-partner HCP effort in North Carolina’s coastal region to protect the redcockaded woodpecker and other native species. We also support the Administration’s 

proposed funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, 

recovery funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, 

and $475,000 for fish hatchery needs associated with the recovery plans in this region. We also support funding for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. 

STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS

The Conservancy strongly endorses the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition’s funding 

recommendation of $85 million. This continues to be a critical phase for implementation of the 56 approved Wildlife Action Plans. Strong Federal investments remain 

essential to ensure strategic actions are undertaken by State and Federal agencies 

and the conservation community to conserve wildlife populations and their habitats. 

We also support the continuation of a $5 million competitive grant program as a 

subset of the State Wildlife Grant Program. We encourage the subcommittee to provide direction to the Service on the use of these funds, including on-the-ground habitat restoration work on private lands, as well as climate change resiliency and adaptation needs identified as priorities by the States in their comprehensive wildlife 

conservation plans. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

The Conservancy applauds the subcommittee’s significant increases in last year’s 

budget for operations and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System, a 

cornerstone of our commitment to fish and wildlife resources throughout the Nation. 

We urge sustained investments in these key accounts to reverse the loss of permanent refuge staff positions and capacity to maintain the refuge system. We also 

strongly support the $400,000 increase in the Refuge budget for the Palmyra Atoll 

National Wildlife Refuge and Palmyra Atoll Research Consortium. 

MIGRATORY BIRD PROGRAMS

The Conservancy supports increasing funding for the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act (NAWCA) to $50 million. NAWCA is one of the Nation’s most successful conservation programs prompting more than 3,500 partners to match $836 

million in Federal funds by leveraging $2.5 billion in partner contributions in order 

to protect 23 million acres of wetlands and associated upland habitats. The Conservancy also supports $15.1 million in funding for the Joint Ventures. We also support 

the Administration’s Birds Forever proposal, particularly increases in funding to the 

Joint Ventures and Migratory Bird Management Program with an emphasis on reversing declines in bird populations through conservation and monitoring of focal 

bird species. 
475 

COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION

We support the fiscal year 2008 funding levels, at least, for both the FWS Coastal 

Program ($14 million) and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ($50 million). 

The Conservancy supports the Administration’s request of $5.2 million for the National Fish Habitat Initiative and the continued work of the Service to facilitate the 

development of Fish Habitat Partnerships and implementation of high-priority 

projects. Further, the Conservancy encourages the Subcommittee to increase funding for the FWS Fisheries Program to implement the Open Rivers Initiative/Fish 

Passage Program at the fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $11 million. 

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

The Conservancy, as part of an alliance of major international conservation 

groups, supports the International Conservation Budget, which calls for $12 million 

to the FWS’ Multinational Species Conservation Fund. This includes funds for the 

African and Asian Elephant funds, the Great Apes fund, the Marine Turtle fund, 

and the Rhinoceros/Tiger fund. We and the alliance also strongly support $20.4 million for the FWS office of international affairs which includes Wildlife Without Borders; $6 million for the FWS’ Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund; and 

$12 million for the U.S. Forest Service’s International Programs. 

HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE

The Conservancy supports funding equal to or greater than the President’s request of $21.9 million to be used by BLM, FWS and USGS to landscape scale planning initiatives to improve wildlife habitat, water quality, invasive species control, 

and more informed management and planning activities. Agencies should be encouraged to use existing data sets so that funding can be focused on data gaps rather 

than creating duplicitous data sets. 

USGS—WATER RESOURCES

We support $34 million for the National Streamflow Information Program and 

$70 million for the Cooperative Water Program. These programs provide scientific 

data needed by multiple public and private water managers and their partners. We 

support the administration’s Water for America Initiative, however, we urge restoration of funding to programs reduced to enhance the Initiative. As climate change, 

drought and population growth increase the demands on our Nation’s water resources, it is critical to invest in the integration of State and Federal water resource 

data and to better understand the water needs of both human communities and the 

environment. We recommend that $3 million be provided to support improved management of Federal reservoirs by increasing the scientific understanding of downstream river ecosystem needs. 

OFFICE OF INSULAR AFFAIRS

We support $1 million for the Coral Reef Initiative. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The EPA Geographic programs provide critical leadership, technical support and 

funding for on-the-ground actions to improve water quality and restore ecosystems. 

In particular, we support $10 million for the EPA Gulf of Mexico Program, which 

has been a catalyst in efforts to restore the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the President’s 

request for the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay programs. We also support $30 

million to support development and implementation of the Puget Sound Partnership’s Action Agenda for restoration efforts in the Puget Sound. We strongly support 

restoring funding, at a level of $20 million, for the Targeted Watersheds Grants program proposed for elimination by the administration. Finally, we support $800 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes and Refuge Revenue Sharing programs provide payments to counties where land has been taken off the local property tax rolls and 

put into Federal ownership. In some counties, protection of significant natural resources impacts the tax base that funds local government services, including schools 

and public safety. We urge the Committee to provide full funding for these programs 

and honor the Federal commitment to local communities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy’s recommendations for the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill. 
476 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND

Chairman Feinstein, ranking member Allard, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee: Thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony. My name 

is Alan Front, Senior Vice President of The Trust for Public Land (TPL), a national 

nonprofit land conservation organization. I am pleased to offer our views on a number of critical land conservation programs that the subcommittee will be considering 

as you draft your fiscal year 2009 bill. 

We recognize that the subcommittee will face a variety of big-picture challenges, 

including a scarcity of dollars, in meeting the broad range of priority needs in the 

Interior and Environment bill this year. Recognizing as well the longstanding leadership and vision of Chairmen Byrd and Feinstein—and the effective balance that 

they, Ranking Member Allard, and other members of the subcommittee have managed in the past—we remain very hopeful that the fiscal year 2009 bill will provide 

enhanced funding for conservation programs. 

LAND CONSERVATION IN AMERICA—OUR PERSPECTIVE

From our Nation’s threatened national parks, wildlife refuges, and forests to our 

vital State and local parklands and natural areas, The Trust for Public Land has 

seen firsthand just how important these programs are. Since 1972, TPL has worked 

in communities across the country to assist national, State, and local public agencies, private landowners and concerned citizens working to protect our country’s heritage of natural, cultural, recreation and other vital resource lands. Our work runs 

the spectrum of conservation initiatives: creating community gardens to help revitalize urban neighborhoods; preserving working forests with public and private partners; maintaining wildlife corridors and enhancing public recreation opportunities 

in State parks; and acquiring critical inholdings in the magnificent landscapes that 

lie within Federal boundaries. 

In total, TPL has completed more than 3,500 land conservation projects that together have protected some 2.3 million acres in 47 States. Roughly one-third of 

these special places were conserved either through outright Federal acquisition of 

lands or easements, or through critical Federal assistance to State and local governments. Given the importance of non-Federal public dollars for conservation, since 

1994, TPL has helped States and localities craft and pass over 300 ballot measures, 

generating almost $25 billion in new conservation-related funding. 

In partnership with concerned civic groups, willing seller landowners and public 

lands agencies, TPL brings practical conservation real estate expertise to help 

achieve land and resource protection. Given the limited public conservation funding 

at all levels of government, these transactions often require a creative blending of 

funding sources. TPL works to leverage limited Federal land acquisition dollars, 

bringing to bear private philanthropic support as well as State and local funding 

sources to forge workable solutions to complex conservation funding challenges. 

But for the remarkable and gratifying efforts of many members of this Committee 

and other conservation leaders in Congress to maintain funding for land acquisition 

programs—and in particular to fund specific ‘now-or-never’ projects—successful land 

protection simply would not be possible. As we continue that work, and as the committee drafts its fiscal year 2009 bill, TPL respectfully requests that you maintain 

your commitment to Federal land conservation accounts. Specifically, we urge an increase in funding levels for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and 

the Forest Legacy Program, two key programs that have lost ground in recent years 

and that the President’s Budget woefully underfunds in fiscal year 2009, and a renewed commitment to land conservation funding through the Cooperative Endangered Species account, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and the 

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants account. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

The subcommittee is of course well aware of the imminent threat to our Federal 

public lands from incompatible development. Each day the news media reports on 

development encroaching upon our national parks, or subdivisions being built on 

checkerboard timberlands, contributing to dramatically escalating fire hazard and 

suppression costs. In our experience, private landowners within or adjoining our 

Federal public lands often are amenable to a conservation solution. Faced with uncertainty about the availability of Federal land acquisition dollars, however, they 

often determine that they cannot afford to pursue that win-win public disposition. 

The reasonable expectation of Federal land acquisition funding is critical to the ability to protect the nation’s public lands heritage when these time-sensitive opportunities arise. 
477 

For over 40 years, LWCF has been the cornerstone that sustains our Federal public lands heritage. To preclude the loss of key inholdings, TPL, as part of the broad 

coalition of national, State and local groups working together as the Land and 

Water Conservation Task Force, recommends that you fund the annual Federal 

LWCF program at $278 million, with an additional $125 million for the LWCF State 

grants. These figures obviously fall far below LWCF’s $900 million annual authorization, but they represent the minimum required to secure crucial inholdings that 

might otherwise be lost to private sale and development this year. 

Among these immediate conservation needs is an historic opportunity to connect 

the two disjointed halves of Virgin Islands National Park by acquiring 207 acres of 

historic Estate Maho Bay, a magnificent expanse of white sand beach and forested 

hillsides. In the Sierra Nevada in California, TPL is working to consolidate the fragmented checkerboard ownership pattern to preserve recreational access and mountain wildlife habitat. Securing access for river recreation along the Arkansas River 

in central Colorado is a focus of an effort between TPL and the Bureau of Land 

Management. In New Mexico, BLM and TPL have joined with local landowners to 

acquire the sensitive Canyon River Ranch within the La Cienega Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern. Lakefront inholdings within the Chequamegon National 

Forest in northern Wisconsin have been prioritized for acquisition by the Forest 

Service’s Wisconsin Wild Waterways program. These are just a few of the many urgent land acquisitions that must be funded this year to stave off incompatible development. 

In these and other areas, TPL is proud to join forces with extraordinary partners 

who dedicate significant resources to protection of the places of their hearts and heritage. In Maine’s Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, a coalition of land trusts, 

public agencies, and advocacy groups is working to protect 110 acres at Timber 

Point; in fiscal year 2009 this coalition is requesting $3.5 million in LWCF funds 

and is raising $3.5 million in private matching funds that will be donated to the 

Federal acquisition effort. Groups including the Association for the Preservation of 

Cape Cod are working with us to protect the last large-acreage inholding at that 

National Seashore, where $2 million in fiscal year 2009 will complete funding of a 

key campground property whose public-spirited owner has endured financial hardship for 3 years while waiting for purchase funds to be assembled. In North Carolina a key tract in the beautiful Roan Highlands along the Appalachian Trail can 

be protected with just $1.875 million in LWCF funds, to be matched by almost $3 

million in private funding and land value, thanks to a partnership that includes a 

generous landowner, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, the Southern Appalachian 

Highlands Coalition and others. 

LWCF’s stateside program also faces an array of conservation opportunities and 

threats in fiscal year 2009. Since 1965, the stateside program has provided 41,000 

grants to States and local communities for park protection and development of 

recreation facilities. This program reaches deep into communities across our nation, 

supporting citizen-led efforts to conserve places of local importance, many with 

TPL’s help. In 2006, LWCF stateside funding contributed to the protection of the 

225-acre tidal estuarine park on Hawaii’s Ka’u Coast. Last year, a stateside LWCF 

grant helped the Town of Dunstable, MA to protect 149 acres of rolling forestland 

and an adjoining historic home. Stateside funds also were essential to a conservation easement over 37,000 acres of Maine’s famed 100-Mile Wilderness, the northernmost and wildest stretch of the Appalachian Trail. To meet needs such as these 

as they continue to arise in all 50 States and in U.S. territories, we urge the restoration of funding to this program at the $125 million level. 

FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

The U.S. Forest Service Forest Legacy Program has provided extraordinary assistance to States and towns seeking to preserve working forests in their communities. 

Each Forest Legacy project tells a story of land or resource protection and collaboration among Federal, State, and local partners. Each also includes significant State, 

local and/or private matching funds and a long-term commitment to non-Federal 

management. Since its inception in 1990, the Forest Legacy Program has protected 

over 1.5 million acres of forestland. Despite this subcommittee’s best efforts, the 

funding trend for this program is incrementally downward. For fiscal year 2009, 82 

conservation projects were submitted (by 41 States and three territories) to the Forest Service; the requests total $202 million in Forest Legacy Program need to protect 400,000 acres of forestlands valued at almost $400 million. Yet the President’s 

budget recommends only $12.5 million for three projects. Our continued inability to 

meet demand has a long-term impact on the multiple public benefits that derive 
478 

from forests—clean water, wildlife protection, public access to recreation, economic 

development and sustainable forestry. 

In fiscal year 2009, Forest Legacy project requests include checkerboard 

forestlands in Montana’s north Swan Valley that are threatened with conversion to 

subdivision. Another project will protect almost 20,000 acres of Katahdin Forest adjacent to Maine’s Baxter State Park and within the viewshed of the Appalachian 

Trail, ensuring wildlife habitat protection and access for snowmobilers and other 

recreationists. A third initiative—Eden Forest—seeks to protect 5,000 acres of prime 

wildlife and recreation lands that represent the missing puzzle-piece in a 30,000- 

acre block of conserved land near the Long Trail Corridor in Vermont’s Northern 

Forest. Yet another project will ensure the conservation of working ranchlands in 

Utah. To support these and other important fiscal year 2009 project needs, I urge 

your support for this important program at the level of $120 million in fiscal year 

2009. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE—LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAMS

We are grateful for the subcommittee’s continuing efforts to support U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service grant programs. While funding has remained relatively stable in recent years, these conservation programs are consistently oversubscribed and unable 

to meet the overwhelming demand for cooperative grants. Through your continuing 

leadership and commitment, funding for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund—leveraged by State and private funds—has protected threatened 

and endangered species habitat across the nation. Support provided through the 

Fund’s Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Land Acquisition grants are allowing for 

huge gains in habitat consolidation. In Washington State, for instance, these grants 

were key to the protection of lands along Interstate 90 that provide a wildlife corridor for five federally listed land species and help conserve the Yakima River’s bull 

trout and steelhead populations. Also supported through the Fund, Recovery Land 

Acquisition grants are fostering resource-saving partnerships and are leveraging 

considerable non-Federal funds. In Arizona, for example, $2.25 million in grants 

were matched by over $4 million in non-Federal funds to allow the State to protect 

4,300 acres of the most ecologically significant habitat on the historic Salero Ranch, 

sparing these sensitive lands from imminent development. We urge your support for 

funding of this program at the increased level of $96.2 million in fiscal year 2009. 

Regarding other FWS grant programs, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides much-needed matching grants to carry out wetlands 

conservation, restoration and enhancement projects in the United States, Canada, 

and Mexico. Since 1990, over $836 million in grants has leveraged about $1.6 billion 

in matching funds and $946 million in additional support to protect approximately 

23.8 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands. TPL joins our many partners 

in utilizing these funds for wetlands conservation across the country. We commend 

your leadership in supporting continued level funding for this program at $42.6 million, as included in the President’s budget. Finally, we urge you to consider an increase for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program to a funding level of $85 

million in fiscal year 2009. This strategic funding program supports grants aimed 

at preventing wildlife from becoming threatened and endangered through strategic 

conservation investments in every State and territory. 

FOR THE FUTURE’S SAKE

These programs determine the fate of our most treasured public lands. Just as 

much, they make a real difference in the lives of countless Americans. Whether we 

walk in a local park, cross-country ski through a national forest, or canoe across a 

lake or a bayou, our daily lives are healthier and reinvigorated by the public land 

experiences these programs foster. Those experiences span the generations. A South 

Carolina middle school student, working with his classmates and teacher to create 

an outdoor classroom at Congaree National Park, put it this way: ‘‘I would like some 

day to maybe take my grand kids there. I would love to see their faces when they 

see that beautiful forest.’’ 

The Trust for Public Land continues to invest its resources, in concert with the 

Subcommittee, to protect our Nation’s natural, cultural and recreational heritage. 

As ever, we are deeply thankful for the subcommittee’s recognition of the importance of these efforts. We urge you to renew the investment in these programs and 

stand ready to work with you to accomplish great things. Thank you for help and 

support, and for your consideration of our requests. 
479 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TOWN MANAGER, MILLINOCKET, MAINE

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you for 

the opportunity, Madam Chairman, to present this written testimony in support of 

the appropriation of $5.1 million from the Forest Legacy Program to conserve more 

than 19,600 acres of forestland in north central Maine. 

I also urge your support, Madam Chairman, for a significant increase in funding 

for the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 2009 to enable the protection of more 

forest resource projects than are identified in the President’s Budget. The Budget 

for this year proposes a cut of 75 percent and sets aside funds for only three Forest 

Legacy projects nationwide out of 82 submitted by the states. Without additional 

funds, the program will not be able to continue its successful partnerships with 

States, local communities, and landowners to protect valuable forestlands, while retaining, in many cases, private ownership. 

With over 15 million acres of forestland, Maine remains one of this Nation’s most 

heavily forested States. The white pine, spruce, fir, and northern hardwoods that 

characterize the Maine woods are a critical component in two of Maine’s largest industries—forestry and tourism. They provide incredible recreational opportunities, 

including hiking, hunting, snowmobiling, fishing, camping, boating, and numerous 

other activities. This landscape also sustains valuable fish and wildlife habitat for 

many different animal species. 

One of the greatest challenges facing Maine’s forests is the fragmentation of ownership and the conversion of lands to non-forest uses. With most of Maine’s woods 

being privately owned, the State of Maine and its nonprofit partners have been 

working to protect critical areas using a combination of Federal, State, local, and 

private funding to purchase targeted fee lands and large-scale conservation easements. In the past 8 years, these efforts have resulted in the conservation of almost 

2 million acres of forestlands, providing Maine with permanent protection of valuable natural resources, public access to renowned recreation lands, and continued 

harvesting of timber resources in a sustainable fashion. 

Continuing its focus on protecting strategically important lands for recreation, the 

State of Maine has proposed the 19,647-acre Katahdin Forest Expansion project for 

Forest Legacy Program funding in fiscal year 2009. The Katahdin Region, which is 

anchored by Baxter State Park, contains Maine’s largest block of contiguous conservation lands: over 500,000 acres, stretching from the north end of Seboeis Lake, 

along the 100-Mile Wilderness, across Baxter State Park, and up the Allagash Wilderness Waterway. This project seeks to add five critical parcels to these conservation holdings. All five properties have traditionally been under active commercial 

forest management and are key contributors to the local wood-products industry, 

upon which nearby communities, such as Millinocket and Brownville, are heavily 

dependent. In addition, the properties contain critical wildlife habitat, including 

nesting areas for 29 loons on Seboeis Lake and a major deer-wintering area west 

of Northwest Pond. There is also extensive wading bird and waterfowl habitat both 

along the lakeshore as well as in open wetlands away from the lake. Recreation has 

always been a focus on these properties, and protection through the Forest Legacy 

Program would ensure not only recreational opportunities for sportsmen and anglers, but also opportunities for those who enjoy motorized recreation, including 

snowmobiling. Maine’s popular snowmobile trail, ITS 85, runs across the properties 

and would otherwise be closed if this project falls through. These lands are also critical because they are part of the viewshed from the peak of Mount Katahdin, the 

northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail, and spectacular views of that iconic 

mountain can be seen from these properties as well. 

The three northern tracts (Millinocket Forest, Lookout Mountain, and Hunt 

Farm) total over 11,600 acres and are located east of Baxter State Park on or near 

the East Branch of the Penobscot River. The East Branch has been described as the 

most spectacular wilderness river in the Northeast, having falls and gorges interspersed with majestic views of the Baxter Park mountains. In addition to protecting 

uplands along this popular whitewater river, acquisition of the East Branch tracts 

will secure critical portions of ITS 85. 

The landmark 1982 Maine Rivers Study found that the East Branch had high ecological, hydrologic, scenic, and recreational resource values. The Maine Department 

of Environmental Protection also classified it as AA, its top water-quality rank. The 

East Branch supports fisheries for brook trout, landlocked salmon, and smallmouth 

bass, offering many different fishing experiences. The Millinocket Forest property 

has an expansive wetland with diverse cover types, such as spruce-fir swamp, dwarf 

shrub bog, mixed fern, alder swamp, and emergent marsh. Additionally, there are 

two major stream drainages, Sandy Stream and Mud Brook. One-third of the property is inland wading bird and wildlife habitat, home to species like Virginia rails, 
480 

black ducks, American bitterns, and great blue herons. Lookout Mountain includes 

uplands that command a spectacular view of Mount Katahdin and offers opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized recreation. 

The two other tracts, totaling over 8,000 acres, are on the southern edge of the 

protected Katahdin Region lands surrounding Seboeis Lake, which is a wilderness 

lake with outstanding views of Mount Katahdin. The Seboeis tracts, Seboeis South 

and West, include 19 miles of shore and island frontage and will complete Maine’s 

conservation ownership around Seboeis Lake. Five of the 19 miles of shoreline are 

wetlands that have been determined to be of ‘‘special significance’’ by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Maine’s ‘‘Wildlands Lake Assessment’’ 

rated Seboeis Lake to be of ‘‘statewide significance’’, the highest ranking, due to its 

significant fisheries, wildlife, scenery, and cultural values. In terms of wildlife habitat, there are two known bald eagle nesting sites located just off the Seboeis West 

tract, and the protection zone around one of the nests extends onto the property. 

The Katahdin Forest Expansion project area is under critical threat of development or other conversion to non-forest uses. As recently as 5 years ago, most land 

in townships bordering the east side of Baxter State Park was owned by two industrial forest owners, but there have since been more than a half-dozen transactions 

that have left these lands fragmented and sold to non-forest interests. All the available properties have access to I–95 and Bangor International Airport. They are emblematic of the Maine wilderness experience that is in such high demand in today’s 

market. While Seboeis Lake is still remarkably pristine, Schoodic Lake, immediately 

to the west of Seboeis, has over 400 camps, illustrating the demand for shorefront 

in the area. The current owner of the northern properties has indicated that barring 

acquisition by the State, future management will exclude forestry, hunting, and motorized access (including snowmobiling). This would have a significant negative impact on the local economy, which depends in large degree on forestry and tourism. 

In fiscal year 2009, $5.1 million in needed from the Forest Legacy Program to protect the Katahdin Forest Expansion properties from conversion to non-forestry uses. 

Supporting parties include the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Millinocket Town 

Council, Katahdin Area Working Group—Connect ME Committee, the Millinocket 

Town Manager, the Northern Timber Cruisers, The Wilderness Society, the Katahdin Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Natural Resources Council of Maine. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this testimony 

in support of the Katahdin Forest Expansion project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TOWN OF OPHIR, COLORADO

Madam Chairman, Senator Allard, and honorable members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you Ms. Chairman for the opportunity to present public testimony in support 

of continued funding for the Ophir Valley Project and protection of important Federal lands. As the Mayor of the Town of Ophir, I am respectfully requesting the allocation of $2.5 million to the U.S. Forest Service’s fiscal year 2009 budget from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Ophir Valley Project. These funds will 

be used for the third phase of public acquisition of 1,200 acres of privately owned 

forest service in-holdings in the Ophir Valley. 

The Ophir Valley Project represents an enthusiastic partnership of private land 

owners, regional communities, not-for-profit organizations, State and Federal agencies, and most importantly, the general public. Located on the San Juan Skyway 

Scenic Byway, Ophir Valley offers pristine alpine scenery, abundant recreational opportunities, and valuable habitat for threatened and endangered species. Easy public access is currently available for hiking, biking, rock climbing, hunting, camping, 

skiing, jeep touring, motorized recreation, and wildlife viewing. Due to the checkerboard pattern of privately owned patented mining claims, the Ophir Valley Project 

seeks to acquire these private in-holdings and consolidate U.S. Forest Service lands 

to insure permanent public access to Federal lands. 

The Town of Ophir has actively pursued a comprehensive, valley-wide land conservation program since 1992. Besides acquiring over 230 acres of mining claims 

and investing over $500,000.00 locally, the Town of Ophir has nurtured important 

relationships with private land owners and State and Federal agencies. The Pauls 

family has proven to be an invaluable resource and visionary partner with the Town 

of Ophir by supporting Ophir’s land conservation goals and working with the Trust 

for Public Land. Now, after 16 years of dedicated land conservation efforts, the 

Pauls family is offering the last significant private land holdings in Ophir Valley 

for U.S. Forest Service acquisition. 

The Ophir Valley Project protection effort is the natural extension of the successful Red Mountain project, located just to the north and east of Ophir Valley. Federal 
481 

funding for the Ophir Valley Project is complementing many regional projects along 

the 236 mile San Juan Skyway Scenic Byway (one of only 27 All American Roads 

in the National Scenic Byway program). The State’s Great Outdoors Colorado Legacy Project program has pledged $5.7 million in grant funding to match local efforts 

to improve recreational opportunities and protect important lands along the San 

Juan Skyway. 

The requested funding for the Ophir Valley Project will produce the following benefits: 

1. Protect public access to many thousands of acres of U.S. Forest Service lands 

for diverse recreational opportunities; 

2. protect habitat for the Canadian Lynx, a federally listed threatened species; 

protect the endangered Uncompahgre Fritillary butterfly; and protect the headwaters for the San Miguel River, which sustains native cutthroat trout; 

3. improve U.S. Forest Service land management by consolidating ownership; 

4. leverage Federal funding support with over $10 million in State and local funding for regional recreation and land protection projects along the San Juan Scenic 

Byway; 

5. protect the historic character of this 1881 mining camp-town; and, 

6. protect the rugged alpine scenery of this pristine mountain valley. 

Thank you for your support and leadership in conserving Colorado’s land and 

water resources. Land and Water Conservation Funding for the Ophir Valley Project 

will ensure future generations can enjoy this very special place in Colorado. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed fiscal year 2009 budget for the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Wildlife Society represents nearly 8,000 professional wildlife biologists and managers dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through 

science and education. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Funding assistance for State wildlife agencies is one of the highest priority needs 

for wildlife, providing essential resources to conserve wildlife, fish, and habitat, and 

to prevent further declines in at-risk wildlife populations in every State. We appreciate the administration’s recognition of the importance of the State Wildlife Grants 

Program through the $73.8 million request, but we strongly encourage even greater 

funding to achieve species conservation. States have recently completed their comprehensive wildlife conservation plans as mandated by Congress. These Wildlife Action Plans detail each State’s species of greatest concern, their remaining habitats, 

limitations, and needed conservation actions. With the completion of all 56 State 

and territorial Wildlife Action Plans, it is critical this program receive increased 

funding to assist States with the implementation of on-the-ground actions associated 

with the plans. As part of the Teaming with Wildlife coalition, we recommend that 

$85 million be appropriated for State Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2009. 

Equally essential for Wildlife Action Plan implementation is the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP), which acts in a unique way to bring a source of funds to 

landowners This program is both an essential tool for wildlife conservation and a 

cost-saving mechanism that institutes actions on the ground that prevent wildlife 

species from becoming threatened or endangered. Funds invested in LIP today mean 

potential savings of millions in the future, by preventing species from declining to 

a point that requires listing under the Endangered Species Act. Maintaining funding for LIP is essential to sustaining the investment in delivery infrastructure already in place at State agencies, as well as supporting participation by private landowners in cooperative conservation. TWS urges you to restore the Landowner Incentive Program to $23.7 million, the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

The Wildlife Society is an active member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge 

Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 wildlife, sporting, conservation, and 

scientific organizations representing over 14 million members and supporters. A 

comprehensive analysis by CARE determined that the National Wildlife Refuge System needs $765 million in annual operations and maintenance funding by 2013 to 

properly administer its nearly 100 million acres, educational programs, habitat restoration projects, and much more. Many years of stagnant budgets have increased 

the Operations and Maintenance backlog to $3.5 billion, and forced plans for a dramatic 20 percent downsizing of the workforce. Refuge visitors often show up to find 

roads and visitor centers closed, observation platforms and hiking trails in disrepair, 
482 

and habitat restoration and education programs eliminated. Invasive plant species 

are taking over and with a deficiency of more than 500 law enforcement officers, 

illegal activities such as poaching and trespass are on the rise. We are grateful for 

the much-needed budget increase that Congress provided the Refuge System for the 

current fiscal year, and we urge the Congress to build upon this important step in 

the fiscal year 2009 budget. We request that you provide $514 million in fiscal year 

2009 for the Operations and Maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative, non-regulatory, 

incentive-based program that has shown unprecedented success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other migratory bird populations. We are pleased by the administration’s support of this program through its $42 million request, but recommend that you appropriate $50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2009. 

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act provides a broad-spectrum approach to bird conservation. The Wildlife Society recommends that Congress fund 

the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act at its full authorization of $6 million in fiscal year 2009. 

The Wildlife Society supports adequate funding levels for all subactivities within 

the Endangered Species Program, and is concerned with the proposed 2 percent 

budget reduction. Endangered species recovery efforts can ultimately lead to 

delisting actions that result in significant benefits to species through State management efforts. Currently, all subactivities are understaffed, as the costs for management of listed species continue to rapidly escalate. We recommend that Congress restore this program to the fiscal year 2008 level of $150.5 million. 

The Wildlife Society is very disappointed that funding for the Science Excellence 

Initiative has zeroed out for a second year in a row. Discontinuing funding for this 

office will prevent FWS from expanding its on-the-ground scientific capacity in 

adaptive resource management (ARM), structured decision analysis, and conservation genetics. We are concerned that the elimination of these programs will reduce 

the Service’s capacities in these key areas and prevent the expansion of these programs to other regions of the Service. The Wildlife Society strongly recommends 

that Congress reinstate the Science Excellence Initiative at $493,000 in fiscal year 

2009. 

A detailed peer review of the Draft Spotted Owl Recovery Plan by The Wildlife 

Society indicated the plan does not adequately avail itself of the depth and breadth 

of the extensive information available upon which to build a scientifically credible 

recovery plan. The result is a seriously flawed plan for recovery that weakens virtually every provision already in place for northern spotted owls. The Society recommends that FWS start over with a fundamental commitment to using the best 

available science and find real solutions to threats faced by spotted owls and their 

habitats. In doing so, FWS should reconstitute the membership of the recovery team 

so that it emphasizes biologists and ecologists with extensive expertise in the biology of the spotted owl and the ecology and management of Pacific Northwest forests. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more public land than any 

other Federal agency. However, its programs to manage fish and wildlife are chronically understaffed: BLM has only one biologist per 591,000 acres. The agency needs 

at least $60 million annually to simply keep up with actions assigned to it by recovery plans for listed species. 

The proposed budget for BLM’s Wildlife Management Program is $31.443 million, 

a $719,000 increase over fiscal year 2008. However, this includes $6.0 million for 

the Healthy Lands Initiative. Therefore, an increase of $5.281 million is required 

to simply maintain the program at fiscal year 2008 levels. However, given the significant underfunding of the BLM’s wildlife programs, combined with the tremendous expansion of energy development across the BLM landscape, an increase to 

$52.086 million for the BLM Wildlife Management Program is warranted. This will 

allow BLM to maintain and restore wildlife and habitat by monitoring habitat conditions, conducting inventories of wildlife resources, and developing cooperative 

management plans. 

BLM’s Threatened and Endangered Species Management Program would suffer a 

significant cut under the administration’s request of $20.552 million in fiscal year 

2009. The current budget is woefully inadequate for BLM to meet its conservation 

responsibilities in endangered species recovery plans that identify more than $300 

million of recovery tasks to be accomplished by BLM in the next 5 years. In addition, the administration’s request ignores the agency’s March 2001 report to Congress which called for a doubling of the current Threatened and Endangered Species 
483 

budget to $48 million and an additional 70 staff positions over 5 years. In view of 

this gross inequity between resource needs and funding levels, we strongly encourage Congress to increase overall funding for the BLM endangered species program 

to $33.453 million. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

As a member of the USGS Coalition, The Wildlife Society supports $1.3 billion 

in funding for USGS in fiscal year 2009. This would enable USGS to meet new challenges while continuing to provide essential data for land-use management, sustainable natural resource development, and enhanced security from natural and manmade hazards. More investment is needed to strengthen USGS partnerships, improve monitoring networks, produce high-quality digital geospatial data and deliver 

the best possible science to address critical environmental and societal challenges. 

The Wildlife Society is concerned that the proposed budget includes only 82 percent of uncontrollables for the Biological Resources Discipline (BRD). We strongly 

recommend that Congress increase the fiscal year 2009 budget for BRD to a level 

that fully funds uncontrollables in order to prevent further erosion to essential programs and services. 

We are also concerned about the proposed $2,940,000 reduction to NBII funding 

and the impacts that this reduction may have on research focused on the critical 

issues of wildlife disease, invasive species, fire ecology, and migratory birds. The 

Wildlife Society recommends that Congress fund NBII at the fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $22.422 million. 

We also support increased funding for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Units (CFWRUs). The CFWRUs are a jointly funded Federal/State partnership, 

where the Federal Government provides the funding for personnel and States provide funding to establish the units at a university. At funding levels proposed for 

fiscal year 2009, the Federal Government will not be able to meet its commitments 

outlined in existing agreements with States, and closure of one or more CFWRUs 

is a distinct possibility. fiscal year 2001 was the last time Congress fully funded the 

CFWRUs, allowing unit productivity to rise to record levels. Since then, budgetary 

shortfalls have caused an erosion of available fiscal resources, resulting in a current 

staffing vacancy of 23 researcher positions, nearly one quarter of the professional 

workforce. In order to fill current scientist vacancies, restore seriously eroded operational funds for each CFWRU, and enhance national program coordination, the fiscal year 2009 budget for the CFWRUs should be increased to $19.174 million. This 

would restore necessary capacity in the CFWRU program and allow it to meet the 

Nation’s research and training needs. It would also ensure that the Interior Department provides the Federal scientist staffing agreed to with partners, so that the return on their continuing investment in the CFWRUs is realized and fully leveraged. 

The CFWRUs are crucial to successfully addressing the natural resource management challenges posed by climate change, energy development needs, invasive species, infectious diseases, and wildfire. These challenges also include replacing the 

unprecedented number of natural resource professionals who will be retiring over 

the next 10 years. To begin meeting these high priority research and training needs 

in fiscal year 2009, we ask that you establish a competitive, matching fund program 

within existing CFWRU legislative authority that would make available $5 million 

annually in new funds beyond base operational costs. 

The Wildlife Society appreciates the funding for the National Global Warming and 

Wildlife Science Center, which in fiscal year 2008 provided up to $2.5 million for 

the Center’s establishment. This center will play a pivotal role in addressing the impacts of climate change on fish and wildlife. Additional funding is needed in fiscal 

year 2009 to continue establishment of the Center, begin to fund key research priorities, and enable USGS and its partners to develop a plan for moving forward. The 

Wildlife Society recommends that the National Global Warming and Wildlife 

Science Center be funded at $10 million in fiscal year 2009. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

The Wildlife Society is deeply concerned that the President’s budget proposes a 

10 percent reduction for the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Program. 

We urge Congress to restore $36.4 million to this program, for a total of $154 million in fiscal year 2009. 

Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife professionals. We are 

available to work with you and your staff throughout the appropriations process. 
484 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

The Wilderness Society (TWS) appreciates this opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the fiscal year 2009 appropriations for wildfire 

management for the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service in the 

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. There are four 

areas we will address: (1) Wildfire Suppression Funding; (2) Wildland Fire Use 

(WFU) and Appropriate Management Response; (3) insufficient funding for community fire assistance programs and (4) Hazardous Fuels funding language. 

WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING

Federal fire suppression costs have increased significantly in recent years, exceed- ing $1 billion in five of the last 7 years. The increasing cost of suppression is a result of a number of factors, including prolonged drought, past suppression policy (resulting in the build-up of hazardous fuels) and the explosive growth of communities 

into wildlands. As suppression activities continue to increase, so does the suppression budget since it is based on a 10-year rolling average. Because the agencies’ 

budgets are essentially flat year to year, to off-set these increases funding for critical programs has been significantly reduced and more and more of the land management agencies’ budgets are being used for wildland fire management (the largest 

component of which is suppression). For example, the Forest Service’s fire funding 

has gone from 13 percent of their budget in fiscal year 1991 to a staggering 48 percent projected for fiscal year 2009. This has severely compromised the agencies’ ability to carry out their other mission duties. 

While appropriated suppression funds are significant, they have still fallen far 

short in recent years. To make up the difference, the agencies have depended on 

Congress to provide them additional emergency funding through supplemental appropriations and they have had to borrow money from other programs, often those 

very programs—hazardous fuels reduction and community assistance—that help 

bring down the costs associated with wildland fire. Recognizing that past borrowing 

caused project cancellations, strained relationships with partners, and disruptions 

in management, Congress has provided funding for a suppression reserve account 

for both the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior in prior years. The 

reserve account has helped reduce the negative impacts associated with transferring 

funds and, while TWS has appreciates the subcommittee’s leadership in securing 

these funds, it is a short-term solution; a long-term solution to dealing with this 

problem is needed. 

TWS recommends a three-prong approach: (1) agency commitment to cost containment; (2) investment in 21st century fire management and forest restoration; and 

(3) fixing fire suppression funding. While some of the factors that have contributed 

to increasing suppression costs will be largely unaffected by cost containment strategies, the Federal agencies still can, and should, take measures to bring suppression 

costs down. The agencies have taken important steps in the right direction by pursuing numerous cost containment strategies, the most important of which is a new 

way of managing fires, called ‘‘risk-based suppression’’ or ‘‘Appropriate Management 

Response (AMR)’’—an approach to firefighting that treats each fire individually, accounting for threats to lives and property first, but also weighing factors like ecology 

and landscape and then applying the appropriate response—which can include the 

full range of tactical responses from monitoring to aggressive attack. The Wilderness Society applauds the agencies for undertaking cost containment measures and 

embracing the AMR approach and encourages the subcommittee to support them as 

they continue to make this difficult transition in fire management. It is important 

to recognize, however, that, while important, cost control measures alone will not 

be enough to solve this problem. As such, it’s critical that the agencies not only 

strive to contain costs where they can, but also fully invest in 21st century fire management and forest restoration. That means maintaining their commitment to an 

AMR fire management strategy and fully implementing the 1995 Federal Fire Policy 

and its 2001 Update, which includes a recognition that natural fire is important in 

maintaining our natural ecosystems and that natural fire, through the Wildland 

Fire Use (WFU) tool, should be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources 

and, as nearly as possible, be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. That 

also means pursing all of the goals of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, including community fire assistance and restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems. These 

changes will lead to healthier landscapes and less costly fire seasons in the future. 

To accomplish these goals, Congress and the agencies must invest in a 21st Century 

fire management force and invest in forest restoration—investments that must be 

on par with the one made in hazardous fuels reduction. A key aspect of this investment must be funding designated specifically for training and staffing in Wildland 
485 

Fire Use. TWS recommends designating at least $10 million specifically for increasing staffing for and training in Wildland Fire Use. 

Unfortunately, skyrocketing suppression costs will not be completely alleviated by 

these actions. A new long term funding strategy is also needed. A new suppression 

funding structure that creates a separate flexible suppression spending account 

(usually referred to as ‘‘partitioning’’) for unanticipated large fire events from the 

already constrained Federal wildland fire budgets is required to free up funds to be 

invested in other key agency mission areas. The partition should be based on the 

true cost driver of suppression expenditures, extremely large fires. In general, a 

small percentage of wildfires burn most of the acres and consume a majority of total 

suppression funds. These fires are truly above and beyond normal budgeting processes, truly ‘‘emergencies’’ and should be paid for differently. Two key complements 

to this separate account are necessary: first, the agencies’ normal suppression budgets must remain robust, reflecting current suppression needs for the remainder of 

fires and the fact that increased suppression costs are here to stay; and second, 

funds must be redistributed back into those programs that have been reduced because of increasing suppression costs (programs like land acquisition, recreation and 

wilderness, wildlife and fisheries, and inventory and monitoring). This ‘‘partitioned’’ 

suppression budget must also be closely tied to appropriate sideboards, cost containment controls, and line officer incentives to ensure that the agencies continue momentum to streamline costs and maintain their commitment to 21st century fire 

management. This means there must be requirements the agencies must meet before they can access the account. These requirements should include, for example, 

that the fires for which this account is used meet certain minimum criteria—like 

size, severity, and values at risk. In addition, the agencies must be able to demonstrate that they remain committed to cost containment, that they are continuing 

to pursue an AMR fire management strategy, and that they are expanding their 

WFU programs before they can access this account. In addition, incentives should 

be put in place to limit the use of this account and to reward the agencies for not 

drawing down the account. Lastly, to ensure accountability, the agencies should annually report to Congress on how they spend the funds in this separate account. 

While it is important to alleviate the extreme budgetary pressures that have been 

placed on the agencies in the last few years due to escalating suppression costs, it 

is just as important that the agencies continue to demonstrate cost containment and 

accountability and movement towards a robust fire management strategy that includes incorporating fire back into its natural place on the landscape, as is required 

by the Federal Fire Policy. 

WILDLAND FIRE USE (WFU)

The default response to most fires, even those burning in remote areas, has been 

to fight them; contributing to skyrocketing suppression costs. It’s clear that something needs to change—a mandate for restoration is needed. To put us on a path 

towards restoration, fire must be returned to the landscape, where safe and where 

appropriate. A tool that land managers can use to accomplish this is WFU, the practice of actively managing naturally-ignited fires in designated sections of forests to 

accomplish resource management goals. 

WFU is widely accepted by scientists and practitioners alike as an important tool 

to help restore forests, and reduce fire suppression costs. For example, in 2006 the 

Sequoia National Monument completed a 9,000 acre WFU fire in the South Sierra 

Wilderness for only $149 an acre. The USDA IG recently recommended that the 

Forest Service expand its WFU program and other policy initiatives, including the 

National Fire Plan (NFP), the 10-year Strategy, and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), have endorsed the use of fire to improve ecosystem health. The 

Forest Service pledges to continue to pursue an expanded WFU program in their 

fiscal year 2009 Budget. They are also taking an important step forward by proposing a change in the way they ‘‘count’’ hazardous fuels treatment acres. As a follow-up to a recommendation made by the USDA IG, the agency will develop a 

‘‘science-based methodology to evaluate non-catastrophic acres burned in wildfire incidents as acres treated toward desired conditions.’’ The agency notes that this 

change will ‘‘encourage the cost-effective practice of using unplanned wildfires to reduce hazardous fuels when appropriate.’’ TWS applauds the agency for taking this 

step forward and hopes the subcommittee will support this change. While we recognize that these are promising changes, institutional shifts like this one require resources and the right incentives to be successful and measurable milestones to mark 

progress. Currently, the agencies have inadequate funding and staffing to expand 

WFU, and internal policies act as disincentives. It is critical that Congress engage 

to both increase opportunities for the application of WFU as well as provide the ad-
486 

ditional resources necessary to capitalize on these opportunities. As such, we recommend that the subcommittee: (1) designate at least $10 million in funding from 

the suppression or preparedness line items to increase training and staffing for 

WFU at DOI and USFS; (2) monitor the agencies as they move forward in making 

fire policy changes that allow a wildland fire to be managed for both suppression 

and WFU and ensure these changes are finalized. 

COMMUNITY FIRE ASSISTANCE

To successfully reduce suppression costs and restore forests, we must approach 

fire management on the terms dictated by fire itself—across ownership boundaries. 

Safe communities and healthy landscapes go hand-in-hand. In 2001, the USFS and 

the Department of the Interior identified over 11,000 communities adjacent to Federal lands that are at risk from wildland fire; State Foresters estimate over 51,000 

communities at risk. The scope of the problem is clearly enormous—and growing. 

Experts predict that almost 8 million new homes will be built in the wildland-urban 

interface (WUI) between 2005 and 2010. Increased population in the WUI is one of 

the primary reasons suppression costs have skyrocketed to over $1 billion per year. 

Communities that are ‘‘firesafe’’, or well-prepared for fire, are key to reducing these 

suppression costs—and ultimately restoring functional, and fire-resilient, wildlands. 

However, funding for the programs that help communities meet this goal has 

trended downward since fiscal year 2001 and that trend continues with the administration’s fiscal year 2009 Budget request, which proposes to slash these programs 

even further—by 27 percent. One of the most important community assistance programs is State Fire Assistance (SFA). It is a key part of a long-term strategy to reduce suppression costs because it funds proactive fire risk reduction activities, fire 

prevention campaigns, public education, and most critically, Community Wildfire 

Protection Planning (CWPP). This program has significant and wide-ranging support; last year TWS joined with over 40 diverse groups, ranging from the Society 

of American Foresters to the Idaho Conservation League, to ask for increased and 

sustained funding for SFA. Unfortunately, the President’s fiscal year 2009 Budget 

proposes reducing the already woefully underfunded State Fire Assistance program 

by 25.5 percent (from $80.6 million to $60.0 million). Volunteer Fire Assistance, 

which targets rural communities with populations under 10,000, is proposed for a 

6 percent reduction—from $13.8 million to $13 million. The BLM’s Rural Fire Assistance program was also once again proposed for elimination. Compounding these 

cuts is a drastic 58 percent reduction to the State and Private Forestry budget as 

a whole, an additional blow to private landowners. The National Association of State 

Foresters estimates SFA funding needs at a minimum of $145 million—the program’s fiscal year 2009 proposed budget is less than half that. We appreciate that 

the subcommittee has consistently provided stable SFA appropriations responsive to 

on-the-ground realities. We again request your leadership to restore and enhance 

SFA funding. TWS recommends no less than 20 percent of the 5-year average of 

NFP appropriations be allocated to State and Local Assistance Programs generally, 

and 50 percent of that be targeted specifically to SFA, through a steady increase 

over 3 years. The first year should reflect an 80 percent increase above the historic 

average for SFA, resulting in a $144 million appropriation that would meet projected needs. TWS also recommends that BLM’s Rural Fire Assistance program be 

restored to $10 million. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS FUNDING LANGUAGE

As already noted, fire management must take place across jurisdictions, at a landscape scale, to be successful. An important tool for accomplishing this has been the 

ability of the Forest Service to use up to $15 million of its Hazardous Fuels funding 

on non-Federal lands directly adjacent to active hazardous fuels treatment projects 

on National Forests to mitigate risks of hazardous fuels conditions on non-Federal 

lands in the WUI. This legislative language has been in place since it was added 

to the 2002 the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Numerous agency 

partners on the ground have emphasized the importance of these funds in helping 

them carry out projects, in concert with the Forest Service, that help them build 

defensible space around their communities. In the President’s fiscal year 2009 Forest Service Budget this previous authorization is proposed for deletion. TWS recommends that the subcommittee retain this language. 
487 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

The Wilderness Society (TWS) represents more than 310,000 members and supporters across the United States who support our mission to protect wilderness and 

inspire Americans to care for our wild places. I thank the committee for the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year 2009 Department of the Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Last year, the Federal allocations reversed the near decade-long pattern of severe 

funding cuts to numerous conservation programs. We applaud Congress for increasing appropriations for essential public land conservation activities, particularly the 

boosts for wildlife refuges and national parks. Despite this progress, these and other 

indispensable conservation programs continue to suffer from years of under-funding. 

To avoid the slow, steady collapse of our public land conservation systems, we ask 

that you take bold, immediate action in making additional investments for fiscal 

year 2009. As a minimum step toward adequate funding of our public land programs 

and to meet new challenges associated with climate change, TWS recommends: 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

As a Federal side program with a State matching grant program, the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been this Nation’s single most effective tool 

for creating new parks and open spaces, protecting wild lands and wetlands, preserving wildlife habitat, and enhancing recreational opportunities. The Federal program provides funds to purchase land and water resources for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other public lands. The State matching grants program 

provides funds to assist in the acquisition of urban open space and creation of local 

recreation facilities. For fiscal year 2009, the administration’s budget proposal 

slashes LWCF funds by more than $110 million, reducing the funding level to nearly $43 million. TWS’ fiscal year 2009 recommendation for the LWCF is $403 million 

($278 million for Federal and $125 million for stateside), an increase of $248.7 million over fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $154.3 million. 

A Sampling of TWS LWCF and Forest Legacy Acquisition Priorities for fiscal year 

2009: 

—AZ—Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. LWCF Request: $550,000 

—CA—California Desert Wilderness. LWCF Request: $500,000; Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. LWCF Request: $2.58 million —CO—Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. LWCF Request: $3 million 

—GA—Silver Lake—Forest Legacy Request: $4.5 million 

—ID—Idaho Wild & Scenic River—Morgan Ranch. LWCF Request $2.2 million; Upper Snake/South Fork Snake River ACEC/SRMA. LWCF Request: $300,000 —NC—Appalachian National Scenic Trail—Roan Highlands. LWCF Request: $1.8 

million 

—MN—Upper Mississippi River NWR (includes WI, IA, and IL). LWCF Request $500,000 

—NH—Lake Umbagog NWR. LWCF Request: $1 million 

—NM—Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument. LWCF Request: $502,000 

—OR—Cascade Siskiyou National Monument. LWCF Request: $3.6 million 

—SC—Congaree National Park—1,840 acres Riverstone tract. LWCF Request: 

$5.3 million 

—TN—Rocky Fork, 10,000 acres located along the Appalachian Trail Corridor on 

the NC–TN line. LWCF Request: $9 million; North Cumberland Conservation 

Area. Forest Legacy Request: $8.1 million 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM).—Once again, the President’s budget makes 

oil and gas drilling its top priority, funding a $22 million increase in the program, 

while reducing allocations for such programs as fisheries management, cultural resources management, threatened and endangered species management, and resource protection and law enforcement. In addition, the administration has asked 

that Congress delete the prohibition on use of appropriations to finalize a commercial oil shale leasing program and on holding commercial oil shale lease sales. We 

recommend a reduction in the allocation for the oil and gas program, the imposition 

of a ‘‘due diligence fee’’ on the more than 30 million acres of idle onshore Federal 

oil and gas leases, similar to section 7224 of H.R. 3221 passed by the House last 

year, and a reallocation of funds to programs such as fisheries management, cultural resources management, threatened and endangered species management, and 

resource protection and law enforcement. We also strongly urge retention of the prohibition on the use of funds to finalize a commercial oil shale leasing program because the BLM simply does not have enough information upon which to design and 

implement an appropriate commercial oil shale leasing and development program 

at this time. 
488 

BLM’S NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) National Landscape Conservation System, comprising some 26 million acres of congressionally and presidentially designated lands and waters, such as national monuments and national conservation 

areas, represents some of the best places where one can experience the history and 

wild beauty of the West. The System provides innumerable recreational opportunities, critical wildlife habitat, clean water, wilderness, and open space near fast-growing cities. The President’s budget request represents a needed $2.6 million increase 

over his 2008 request, though it is still more than $3.5 million below last year’s enacted level of $55.3 million. This year, the President’s budget did add a budget category for the System’s national monuments and national conservation areas, providing more transparency and improving managers’ ability to plan for and track 

funding; however, additional clarity is still needed. TWS’ fiscal year 2009 recommendation is $70 million for the Conservation System, an increase of $14.7 million over fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 

NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

Our National Park System, comprised of 387 units, includes some of our Nation’s 

most beautiful landscapes and culturally significant areas. Increased funding for operations of the National Park System can help ensure that visitors have safe, enjoyable, and educational experiences in the park system. The President’s budget provides $2.4 billion for the Park Service and would increase the operations budget by 

$161 million to $2.1 billion. This money can be invested in interpretation, enforcement, and natural resource protection staff. Unfortunately, this increase comes at 

the expense of other critical Park Service funding, including a $46 million cut from 

the construction account. The request of $172 million for construction is a mere half 

of what was provided 5 years ago. These construction funds are badly needed to 

help the Park Service reduce its staggering parks maintenance and construction 

backlog. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

The National Wildlife Refuge System, with its 548 refuges on nearly 100 million 

acres of land, helps protect critical wildlife habitat, ensuring that wildlife protection 

remains a priority of these lands. There is a wildlife refuge in every State and within an hour’s drive of most American cities. More than 35 million people visit refuges 

annually, generating nearly $1.7 billion for local economies and supporting almost 

27,000 private sector jobs. Last year’s operations and maintenance appropriation increase of nearly $39 million brought funding to a level that is close to what the Refuge System needed to keep pace with inflation costs over the past 5 years. This significant investment helped stem severe staff losses and program cuts. But years of 

stagnant funding fueled a spiraling backlog of $3.5 billion in operations and maintenance projects and a loss of more than 300 positions since 2004. The Refuge System 

needs $765 million in annual funds to adequately address its operations and maintenance needs of the Refuge System. The President’s budget request of $434 million 

fails to take into account annual inflation adjustments, which will cost the system 

nearly $15 million. TWS’ fiscal year 2009 recommendation for the Refuge System 

is $514 million. This represents an increase of $79.9 million over the fiscal year 

2008 enacted level of $434.1 million. 

NATIONAL FOREST LANDS

We believe a proposed cut of 2,707 full time employees in the Forest Service, with 

almost 1,200 cuts in the National Forest System alone, could jeopardize many key 

functions that the Forest Service normally performs. In particular, TWS believes the 

potential elimination of the wilderness director and other leadership positions from 

the Forest Service program that manages 35 million wilderness acres would result 

in an inadequate organizational and management structure. 

Although the Forest Service cites the loss of open space as one of its top tier concerns, the President’s proposed budget ignores this worry entirely. A proposed 58 

percent cut to the State and Private Forestry program from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $262.6 million—requesting just $109.5 million for fiscal year 2009— 

would jeopardize the Forest Service’s ability to protect open spaces. Under the State 

and Private Forestry program, Forest Legacy would receive a drastic 76 percent cut 

from its fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $52.3 million to $12.5 million under the 

President’s budget. The Urban and Community Forestry program would also be cut 

to $5 million, which is an 82 percent drop from last year’s enacted level of $27.7 

million. TWS’ recommendation for fiscal year 2009 is that Forest Legacy be funded 
489 

at $125 million and Urban and Community Forestry be funded at minimum $30 

million. 

In addition, TWS is concerned that the Forest Service has not moved toward a 

more serious and consistent approach to managing its increasingly deteriorating 

road system. The Forest Service should not only work to limit the construction of 

new roads, until it reaches a sustainable level of miles, but also prioritize decommissioning roads that are unneeded and causing environmental problems. The Forest 

Service can begin reaching this goal by maintaining and funding the Legacy Road 

and Trail Remediation Program at TWS’ recommended level of $75 million. Additionally, the Roads Maintenance Program should be funded at a level that will help 

to maintain necessary roads. The Forest Service estimates a need of $649 million 

to meet its annual road maintenance needs. TWS recommends this program receive 

$325 million, half of these funds should be allocated to roads maintenance in those 

forests where a roads analysis, identifying the unnecessary and problematic roads 

that should be decommissioned, is completed. 

Recreation is the largest of the forest uses, making it critical that the Forest Service encourage recreation that is environmentally sound, including actions to help 

Americans adapt to a more climate-responsible method of recreation. The Forest 

Service’s ‘‘travel management rule’’ requires designating roads and trails that minimize impacts to visitors, waterways, and wildlife habitats. Although the Forest 

Service was instructed to pull dollars from several programs to fund the travel management projects, all of the funds to date have been derived from the Recreation 

program, thus constraining other Recreation programs. Therefore, TWS recommends 

a $115.8 million increase to the Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness program for 

travel management planning and implementation for fiscal year 2009. An additional 

increase of $30 million is recommended for the Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers 

program. 

STATE AND LOCAL FIRE ASSISTANCE

In 2001, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior identified over 

11,000 communities adjacent to Federal lands that are at risk from wildland fire. 

State Foresters conservatively estimate 45,000 communities at risk. The scope of the 

problem is enormous—and growing. Experts estimate that almost eight million new 

homes will be built in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) between 2005 and 2010. 

Increased population in the WUI is one of the main reasons suppression costs are 

skyrocketing. State Fire Assistance is the primary Federal program that helps communities prepare for fire by funding firefighter training, hazardous fuels reduction 

near communities, and Community Wildfire Protection Planning. TWS’ fiscal year 

2009 recommendation for State Fire Assistance is $144 million, an increase of $63.4 

million over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $80.6 million. 

WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING

Wildland fire will account for 48 percent of the Forest Service’s budget in fiscal 

year 2009, overwhelming other agency mission areas. Moreover, experts are predicting that a changing climate will only increase the length of the fire season. To 

address this problem, Congress must: (1) fix the suppression funding structure; and 

(2) invest in a 21st century fire management force. A new suppression funding 

structure should create a separate fund for unanticipated large fire events, freeing 

up constrained Federal wildland firefighting budgets to be invested in the goals of 

the National Fire Plan and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. A robust commitment to new fire management strategies, like risk-based suppression and Wildland 

Fire Use, is also needed. This change will lead to healthier landscapes and less costly fire seasons in the future. TWS recommends implementing a new budget funding 

structure for wildland fire suppression and designating $10 million from suppression funding to increase Wildland Fire Use staffing and training. 

LAND SALES AND ARCTIC DRILLING

The administration once again proposes to sell BLM lands and to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for deficit reduction and other purposes. Similar proposals included in previous administration budgets have been rejected by Congress. 

We urge the subcommittee to once again omit from its bill and report any language 

that would amend existing law to provide for such land sale and drilling provisions. 
490 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE USGS COALITION

SUMMARY

The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony in support 

of increased appropriations for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for fiscal year 2009. We continue to believe that the USGS budget request is below the 

amount required to ensure the long-term vitality of the agency. The USGS Coalition 

urges Congress to increase the budget of the U.S. Geological Survey to $1.3 billion 

in fiscal year 2009. 

The USGS Coalition is an alliance of 70 organizations united by a commitment 

to the continued vitality of the unique combination of biological, geographical, geological, and hydrological programs of the United States Geological Survey. The Coalition supports increased Federal investment in USGS programs that underpin responsible natural resource stewardship, improve resilience to natural and humaninduced hazards, and contribute to the long-term health, security and prosperity of 

the Nation. 

The USGS plays a crucial role in protecting the public from natural hazards such 

as floods and earthquakes, assessing water quality, providing emergency responders 

with geospatial data to improve homeland security, analyzing the strategic and economic implications of mineral supply and demand, and providing the science needed 

to manage our natural resources and combat invasive species that can threaten agriculture and public health. The USGS is working in every State and has nearly 400 

offices across the country. To aid in its interdisciplinary investigations, the USGS 

works with over 2,000 Federal, State, local, tribal and private organizations. 

FUNDING SHORTFALL

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for the USGS is $969 million, 

which is $38 million or 4 percent below the fiscal year 2008 enacted budget. The 

USGS budget has declined in real dollars for 7 consecutive years and it would decline for an eighth year if the fiscal year 2009 budget request were enacted (Figure 

1). 

In real terms, funding for the USGS is currently at its lowest level since fiscal 

year 1996, when the National Biological Service was integrated into the USGS (Figure 1). The decline in funding for the USGS during this time period would have 

been greater if Congress had not repeatedly restored proposed budget cuts. By contrast, overall Federal funding for research and development has increased significantly in real terms since fiscal year 1996. 
491 

Over the past several years, natural hazards have negatively affected communities across the country, including flash floods and forest fires in California, and 

hurricanes in Florida and the Gulf Coast region. Forest fires burned a total of 

9,321,326 acres of land in the United States in 2007. These fires are not limited to 

western States. Virginia experienced a 16 percent rise in wildfires. Since an earthquake generated a tsunami that caused approximately 230,000 fatalities near the 

Indian Ocean in 2004, people around the globe have a greater awareness and appreciation of the need to improve environmental monitoring, forecasting, and warning 

systems that can prevent natural hazards from becoming natural disasters 

Providing the information necessary to mitigate the impacts of natural disasters 

is a core function of the USGS. It operates seismic networks and conducts seismic 

hazard analyses that are used to formulate earthquake probabilities and to establish building codes across the Nation. The USGS monitors volcanoes and provides 

warnings about impending eruptions. Data from the USGS network of stream gages 

enables the National Weather Service to issue flood warnings. The USGS and its 

Federal partners monitor seasonal wildfires, provide maps of current fire locations 

and the potential spread of fires. Research on ecosystem structure and function assists forest and rangeland managers with forecasting fire risk and managing natural systems following fires. The USGS plays a pivotal role in reducing risks from 

floods, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides and other 

natural hazards that jeopardize human lives and cost billions of dollars in damages 

every year. 

Equally important, the USGS plays a critical role in bioinformatics and managing 

natural resources, essential to our economy, security, and environment. Baseline 

data about our Nation’s biology and how it is changing is needed to understand and 

address climate change. The USGS provides fundamental scientific data that informs management of natural resources (e.g., data for Fish and Wildlife Service on 

polar bear populations), control of invasive species (e.g., snakehead fish, zebra mussels, and tamarisk) and monitoring of wildlife diseases (e.g., Highly Pathogenic 

Avian Flu, Chronic Wasting Disease) that can cause billions of dollars in agricultural losses. 
492 

The USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of the Nation’s environmental 

and security challenges, including energy independence, climate change, water quality, and conservation of biological diversity. Efforts to make the Nation more energyindependent requires recurring USGS assessments of previously unexploited mineral and emerging energy resources, including geothermal resources, and renewable 

energy sources such as biofuels. 

USGS research that spans the biological, geological, geographical, and 

hydrological sciences are essential for understanding potential impacts that could 

result from global climate change or from land management practices. These studies 

provide critical information for resource managers as they develop adaptive management strategies for restoration and long-term use of the Nation’s natural resources. 

Greater investment in the USGS is required. This investment could be used to 

strengthen USGS partnerships, improve monitoring networks, produce high-quality 

digital geospatial data and deliver the best possible science to address societal problems and inform decision-makers. 

USGS BUDGET REQUEST

The USGS Coalition urges Congress to increase the budget of the U.S. Geological 

Survey to $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2009, which is necessary for the agency to continue providing critical information to the public and to decision-makers at all levels 

of government. The budget increase recommended by the Coalition would enable the 

USGS to restore the science cuts proposed in the budget request (e.g., substantial 

reductions in the Mineral Resources program, Water Resources Research Institutes, 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program, earthquake hazards research grants, 

Toxic Substances Hydrology program, and National Biological Information Infrastructure), accelerate the timetable for deployment of critical projects (e.g., the National Streamflow Information Program and the multi-hazards initiative), and 

launch science initiatives that address new challenges. 

The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request would cut funding for the USGS 

by approximately $38 million or 4 percent to $969 million compared with the fiscal 

year 2008 enacted budget of $1.006 billion. The USGS budget request would provide 

funding for several initiatives, including Water for America, Ocean and Coastal 

Frontiers, Healthy Lands, and Birds Forever. These initiatives deserve the support 

of Congress. 

The USGS budget request would cut $24.6 million from the Mineral Resources 

program, a decrease of 48 percent that would decimate the program and necessitate 

buyouts of hundreds of Federal workers. The budget request would also eliminate 

all funding ($6.3 million) for the Water Resources Research Institutes, which are located in all 50 States. Congress has repeatedly rejected similar proposed cuts to 

these programs in recent years and we urge Congress to reject these proposed cuts 

again this year. 

The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2009 also proposes large cuts in 

other programs, including a $9.8 million reduction in the National Water-Quality 

Assessment Program, a $3 million cut in extramural research grants on earthquake 

hazards, a $3 million reduction in the Toxic Substances Hydrology program, and a 

$2.9 million cut in the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). The 

proposed cut in the NBII would result in a 70 percent reduction over 3 years, significantly impairing the agency’s core capacity to provide access to high quality, integrated biological data that informs resource management decisions. The budget request also includes many smaller budget cuts. We encourage Congress to restore 

these cuts, but this funding should not come at the expense of other high priority 

programs elsewhere in the USGS budget. 

The USGS Mineral Resources program is an essential source of unbiased research 

on the Nation’s mineral resources. This guidance is important to reduce the environmental impacts of mining and to maintain the growing value of processed materials 

from mineral resources that account for approximately $500 billion in the U.S. economy. The proposed cuts would terminate multidisciplinary research that has important implications for public health (such as studies on mercury, arsenic and other 

inorganic toxins), environmental protection, infrastructure, economic development, 

and national security. 

In addition to restoring proposed program cuts, we encourage Congress to consider additional increases that would enable the USGS to meet the tremendous need 

for science in support of public policy decision-making. More investment is needed 

to strengthen USGS partnerships, improve monitoring networks, implement important bioinformatics programs, produce high-quality digital geospatial data, and deliver the best possible science to address societally important problems. The USGS 

has a national mission that directly affects all citizens through natural hazards 
493 

monitoring, water resource studies, biological and geological resource assessments, 

and other activities. 

The USGS Coalition is grateful to Congress for its leadership in restoring past 

budget cuts and strengthening the U.S. Geological Survey. Thank you for your 

thoughtful consideration of our request. For additional information or to learn more 

about the USGS Coalition, please visit www.USGScoalition.org or contact co-chairs 

Robert Gropp of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (rgropp@aibs.org) or 

Craig Schiffries of the Geological Society of America (cschiffries@geosociety.org). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

For 39 years, United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has provided postsecondary 

career and technical education, job training and family services to some of the most 

impoverished Indian students from throughout the Nation. We are governed by the 

five tribes located wholly or in part in North Dakota. We have consistently had excellent results, placing Indian people in good jobs and reducing welfare rolls. Bureau 

of Indian Education (BIE) funds constitute about half of our operating budget and 

provide for our core instructional programs. We do not have a tax base or Stateappropriated funds on which to rely. The requests of the United Tribes Technical 

College Board for the fiscal year 2009 BIE budget are: 

—$4.5 million in BIE funds for UTTC, which is $500,000 over the fiscal year 2008 

level. 

—We ask for the committee’s continued support for a Memorandum of Understanding between the BIA and UTTC concerning training and certification of 

BIA law enforcement officers. 

—A requirement that the BIA/BIE place more emphasis on funding and administrative support for job training and vocational/technical education. The administration’s fiscal year 2009 request for Job Placement and Training is $8,864,000 

with an additional $2,011,604 under TPA adult education for a total of $10.9 

million. This is a $429,396 reduction from fiscal year 2008. The fiscal year 2009 

amount is far less than the fiscal year 1970 appropriation of $60 million for this 

program. There is little BIA/BIE leadership or advocacy for job training or vocational/technical education at the central or regional office levels. 

The administration, for the seventh straight year, has requested no funding for 

United Tribes Technical College or for Navajo Technical College. Thankfully, Congress understands the value of investing in tribal postsecondary education and has 

restored the funding each year. 

This crass, outrageous and irresponsible proposal, if carried out, would irreparably harm Indian students who often have no other chance for improving their 

lives but through UTTC and Navajo Technical College. The administration’s request 

represents a failure to understand our educational mission and the nature of the 

populations we serve. 

Our students are disadvantaged in many ways. They often come from impoverished backgrounds or broken families. They may be overcoming extremely difficult 

personal circumstances as single parents. They often lack the resources, both culturally and financially, to go to mainstream institutions. UTTC provides a set of 

family and culturally-based campus services, including: an elementary school for the 

children of students, housing, day care, a health clinic, a wellness center, several 

on-campus job programs, student government, counseling, services relating to drug 

and alcohol abuse and job placement programs that enable our students to start on 

the road to realizing their potential. 

The administration states that UTTC has other sources of funding to carry out 

its mission. This is not correct. Our present Bureau of Indian Education and Perkins funds (also cut entirely from the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget) provide 

for nearly all of our core postsecondary educational programs. Almost none of the 

other funds we receive can be used for core career and technical educational programs; they are supplemental and help us provide the services our students need 

to be successful. Moreover, these other programs are competitive, which means we 

have no guarantee that such funds will be available to us in the future. We cannot 

continue operating without BIE funds. 

The administration’s stated view that because there other tribal colleges in North 

Dakota and that the Navajo Nation has Dine College that UTTC and NTC do not 

need BIE funding is specious at best. We educate Indian students from throughout 

the Nation, many from tribes which do not have tribal colleges. We need more capacity at UTTC and NTC and the other tribal colleges, not less, because the demand 

from Indians for higher education is there. 

Below are some important facts about United Tribes Technical College. 
494 

UTTC Performance Indicators. UTTC has: 

—An 81 percent retention rate 

—A placement rate of 94 percent (job placement and going on to 4-year institutions) 

—A projected return on Federal investment of 20-to-1 (2005 study comparing the 

projected earnings generated over a 28-year period of UTTC Associate of Applied Science and Bachelor degree graduates of June 2005 with the cost of educating them.) 

—The highest level of accreditation. The North Central Association of Colleges 

and Schools has accredited UTTC again in 2001 for the longest period of time 

allowable—10 years or until 2011—and with no stipulations. We are also the 

only tribal college accredited to offer accredited on-line (Internet based) associate degrees. 

—More than 20 percent of our students go on to 4-year or advanced degree institutions. 

Law Enforcement Training.—We ask for the continued support of Congress in obtaining a Memorandum of Understanding with the BIA’s Police Academy in New 

Mexico that would allow our criminal justice program to be recognized for the purpose of BIA and Tribal police certification, so that Tribal members from the BIA regions in the Northern Plains, Northwest, Rocky Mountain, and Midwest areas 

would not have to travel so far from their families to receive training. While we 

have received assurances from the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs that the 

MOU is under consideration, we need to know that this effort will continue into the 

next administration. We appreciate the language regarding the MOU in the fiscal 

year 2008 Senate appropriations report and ask that this language be included in 

the fiscal year 2009 committee report. 

The committee is concerned about the need for additional law enforcement officers 

in Indian country and to that end supports an articulation agreement between the 

BIA and United Tribes Technical College that would establish reciprocity between 

UTTC and the Bureau for training and certification of BIA law enforcement officers. 

(S. Rpt. 110–91, p. 38). 

We are also interested in developing training programs that would assist the BIA 

in the area of provision of trust services. We have several technology disciplines and 

instructors that are capable of providing those kinds of services with minimum of 

additional training 

The demand for our services is growing and we are serving more students. For 

the 2007–2008 year we enrolled 1,122 students (an unduplicated count), nearly four 

times the number served just 6 years ago. Most of our students are from the Great 

Plains, where the Indian reservations have a jobless rate of 76 percent (Source: 2003 

BIA Labor Force Report), along with increasing populations. The need for our services will continue to increase at least for the next 5 to 10 years. 

In addition, we are serving 248 students during school year 2007–2008 in our 

Theodore Jamerson Elementary school and 252 children, birth to 5, are being served 

in our child development centers. 

UTTC course offerings and partnerships with other educational institutions. We 

offer 15 vocational/technical programs and award a total of 15 two-year degrees (Associate of Applied Science (AAS)) and six 1-year certificates, as well as a 4 year degree in elementary education in cooperation with Sinte Gleska University in South 

Dakota. We are accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools 

for the longest accrediting period provided of ten years. 

Licensed Practical Nursing.—This program has one of the highest enrollments at 

UTTC and results in the greatest demand for our graduates. Our students have the 

ability to transfer their UTTC credits to the North Dakota higher educational system to pursue a 4-year nursing degree. 

Medical Transcription and Coding Certificate Program.—This program provides 

training in transcribing medical records into properly coded digital documents. It is 

offered through the college’s Exact Med Training program and is supported by Department of Labor funds. 

Tribal Environmental Science.—Our Tribal Environmental Science program is 

supported by a National Science Foundation Tribal College and Universities Program grant. This 5-year project allows students to obtain a 2-year AAS degree in 

Tribal Environmental Science. 

Community Health/Injury Prevention.—Through our Community Health/Injury 

Prevention Program we are addressing the injury death rate among Indians, which 

is 2.8 times that of the U.S. population, the leading cause of death among Native 

Americans ages 1–44, and the third leading cause of death overall. This program 

has in the past been supported by the Indian Health Service, and is the only degreegranting Injury Prevention program in the Nation. 
495 

Online Education.—We are continuing to create increased opportunities for education by providing web-based and Interactive Video Network courses from our 

North Dakota campus to American Indians residing at other remote sites as well 

as to students on our campus. Online courses provide the scheduling flexibility students need, especially those students with young children. We offer online fully accredited degree programs in the areas of Early Childhood Education, Community 

Health/Injury Prevention, Health Information Technology, Nutrition and Food Service and Elementary Education. Over 50 courses are available online. We are currently teaching 30 online courses with 170 course seats, including those in the Medical Transcription and Coding program. 

Another significant online course is suicidology—the study of suicide: its causes, 

prevention and the behavior of those who threaten or attempt suicide. Suicide in 

Indian country dramatically affects our communities, particularly our youth. According to the IHS, suicide rates in Indian Country are 6–8 times the national rate. We 

also provide an online Indian Country Environmental Hazard Assessment program, 

offered through the Environmental Protection Agency. This is a training course designed to help mitigate environmental hazards in reservation communities. 

Computer Information Technology.—This program is at maximum student capacity because of limitations on resources for computer instruction. In order to keep up 

with student demand and the latest technology, we need more classrooms, equipment and instructors. We provide all of the Microsoft Systems certifications that 

translate into higher income earning potential for graduates. 

Nutrition and Food Services.—UTTC helps meet the challenge of fighting diabetes 

in Indian Country through education. Indians and Alaska Natives have a disproportionately high rate of type 2 diabetes, and have a diabetes mortality rate that is 

three times higher than the general U.S. population. The increase in diabetes 

among Indians and Alaska Natives is most prevalent among young adults aged 25– 

34, with a 160 percent increase from 1990–2004. (Source: fiscal year 2009 Indian 

Health Service Budget Justification). 

As a 1994 Tribal Land Grant institution, we offer a Nutrition and Food Services 

AAS degree in order to increase the number of Indians with expertise in nutrition 

and dietetics. Currently, there are very few Indian professionals in the country with 

training in these areas. Our degree places a strong emphasis on diabetes education, 

traditional food preparation, and food safety. We have also established the United 

Tribes Diabetes Education Center that assists local tribal communities, our students 

and staff to decrease the prevalence of diabetes by providing educational programs, 

training and materials. We publish and make available tribal food guides to our oncampus community and to tribes. 

Business Management/Tribal Management.—Another critical program for Indian 

country is business and tribal management. This program is designed to help tribal 

leaders be more effective administrators and entrepreneurs. As with all our programs, curriculum is constantly being updated. 

Job Training and Economic Development.—UTTC continues to provide economic 

development opportunities for many tribes. We are a designated Minority Business 

Development Center serving South and North Dakota. We administer a Workforce 

Investment Act program and an internship program with private employers in the 

region. 

We cannot survive without the core career and technical education funds that 

come through the Department of Interior. These funds are essential to the operation 

of our campus. Our programs at UTTC continue to be critical and relevant to the 

welfare of Indian people throughout the Great Plains region and beyond. Thank you 

for your consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WEBER COUNTY COMMISSION, OGDEN, UT 

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you for 

the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $1.5 million for the Forest Service to acquire the 150-acre North Ogden property for the 

Bonneville Shoreline Trail. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 

Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important fea-
496 

tures. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal 

year 2009. 

For years, the residents of Salt Lake, Weber, Davis, Utah, and Cache Counties 

have benefited from their unique geographical location along the slopes of the 

Wasatch Range, which provides recreational opportunities, an escape from urban 

pressures, and a sense of community pride and identity. Development pressure 

poses the most serious threat to this valuable resource and will increase as the 

Wasatch Front population doubles within the next 10 to 25 years. This population 

growth and increased public use of these lands have raised issues of landowner liability and put pressure on these property owners either to sell their land or to restrict access to the trails, raising the possibility that this vital public recreational 

system could be impaired or lost. 

In 1990, representatives of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Weber County, 

the City of Ogden, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Convention Bureau, and 

other citizens groups concerned about the fragile thread that holds the trail system 

together, began meeting in an effort to protect and expand the trail corridor along 

the foothills of the Wasatch Mountain Range. As a result, the Bonneville Shoreline 

Trail (BST) project was developed, with a broad goal of extending the existing but 

threatened trail corridor already in place in the city of Ogden south to Provo, following the prehistoric shoreline of Lake Bonneville within the national forest. This 

partnership has been so successful that the communities in Cache and Box Elder 

County have worked to extend the trail north. 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2009 is the 150-acre North Ogden property 

in Weber County, a high priority for protection by the U.S. Forest Service. The property serves as important habitat for deer and elk and as an important buffer for 

fire protection for the rapidly developing area along the Wasatch Front. The property also provides watershed protection for neighboring areas in addition to key recreational resources. 

The North Ogden program is a partnership effort to provide a new stretch of the 

BST along the northern boundaries of North Ogden and Pleasant View, within the 

boundaries of the national forest. In 2005, a 5-mile stretch of the BST along North 

Ogden and Pleasant View was secured through a trail easement along an existing 

utility corridor granted to the nonprofit Weber Pathways. The property available for 

protection this year is critical to the North Ogden program because it will bring Forest Service ownership to this stretch of the BST and add critical trail access to the 

citizens in this area of the State. Protection of this property will also protect beautiful views of the foothills of the Wasatch Front and Ben Lomond Peak, one of 

Weber County’s most important landmarks, while conserving important wildlife 

habitat and winter range along this rapid growth area. 

In fiscal year 2009, $1.5 million is needed to acquire this BST property that is 

critically important to furthering the goals of the trail. If not protected, this area 

will be developed. Public access to this portion of the BST could be lost forever, and 

adjacent forest and wilderness lands would also be put at risk. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WESTERN COALITION OF ARID STATES

The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is submitting this testimony regarding the Presidents fiscal year 2009 budget request for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater districts, cities and towns and professional organizations focused on water quality and water 

quantity issues in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New 

Mexico, Oregon and Texas. Our mission is to work with Federal, State, and Regional 

water quality and quantity agencies to promote scientifically-sound laws, regulations, appropriations and policies that protect public health and the environment of 

the arid West. 

Protection of the public health and the environment is a high priority of citizens 

of the United States from all walks of life. As water services providers and professionals we hear from our citizens every day regarding the importance of safe drinking water, protecting habitat and wildlife and being stewards of the environment. 

The projects we work on and activities we conduct are driven by rules, programs 

and policies that have been developed due to past environmental legislation and appropriations that have accompanied them. As examples, we acknowledge the successes of the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act and others. As the lead agency for developing and 

implementing the programs and policies needed to achieve the goals of environ-
497 

mental legislation, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts research, establishes monitoring and reporting programs, establishes mechanisms to 

enforce rules and allocates funds to assist the regulated community in meeting requirements. 

The arid West is the fastest growing region in the United States. The combined 

challenges of constructing and maintaining the infrastructure and treatment facilities necessary to meet new demands for water and wastewater services, rehabilitating and replacing aging infrastructure, and meeting increasingly stringent regulations will be insurmountable without local, State, and Federal commitments to financing the necessary infrastructure. WESTCAS, is concerned about the 19 percent 

($134 million) decrease in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund from the fiscal 

year 2008 enacted budget, being proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2009 Budget. 

Increased construction costs have further eroded the value of the funding levels. 

WESTCAS supports funding the CWSRF to greater than the fiscal year 2008 level. 

Water Pollution Control (Clean Water Act section 106) Grants provide funding for 

States to carry out many programs including the development of water quality 

standards and Total Maximum Daily Loads. It also provides funding for monitoring 

activities. WESTCAS supports funding these programs at no lower than the fiscal 

year 2008 proposed levels rather than the fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. 

WESTCAS supports funding for enhanced monitoring activities, as this monitoring 

provides the basic data for the water quality standards and assessment programs. 

Primary enforcement authority for safe drinking water and clean water programs 

has been delegated by EPA to most of the WESTCAS States. With severe budget 

constraints, the ability of State agencies to respond to existing and emerging public 

health and environmental issues is becoming more challenging. Inspections, permitting and enforcement activities will be adversely impacted by decreases in Federal 

support. Without additional funding, inaccurate EPA databases that are critical for 

evaluating compliance and providing information to the public will continue to 

hinder EPA’s ability to enforce regulations, create potential conflict between the regulatory agencies and the regulated community, and lower public confidence in both 

utilities and regulatory agencies. WESTCAS supports increasing State grant programs from the fiscal year 2008 levels in order to maintain regulatory programs and 

to bolster public confidence by eliminating inaccuracies in EPA’s databases. 

WESTCAS has long been a proponent of sound science in developing water quality 

standards, especially for ephemeral and effluent dependent waters in the arid West. 

Water quality standards should be based on the characteristics of the specific aquatic communities that exist in the water bodies and public health-based uses of those 

waters. Therefore, WESTCAS is concerned about the almost $3 million reduction in 

the Clean Water Research Program and requests that those funds be restored. 

There has been recent media attention regarding pharmaceutically active compounds, personal care products and endocrine disrupting compounds in the Nations’ 

waters. Response to the news articles by water utilities has been challenging in the 

face of little information on environmental impacts and especially human health effects. In the West, water supply and drought plans continue to grow increasingly 

dependent on the direct and indirect reuse of reclaimed water, making the need for 

additional research on the health effects of these compounds more urgent. 

WESTCAS requests that the approximate $3.6 million in reductions to research on 

human health and ecosystems and toxics review and prevention associated with endocrine disruptors in the proposed fiscal year 2009 budget be restored and enhanced 

to include research associated with long-term exposure of humans to very low levels 

of pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Funding for the development of analytical methods to accurately and reliably determine the concentrations of these 

compounds is also critical. Finally, if health effects are identified, research is needed 

on treatment technologies capable of reducing these compounds to safe levels. 

WESTCAS appreciates the difficulty that Congress faces in providing funding for 

the many needs of the Nation and appreciates your consideration of these requests. 

We hope you agree that we as a nation cannot afford to compromise protection of 

public health and the environment in response to fluctuating economies. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY

Ms. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, and distinguished members of this subcommittee, I am grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony today on behalf 

of the board of directors, staff, and members of Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. 

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC) is Pennsylvania’s oldest regional 

501(c)3 non-profit conservation organization. During the past 76 years, we have 

partnered with hundreds of community groups, conservation organizations, govern-
498 

ment agencies and individuals in more than 45 counties stretching from Pennsylvania’s western reaches across the State to Harrisburg and beyond. We have approximately 9,400 member households and involve more than 5,000 volunteers every year 

in community conservation initiatives. 

In accordance with our mission, WPC conserves land of ecological, scenic, and recreational significance. We seek to use science-driven land conservation planning 

supported by engagement with communities, businesses and government partners 

to develop conservation approaches that work for all involved. 

WPC’s land conservation initiatives have had a significant impact on the communities and landscapes of western Pennsylvania. Our work has enabled the permanent protection and stewardship of important natural, scenic and recreational assets. Since 1932, we have protected 225,000 acres. Most of that land is now publicly 

owned and makes up some of our State’s premiere parks, forests, game lands, and 

natural areas. They include lands integral to and within Allegheny National Forest 

in north central Pennsylvania, over 40 miles of riverbank land along the Clarion 

River now designated scenic and recreational under the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act, numerous scenic and recreational areas in the Laurel Highlands of 

southwestern Pennsylvania, and six of Pennsylvania’s State parks. These assets are 

enjoyed by millions of residents and tourists, and will be permanently preserved for 

enjoyment by future generations of Pennsylvanians. 

Today, our work is perhaps more urgent and necessary than ever before. The past 

four decades of suburban sprawl have changed our natural landscapes and reduced 

our open spaces. We are now beginning to clearly witness the negative repercussions 

of wholesale land use changes. In 2005, the U.S. Forest Service cast a spotlight on 

these threats in its Forests on the Edge report, which identified the top 15 watersheds in the United States that would see the most serious development pressure 

over the coming decades. The publication predicts that 44 million acres of private 

forest nationwide will be converted to non-forest uses in the next 22 years. 

Given these stresses, it is concerning that less than 20 percent of eastern forests 

are permanently conserved or protected for future generations. Without a robust investment of both private and public funding, our landscapes will very likely transform and become unrecognizable in a very short time. 

This year were were alarmed to learn of the drastic cuts to two important land 

conservation programs in the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request. The Land 

and Water Conservation Fund and Forest Legacy Program, our Nation’s two flagship programs for investment in land conservation, are recommended for funding at 

irresponsibly low levels. 

Established in 1965, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has served the national interest as the primary source of funding for Federal land conservation efforts. Through this fund, every State has preserved critically important lands comprising our national forests, wilderness areas, historic and cultural sites, significant 

battlefields and recreation areas. In addition, the stateside portion accounts for the 

creation of thousands of local park and recreation projects such as ballfields and 

community parks. 

Established in the 1990 farm bill, the Forest Legacy Program is a partnership 

program which, according to the USFS web site,‘‘protects ‘working 

forests’... those that protect water quality, provide habitat, forest products, opportunities for recreation and other public benefits.’’ As of February 2008, Forest 

Legacy Program has suceessfully protected over 1.5 million acres of forestland in 37 

States. Moreover, every Federal dollar spent is matched by private or non-Federal 

Government funding, making it a sound use of public resources. 

In every State in the Nation, LWCF or Forest Legacy Program funds have ensured that all Americans have access to lands where they can hunt, fish, play ball, 

hike, bird watch, paddle a canoe or ride a bike. Working only with landowners who 

are willing sellers, Federal, State, and local agencies are attempting to protect the 

best of what remains so that future generations can also reap the benefits of access 

to outdoor recreation, America’s unique historic and cultural sites and protected 

wildlife. 

As a proud member of the Eastern Forest Partnership, the Western Pennsylvania 

Conservancy supports all of the specific projects named in their fiscal year 2009 

publication, Open Space for America. 

Quoting from this report, these include: 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOREST LEGACY OPPORTUNITIES

Highlands.—The forested ridgelines of the 3 million-acre Highlands region form 

a greenbelt from Philadelphia to Hartford that is also the water supply for more 

than 15 million Americans. Tree Farm, Adams County (PA) will conserve 2,500 
499 

highly threatened acres adjacent to State lands and the Appalachian Trail. Passaic/ 

Ramapo Watershed II (NJ) will conserve 1,400 acres of critical watershed and recreation lands that provide missing links among 18,000 acres of existing State land. 

Northern Forest.—Northern Forest communities and non-profit organizations have 

formed creative partnerships to conserve key forest tracts. Machias River, Phase III 

(ME) will conserve 33,000 working forest acres around the existing Farm Cove Community Forest, connecting key pieces of a 1.3 million-acre conservation area. Eden 

Forest (VT) will conserve 5,700 acres of working forest within a 30,000-acre forest 

block adjacent to Vermont’s famed Long Trail. 

Quabbin to Cardigan (Q2C).—The Quabbin to Cardigan Partnership is a landmark bi-state effort to conserve 600,000 interconnected acres. Crotched Mountain 

(NH) will help the Crotched Mt. Rehabilitation Center conserve lands and universally accessible forest trails that are key to its nationally recognized programs. 

Southern Monadnock Plateau, Phase II (MA) will conserve important interior forest 

tracts along the Monadnock to Metacomet Trail that traces the Q2C corridor. 

Southern Forests.—Southern forests have the Nation’s most diverse and globally 

significant forest types. Cumberland Plateau (TN) will match $135 million in State 

and private funding to conserve 130,000 acres of highly productive forestland across 

this ecologically rich landscape. Triple H (NC) will complement new Uwharrie NF 

acquisitions to conserve interior forests and recreation lands in the Piedmont region, 

one of the Nation’s fastest growing areas. Chowan River Headwaters (VA) will conserve over 4,000 acres of rare coastal forest types and important riparian lands as 

part of the bi-state Southern Rivers Conservation Area. 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND OPPORTUNITIES

Northern Forest.—The Connecticut River watershed and Mahoosuc region are top 

landscape conservation priorities in the Northern Forest. Silvio Conte NWR (VT/ 

NH/MA/CT) will enable conservation of vital habitat areas throughout the 7.2 million-acre CT River watershed, including the refuge’s first major acquisition in CT. 

Success Twp/Appalachian NST (NH) will protect 4,000 acres along the most challenging and famed section of the entire Appalachian Trail as it passes through 

Mahoosuc Notch. 

Highlands.—The Highlands Conservation Act authorized $10 million of Federal 

funding annually for Highlands conservation projects selected by the four Highlands 

States. In fiscal year 2009, PA, NJ, NY, and CT are seeking HCA matching funds 

to conserve seven priority areas, including Ethel Walker Woods (CT) and Sterling 

Forest/Great Swamp (NY) that protect water supplies for Hartford and New York 

City, respectively. 

Southern Appalachians.—Recent LWCF funding shortfalls have created a backlog 

of historic conservation opportunities in the Southern Appalachians. Cherokee NF 

(TN) will conserve the Rocky Fork tract, 10,000 acres of pristine watershed lands 

and scenic mountains adjacent to the Sampson Mt. Wilderness. Chattahoochee/ 

Oconee NF (GA) will conserve key water supply lands around Macon and Atlanta 

at a time when drinking water supplies are under pressure across the South. Pisgah 

NF (NC) will conserve a Roan Highlands tract that contains three endangered highelevation ecosystems adjacent to the Appalachian Trail. Talladega NF (AL) will conserve rare pine forests on Rebecca Mt. and complete the Pinhoti Trail within the 

forest. 

Southern Coastal Forests.—The rich bottomland hardwoods and diverse softwood 

forests of the southern coast are an economic and ecological treasure. Congaree NP 

(SC) will conserve almost 2,000 acres of the largest remaining bottomland hardwood 

forest in the Nation. Rappahannock River NWR (VA) will conserve important riparian lands and migratory bird habitat on a major Chesapeake Bay tributary. 

We would like to express and convey our strongest support for the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund and the Forest Legacy Program. As you continue the 

process of creating the fiscal year 2009 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies 

Appropriations bill, we urge you to provide $120 million for the LWCF State grants 

program, $278 million for the Federal LWCF program and $120 million for the Forest Legacy Program. While these numbers may appear large, especially when compared with the President’s budget request, they truly represent the best levels required to meet the outstanding need and urgent demand. 

All across our country, communities, organizations and individuals are stepping 

up to identify and protect priceless lands from conversion. This challenge will require partnerships and programs that can provide the necessary tools and matching 

funds. The Federal commitment expressed through the Forest Legacy and LWCF 

programs is essential to their success. 
500 

We understand the difficult decisions that the subcommittee faces in a tough 

budget climate. However, we are confident you will agree the LWCF and Forest Legacy Program are wise investments of our taxpayer dollars, providing a return on investment through invaluable recreational opportunities, water quality, wildlife habitat and open space. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WYOMING STATE ENGINEER’S OFFICE

This statement is sent in support of fiscal year 2009 funding for the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) for activities directly benefiting the Colorado River Salinity Control Program. The activities needed to control salts reaching the Colorado 

River system from lands managed by the BLM fall within that agency’s Land Resources Subactivity—Soil Water and Air Management Program. We request 

$5,900,000 be directed to enhancing Colorado River water quality and to engage in 

land management activities that will accomplish salt loading reduction in the Basin. 

Wyoming is a member State of the seven-State Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Forum, established in 1973 to coordinate with the Federal Government to 

assure maintenance of basin-wide Water Quality Standards for Salinity that have 

been in place for more than three decades. The Forum is composed of gubernatorial 

representatives who interact with the involved Federal agencies on the joint Federal/State efforts to control the salinity of the Colorado River. The Forum annually 

makes funding recommendations, including the amount believed necessary to be expended by the Bureau of Land Management for its Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Program. Overall, the combined efforts of the Basin States, the Bureau of 

Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Agriculture 

have resulted in one of the nation’s most successful non-point source control programs. 

The basin-wide water quality standards for salinity consist of numeric water quality criteria established and maintained at three Lower Colorado River points (Below 

Hoover Dam, Below Parker Dam and At Imperial Dam) and a plan of implementation describing the Program’s components, including specific salinity control projects 

to remove salt from the River system. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the water 

quality standards for salinity are reviewed at least once each 3 years. At those intervals, the plan of implementation is jointly revised by the States and involved 

Federal agencies, including representatives of the Bureau of Land Management, to 

ensure that the planned actions are sufficient to maintain continuing compliance 

with the basin-wide Water Quality Standards for Salinity’s numeric criteria. 

Successful implementation of land management practices by the Bureau of Land 

Management to control soil erosion and the resultant salt contributions to the Colorado River system is essential to the continued success of the Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Program. The BLM’s fiscal year 2009 Budget Justification document reports that the agency continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of 

Agriculture and report salt-retaining measures in furtherance of implementing the 

plan of implementation. As noted in the testimony of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (as submitted by Jack A. Barnett, the Forum’s Executive Director), the Forum’s member States, including the State of Wyoming, believe that 

fiscal year 2009 Soil, Water and Air Management Program funds should be used, 

in part, to continue efforts that will directly reduce salt contributions from BLMmanaged lands within the Colorado River Basin, consistent with BLM’s fiscal year 

2009 Budget Justification document. At its recent October 2007 meeting, the Forum, 

in consultation with BLM officials, recommended that the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management should expend $5,900,000 in fiscal year 2009 for salinity control. Accordingly, we request that the BLM be directed to expend from Soil, Water and Air 

Management Program funds not less than $5,900,000 for activities to reduce salt 

loading from BLM-managed lands in the Colorado River Basin in fiscal year 2009. 

As one of the five principal Soil, Water and Air Program priorities identified by 

the BLM, projects directly accomplishing Colorado River salinity loading reductions 

should be funded. In the past, the BLM has used Soil, Water and Air Program funding for specific salinity control project proposals submitted to BLM’s salinity control 

coordinator by BLM staff in the seven Colorado River Basin States. Through this 

competitive proposal consideration process, funds have been awarded to those 

projects having the greatest merit (as measured by their salt loading reduction and 

ability to quantify the salinity reduction that would be accomplished). The Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Forum’s testimony to this subcommittee requests designation of $1,500,000 for this purpose. As Wyoming’s Forum members, we wish to 

advise that the State of Wyoming concurs in that request. 
501 

Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah, Colorado, and 

Wyoming, the collaborative efforts of the collective State/Federal agencies and organizations working through the auspices of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Forum have selected several watersheds where very cost-effective salinity control efforts can be implemented without additional delay or study. In keeping with the 

Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-effectiveness of salinity control, the 

State of Wyoming joins with the Forum in requesting that the Congress appropriate 

and the Administration allocate adequate funds to support the BLM’s portion of the 

Colorado River Salinity Control Program as described in the adopted Plan of Implementation. 

The State of Wyoming appreciates the subcommittee’s funding support of the Bureau of Land Management’s statutorial responsibility to participate in the basin 

wide Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We continue to believe 

this important basin-wide water quality improvement program merits funding and 

support by your subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WYOMING WATER ASSOCIATION

On behalf of the members of the Wyoming Water Association, I am requesting 

your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2009 to the Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the 

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. The President’s recommended budget for fiscal year 2009 includes FWS funding for these programs at 

the levels we are requesting. We request support and action by the subcommittee 

that will provide the following, as authorized by Public Law 106–392, as amended. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; within the $68,417,000 item entitled ‘‘Recovery’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) for fiscal year 2009 to allow FWS to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the 

same level of funding appropriated to the Recovery Program for this purpose in fiscal years 2004 through 2008. 

2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery System Operations Subactivity; within the $43,507,000 item 

entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery Operations’’) to support the ongoing operation of 

the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah during fiscal year 2009. 

3. Allocation of $200,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2009 to meet FWS’s Region 

2 expenses in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery actions. 

Founded in 1933, the Wyoming Water Association is a Wyoming non-profit corporation and voluntary organization of private citizens, elected officials, and representatives of business, government agencies, industry and water user groups and 

districts. The Association’s objective is to promote the development, conservation, 

and utilization of the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of Wyoming people. The WWA provides the only statewide uniform voice representing all types of 

water users within the State of Wyoming and encourages citizen participation in decisions relating to multi-purpose water development, management and use. 

The Wyoming Water Association is a participant in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. That program, and its sister program within the 

San Juan River Basin, are ongoing partnerships among the States of Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and 

environmental interests. The programs’ objectives are to recover endangered fish 

species while water use and development proceeds in compliance with the Federal 

Endangered Species Act. The Department of the Interior continues to recognize 

these programs as national models demonstrating that collaboratively partnerships 

can successfully work to recover endangered species while addressing water needs 

to support growing western communities in a manner that fully respects State 

water law and interstate compacts. Since 1988, these programs have provided ESA 

Section 7 compliance (without litigation) for over 1,600 Federal, tribal, State, and 

privately managed water projects depleting more than 3 million acre-feet of water 

per year. 

The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. On behalf of the members of 

the Wyoming Water Association, thank you for that support and request the subcommittee’s assistance for fiscal year 2009 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation’s continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 
502 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA

Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you, 

Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an 

appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to enable the Forest 

Service and the Coconino National Forest to acquire the 139-acre Packard Ranch 

property in Yavapai County. 

As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy acquisition 

projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, 

funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 

Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important features. I respectfully request the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this 

program in fiscal year 2009. 

Within the boundaries of the Coconino National Forest is the 56,000-acre Sycamore Canyon Wilderness area. This protected area is noted for the variety of its scenic landscapes—colorful cliffs, pine and fir forests, and a rare desert riparian area. 

The canyon winds for over 20 miles along Sycamore Creek, stretching seven miles 

from rim to rim at some places. Carved walls reveal layers of spectacular red sandstone, stark white limestone, and rugged brown lava. The water of the creek allows 

a rich habitat to flourish, including sycamores, walnuts, and cottonwoods. 

Adjacent to the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness and available for acquisition is the 

139-acre Packard Ranch property, located upstream from the towns of Clarkdale 

and Cottonwood. The Verde River and Sycamore Creek are perennial streams that 

provide habitat for several endangered and threatened fish species and are important sources of drinking water for the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Both flow through 

the property. Existing nests of breeding bald eagles can be found nearby while other 

key wildlife (including the yellow-billed cuckoo, common black-hawk, peregrine falcon, and many bat species) are found on the property. 

Both Sycamore Creek and a section of the Verde River have been identified as 

potentially eligible for listing as wild and scenic rivers. The property contains portions of the area’s desert riparian ecosystem and provides scenic views of red rock 

vistas in Sycamore Canyon. The area in which this property is located also has archeological resources of national and international importance. 

Packard Ranch includes an important trailhead providing access to the Sycamore 

Canyon Wilderness. Both the Parson’s and Packard hiking trails are entered exclusively from this property. Although the public has traditionally been permitted to 

use this trailhead, there is no permanent guarantee of access. Properties with riparian frontage in Arizona are at a premium for development, and without permanent 

protection, it is conceivable that Packard Ranch could be developed. If this were to 

happen, the character of the landscape could change dramatically, and the public 

could lose access to the trails and wilderness area. 

With its strategic location within the Coconino National Forest, the acquisition of 

the Packard Ranch property will protect vital habitat, ensure continued public access to trails, and preserve the unique scenic vistas of Sycamore Canyon. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE YELLOWHAWK TRIBAL HEALTH CENTER

Honorable Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, ranking member Wayne Allard, and 

members of the committee: I am Shawna Gavin, Chair of the Yellowhawk Tribal 

Health Center Health Commission, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the very important 

issues related to tribal health funding and the Administration’s proposed decreases 

in the Indian Health Service Budget. 

Once again the proposed Indian Health Services budget falls far short of providing 

adequate health care for our people. In fact, the proposed budget does not live up 

to meeting the trust responsibilities the federal government has to Tribes. 

Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center currently manages an active Compact with the 

Federal government. In that, we have assumed the government of the United 

States’ responsibility to provide health care and wellness services to the people of 

the CTUIR. For us to accomplish this in an effective, efficient and responsible manner we must be appropriately funded. We currently are unable to provide all necessary critical services let alone basic preventative care. Federal spending for Indian 

health care continues to lose ground compared to spending for the U.S. population 

at large. Tribal health care facilities are forced to prioritize care delivery and com-
503 

pete for non-existent funds to address facility shortcomings. Furthermore, Indians 

living on reservations still suffer the health effects of poverty at a much higher level 

than the national average. Incidences of diabetes, HIV, substance abuse, addiction 

and suicide continue to far exceed that of the rest of the country. While we work 

to address these shortcomings as a self-governance facility, we cannot succeed without adequate funding. Passage and funding of the long neglected Indian Health 

Care Improvement Act reauthorization would go a long way toward this end and 

sets the stage for improving the health and wellness of our people now and into the 

future. Our people and all Indian people deserve access to high quality health care. 

With respect to the Indian Health Services budget, the Health Commission would 

like to address issues beyond the total amount of funds that are being proposed. 

These include: 

—Contract Health Services funding shortfalls, 

—Perpetual under funding of Contract Support Costs, 

—Extension of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, 

—Decreases in Annual Funding Agreement, and 

—Lack of funding for new facility construction. 

The Health Commission recommends that the IHS budget be increased by $455 

million in order to maintain current services. This is based on an early analysis of 

the 2009 budget by the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, which indicates a proposed $21.3 million cut to the 2009 IHS budget. 

Specific concerns include: 

CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICES FUNDING SHORTFALLS

Funding for services purchased outside of Tribal and Indian Health facilities have 

continually failed to keep pace with industry standard, medical inflation and the 

true need for delivery of adequate preventative and diagnostic health care. A major 

issue of concern is the proposed decreases to Alcohol and Substance Abuse funding. 

These cuts would not only reduce the number of treatment beds available to our 

Tribal members but reduce the funding available to pay for those beds at other facilities. Also of major concern are continued Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund 

(CHEF) shortfalls. These funds continue to be exhausted long before the budget year 

ends. This forces proactive Tribal facilities to protect these funds in order to account 

for the inevitable high dollar cases that present between the time the CHEF funds 

run out and the beginning of the next fiscal year. When forced to protect ourselves 

against this funding shortfall we have no choice but to prioritize and ration necessary, but routine health care. Many times we are left to fund only life saving 

health care procedures. This cycle will never allow a proactive approach to early disease detection, prevention or long term health and wellness. 

PERPETUAL UNDER PAYMENT OF CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

In 1996 Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center, in good faith, contracted with the Federal Government to assume the responsibilities of health care delivery for the 

CTUIR: In 2004 we negotiated and completed a compacted agreement to continue 

this business arrangement. Since the inception of this agreement with the federal 

government we have been under funded. In fact, to date, the amount owed to the 

Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center as we make good on the responsibilities of the 

Federal Trust, exceeds $3.1 million and continues to increase. Fiscal year 2008 demonstrates a more than $16,000 decrease in contract support funding from fiscal year 

2007. Again, these funding shortfalls put the quality of our health care delivery at 

risk by compromising our ability to recruit and retain quality employees and our 

ability to purchase and maintain modern health care equipment. 

EXTENSION OF THE SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAM (SDPI) FOR INDIANS

Inadequate past and present funding have left the Yellowhawk Tribal Health 

Center dependent on grant funding to address diabetes treatment and prevention. 

The SDPI Grant is scheduled to expire in the summer of 2009. If it is not extended 

the impact on the Umatilla Reservation community, diabetic and non-diabetic, will 

be considerable. If we were to lose the more than $160,000 a year we receive from 

SDPI, we would have no choice but to eliminate many diabetes prevention initiatives that are just now demonstrating their benefit to our community’s health and 

wellness. Further, the loss of the SDPI Grant would eliminate funding of approximately $80,000 currently committed to diabetic pharmaceutical purchases. Our 

pharmacy program cannot sustain this expense in addition to all other necessary 

pharmaceutical costs. Again we will be forced to prioritize treatment delivery perpetuating a cycle where preventative and diagnostic care models will be deemed of 

a lesser priority so that critical health care needs can be met. 
504 

DECREASES IN ANNUAL FUNDING AGREEMENT

Annual funding agreements under our Compact with the Federal government 

have failed to keep pace with medical inflation, cost of living and increases in patient demand. Consequently we have no choice but to access reserve funds to maintain any level of quality care delivery and to meet the payroll for a skilled and talented staff Because we are expending every dollar of our annual funding agreement 

and significant dollars from reserve accounts, our future health care delivery is jeopardized. We cannot sustain augmentation of our annual funding agreement with reserve funds. We must do more to protect our community’s health and wellness future and will be forced to scale back spending which will ultimately impact access 

to preventative and diagnostic health care services. Reauthorization of the long 

overdue Indian Health Care Improvement Act legislation is a necessity to assure 

adequate funding of critical needs as well as industry standard diagnostic and preventative health care. 

LACK OF FUNDING FOR NEW FACILITY CONSTRUCTION

The CTUIR is in need of a new health care facility. The current structure has 

existed since 1976 and has been remodeled, modified and enlarged no less than 

seven times since then. Our patient demographic continues to age and grow and has 

resulted in an exponential increase in demand for health care services. Unfortunately there is no more ability for facility expansion. The facilities HVAC systems 

cannot keep up with facility demands as it is currently configured and has become 

so substandard that architects and engineers recommend against any additional expansion or renovation. This inability to grow severely impacts access to care, patient 

flow and the way in which health care is delivered. It also significantly effects recruiting and retention of quality employees. This is particularly the case with physicians and dentists. Again, the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act legislation is our only hope for a near term solution to our critical need 

for a suitable facility with modem treatment and health care delivery spaces. 

To reiterate, we are recommending at a minimum, a $455 million increase in Indian health care funding to address unavoidable increases in medical and general 

inflation, salary costs, additional staffing, and population growth. Minimum funding 

should also be provided to prevent the elimination of Urban Indian Health Programs. 

More importantly, this committee would do well to advance any and all Indian 

health care legislation and initiatives. These many years of funding shortfalls reflect 

political neglect and it is within your authority to address this in a proactive fashion. 

Thank you for your serious consideration. 
(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc., prepared statement ........................................ 221 

Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Inc., prepared statement ......................... 222 

Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee ................................... 53 

Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado: 

Opening statements .................................................................................. 2, 50, 161 

Questions submited by................................................................................... 45, 203 

Alliance: 

For Community Trees, prepared statement ................................................... 224 

To Save Energy, prepared statement ............................................................. 225 

American: 

Association of Petroleum Geologists, prepared statement ............................ 227 

Forest: 

Foundation ................................................................................................. 224 

Paper Association, prepared statement ................................................... 229 

Forests, prepared statement ............................................................................ 224 

Geological Institute, prepared statement ....................................................... 232 

Hiking Society, prepared statement ............................................................... 234 

Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement ......................... 237 

Institute of Biological Sciences, prepared statement ..................................... 240 

Nursery & Landscape Association, prepared statement ............................... 224 

Society: 

For Microbiology, prepared statement ..................................................... 244 

Of Agronomy, prepared statement ........................................................... 241 

Animal Welfare Institute, prepared statement ..................................................... 247 

Appalachian: 

Mountain Club, prepared statement ............................................................... 253 

Trail Conservancy, prepared statement ......................................................... 251 

APS a Subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, Colorado River District, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 256 

ASME Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Task Force of the ASME 

Environmental Engineering Division, prepared statement .............................. 260 

Association: 

Of State: 

And Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, prepared 

statement ................................................................................................ 259 

Drinking Water Administrators, prepared statement ............................ 256 

To Preserve Cape Cod, prepared statement ................................................... 250 

Audubon: 

Connecticut, prepared statement .................................................................... 264 

Society of New Hampshire, prepared statement ........................................... 265 

Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah ........................................... 120 

Blue Goose Alliance, prepared statement .............................................................. 267 

Bodine, Susan Parker, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, Environmental Protection Agency ................................. 1 

Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee, prepared statement ................................ 269 

Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, prepared statement ................................. 270 

California State Coastal Conservancy, prepared statement ................................ 273 

Cascade Land Conservancy, prepared statements ........................................... 275, 276 

Cason, James, Associate Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 159 
Page

ii 

Center for Plant Conservation, prepared statement ............................................. 277 

Central Utah Water Conservancy District, prepared statement ......................... 256 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, prepared statement .............................................. 279 

Chugach Regional Resources Commission, prepared statement ......................... 281 

Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, prepared statement ..................... 283 

Clark, Michael S., prepared statement .................................................................. 284 

Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, questions submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 218 

Colorado River: 

Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement ...................................... 286 

Commission of Nevada, prepared statement .................................................. 288 

Confederated Tribes of the: 

Colville Reservation, prepared statement ...................................................... 288 

Umatilla Indian Reservation, prepared statement ........................................ 290 

Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, prepared statement .................. 299 

Corps Network, prepared statement ...................................................................... 301 

Council of: 

Energy Resource Tribes, prepared statement ................................................ 304 

Western State Foresters, prepared statement ............................................... 305 

Craig, Senator Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 54 

Crop Science Society of America, prepared statement ......................................... 241 

Dance/USA, prepared statement ............................................................................ 307 

Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statement ............................................................ 309 

Delaware Highlands Conservancy, prepared statement ...................................... 312 

Denver Water, prepared statement ........................................................................ 256 

Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico: 

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 46 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 52 

Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School, prepared statement ............... 313 

Emissions Control Technology Association, prepared statement ........................ 316 

Endangered Species Coalition, prepared statement ............................................. 319 

Environmental Council of the States, prepared statement .................................. 321 

Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California: 

Opening statements .................................................................................. 1, 49, 159 

Questions submitted by ................................................................................. 41, 142 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement ................. 325 

Fort River Partnership, prepared statement ......................................................... 329 

Friends of: 

Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement ............................. 330 

Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement .......................... 331 

Boundary Waters Wilderness, prepared statement ....................................... 333 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement ....................... 334 

Congaree Swamp, prepared statement ........................................................... 335 

Hyde Farm, prepared statement ..................................................................... 336 

Potomac River Refuges, prepared statement ................................................. 337 

Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement ..................... 339 

Virgin Islands National Park, prepared statements ................................. 327, 340 

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuges, prepared statement .................... 342 

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement ............................. 345 

Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, prepared statement ............................................................................................................... 346 

Gathering Waters Conservancy, prepared statement ........................................... 347 

Georgia River Network, prepared statement ........................................................ 348 

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 349 

Green Mountain Club, prepared statement .......................................................... 352 

Gregg, Senator Judd, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, question submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 158 

Grumbles, Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 1 

Hanover County Board of Supervisors, Hanover County, Virginia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 353 

Hawaii Audubon Society, prepared statement ...................................................... 354 
Page

iii 

Haze, Pam, Director, Office of Budget, Office of the Secretary, Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 159 

Highlands Coalition, prepared statement .............................................................. 355 

Independent Tribal Courts Review Team, prepared statement ........................... 364 

Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, prepared statement ............................................ 361 

Interstate Mining Compact Commission, prepared statement ............................ 358 

Irrigation Association, prepared statement ........................................................... 364 

Izaak Walton League of America, prepared statement ........................................ 366 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, prepared statement ................................................. 369 

Jicarilla Apache Nation, prepared statement ....................................................... 256 

Johnson, Hon. Stephen L., Admininstrator, Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 4 

Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 159 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 166 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 163 

Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan, prepared statement ...... 372 

Kimbell, Abigail, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ................... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 111 

Lac du Flambeau Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 374 

Lago, Lenise, Budget Director, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ....... 49 

Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District and Nature Center, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 377 

League of American Orchestras, prepared statement .......................................... 378 

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, prepared statement ................................................ 380 

Lummi Indian Nation, prepared statement .......................................................... 382 

Michigan United Conservation Clubs, prepared statement ................................. 224 

Mother Lode Chapter, Sierra Club, prepared statement ..................................... 384 

National: 

Association of: 

Abandoned Mine Land Programs, prepared statement ......................... 386 

Clean Air Agencies, prepared statement ................................................. 388 

Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR), prepared statement .......................... 391 

State: 

Energy Officials, prepared statement ............................................... 394 

Foresters, prepared statement .......................................................... 224 

Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), Board on 

Natural Resources (BNR), prepared statement ........................... 397 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared statement .... 399 

Congress of American Indians, prepared statement ..................................... 401 

Cooperators’ Coalition, prepared statement ................................................... 405 

Environmental Services Center, West Virginia University, Morgantown, 

WV, prepared statement .............................................................................. 406 

Federation of Federal Employees Local 1957, prepared statement ............. 407 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation, prepared statement ....................................... 408 

Plant Board, prepared statement .................................................................... 224 

Wildlife Refuge Association, prepared statement .......................................... 415 

Natural Science Collections Alliance, prepared statement .................................. 413 

Navajo Nation, prepared statement ....................................................................... 256 

Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, questions submitted by ..... 203 

New Mexico: 

Department of Game and Fish, prepared statement ..................................... 417 

Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement .................................... 418 

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, prepared statement ................ 256 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, prepared statement ........................... 420 

Ohio State University, Department of Entomology, prepared statement ........... 224 

OPERA America, prepared statement ................................................................... 423 

Oregon Water Resources Congress, prepared statement ..................................... 425 
Page

iv 

Outdoor Industry Association, prepared statement .............................................. 427 

Pacific Salmon Commission, prepared statement ................................................. 430 

Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement ....................... 431 

Peacock, Marcus C., Deputy Director, Environmental Protection Agency .......... 1 

Pelican Island Preservation Society, prepared statement .................................... 440 

Penobscot River Restoration Trust, prepared statement ..................................... 441 

PNM/San Juan Generating Station, Tri-County Water Conservancy Distict, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 256 

Pueblo Board of Water Works, prepared statement ............................................. 256 

Purdue University, Department of Entomology, prepared statement ................. 224 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement .................................................... 441 

Quinault Indian Nation, prepared statement ....................................................... 444 

Red River National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement .................................... 447 

Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, questions submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 43 

Reid, Senator Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, questions submitted by ......... 47 

Rey, Hon. Mark E., Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, 

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ........................................................ 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 108 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 56 

Rock Point Community School, Navajo Nation, Arizona, prepared statement .. 450 

San Juan Water Commission, prepared statement .............................................. 256 

Shoreline Education for Awareness, prepared statement .................................... 452 

Skokomish Tribe of Washington State, prepared statement ............................... 452 

Society of American Foresters, prepared statements....................................... 224, 455 

Soil Science Society of America, prepared statement ........................................... 241 

Southern: 

Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, prepared statement .......................... 458 

Ute Indian Tribe, prepared statement ............................................................ 256 

Southwestern Water Conservation District, prepared statement ....................... 256 

Springer, Marie, prepared statement ..................................................................... 459 

Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared statement ............................................................ 460 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribal, prepared statement ................................................. 462 

State of: 

Colorado, Office of the Governor, prepared statement .................................. 465 

New Mexico, Office of the Governor, prepared statement ............................ 466 

Wyoming, Office of the Governor, prepared statement ................................. 466 

Swan Ecosystem Center, prepared statement ....................................................... 467 

Tamarac Interpretive Association, prepared statement ....................................... 468 

Teaming With Wildlife National Steering Committee, prepared statements ................................................................................................................ 471, 472 

The: 

Conservation System Alliance, prepared statement ...................................... 292 

Hardwood Federation, prepared statement .................................................... 224 

Nature Conservancy, prepared statement ...................................................... 224 

Wildlife Society, prepared statements............................................... 481, 484, 487 

Town: 

Manager, Millinocket, Maine, prepared statement ....................................... 479 

Of Ophir, Colorado, prepared statement ........................................................ 480 

Union of Concerned Scientists, prepared statement ............................................. 224 

United Tribes Technical College, prepared statement ......................................... 493 

University of Georgia, Center for Invasive Species & Ecosystem Health, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 224 

USGS Coalition, prepared statement ..................................................................... 490 

Utah Water Users Association, prepared statement ............................................ 256 

Weber County Commission, Ogden, UT, prepared statement ............................. 495 

Western: 

Coalition of Arid States, prepared statement ................................................ 496 

Pennsylvania Conservancy, prepared statement ........................................... 497 

Wyoming: 

State Engineer’s Office, prepared statement .................................................. 500 

Water Association, prepared statement .......................................................... 501 
Page

v 

Yavapai County, Arizona, prepared statement ..................................................... 502 

Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center, prepared statement ...................................... 502 

(vii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

Page 

Appropriate Management Response (AMR)—Success Stories ............................. 64 

Aviation Efficiencies and Contracting .................................................................... 66 

Success Story .................................................................................................... 67 

Capital Improvement & Maintenance .................................................................... 115 

Current PART Rating—Results Not Demonstrated ...................................... 140 

Chief’s: 

Initiative ............................................................................................................ 77 

Principle Representative (CPR) ...................................................................... 65, 66 

Cohesive Fuels Strategy .......................................................................................... 139 

Continuing Transitional Support to Rural Communities through Extension 

of Secure Rural Schools Payments ..................................................................... 109 

Draft Fire and Aviation Management Year Review—Fiscal Year 2007 ............. 57 

Educational Requirement for Firefighters ........................................................ 124, 126 

Effects of Vegetation Treatments on the Vincent Fire, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona .......................................................................................... 70 

Energy Current PART Rating—Adequate ............................................................. 141 

Federal Wildland Fire Policy .................................................................................. 62 

Fire: 

And Aviation Management: 

International Activities ............................................................................. 76 

Recruitment and Retention Analysis ....................................................... 96 

Preparedness Funding ..................................................................................... 122 

Firefighter: 

Attrition in California ...................................................................................... 116 

Responsibilities in Southern California .......................................................... 125 

Retention in Southern California .................................................................... 142 

Firefighting Fund .................................................................................................... 126 

Focus Areas .............................................................................................................. 77 

Forest & Rangeland Research ................................................................................ 114 

Forest: 

Legacy Program Current PART Rating—Moderately Effective ................... 142 

Planning Rule ................................................................................................... 123 

Fuels/Use of Healthy Forest Restoration Act Authorities .................................... 153 

Grazing ..................................................................................................................... 131 

Hazardous Fuels Accomplishments ........................................................................ 68 

Prioritization and Allocation System .............................................................. 68 

Success Stories .................................................................................................. 69 

Treatment Program .......................................................................................... 121 

Healthy Forests ........................................................................................................ 113 

Illegal Drug Operations in National Forests ......................................................... 117 

Invasive Species Current PART Rating—Adequate ............................................. 141 

Issues Examined ...................................................................................................... 96 

Land Acquisition Current PART Rating—Adequate ............................................ 142 

Letter From Director Tom Harbour ....................................................................... 57 

Line Officer Certification ........................................................................................ 66 

Management Controls and Efficiencies .................................................................. 61 

Marijuana Eradication Efforts in California ......................................................... 117 

National: 

Forest System ................................................................................................... 115 

Incident Management System (NIMS) Support ............................................. 75 
Page

viii 

Response Plan .......................................................................................................... 75 

Success Stories .......................................................................................... 75 

OPM Firefighter Credentials .................................................................................. 157 

Organizational Efficiency and Transformation ..................................................... 114 

Part: 

I.—2007 Fire Season Discussion ..................................................................... 58 

II.—Major Accomplishments ............................................................................ 60 

III.—Looking Ahead for 2008 .......................................................................... 76 

PART Ratings That Several Forest Service Programs Received for Nonperformance .......................................................................................................... 140 

Partnership: 

Accomplishments .............................................................................................. 70 

Success Stories .................................................................................................. 71 

Pay Scales, Cost of Living, and Personnel Policies ............................................... 98 

Planned Activities .................................................................................................... 77 

Potential Move of Forest Service to Department of the Interior ......................... 136 

Preparation Spares Community During Grass Valley Fire, San Bernardino 

National Forest, California .................................................................................. 69 

Program Assessment Rating Tool .......................................................................... 140 

Proposed Actions ...................................................................................................... 100 

Recognizing Integrated Program and Partnership Accomplishments ................. 114 

Recreation Current PART Rating—Moderately Effective .................................... 142 

Restoring Fire Adapted Ecosystems: A Forest Service, Department of the 

Interior and Nature Conservancy Partnership .................................................. 73 

Secure Rural Schools Funding ................................................................................ 128 

State and Private Forestry ..................................................................................... 114 

Funding ............................................................................................................. 127 

Forestry Program Redesign ............................................................................. 110 

Tahoe: 

Area Community Fire Protection Plans ......................................................... 130 

Regional Planning Agency ............................................................................... 118 

Timber Budget ......................................................................................................... 133 

Travel Management Rule ........................................................................................ 155 

VFA Success ............................................................................................................. 72 

Watershed Current PART Rating—Results Not Demonstrated .......................... 140 

Wildland: 

Fire .................................................................................................................... 108 

Management .............................................................................................. 113 

Current PART Rating—Adequate .................................................... 141 

Outlook .............................................................................................................. 136 

Urban Interface Fire Program ......................................................................... 73 

Williams Trail Fuel Break Tested During the Galion Fire, Huron-Manistee 

National Forest, Michigan ................................................................................... 69 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

2009 Budget......................................................................................................... 163, 195 

Request .............................................................................................................. 160 

Abandoned Mines .................................................................................................... 178 

Administrative Fees on Onshore Leases ............................................................... 206 

Alaska Funding ........................................................................................................ 192 

Applications for Permits to Drill ............................................................................ 181 

Bakken Shale ........................................................................................................... 193 

Birds Forever ........................................................................................................... 171 

Initiative ....................................................................................................... 165, 212 

BLM/National Landscape Conservation System ................................................... 206 

Bureau of: 

Indian Affairs/Detention Facilities .................................................................. 216 

Land Management—Roan Plateau ................................................................. 199 

Canyon of the Ancients ........................................................................................... 198 

Colorado Oil and Gas Rules .................................................................................... 199 

Detention Centers .................................................................................................... 193 

Duck Stamp .............................................................................................................. 166 

Earmarks .................................................................................................................. 185 

Energy: 

Costs .................................................................................................................. 191 
Page

ix 

Energy—Continued 

Security ............................................................................................................. 166 

Fish and Wildlife/ESA Polar Bear Listing ............................................................. 207 

FWS: 

Law Enforcement/Import and Export of Threatened Species ....................... 210 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San Juan 

River Basin Recovery Implementation Program ........................................ 211 

Great Smokey Mountains National Park .............................................................. 188 

Healthy Lands Initiative ........................................................................... 164, 170, 212 

Heritage Areas ......................................................................................................... 189 

Hurricane Katrina Barrier Island Rebuilding ...................................................... 189 

Improving Indian Education .............................................................................. 165, 171 

Indian: 

Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 164 

Trust Litigation/Cobell v. Kempthorne ........................................................... 215 

Initiatives ................................................................................................................. 184 

Interior’s Accomplishments ..................................................................................... 168 

Kerr McGee Case/Deepwater Offshore Leases ....................................................... 205 

Land and Water Conservation Fund ...................................................................... 187 

Legislative Proposals ............................................................................................... 176 

Marijuana in Parks ................................................................................................. 202 

Marine Mammals ..................................................................................................... 190 

Minerals Management Service: 

Information Technology Increase .................................................................... 196 

Minerals Revenue Management ...................................................................... 196 

National: 

Park Service/Park Police .................................................................................. 203 

Parks Centennial................................................................................. 161, 163, 199 

Wildlife Refuge System/Impacts on Colorado Refuges .................................. 208 

Naval Oil Shale ........................................................................................................ 180 

Reserves ............................................................................................................ 162 

Ocean and Coastal Frontiers .................................................................................. 172 

Initiative ............................................................................................................ 165 

Office of the Special Trustee/Indian Land Consolidation ..................................... 215 

Operating Budgets ................................................................................................... 163 

Other Budget Priorities ........................................................................................... 174 

Overview of the 2009 Budget .................................................................................. 167 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes ...................................................................................... 162 

Platte River Recovery Program .............................................................................. 182 

Polar Bears ............................................................................................................... 197 

Preparedness ............................................................................................................ 185 

Revenue Sharing ...................................................................................................... 190 

Revenues ................................................................................................................... 192

Roan Plateau ............................................................................................................ 198 

Royalty Policy Report .............................................................................................. 197 

Rural Fire Assistance .............................................................................................. 177 

Safe: 

Borderlands ....................................................................................................... 209 

Initiative ....................................................................................... 166, 173, 200 

Indian Communities ......................................................................................... 170 

Initiative ..................................................................................................... 164 

Salmon.................................................................................................................. 179, 186

Species Conservation on Private Lands ................................................................. 183 

Stewardship .............................................................................................................. 186 

Supporting the Department’s Mission ................................................................... 173 

The: 

Challenges Ahead ............................................................................................. 167 

National Parks Centennial .............................................................................. 169 

U.S.: 

Geological Survey: 

Landsat Program ....................................................................................... 214 

Ocean and Coastal Frontiers Initiative ................................................... 213 

Water for America Initiative .................................................................... 211 

Park Police........................................................................................... 179, 180, 201 

United Tribes Technical College ............................................................................. 194 

Water for America ................................................................................................... 171 

Initiative ............................................................................................................ 165 

Wildland Fire Outlook For This Year .................................................................... 206 
Page

x 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Abandoned Mines .................................................................................................... 17 

Advancing Clean, Affordable and Safe Energy ..................................................... 6 

Air Pollution in National Parks .............................................................................. 43 

Alaska Native: 

Village Grants ................................................................................................... 33 

Villages .............................................................................................................. 35 

Anti-Earmark Syndrome ......................................................................................... 34 

Arsenic: 

Levels ................................................................................................................. 14 

Standards and Community Assistance ........................................................... 46 

Bluegrass: 

Field-Burning .................................................................................................... 22 

Seed Burning .................................................................................................... 23 

Brownfields and Land Revitalization ..................................................................... 10 

California Waiver .................................................................................................... 11, 24 

Greenhouse Gas Regulation ............................................................................ 41 

Clean: 

Air: 

Act ............................................................................................................... 25 

Mercury Rule ............................................................................................. 28 

Water ................................................................................................................. 30 

State Revolving Fund ................................................................................ 36 

Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 7 

Cooperative Programs ............................................................................................. 7 

Decrease of Clean Water State Revolving Funds ................................................. 23 

Delay in Implementing a Solution to the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel ...... 45 

Determine Whether Carbon Dioxide Contributes to Climate Change ................ 13 

Diesel Emissions Reduction .................................................................................... 30 

Earmarks Eliminated .............................................................................................. 28 

Emission Reduction ................................................................................................. 27 

Energy Development ............................................................................................... 16 

Enforcement ............................................................................................................. 10 

Grants to States ....................................................................................................... 2 

Greenhouse Gas: 

Emissions .......................................................................................................... 12 

Registry ............................................................................................................. 38 

Homeland Security .................................................................................................. 6 

Land Protection and Restoration ............................................................................ 39 

Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnell ........................................................................... 3 

Marine Diesel and Locomotive Emission Control Rule ........................................ 32 

Mercury Pollution .................................................................................................... 18 

New Standards for Large Animal Confined Operations ....................................... 22 

Perchlorate Contamination ..................................................................................... 31 

Renewable Fuel Standard ....................................................................................... 26 

State Mercury Programs ......................................................................................... 20 

Stonewalling ............................................................................................................. 27 

Stronger EPA: 

Performance and Management ........................................................................ 11 

Sound Science ................................................................................................... 10 

Superfund Remediation of Highly Contaminated Hazardous Waste Sites ......... 9 

Sustainable Ports Initiative .................................................................................... 32 

Water Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 4 

And Programs ................................................................................................... 8 

Working With Federal Partners ............................................................................. 7 

Æ