Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Congressional research reportJan 5, 2010

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:

FY2010 Appropriations

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

January 5, 2010

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R40685

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Summary

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for the

Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and for agencies within

other departments—including the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the

Indian Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also

includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, and

numerous other entities.

The Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

(P.L. 111-88), contained a total of $32.29 billion for FY2010. This was $4.45 billion (16%) higher

than the FY2009 appropriation of $27.84 billion (excluding stimulus appropriations). The House,

Senate, and Administration had all supported significantly higher levels for FY2010—ranging

between 15% and 16% higher—than the FY2009 appropriation of $27.84 billion.

P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, contained an additional $10.95

billion in emergency funds for FY2009 for some of the accounts within agencies typically funded

by the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws. In general, the

funds were made available for obligation until September 30, 2010 (the end of FY2010). The

FY2010 appropriation of $32.29 billion in P.L. 111-88 was $6.50 billion (17%) less than the total

FY2009 appropriations of $38.79 billion, including stimulus appropriations.

A variety of funding and policy issues were debated during consideration of the FY2010 Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. They included oil and gas leasing in the

Outer Continental Shelf, wildland fire fighting, Indian trust fund management, royalty relief, and

climate change. Other issues included funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs construction,

education, and housing; Indian Health Service construction and urban Indian health;

wastewater/drinking water needs; land acquisition; and the Superfund program.

This report is not expected to be updated.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

FY2004-FY2010........................................................................................................................ 2

Current Overview ...................................................................................................................... 2

Status of Bill .............................................................................................................................. 3

Title I: Department of the Interior.................................................................................................... 4

Bureau of Land Management .................................................................................................... 4

Overview ............................................................................................................................. 4

Management of Lands and Resources ................................................................................. 5

Construction ........................................................................................................................ 6

Land Acquisition ................................................................................................................. 7

Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................................................... 7

Endangered Species Funding .............................................................................................. 9

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement .................................... 9

Climate Change Planning and Adaptive Science Capacity ............................................... 10

Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 10

Wildlife Refuge Fund ........................................................................................................ 11

Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants .............................................................. 11

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ........................................................................................ 11

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration................................................................................... 12

National Park Service .............................................................................................................. 12

Operation of the National Park System ............................................................................. 12

Signature Projects.............................................................................................................. 13

Recreation Fees ................................................................................................................. 14

National Recreation and Preservation ............................................................................... 14

Historic Preservation ......................................................................................................... 15

Construction ...................................................................................................................... 15

Land Acquisition and State Assistance .............................................................................. 16

U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 16

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing ............................................. 17

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes ................................................................... 17

Water Resources Investigations......................................................................................... 18

Biological Research........................................................................................................... 18

Enterprise Information ...................................................................................................... 19

Science Support and Facilities .......................................................................................... 19

Global Climate Change Research...................................................................................... 19

Minerals Management Service ................................................................................................ 20

Budget and Appropriations................................................................................................ 20

Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore ........................................................................................... 21

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ....................................................... 23

Bureau of Indian Affairs .......................................................................................................... 25

Law Enforcement and Courts Program ............................................................................. 28

Indian Land Consolidation Program ................................................................................. 29

Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process .......................................................................... 29

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs .................................................................... 30

Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs .......................................................... 31

Office of Insular Affairs .................................................................................................... 31

Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians .......................................................... 33

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Title II: Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 36

Key Funding Issues ................................................................................................................. 36

Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure ................................................................. 38

Superfund .......................................................................................................................... 39

Brownfields ....................................................................................................................... 40

Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Reduction .................................................................... 41

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative..................................................................................... 42

Title III: Related Agencies ............................................................................................................. 43

Department of Agriculture: Forest Service .............................................................................. 43

FS Research ....................................................................................................................... 44

State and Private Forestry.................................................................................................. 45

National Forest System ..................................................................................................... 46

Capital Improvement and Maintenance ............................................................................ 46

Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 46

Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service ...................................... 47

Health Services.................................................................................................................. 48

Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 51

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation ......................................................................... 51

Smithsonian Institution ............................................................................................................ 52

Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................................................... 53

Facilities Capital................................................................................................................ 53

Legacy Fund ...................................................................................................................... 53

Trust Funds ........................................................................................................................ 54

National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities .................. 54

NEA................................................................................................................................... 54

NEH................................................................................................................................... 54

Cross-Cutting Topics ..................................................................................................................... 55

Everglades Restoration ............................................................................................................ 55

FY2010 Appropriations ..................................................................................................... 56

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)................................................................... 58

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 58

Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 59

Grants to States.................................................................................................................. 60

Other Purposes .................................................................................................................. 60

Wildland Fire Management ..................................................................................................... 61

Fire Preparedness .............................................................................................................. 62

Wildfire Suppression and Emergency Funds .................................................................... 63

Other Operations ............................................................................................................... 63

Tables

Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004-FY2010 .............. 3

Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2010

(H.R. 2996) ................................................................................................................................... 3

Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FY2009-FY2010 .............. 4

Table 4. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2009-FY2010 ..................... 7

Table 5. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs, FY2009-FY2010 ........... 9

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table 6. Appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS), FY2009-FY20010 ........................ 13

Table 7. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FY2009-FY2010 .................... 17

Table 8. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service (MMS), FY2009-FY2010 .......... 21

Table 9. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,

FY2009-FY2010 ......................................................................................................................... 25

Table 10. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),

including Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), FY2009-FY2010 ................................................ 26

Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST),

FY2009-FY2010 ......................................................................................................................... 33

Table 12. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, FY2009- FY2010............... 37

Table 13. Appropriations for Forest Service Accounts, FY2009-FY2010 ..................................... 44

Table 14. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry, FY2009-FY2010 ............................. 45

Table 15. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS), FY2009-FY2010 ......................... 48

Table 16. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2009-FY2010 ................................ 52

Table 17. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2009-FY2010 ........................................... 55

Table 18. Appropriations for the Department of the Interior (DOI):

Everglades Restoration Budget, FY2009-FY2010 ..................................................................... 57

Table 19. Appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),

FY2006-FY2010 ......................................................................................................................... 58

Table 20. Appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): Other

Programs, FY2006-FY2010 ....................................................................................................... 60

Table 21. Appropriations for FS and DOI Wildland Fire Management, FY2009-FY2010 ........... 61

Table 22. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, FY2006FY2010 ....................................................................................................................................... 65

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 68

Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 68

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Introduction

The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for

agencies and programs in three separate federal departments, as well as numerous related agencies

and bureaus. It provides funding for Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies (except for the

Bureau of Reclamation, funded in Energy and Water Development appropriations laws), many of

which manage land and other natural resource or regulatory programs. The bill also provides funds

for agencies in two other departments—the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the

Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health and Human Services—as well as funds for

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Further, the annual bill includes funding for arts and

cultural agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the

National Endowment for the Humanities, and for numerous other entities and agencies.

In former years, the appropriations laws for Interior and Related Agencies provided funds for

several activities within the Department of Energy (DOE), including research, development, and

conservation programs; the Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

However, at the outset of the 109th Congress, these DOE programs were transferred to the House

and Senate Appropriations subcommittees covering energy and water, to consolidate jurisdiction

over DOE.1 At the same time, jurisdiction over the EPA and several smaller entities was moved to

the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees covering Interior and Related Agencies.2 This

change resulted from the abolition of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on

Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, which previously

had jurisdiction over EPA.

Since FY2006, appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies have contained

three primary titles. This report is organized along these lines. The first section (Title I) provides

information on Interior agencies; the second section (Title II) discusses EPA; and the third section

(Title III) addresses other agencies, programs, and entities. A fourth section of this report discusses

selected cross-cutting topics that encompass more than one agency.

Entries in this report are for major agencies (e.g., the National Park Service) and cross-cutting issues

(e.g., Everglades restoration) that receive funding in the Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies appropriations bill. For each agency or issue, we discuss some of the key funding changes

that appear to be of interest to Congress. We also address related policy issues that occur in the

context of considering appropriations legislation. Appropriations are complex, and not all issues are

summarized in this report. For example, budget submissions for some agencies number several

hundred pages and contain innumerable funding, programmatic, and legislative changes for

congressional consideration. Further, appropriations laws provide funds for numerous accounts,

activities, and subactivities, and the accompanying explanatory statements provide additional

directives and other important information. For information on programs funded in the bill but not

directly discussed in this report, please contact the key policy staff members listed at the end of the

report.

In general, in this report the term appropriations represents total funds available, including regular

annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as rescissions, transfers, and deferrals, but excludes

permanent mandatory budget authorities. This report contains FY2009 appropriations levels for

These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development.

These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

agencies, programs, and activities as enacted in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8).

Funds generally are referred to as omnibus funds, or funds provided by the omnibus law. Increases

and decreases generally are calculated on comparisons between these FY2009 omnibus funding

levels and those supported by President Obama or enacted for FY2010.

P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, contained $10.95 billion in

additional FY2009 funding for some of the agencies and programs typically funded by the Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. This amount was a 40% supplement to the

$27.59 billion in omnibus appropriations for FY2009. In general, the funds were made available for

obligation until September 30, 2010 (the end of FY2010). They are discussed in the pertinent

sections throughout this report, in both the text and accompanying tables. They generally are

referred to as stimulus funds, or funds provided by the stimulus law. For additional information on

these stimulus funds, including a detailed table, see CRS Report RL34461, Interior, Environment,

and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted).

The House Committee on Appropriations is the primary source of the funding figures used

throughout the report. Other sources of information include the Senate Committee on

Appropriations, agency budget justifications, and the Congressional Record. References to the

report of the House Appropriations Committee for FY2010 refer to H.Rept. 111-180, on H.R. 2996.

References to the report of the Senate Appropriations Committee for FY2010 refer to S.Rept. 11138, on H.R. 2996. References to the conference report or the explanatory statement for FY2010

refer to H.Rept. 111-316, on H.R. 2996. In the tables throughout this report, some columns of

funding figures do not match the precise totals provided due to rounding.

FY2004-FY2010

Table 1, below, shows appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2004FY2010. Funding for earlier years is not readily available due to changes in the makeup of the

Interior appropriations bill. The FY2010 appropriation represented a $4.97 billion increase (18.2%)

over the FY2004 level in current dollars, or an $826.9 million increase (2.6%) in constant dollars.3

See Table 22 for a budgetary history of each agency for FY2006-FY2010.

Current Overview

The Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L.

111-88) contained a total of $32.29 billion for FY2010. This was $4.45 billion (16%) higher than the

FY2009 appropriation of $27.84 billion (excluding stimulus appropriations). The House, Senate,

and Administration had all supported significantly higher levels for FY2010—ranging between 15%

and 16% higher—than the FY2009 appropriation of $27.84 billion.

P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, contained an additional $10.95

billion in emergency funds for FY2009 for some of the accounts within agencies typically funded

by the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws. In general, the

funds were made available for obligation until September 30, 2010 (the end of FY2010). The

FY2010 appropriation of $32.29 billion in P.L. 111-88 was $6.50 billion (17%) less than the total

FY2009 appropriations of $38.79 billion (including stimulus appropriations).

These calculations use the Congressional Budget Office’s inflation estimate of 2.2% for 2008 and projections of 1.8% for

2009 and 1.1% for 2010.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

In earlier action, on September 24, 2009, the Senate had passed H.R. 2996, containing $32.15

billion for FY2010 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This was $201.1 million (0.6%)

less than the $32.35 billion approved by the House on June 26, 2009, and $228.3 million (0.7%) less

than the $32.38 billion requested by the Obama Administration.

A variety of funding and policy issues were debated during consideration of FY2010 legislation.

They included oil and gas leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf, wildland fire fighting, Indian trust

fund management, royalty relief, and climate change. Other issues included funding for Bureau of

Indian Affairs construction, education, and housing; Indian Health Service construction and urban

Indian health; wastewater/drinking water needs; land acquisition; and the Superfund program.

Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004-FY2010

($ in billions)

Current Dollars

Constant

2010 Dollarsb

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2009

Stimulus

FY2009

Total

FY2010

$27.33

$27.02

$25.94

$27.40

$28.42

$27.59

$10.95

$38.79a

$32.29

$11.07

$38.96a

$32.29

$31.47

$30.12

$28.02

$28.82

$29.25

$27.89

Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments.

They generally reflect rescissions and supplemental appropriations to date, except that the FY2006 figure does not

reflect supplementals. The FY2007 figure includes $425.0 million for Secure Rural Schools.

These figures are the sum of the FY2009 omnibus and FY2009 stimulus appropriations, plus an additional

$250.0 million in wildland fire appropriations included in P.L. 111-32.

These figures are based on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) inflation projection of 1.8% for 2009

and 1.1% for 2010, on the CBO website at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/econproj.pdf. For

inflation forecasts for earlier years, see the GDP Price Index in “CBO’s Year-by-Year Forecast and Projections

for Calendar Years 2009 to 2019,” on the CBO website at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10014.

Status of Bill

Table 2, below, contains information on H.R. 2996, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

Appropriations bill for FY2010.

Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2010

(H.R. 2996)

Subcommittee

Markup

House

Senate

6/10/09

6/23/09

H. Comm.

Report

House

Passage

6/23/09

H.Rept.

111-180

6/26/09

Congressional Research Service

S. Comm. Senate

Report

Passage

7/0709

S.Rept.

111-38

9/24/09

Conf.

Report

10/28/09

H.Rept.

111-316

Conference

Rept. Approval

House

Senate

Public Law

10/29/09

10/30/09

P.L. 111-88

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Title I: Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management4

Overview

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 253 million acres of public land

for diverse and sometimes conflicting uses, such as energy and minerals development, livestock

grazing, recreation, and preservation. The agency also is responsible for about 700 million acres of

federal subsurface mineral estate throughout the nation, and supervises mineral operations on an

estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands.

The FY2010 Interior appropriations law contained $1.14 billion for BLM, which was less than the

Administration’s request for FY2010 of $1.15 billion but higher than the FY2009 omnibus

appropriation of $1.04 billion. An additional $305.0 million in FY2009 stimulus funds were

appropriated to the BLM. See Table 3. Figures in this section do not include funds for DOI

Wildland Fire Management. In the past, wildland fire funds were appropriated to BLM for fire

fighting on all DOI lands, but currently they are appropriated to DOI as a department-wide program.

(For more information, see “Wildland Fire Management.”) Proposed funding for several key

activities is discussed below.

Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FY2009-FY2010

($ in millions)

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2009

Stimulus

FY2009

Total

FY2010

Request

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2010

Approp.

890.2

125.0

1,015.2

975.4

950.5

965.7

958.6

Construction

6.6

180.0

186.6

6.6

8.6

Land Acquisition

14.8

25.0

26.5

28.7

29.7

Oregon and California Grant Lands

109.9

111.6

Range Improvements

10.0

Service Charges, Deposits, and

Forfeituresa

Miscellaneous Trust Funds and

Permanent Operating Funds

7.1

20.1

—Current Appropriations

20.1

—Naval Oil Shale Reserves, Mineral

Leasing Receipts

-13.0

1,038.6

305.0b

1,343.6b

1,148.7

1,125.3

1,144.7

1,138.5

Bureau of Land Management

Management of Lands and Resources

Total Appropriations

The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.

The figures do not reflect $15.0 for the BLM for Wildland Fire Management provided in the stimulus law.

These funds were intended to be used for DOI-wide wildland fire fighting, and are reflected in the “Wildland

Fire Management” section below.

For more information on BLM funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Management of Lands and Resources

Management of Lands and Resources includes funds for an array of BLM land programs, including

protection, recreational use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM administration.

For this line item for FY2010, the Interior appropriations law included $958.6 million. This was

$16.8 million less than the Administration’s request of $975.4 million but $68.4 million higher than

the FY2009 omnibus appropriation of $890.2 million. The FY2009 stimulus law contained an

additional $125.0 million for Management of Lands of Resources, for activities including

remediation of abandoned mines and wells and also maintenance, rehabilitation, and restoration of

facilities, property, trails, and lands.

In general, the FY2010 law provided increased appropriations over FY2009 for activities funded by

this account, as had been requested by the Administration and supported by the House and Senate.

For soil, water, and air management, there was an increase of $18.4 million over the $40.6 million

appropriated for FY2009. The increase included $15.0 million to help BLM build capacity to assess,

monitor, predict, and adapt to changes in BLM landscapes resulting from climate change.

Energy

For land and realty management, the Interior appropriations law included an increase of $16.9

million, from $33.8 million for FY2009 to $50.7 million for FY2010. The additional funds were

sought to facilitate and promote renewable energy development. Among other activities, the funds

were sought to support development of wind and solar energy on public lands; develop regional

environmental impact statements; establish renewable energy coordination offices to facilitate and

streamline the review and approval of renewable energy projects; and provide additional renewable

energy staff at other BLM offices. The conferees on the bill expressed concern about the impact of

renewable energy development on federal lands. For instance, they directed DOI, in consultation

with the Forest Service, to submit a report on how sites for renewable energy projects will be

selected; how the agencies will coordinate the development of such projects, particularly in areas of

mixed ownership or management; how the infrastructure will be removed from public lands when

no longer functional; and other issues.5

For energy and minerals for FY2010, the Interior appropriations law contained a total of $156.2

million. The Administration, House, and Senate had supported funding at this level, although they

differed as to the amounts to be derived from discretionary appropriations, mandatory funds, and

fees. The Administration’s request included discretionary appropriations of $110.7 million, and

reflected collections of $45.5 million in offsetting fees. These revenues are derived through a

program requiring payment for each new application for a permit to drill (APD) oil and gas wells.

The fee was $4,000, and in its budget request the Administration proposed raising the fee to $6,500

per APD. Additionally, the Administration proposed the repeal of provisions of law that redirect

mineral leasing revenues from the Treasury to a BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund. The

Administration anticipated that the resulting loss of these mandatory funds to the BLM ($21.0

million) would be offset by an increased appropriation for energy and minerals and the additional

revenues collected through the APD fee increase. However, the House and Senate supported, and

the FY2010 law included, $89.7 million in discretionary appropriations, $45.5 million in offsetting

fees by increasing the APD fee to $6,500 as proposed by the Administration, and $21.0 million in

mandatory funds. Total FY2009 funding for energy and minerals was $156.8 million, comprised of

H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 75-76.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

discretionary appropriations of $99.4 million, $36.4 million in offsetting fees, and $21.0 million in

mandatory appropriations.

Wild Horses and Burros

The FY2010 Interior appropriations law provided historically high funding for the wild horse and

burro program—$64.0 million. While this was $3.5 million less than the $67.5 million that the

Administration had sought, it was $23.4 million more than the $40.6 million appropriated for

FY2009. The increased funding over FY2009 was sought for activities to reduce the number of wild

horses and burros on BLM lands to achieve the “appropriate management level” by 2013. These

activities include additional gathers and removals of wild horses and burros from BLM lands,

population control efforts, and animal adoptions. The funding increase also was intended to cover

the escalating cost of caring for animals removed from the range in long-term pasture (“holding”)

facilities.

In addition, the FY2010 law prohibited funds from being used for the slaughter of healthy,

unadopted wild horses and burros under BLM management, or for the sale of wild horses and burros

that results in their slaughter for processing into commercial products. Further, the conferees on the

FY2010 bill required BLM to follow the Senate’s directions for this program. Noting that the costs

of gathering and holding horses and burros “have risen beyond sustainable levels,” the Senate

Appropriations Committee had directed BLM to develop and publish a new, long-term plan for

management of wild horses and burros that includes private proposals.6 The committee also

encouraged all federal agencies that need horses to first seek to acquire a wild horse from BLM, and

encouraged BLM to expedite the provision of horses to state and local police forces.7

National Landscape Conservation System

For the National Landscape Conservation System, the FY2010 law provided $74.6 million. This

was an increase of $7.9 million over the FY2009 appropriation of $66.7 million and $2.5 million

over the Administration’s request for FY2010 of $72.1 million. This system, established

legislatively in 2009, consists of BLM’s protected areas, including BLM wilderness, national

monuments, and national conservation areas.8

Construction

For FY2010, $8.6 million was appropriated for BLM construction. This was an increase of $2.0

million over the FY2009 omnibus level and the amount requested by the Administration for

FY2010—$6.6 million. The FY2010 funding would be used for 13 construction projects in seven

states as well as bureau-wide architectural and engineering services. The FY2009 stimulus law

provided an additional $180.0 million to BLM for construction, including for energy efficient

retrofits of existing facilities and for construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and repair of

For a discussion of issues regarding the care and management of wild horses and burros under BLM management, see

CRS Report RL34690, Wild Horses and Burros: Current Issues and Proposals, by (name redacted)

S.Rept. 111-38 on H.R. 2996, p. 11.

On management of the NLCS and issues related to its establishment legislatively, see the “National Landscape

Conservation System” section of CRS Report R40237, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) and the Forest Service (FS): Issues for the 111th Congress, coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redact

ed).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

roads, bridges, trails, property, and facilities. BLM construction funding over the past decade has

ranged from a low of $6.4 million in FY2008 to a high of $16.8 million in FY2001.

Land Acquisition

For land acquisition by the BLM, the FY2010 law provided $29.7 million. The Administration,

House, and Senate had approved sizeable increases over the FY2009 appropriation of $14.8 million.

The majority of the FY2010 funding would be for 13 specific acquisitions in five states. The

appropriation for BLM acquisitions had fallen steadily from $49.9 million for FY2002 to $8.9

million for FY2008. Money for land acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water

Conservation Fund. (For more information, see the “The Land and Water Conservation Fund

(LWCF).”)

Fish and Wildlife Service9

For Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) accounts for FY2010, the Interior appropriations law

contained $1.65 billion. The Administration had requested $1.64 billion. Both figures were more

than the FY2009 omnibus appropriation ($1.44 billion), but less than the FY2009 total ($1.72

billion), which included $280.0 million in stimulus funds under the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5. See Table 4. The FY2010 law included a Senate floor

amendment to prohibit funds appropriated in the act from being used to “impede, prohibit, or restrict

activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security on public lands to achieve operational control (as

defined in section 2(b) of the Secure Fence Act of 2006)” over border areas. The Interior

Appropriations subcommittee chair and the sponsor of the amendment also agreed to hold further

discussions with relevant department heads.10

Table 4. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2009-FY2010

($ in thousands)

Fish and Wildlife Service

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2009

Stimulus

FY2009

Total

FY2010

Request

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2010

Approp.

Resource Management

1,140,962

165,000

1,305,962

1,218,206

1,248,756

1,244,386

1,269,406

—Ecological Services:

Endangered Species

157,973

n/a

164,157

166,507

174,657

179,457

—Ecological Services:

Habitat Conservation and

Environmental Contaminants

118,297

n/a

126,920

128,620

131,020

131,770

—National Wildlife Refuge

System

462,859

n/a

483,279

503,279

488,629

503,279

—Migratory Birds, Law

Enforcement & International

Conservation

126,717

n/a

130,093

133,593

133,573

134,743

For more information on FWS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... In addition, a variety of FWS policy issues

that arise in an appropriations context are discussed in more detail in CRS Report R40776, Fish and Wildlife Service:

Appropriations and Policy, by (name redacted).

More detail on the two amendments is contained in CRS Report R40776, Fish and Wildlife Service: Appropriations and

Policy, by (name redacted)

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2009

Stimulus

FY2009

Total

FY2010

Request

131,831

n/a

140,695

144,195

143,695

148,345

20,000

143,285

n/a

154,062

153,562

152,812

Construction

35,533

115,000

150,533

29,791

21,139

39,741

37,439

Land Acquisition

42,455

65,000

69,250

82,790

86,340

—Acquisitions: Federal

Refuge Lands

28,315

45,445

49,695

63,235

66,765

—Inholdings, Emergencies, &

Hardships

3,000

5,000

—Exchanges

1,500

2,000

—Acquisition Management

8,140

10,555

—Cost Allocation Methodology

1,500

2,000

Cooperative Endangered

Species Conservation Fund

75,501

100,000

85,001

85,000

National Wildlife Refuge Fund

14,100

14,500

North American Wetlands

Conservation Fund

42,647

52,647

45,147

47,647

Neotropical Migratory Bird

Conservation Fund

4,750

5,250

5,000

Multinational Species

Conservation Fund

10,000

11,500

State and Tribal Wildlife

Grants

75,000

115,000

80,000

90,000

—State Grants

63,000

83,000

68,000

78,000

—Competitive Grants for

States, Territories, & Other

Jurisdictions

5,000

—Tribal Grants

7,000

—Climate Change

40,000

20,000

Federal Aid in Wildlife

Restoration

28,000

-497

1,440,451

280,000

1,720,451

1,637,494

1,637,642

1,608,065

1,646,832

Fish and Wildlife Service

—Fisheries

—Climate Change Adaptive

Science Capacity

—General Administration

Wildlife Conservation and

Appreciation Fund (cancel

prior-year funds)

Total Appropriations

FY2010

Approp.

Note: n/a indicates not available.

By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is the Resource Management account,

for which the President requested $1.22 billion, an increase of 7% from the FY2009 omnibus level

of $1.14 billion. Congress appropriated $1.27 billion, an increase of 11% over the FY2009 omnibus

appropriation. Among the programs included in Resource Management are the Endangered Species

program, the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement. The request included a new line item of $20.0

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

million within Resource Management for Climate Change Adaptive Science Capacity, which

Congress accepted. (See “Climate Change Planning and Adaptive Science Capacity” below.)

Endangered Species Funding

Funding for the Endangered Species program is part of the Resource Management account, and is

one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The Administration’s FY2010

request was $164.2 million, an increase of 4% from the FY2009 omnibus level of $158.0 million.

The FY2010 appropriation was $179.5 million (an increase of 14%). See Table 5. The House

Appropriations Committee’s report also encouraged FWS to address a backlog of candidate species

awaiting listing decisions. The Senate Appropriations Committee report urged improvement in the

consultation program to address past deficiencies.11 The conference report specified an increase of

$2.5 million in the consultation program to improve monitoring and record-keeping.

The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund also benefits conservation of species that

are listed, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act, through grants to states and

territories. The President proposed to increase the program from $75.5 million in FY2009 to $100.0

million in FY2010. Congress appropriated a smaller increase, to $85.0 million (up 13%). See Table

5. In total, the FY2010 appropriation was $264.5 million for the two programs, a 13% increase over

FY2009.

Table 5. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,

FY2009-FY2010

($ in thousands)

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2010

Request

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2010

Approp.

—Candidate Conservation

10,670

10,592

11,592

11,842

12,592

—Listing

19,266

20,103

20,603

22,103

—Consultation

53,462

56,863

59,363

—Recovery

74,575

76,599

77,449

81,349

85,399

157,973

164,157

166,507

174,657

179,457

75,501

100,000

85,001

85,000

233,474

264,157

266,507

259,658

264,457

Endangered Species and Related Programs

Endangered Species Program

Subtotal, Endangered Species Program

Related Program:

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund

Total Appropriations

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement

The FY2010 Interior appropriations law provided $503.3 million for refuge operations and

maintenance, an increase over the Administration’s request of $483.3 million and the FY2009

omnibus level of $462.9 million. The FY2010 appropriation would increase all categories of refuge

For a discussion of the Endangered Species Act and its programs, see CRS Report RL31654, The Endangered Species

Act: A Primer, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

spending over FY2009: wildlife and habitat management, refuge-based law enforcement, visitor

services, and conservation planning. The FY2010 law included a Senate floor amendment related to

refuges. (See “Fish and Wildlife Service” introduction.)

Costs of operations have increased on many refuges, partly due to special problems such as

hurricane damage and more aggressive border enforcement, but also due to increased use, invasive

species control, and other demands. Refuge funding was not keeping pace with new demands, and

these demands, combined with the rising costs of rent, salaries, fuel, and utilities, led to cuts in

funding for programs to aid endangered species, reduce infestation by invasive species, protect

water supplies, address habitat restoration, and ensure staffing at the less popular refuges. While

increases were provided to address these problems in recent years, the FY2009 stimulus law

provided additional funding to address these concerns. However, some observers contend that the

system’s problems are ongoing and will be significant after the stimulus funding is exhausted.

Congress approved $65.8 million for nationwide law enforcement, more than the request ($63.8

million) and more than the FY2009 omnibus appropriations level ($62.7 million). Nationwide law

enforcement covers border inspections, investigations of violations of endangered species or

waterfowl hunting laws, and other activities.

Climate Change Planning and Adaptive Science Capacity

For FY2010, the Administration proposed a new line item of $20.0 million (under Resource

Management) to address climate change, which Congress accepted. Half of the funding would

support work with partners at federal, state, tribal, and local levels to develop strategies to address

climate impacts on wildlife at local and regional scales. The other half would be used to support

cooperative scientific research on climate change as it relates to wildlife impacts and habitat, and

would provide scientific support to a network of newly created Landscape Conservation

Cooperatives (LCCs) to ameliorate the effects of climate change. The LCCs appear to be an

amalgam of research institutions, resource managers, and lands managed by agencies at various

levels of government.

Land Acquisition

The Administration requested $65.0 million for land acquisition, an increase of $22.5 million (53%)

from the FY2009 omnibus appropriation of $42.5 million. The FY2010 Interior appropriations law

provided a still higher increase—to $86.3 million (+103%). See Table 4. As compared to recent

years, the request and the appropriated level both devoted a somewhat higher percentage (70% and

77% respectively) of the funding to acquisition of land for specified federal refuges, rather than for

closely related functions (e.g., acquisition management, land exchanges, emergency acquisitions,

and purchase of inholdings). This program is funded with appropriations from the Land and Water

Conservation Fund. (See “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)”, below.)

Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS (in contrast to the other three

federal lands agencies) has a source of mandatory spending for land acquisition. The account is

permanently appropriated, with funds for FY2010 estimated at $44.0 million, derived from the sale

of duck stamps to hunters and recreationists, and import duties on certain arms and ammunition. It

does not receive funding in annual Interior appropriations bills.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Wildlife Refuge Fund

The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates

counties for the presence of the non-taxable federal lands of the NWRS. A portion of the fund is

supported by the permanent appropriation of receipts from various activities carried out on the

NWRS. However, these receipts are not sufficient for full funding of amounts authorized in the

formula, and county governments have long urged additional appropriations to make up the

difference. For FY2010, the Administration requested the FY2009 level of $14.1 million. The

FY2010 appropriation was $14.5 million. With refuge receipts, the FY2009 omnibus appropriation

level was estimated to fund about 37% of the authorized payment level. A projected increase in

receipts, combined with the appropriation of $14.5 million, would increase the payment to 42% of

the authorized level in FY2010.12

Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants

The Multinational Species Conservation Fund has generated considerable constituent interest

despite the small size of the program. It benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses,

great apes, and marine turtles. The President requested $10.0 million for FY2010, the same as the

FY2009 level.13 Congress increased funding for the program to $11.5 million for FY2010. The

President also requested $4.8 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, a

figure identical to the FY2009 level. The FY2010 appropriation was higher─$5.0 million.

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants help fund efforts to conserve species (including nongame species)

of concern to states, territories, and tribes. The grants have generated considerable support from

these governments. The program was created in the FY2001 Interior appropriations law (P.L. 106291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior appropriations laws. (It has no separate authorizing

statute.) Funds may be used to develop state conservation plans as well as to support specific

practical conservation projects. A portion of the funding is set aside for competitive grants to tribal

governments or tribal wildlife agencies. The remaining portion is for grants to states. A state’s

allocation is determined by formula.

The Administration’s request for FY2010 was $115.0 million, an increase over the $75.0 million for

FY2009. The $40.0 million increase (53%) was proposed for states and tribes to incorporate climate

change adaptation strategies into state wildlife action plans and to implement adaptation projects.

See Table 4, above.

The National Wildlife Refuge Fund is distinct from the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program administered by

DOI, and for which many types of federal lands are eligible. In 2009, Congress made PILT a mandatory spending program

for FY2008-FY2012, but did not change the Refuge Fund. As a result of the PILT formula, which will tend to make up for

the pro-rated NWRF payment rate for public domain lands only, the acquired lands of the refuge system will be undercompensated for revenue loss relative to the refuge lands reserved from the public domain. Eastern refuges tend to be

mostly acquired land, while western refuges are mostly reserved from the public domain. For further information, see CRS

Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by (name redacted).

For more information on funding levels for each subprogram, see CRS Report RS21157, International Species

Conservation Funds, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Congress appropriated $90.0 million, but did not provide the requested $40.0 million in additional

funds for climate change activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee asserted that the states

already had authority to address climate change within the existing program.14 In addition, the

FY2010 appropriations law included language reducing the required state match from 50% to 25%

for planning grants. It also reduced the required state share of implementation grants from 50% to

35%.

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

This program provides grants to states on a formula basis for activities to benefit hunters and

hunting related programs. It is currently funded by an excise tax on hunting equipment, and the

receipts are available without further appropriation. As a result, while the program has existed for

over 70 years, it normally does not appear in annual appropriations bills. However, this year the

Administration’s request included $28.0 million in discretionary spending for hunter education,

training, and outreach to young people, especially those in traditionally under-represented groups

such as minorities and urban youth. Participation in hunting among young people in these groups

has been dropping for years. The new effort was intended to reduce this decline. Congress did not

appropriate funding for this program for FY2010. The Senate Appropriations Committee held that

sufficient funding for hunter and angler education programs is provided elsewhere.15

National Park Service16

For FY2010, the Interior appropriations law provided total National Park Service (NPS)

appropriations of $2.74 billion. The House, Senate, and Administration had supported increases over

the FY2009 omnibus appropriation of $2.53 billion. With FY2009 stimulus appropriations of $750.0

million, total FY2009 funding was $3.28 billion. See Table 6. The NPS administers the National

Park System—391 units covering 85 million acres—to protect, preserve, and interpret the system’s

many, diverse natural and historic areas. The NPS also supports and promotes some resource

conservation activities outside the park system through limited grant and technical assistance

programs and cooperation with partners.

Operation of the National Park System

For the Operation of the National Park System account in FY2010, the Interior appropriations law

provided $2.26 billion. The House, Senate, and Administration all supported increases over the

FY2009 omnibus appropriation for the account ($2.13 billion), but less than the total FY2009

funding ($2.28 billion) including the additional $146.0 million in the stimulus law. See Table 6.

This line item is the primary source of funding for the national parks, accounting for more than 80%

of the total NPS budget. The majority of operations funding is provided directly to park managers

for the activities, programs, and services essential to the day-to-day operations of the park system,

and covers resource stewardship, visitor services, facility operations and maintenance, and park

support programs, as well as administrative expenses. Within this account, the FY2010 Interior

appropriations law provided $10.0 million for NPS climate change activities.

S.Rept. 111-38 on H.R. 2996, p. 24.

This section originally was prepared by David Whiteman. For current information on NPS funding, contact (name redact

ed) at 7-..... For more information on funding for historic preservation, contact Shannon Loane at 7-.....

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table 6. Appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS), FY2009-FY20010

($ in millions)

National Park Service

Operation of the National Park System

FY2009

Omnibusa

FY2009

Stimulus

FY2009

Total

FY2010

Requestb

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2010

Approp.

2,131.5

146.0

2,277.5

2,266.0

2,260.7

2,261.3

2,261.6

—Park Managementc

1,983.5

n/a

2,110.5

2,105.2

2,105.8

2,106.0

—Administrative Costs

148.1

n/a

155.5

Signature Projects (Matching Program)

25.0

0.0

5.0d

National Recreation and Preservation

59.7

53.9

59.4

67.4

68.4

Historic Preservation Fund

69.0

15.0

84.0

77.7

91.7

74.5

79.5

Construction

232.5

589.0

821.5

206.0

213.7

219.7

233.0

Land and Water Conservation Funde

-30.0

Land Acquisition and State Assistance

64.2

98.0

113.2

118.6

126.3

—Assistance to States

19.0

30.0

40.0

35.0

40.0

—NPS Acquisition

45.2

68.0

73.2

83.6

86.3

2,525.6

750.0

3,275.6

2,696.6

2,733.7

2,711.6

2,743.7

Total Appropriations

Note: n/a indicates not available.

Includes cancellation of $3.5 million of prior-year funds: $0.5 million for Historic Preservation, $0.6 million for

Construction, $1.0 million for Assistance to States, and $1.3 million for Urban Parks and Recreation.

Includes direction to continue the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program from prior year

balances, but includes no new funding for the program.

Includes funding for the U.S. Park Police.

Reflects an appropriation of $5.0 million and the use of $10.0 million in carryover balances from the

recreational fee program.

Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.

FY2010 funding for the U.S. Park Police (USPP) was provided within the park protection subaccount of NPS Operations. The FY2010 Interior appropriations law appeared to provide $102.6

million for the USPP. The USPP is a law enforcement entity with primary jurisdiction at park sites

in Washington, DC, New York City, and San Francisco. The USPP also assists law enforcement

rangers in park units system-wide, as well as other law enforcement agencies during emergencies.

Signature Projects

For the “signature projects matching program,” the funding for FY2010 was $15.0 million. This

consisted of an appropriation of $5.0 million and the use of $10.0 million in carryover balances

from the recreational fee program. The signature projects matching program was developed to help

refurbish and prepare the National Park System for its 100th anniversary in 2016. It was intended as

a way to leverage private donations for certain park projects. Under the FY2010 Interior

appropriations law, not less than 50% of the cost of each project is to be derived from non-federal

sources. The Administration had sought $25.0 million for signature projects. While the House

originally had supported this request, the Senate originally did not approve funds for signature

projects. Further, no money was appropriated for this purpose in FY2009. In its report on the

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

FY2010 appropriations bill, the conferees directed the Park Service to report, within 90 days, on the

status of earlier projects and the criteria to be used to select new ones.17

Recreation Fees

The conferees on the FY2010 appropriations bill expressed concern with the Park Service’s

“ineffective management of its recreation fee revenues which has led to high unobligated carryover

balances over many years. It is clear that dramatic changes are needed to address this problem.”18

They conveyed that in response to congressional concern, the agency has developed a plan to

“aggressively reduce” the carryover balance of more than $270.0 million (at the outset of FY2009).

They noted that the Park Service has authority under law to reduce the amount of fees retained at

any park unit from 80% to 60%, and encouraged the agency to use this authority to meet its goal of

a carryover balance of not more than $80.0 million by January 2011. This was intended to redirect

funds away from park units with the largest collections to important projects that can begin quickly.

National Recreation and Preservation

For National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P) in FY2010, the Interior appropriations law

provided $68.4 million, a sizeable increase over the FY2009 level ($59.7 million) and the FY2010

requested level ($53.9 million). NR&P funds a variety of park system activities, including natural

and cultural resource protection programs, environmental and compliance and review, and an

international park affairs office, as well as programs providing technical assistance to state and local

community efforts to preserve natural, historic, and cultural resources outside the National Park

System.

The FY2010 law included $5.9 million for statutory and contractual aid, slightly higher than the

FY2009 level ($5.6 million). The Obama Administration proposed discontinuing funding, as had the

Bush Administration. This program provides limited financial assistance through partnerships to a

variety of areas not managed by the NPS, in support of NPS efforts with other organizations to

promote systems of parks and open space nationwide.

The appropriation for heritage partnership programs was $17.8 million. The Administration had

sought to maintain the FY2009 level of $15.7 million. The program supports national heritage areas

(NHAs), which are neither owned nor managed by the NPS. Appropriators have expressed concerns

about the expanding numbers of NHAs, and have favored funding new areas principally by savings

when mature programs graduate from federal support. The FY2010 law also included a provision to

allow a private property owner within an NHA to opt out of participating in any plan, project,

program, or activity conducted within the area.19

For “Preserve America,” the FY2010 appropriation was $4.6 million. This matching grant program

supports preservation efforts through heritage tourism, education, and historic preservation

planning.20

H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 90.

H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996. p. 91.

For information on NHA establishment, management, and legislation, see CRS Report RL33462, Heritage Areas:

Background, Proposals, and Current Issues, by (name redacted).

Preserve America had traditionally been funded through the HPF; in FY2008, however, it was funded through the

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Historic Preservation

The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid for

activities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. § 470), such as

restoring historic districts, sites, buildings, and objects significant in American history and culture.

The Fund’s preservation grants are normally funded on a 60% federal and 40% state matching share

basis. The HPF also includes funding for Save America’s Treasures, a grant program for

preservation and/or conservation work on nationally significant intellectual and cultural artifacts and

historic structures and sites.

For FY2010, the appropriations law provided $79.5 million for the HPF, $10.5 million more than

the FY2009 omnibus appropriation of $69.0 million21 and $1.8 million more than the

Administration’s request. See Table 6. The law provided $46.5 million for grants to states and $8.0

million for tribal preservation grants, as requested. The increases of $4.0 million in the state grant

program and $1.0 million in the tribal grant program over FY2009 amounts were requested to assist

with an escalation in Section 106 compliance reviews, due to the number of infrastructure projects

funded through the stimulus law.22

For FY2010, the law included $25.0 million for Save America’s Treasures, $5.0 million more than

the FY2010 request and FY2009 appropriations. Of the $25.0 million, $10.2 million was allocated

for 52 specific projects. The FY2010 Interior appropriations law moved the Preserve America

program from the HPF to the National Recreation and Preservation account (see above).

Construction

The FY2010 appropriation for NPS construction was $233.0 million. This was a $27.0 million

increase over the Administration’s request of $206.0 million and about level with the FY2009

omnibus appropriation of $232.5 million. An additional $589.0 million in stimulus funds was

enacted for FY2009. The Construction line item funds new construction projects, as well as

improvements, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. It also funds general

management planning, including the special resource studies that evaluate potential park system

additions. Additional funding also is provided for NPS road construction and repair through the

Federal Lands Highway Program of the Federal Highway Administration.

The Construction line item also includes an unspecified amount of funding for addressing deferred

maintenance, a continuing NPS concern. While the NPS has improved inventory and asset

management systems, the estimate of its deferred maintenance backlog has continued to mount.

(...continued)

National Recreation and Preservation account. Funding was not granted under the FY2009 omnibus appropriations law.

The accompanying explanatory statement called for an evaluation of the program’s effectiveness before further funding

was committed. This evaluation was submitted in June 2009 and can be found at http://216.3.143.83/docs/

Preserve%20America%20Grants%20Effectiveness%20Final.pdf.

Total FY2009 funding included $15.0 million in the stimulus law for competitive grants to historically black colleges

and universities (HBCUs) for the preservation of campus buildings listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The

FY2010 report of the House Appropriations Committee noted strong support of HBCU historic preservation funding, but

stated that additional funding would not be granted until the carryover balances were reduced.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665 ) requires that federal agencies take into

account the effects of their actions on historic properties. More information on Section 106 as it relates to the stimulus law

can be found on the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation website at http://www.achp.gov/recovery/faqs.html.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

DOI estimates deferred maintenance for the NPS for FY2008 at between $8.23 billion and $12.11

billion, with a mid-range figure of $10.17 billion. The addition of $589.0 million for NPS

construction from the stimulus law may begin to reverse the trend.

Land Acquisition and State Assistance

For Land Acquisition and State Assistance in FY2010, the Interior appropriations law provided a

total of $126.3 million, a sizeable increase over FY2009 appropriations of $64.2 million and the

Administration’s FY2010 request of $98.0 million. Funding for both NPS land acquisition and state

assistance comes from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). For NPS land acquisition,

the law provided $86.3 million. Land acquisition funds are used to acquire lands, or interests in

lands, for inclusion within the National Park System. For LWCF state assistance, the law contained

$40.0 million. State assistance is for recreation-related land acquisition and recreation planning and

development by the states, with the appropriated funds allocated among the states by formula and

the states determining their spending priorities. (For more information, see “The Land and Water

Conservation Fund (LWCF),” below.)

U.S. Geological Survey23

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is a science agency that provides physical and biological

information related to natural hazards; geological resources; and energy, mineral, water, and

biological sciences. In addition, it is the federal government’s principal civilian mapping agency and

a primary source of data on the quality of the nation’s water resources. Funds for the USGS are

provided in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and Research for eight activities: Geographic

Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water

Resources Investigations; Biological Research; Enterprise Information; Science Support; Facilities;

and Global Climate Change Research.

The FY2010 Interior appropriations law provided $1.11 billion for the USGS, which was $67.9

million above the FY2009 omnibus appropriation of $1.04 billion. An additional $140.0 million in

stimulus funding was appropriated for FY2009. The FY2010 appropriation also was $13.9 million

over the Administration’s request, $5.9 million over the original House-passed level, and $7.4

million over the original Senate-passed level. For all eight USGS activities, the FY2010 law

provided more funding than FY2009 omnibus appropriations. See Table 7.

The FY2010 law provided new funding to address several DOI-wide programs, including the 21st

Century Youth Conservation Corps and Climate Impacts in the Arctic. Further, it reflected the

Administration’s proposal to transfer the National Geospatial Program from the Enterprise

Information activity to the Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing activity. Table

7 and discussions below reflect this change.

For more information on USGS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table 7. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FY2009-FY2010

($ in millions)

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2009

Stimulus

FY2009

Total

FY2010

Request

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2010

Approp.

Geographic Research,

Investigations, and

Remote Sensing

142.1a

15.0

n/a

143.9

145.6

143.9

145.6

Geologic Hazards,

Resources, and

Processes

242.1

44.6

n/a

247.0

248.2

247.9

249.1

Water Resources

Investigations

221.4

29.2

n/a

227.9

229.7

231.0

232.3

Biological Research

185.3

n/a

199.3

202.5

202.7

204.9

Enterprise Information

42.7a

n/a

46.0

45.0

46.0

Science Support

67.4

n/a

69.2

Facilities

102.1

29.4

n/a

106.4

Global Climate Change

Research

40.6

n/a

58.2

1,043.8

140.0b

1,183.8

1,097.8

1,105.8

1,104.3

1,111.7

U.S. Geological

Survey

Total

Appropriations

Note: n/a indicates not available.

These figures have been adjusted to reflect the proposed transfer in FY2010 of the National Geospatial

Program from the Enterprise Information activity to the Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote

Sensing activity. Actual FY2009 omnibus appropriations were $112.5 million for Enterprise Information and

$72.3 million for Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing.

Not reflected in the figures in this column is $17.8 million of stimulus funds that were provided for

construction, and $4.0 million that had not been specified for projects within the USGS.

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing

This activity aims to provide public access to high-quality geospatial information. For this activity,

the FY2010 Interior appropriations law provided $145.6 million, $3.5 million above the FY2009

enacted level of $142.1 million. The law transferred the National Geospatial Program to this activity

as requested by the Administration and included in the House- and Senate-passed bills. This

program provides operational support and management for the Federal Geographic Data Committee

(FGDC). The FGDC is an interagency, intergovernmental committee that encourages collaboration

to make geospatial data available to state, local, and tribal governments as well as communities. The

law included $63.7 million for the Land Remote Sensing Program for FY2010, $2.0 million over

the FY2009 enacted level of $61.7 million. This program supports the Landsat satellite series.

Landsat 8 is a satellite that is being developed to take remotely sensed images of the Earth’s land

surface and surrounding coastal areas primarily for environmental monitoring. Landsat 5 and 7 are

satellites currently providing data of the Earth’s natural systems.

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes

For Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes activities, the FY2010 law contained $249.1

million for this program, $7.0 million over the FY2009 enacted level. These activities provide earth

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

science information for a wide variety of partners and customers, including federal, state, and local

agencies, non-government organizations, industry, and academia. This activity includes funds for

geological hazards assessments such as of earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides.

The law included $92.8 million for geological hazards assessments, an increase of $2.2 million over

the FY2009 level. Hazard assessments cover geologic landscape and coastal assessments as well as

geologic resource assessments. The law also provided $4.0 million for developing plans for seafloor

mapping expeditions of the continental shelf and a data management infrastructure for this effort.

This work is being done through an interagency task force and is important for establishing claims

as Arctic ice melts and opens up sea lanes near the polar regions.

Water Resources Investigations

The FY2010 appropriation for water resources investigations was $232.3 million, $10.9 million

over the FY2009 enacted level. The Water Resources activity supports water research and

monitoring activities that address issues such as water availability, water quality, and flood and

drought hazards.

The Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments, and Research subactivity includes six programs

exclusively funded from federal appropriations. The programs are: groundwater resources, National

Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), toxic substances hydrology, hydrologic research

and development, National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), and Hydrologic Networks and

Analysis (HNA). These programs are primarily research oriented, with the exception of NSIP and

portions of HNA, which focus on long-term data collection; and NAWQA, which provides status

and trends information on water quality conditions across the nation. The FY2010 law provided

$160.2 million for this activity, $9.5 million over the FY2009 enacted level.

The increase reflects the aim to enhance the National Streamgage Network in support of climate

change monitoring, among other activities. This effort tracks the flow of water and associated

components in rivers and streams throughout the nation. It has 7,500 gages and is funded in

partnership with over 800 federal, state, and local agencies. The increase was intended to reestablish up to 50 streamgages that were discontinued, primarily due to funding constraints. Another

$1.0 million was included for the on-going U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment

Program, which was not included in the Administration’s request.

Biological Research

The Biological Research Program generates and distributes information related to conserving and

managing the nation’s biological resources. The FY2010 Interior appropriations law contained

$204.9 million for this activity, $19.6 million above the FY2009 enacted level.

The law increased biological research and monitoring, including $5.0 million for scientific studies

and analysis to support Fish and Wildlife Service efforts to prepare refuges and assist species for

adapting to climate change, and $4.2 million for studying species at risk due to changing arctic

ecosystems. Loss of arctic sea ice and terrestrial permafrost-supported habitats have potentially

negative consequences for polar bears and other species and ecosystems in the Arctic region. The

increase in funding would support a strategic expansion of the physical-biological forecasting

capacity of USGS in the Arctic region.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The conferees on the FY2010 bill encouraged the USGS to conduct further research and analyses on

the interaction of endocrine disrupters on water quality and fish development.24 In addition, the

House Appropriations Committee expressed concern over wildlife diseases, such as viral

hemorrhagic septicemia─a fatal disease for fish; chytrid disease─which affects amphibians; and

whitenose syndrome─which is fatal for cave-dwelling bats.25

Enterprise Information

The Enterprise Information activity consolidates funding of all USGS information needs including

information technology, security, services, and resources management, as well as capital asset

planning. The FY2010 appropriation was $46.0 million for this activity, $3.3 million over the

FY2009 enacted level.

Science Support and Facilities

Science Support focuses on costs associated with modernizing the infrastructure for managing and

disseminating scientific information. The FY2010 law provided $69.2 million for this activity, $1.8

million above the FY2009 enacted level. Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair.

The law contained $106.4 million for this activity, $4.3 million above the FY2009 enacted level.

Global Climate Change Research

The FY2009 omnibus appropriations law combined most climate change activities of the USGS into

an integrated global climate change research program. The FY2010 Interior appropriations law

included $58.2 million for this activity, $17.5 million above the FY2009 enacted level.

The climate change research program seeks to provide science, monitoring, and predictive modeling

to generate information on climate change and its effect on the resources and landscape of the

United States. Specifically for FY2010, scientists would continue to track indicators of climate

change and link them to effects. Further, work is planned to develop decision support tools for

policy makers and resource managers to develop and implement adaptation strategies.

Of the $17.5 million increase, $5.0 million would be for the National Climate Change and Wildlife

Science Center (NCCWSC). The Center would receive a total of $15.0 million for FY2010,

according to the conference report on the FY2010 bill. The Center supports research, assessment,

and synthesis of global climate change data for research managers of species and habitats. Further, it

aims to evaluate global climate change models that are at scales useful for stakeholders. According

to the conference report, locations for the regional centers under the NCCWSC are to be selected

through a collaborative process that engages other federal, state and tribal agencies, universities, and

other partners. The conference report also stated that the NCCWSC should serve as a model for

implementing an integrated approach to climate change science and adaptation by the DOI.26

Another $7.0 million of the increase would be for research on geologic carbon sequestration (total

funding was $10.0 million). USGS would use these funds to conduct studies and activities to begin

the development of a National Assessment of Geological Storage Capacity for Carbon Dioxide.

H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 97.

H.Rept. 111-180 on H.R. 2996, p. 56.

H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 97-98 and p. 76.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Minerals Management Service27

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the Offshore Energy and

Minerals Management (OEMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM) Program.

OEMM administers competitive leasing on submerged lands in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

and oversees production of offshore oil, gas, other minerals, and offshore alternative energy. On

April 22, 2009, the Obama Administration announced that regulations for the administration of

alternative energy leases in the OCS had been finalized.28 MRM collects and disburses bonuses,

rents, and royalties paid on federal onshore and OCS leases and Indian mineral leases. Revenues

from onshore leases are distributed to states in which they were collected, the general fund of the

U.S. Treasury, and designated programs. Revenues from offshore leases are allocated among coastal

states, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund, and the Treasury.

MMS disbursed about $10.7 billion in FY2009 from mineral leases on federal and Indian lands,

down from $23.5 billion in FY2008. This amount fluctuates annually based primarily on the prices

of oil and natural gas. For about a decade prior to FY2007, royalties from natural gas production

accounted for 40% to 45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties were not more than 25%.

However, in FY2007, oil royalties accounted for about 39% of MMS receipts. In FY2009, royalties

from natural gas and oil leases contributed 29% and 41% respectively of total MMS receipts. Other

sources of MMS receipts include bonus bids and rents for all leasable minerals and royalties from

coal and other minerals.

Budget and Appropriations

The FY2010 appropriation for MMS was $348.2 million (gross funding level), slightly higher than

the $347.4 million requested by the Administration. However, the FY2010 appropriation was

significantly higher than the FY2009 funding level of $310.4 million, primarily because of a new

subactivity for renewable energy programs for FY2010. The FY2010 funding level was composed

of: $136.5 in appropriations (net funding level); $45.0 million in cost sharing deductions; and

$166.7 million in offsetting collections (which the MMS has been retaining since 1994). The

offsetting collections included $10.0 million in new inspection fees. See Table 8.

The new subactivity on renewable energy programs had been proposed by the Administration at

$21.4 million, and was supported by both the House and the Senate. The MMS already has created a

new Office of Offshore Alternative Energy Programs to develop and implement its offshore

renewable energy policies and comply with departmental goals. MMS expects to initiate its offshore

renewable energy leasing program in the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic states in FY2010.

The FY2010 Interior appropriations law reflected new inspection fees that the Administration had

proposed. The Administration also had sought to impose an excise tax on certain OCS production

(related to those leases without price threshold levels), impose fees on non-producing leases (as a

disincentive to hold those leases with no prospect for development), repeal the royalty relief

provisions,29 and review the royalty rate structure with the intention of making rate reforms and

adjustments. These additional fees and royalty-related provisions were not contained in the law.

For more information on MMS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

For details on the regulations, see the MMS website at http://www.mms.gov.

Sections 344 and 345 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table 8. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service (MMS), FY2009-FY2010

($ in millions)

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2010

Request

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2010

Approp.

—OCS Lands (OEMM)

166.2

196.0

196.9

—Royalty Management (MRM)

86.7

89.4

—General Administration

51.2

55.7

Gross, Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management

304.1

341.0

341.9

—Use of Receipts and Cost Recovery Fees

-146.7

-156.7

-10.0

157.4

174.3

175.2

6.3

-47.0

-49.0

-45.0

116.7

180.6

131.6

136.5

Minerals Management Service

Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management

—Inspection Fees

Subtotal, Royalty and Offshore Minerals

Management Appropriations

Oil Spill Research

Administrative Provisions

—State Royalty Administrative Cost Deduction

Total Appropriations

Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore

Issues not directly tied to specific funding accounts remain controversial and were debated during

consideration of the FY2010 Interior appropriations bill.30 Oil and gas development moratoria in the

OCS along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, parts of Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico had been in

place since 1982, as a result of public laws and executive orders of the President. On July 14, 2008,

President Bush lifted the executive moratoria, which included MMS Planning areas along the

Atlantic and Pacific coasts. On September 30, 2008, moratoria provisions in annual appropriations

laws expired, allowing these areas to potentially open for oil and gas leasing activity.

Whether to lift the remaining moratorium in the eastern Gulf of Mexico under the Gulf of Mexico

Energy Security Act (in P.L. 109-432) is controversial. This moratorium placed nearly all of the

eastern Gulf under a leasing moratorium until 2022. The law also contained revenue sharing

provisions for selected coastal states. Congressional proposals to lift the moratorium are supported

in some quarters as an attempt to increase domestic oil and gas supply. Others favor continuing the

moratorium due to concerns about adverse economic and environmental impacts of development.

Those in favor of the moratorium maintain that there already are several thousand leases in the

central and western parts of the Gulf of Mexico that are unexplored or in development and could

potentially yield significant oil and natural gas.

Issues related to the MMS five-year leasing program also were debated. The current MMS five-year

leasing program is in effect,31 despite the April 17, 2009, order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

The issues discussed in this section also are being addressed by Congress outside the appropriations process, for

instance through legislation and hearings.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, News Release, July 29, 2009, on the DOI website at http://www.doi.gov/news/

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

D.C. Circuit to vacate and remand the 2007-2012 program. However, after clarification from the

court, the decision would affect only the Alaska lease sales in the five-year program. In response to

the court order, the Department of the Interior is in the process of conducting a more thorough

environmental analysis of certain areas of the OCS. In addition, the Bush Administration had

initiated a new leasing program in August 2008. Its draft program proposal published in January

2009, if finalized, would take effect in 2010. The Obama Administration, however, extended the

comment period from its typical 60 days to 240 days. The extended comment period closed on

September 21, 2009. Because of the uncertainty over resource assessments and environmental

concerns, the Secretary of the Interior announced that the Department will continue to examine

more closely the current information on the OCS. In April 2009, the Administration published a

report on OCS resources that identified resource data gaps.32 Also, the conferees on the FY2010

Interior appropriations bill directed the MMS to complete a programmatic environmental impact

statement (PEIS) for the Atlantic OCS and provide a timeline for completion no later than 90 days

after enactment of the bill.33

Royalty relief for OCS oil and gas producers has been debated during consideration of Interior

appropriations bills.34 The MMS has not been collecting royalties on leases awarded in 1998 and

1999 because price thresholds were inadvertently excluded from the lease agreements during those

two years, according to a report issued by DOI’s Inspector General.35 Without the price thresholds,

producers may produce oil and gas up to specified volumes without paying royalties no matter what

the price. The MMS asserts that placing price thresholds in the lease agreements is at the discretion

of the Secretary of the Interior.

In addition, the authority of the Secretary to impose price thresholds has come into question in a

lawsuit filed by Kerr-McGee.36 On January 12, 2009, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit

Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a District Court decision in favor of Kerr-McGee, meaning

that the Secretary of the Interior did not have authority to impose price threshold levels in leases

issued under the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA, 1996-2000).37 On July 13, 2009, the

Administration petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the U.S. Court of

Appeals. On October 5, 2009, the Supreme Court rejected the Administration’s appeal. The ruling of

the U.S. Court of Appeals could potentially apply to $23-$31 billion in future OCS royalties

according to the MMS, but may not affect congressional efforts to impose new fees or establish new

lease eligibility criteria.38 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates the range of

(...continued)

09_News_Releases/072909.html.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Report to the Secretary, Survey of Available Data on OCS Resources and Identification

of Data Gaps, OCS Report MMS 2009-015, April 2009, available at http://www.doi.gov/ocs/report.pdf.

H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 98.

For more details on the royalty relief program, see CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil

and Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, by (name redacted) and CRS Report RS22567, Royalty Relief for U.S. Deepwater

Oil and Gas Leases, by (name redacted).

The report is on the DOI website at http://www.doioig.gov/upload/MMS%20ROI%20REDACTED.pdf.

Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. v. Allred. For more details on this case, see CRS Report RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas

Development: Legal Framework, by (name redacted). Also, Kerr-McGee has been acquired by Anadarko Petroleum.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

See CRS Report RL33974, Legal Issues Raised by Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R. 6) Creating Incentives for

Certain OCS Leaseholders to Accept Price Thresholds, by (name redacted) and (name redacted); and CRS Congressional

Distribution Memorandum, Impact of the Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp. v. Allred Ruling on the Proposed Royalty Relief

for America Consumers Act of 2007, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

royalty revenue loss to the Treasury at $21-$53 billion over 25 years. The ranges of MMS and GAO

estimated losses are based on assumptions including future prices and production rates.

Another challenge confronting the MMS is to ensure that its audit and compliance program is

consistently effective. Critics contend that less auditing and more focus on compliance review has

led to a less rigorous royalty collection system and thus a loss of revenue to the federal Treasury.

DOI’s Inspector General has made recommendations to strengthen and improve administrative

controls of the Compliance and Asset Management Program, including to adopt a risk-based

compliance approach. According to the MMS, its FY2010 budget request reflected the agency’s

commitment to this approach.

Further, DOI established an independent panel (the Royalty Policy Committee, or RPC) to review

the MMS Mineral Leasing Program. The RPC offered over 100 recommendations to the MMS for

improving its leasing program and auditing function. The review included an examination of the

Royalty-in-Kind (RIK) Program, which grew significantly from 41.5 million barrels of oil

equivalent (BOE) sold in 2004 to 112 million BOE sold in 2007.39 GAO issued a report on

September 26, 2008, concluding that the RIK Program could be improved.40 After review of the

RIK program, the Secretary of the Interior announced its “phased-in termination.”41

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement42

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87; 30 U.S.C. § 1201

note) established the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) to ensure that

land mined for coal would be returned to a condition capable of supporting its pre-mining land use.

However, coal mining is an old activity in the United States, and at the time SMCRA was enacted

there was a large inventory of abandoned mine sites that no company could be held accountable to

reclaim. To address this problem, SMCRA established an Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund,43

with fees levied on coal production, to reclaim abandoned sites that posed serious health or safety

hazards.

Monies accrue to the AML fund based on fees assessed on coal production. Through FY2007,

disbursements from the AML fund to states and tribes, to reclaim abandoned sites, were determined

strictly by annual appropriations. However, beginning with FY2008, under P.L. 109-432, funding

for state and tribal grants has been provided by both annual appropriations from the AML fund, and

mandatory appropriations from general U.S. Treasury funds.44 Other activities exclusively receive

annual appropriations. Among these are the expenses of federal AML programs in states with no

The report of the panel, Mineral Revenue Collection from Federal and Indian Lands and the Outer Continental Shelf, is

available on the MMS website at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/RoyPC/PdFDocs/RPCRMS1207.pdf.

The report is available at U.S. Government Accountability Office, Oil and Gas Royalties: MMS’s Oversight of Its

Royalty-in-Kind Program Can Be Improved through Additional Use of Production Verification Data and Enhanced

Reporting of Financial Benefits and Costs, GAO-08-942R, September 26, 2008.

A news release announcing the termination of the program is on the DOI website at http://www.doi.gov/news/

09_News_Releases/091609.html.

For more information on OSM funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

Hereafter this fund is referred to as the AML fund.

The mandatory appropriation has a ceiling of $490 million annually. If demands on that money would exceed the cap,

distributions will be proportional.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

OSM-approved reclamation programs, an emergency reclamation program, OSM administrative

expenses, and the Clean Streams program.

The addition of mandatory appropriations addressed the contention of western states that they were

shouldering a disproportionate share of the reclamation expense because production had moved

westward, but the great majority of the sites requiring remediation are in the East. Fee collections

exceeded appropriations for a number of years. The total unappropriated balance—including

allocations to federal and state share accounts that make up the total balance in the AML fund—was

over $2.2 billion at the end of November 2008.45 Western states pressed for increases in the AML

appropriations to return to them more of the unappropriated balances allocated to their state share

accounts. Under the restructuring of the program established in P.L. 109-432, the unappropriated

balance of AML collections that had been allocated to state- and tribal-share accounts is being

returned in seven annual installments from general Treasury funds to those states and tribes that had

completed remediation of the highest priority sites. These states and tribes, referred to as “certified,”

also have been receiving those grants to which they are entitled, under a formula, from prior year

collections.

However, in its FY2010 budget proposal, the Administration expressed its intention to seek an end

to these payments to certified states and tribes, asserting that because these funds can be used for

any purpose, these distributions are inconsistent with the intent of the AML program. As these

payments are made from the mandatory appropriations, the Administration’s proposal will require a

change in law, which is strongly opposed by the states and tribes that would be affected. Legislation

to do so has not been introduced.

The House approved the Administration’s request for a total of $159.4 million for OSM in FY2010,

while the Senate approved total OSM funding of $166.9 million. The enacted bill set total funding

for FY2010 at $162.9 million, between the House and Senate levels.

The House and Senate had agreed to the Administration’s proposal of $127.3 million for Regulation

and Technology, a $7.0 million increase over FY2009 appropriations. Most of the increase for

Regulation and Technology was sought for state and tribal regulatory programs. The FY2010

Interior appropriations law included $127.3 million for Regulation and Technology.

The House-passed bill set spending from the AML fund at $32.1 million, agreeing with an

Administration proposal to end the program supporting federal emergency projects, and the

provision of emergency grants to states and tribes. The Administration expected that funds from the

mandatory appropriations would fully cover the expense of these programs.46 The Senate disagreed

with the elimination of funding for federal and state emergency grants, and approved $39.6 million

from the AML fund. This was $7.5 million over the Administration’s request and House-passed

level of $32.1 million. The FY2010 Interior appropriations law set spending from the AML fund at

$35.6 million. This represented an increase of $3.5 million over the Administration’s request and a

decrease of $8.9 million from the FY2009 enacted level (net of an $8.5 million rescission in

FY2009). Neither the FY2010 Interior appropriations law nor the accompanying conference report

specified whether funding was included for federal and state emergency grants.47 See Table 9.

See http://www.osm.gov/topic/grants/docs/2009/09pageA1.pdf.

Mandatory appropriations in FY2010 are projected at $398.3 million, a reduction of $23.9 million from the projected

level of $422.1 million in FY2009.

Inquiries to OSM about the status of these grants in the FY2010 Interior appropriations law received no response.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table 9. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, FY2009-FY2010

($ in millions)

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2010

Request

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2010

Approp.

120.3

127.3

—Environmental Protection

88.4

94.8

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund

52.9

32.1

39.6

35.6

-8.5

164.7

159.4

166.9

162.9

Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement

Regulation and Technology

—Rescission

Total Appropriations

Bureau of Indian Affairs48

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally recognized American

Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and historically has been the lead agency in

federal dealings with tribes. Programs provided or funded through the BIA include government

operations, courts, law enforcement, fire protection, social programs, roads, economic development,

employment assistance, housing repair, irrigation, dams, Indian rights protection, implementation of

land and water settlements, and management of trust assets (real estate and natural resources).

Education programs are now provided by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), a sister agency to

BIA.49 The BIE appropriations remain within DOI’s Indian Affairs appropriations.

For FY2010, the Interior appropriations law contained $2.62 billion for BIA and BIE, an increase of

$26.6 million (1%) over the Senate-passed amount, $60.9 million (2%) over the House, $82.2

million (3%) over the Administration’s proposal, and $243.4 million (10%) over the FY2009

omnibus appropriations.

The FY2009 stimulus law added $500.0 million in appropriations for the BIA, yielding total

FY2009 appropriations of $2.88 billion. The stimulus law targeted $450.0 million toward BIA

“priority critical” construction programs, specifically for road repair and restoration, construction of

BIE replacement schools, and maintenance and repair of BIE schools and BIA detention centers,

according to the explanatory statement. Of the remaining $50.0 million, the stimulus law specified

$40.0 million for BIA’s workforce training and housing improvement programs and $10.0 million

for BIA’s guaranteed loan program.50

Table 10, below, presents funding figures for FY2009 and FY2010. Key programs for BIA include

law enforcement, Indian land consolidation, and the Interior Department’s process for

acknowledging Indian tribes. BIE’s key programs include education improvement, forward funding

for tribal colleges, and education construction.

For more information on BIA funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

In August 2006, the BIA’s administrative office for its education programs was removed from the BIA, made a parallel

agency under DOI’s Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, and renamed the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).

On April 25, 2009, DOI released details on projects which will be funded with BIA stimulus monies. For further

information, see the BIA stimulus page at http://recovery.doi.gov/press/bureaus/bureau-of-indian-affairs/.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table 10. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),

including Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), FY2009-FY2010

($ in thousands)

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2009

Stimulusa

FY2009

Total

FY2010

Request

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2010

Approp.

Operation of Indian

Programs

2,128,630

38,000e

2,166,630

2,278,809

2,300,099

2,309,322

2,335,965

Tribal Government

402,531

416,572

422,862

418,572

429,778

Indian Affairs

—Self-Governance Compacts

144,397

147,762

—Johnson-O’Malley Grantsb

7,565

7,836

—Welfare Assistancec

5,000

5,087

—Contract Support Costs

147,294

152,794

159,084

154,794

166,000

137,448

19,000

156,448

136,996

138,059

136,996

—Welfare Assistancec

74,915

—Housing Improvement

Program

13,614

19,000

32,614

12,620

13,683

12,620

Trust - Natural Resources

Management

147,710

160,768

174,768

161,618

175,618

Trust - Real Estate Services

150,087

152,493

Public Safety and Justice

270,785

303,855

328,855

—Law Enforcement

255,077

283,152

303,152

—Crim. Investigations &

Police Services

163,148

175,053

185,053

—Detention/Corrections

64,648

70,433

75,433

—Tribal Justice Support

1,462

5,697

14,508

19,704

24,704

Community and Economic

Development

43,589

19,000

62,589

43,910

44,910

43,910

44,910

—Road Maintenanced

26,046d

26,490

—Construction workforce onthe-job training in maintenance

13,300

—Workforce training

5,700

Executive Direction and

Administrative Services

260,327

267,915

—Office of Federal

Acknowledgment

2,624

2,682

Bureau of Indian Education

716,153

796,300

797,900

799,400

—Elementary/Secondary

(Forward-Funded)

499,470

516,702

518,702

516,702

518,702

—ISEP Formula Funds

375,000

391,699

—Elementary/Secondary: Other

75,126

77,379

Human Services

—Tribal Courts

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

FY2010

Request

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2010

Approp.

13,797

13,589

50,000

115,272

125,691

123,691

127,291

126,791

—Tribal Colleges and

Universities (incl.

Supplements)

60,593

65,609

63,609

65,609

—Tribal Technical Colleges

6,000

6,069

6,669

26,285

26,528

Construction

217,688

427,500e

645,188

200,000

225,000

Education Construction

128,837

277,700

406,537

112,994

—Replacement School

Construction

22,405

134,600

157,005

5,964

—Replacement Facility

Construction

17,013

—Education Facilities

Improvement and Repair

84,974

143,100

228,074

85,566

Public Safety and Justice

Construction

39,399

7,300

46,699

39,407

64,407

—Facilities Replacement/

New Construction

21,500

41,500

—Law Enforcement Facilities

Improvement and Repair

10,941

7,300

18,241

10,947

30,947

10,947

40,306

38,385

—d

142,500d

Land and Water Claim

Settlements and

Miscellaneous Payments

21,627

47,380

Indian Guaranteed Loan

Program

8,186

9,500e

17,686

8,215

Administrative Costs for

Stimuluse

25,000

Indian Land Consolidation

Programf

3,000

2,376,131

500,000

2,876,131

2,537,404

2,558,694

2,592,917

2,619,560

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2009

Stimulusa

13,797

—Post Secondary Programs

(Forward-Funded)

—Post Secondary Programs

Indian Affairs

—Johnson-O’Malley Grantsb

—Education Management

Resources Management

Construction

Road Maintenanced

Total Appropriations

FY2009

Total

BIA created new categories of funding for stimulus expenditures, which are similar to, but not included in,

regular budget activities and classifications (BIA, telephone conversation, April 28, 2009). For purposes of

comparison, CRS has included stimulus funding in this table’s usual budget items, where possible.

The Johnson O’Malley program is split between two budget activities: Tribal Government and Bureau of Indian

Education.

Welfare Assistance is split between two budget activities: Tribal Government and Human Services.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The FY2009 stimulus law specified $40.0 million for Operation of Indian Programs (OIP) and $450.0 million for

Construction, but directed an unspecified amount of Construction funding to go to Road Maintenance, which

is an OIP program. BIA allocated $142.5 million in stimulus funding to Road Maintenance, which is reflected

here under Construction. Total FY2009 Road Maintenance funding under both OIP and Construction was

$168.5 million.

DOI allocated 5% of BIA’s total stimulus funding for administrative costs associated with control and

transparency of stimulus spending, the maximum allowed under the conference report (H.Rept. 111-16, p.

447). For each of the three BIA budget activities whose amounts were specified in the stimulus act, the

stimulus total in the table was reduced by 5% for its share of stimulus administrative costs.

Indian Land Consolidation has been a program in the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians.

Law Enforcement and Courts Program

BIA and Justice Department figures show rising crime rates, methamphetamine use, and juvenile

gang activity on some Indian reservations. The federal government has lead jurisdiction over major

criminal offenses on most Indian reservations, although in some states federal law has transferred

criminal jurisdiction to the state. Tribes share jurisdiction, although under federal law tribal courts

have limited sentencing options. BIA funds most law enforcement, jails, and courts in Indian

country, whether operated by tribes or by the BIA. Currently, BIA supports 191 law enforcement

agencies, 91 detention programs, and 288 court systems.

In general, tribes and BIA have fewer law enforcement resources than comparable state and local

jurisdictions. In policing, for instance, an independent 2006 analysis, adjusted by BIA for

geographic comparability, showed that many BIA and tribal law enforcement agencies had fewer

law officers per inhabitant than recommended by the Justice Department. 51 Currently only 60% of

BIA-funded law enforcement agencies have enough law enforcement officers to meet Justice’s

recommended ratio of 26 officers per 100,000 inhabitants.52 Further, detention and corrections

facilities funded by BIA have significant shortfalls in staffing, training, operating procedures,

reporting, and maintenance, according to a 2004 Interior Inspector General report.53

For BIA law enforcement, for FY2010 the appropriations law provided $303.2 million, the same as

the Senate-passed amount and an increase of $20.0 million (7%) over the amount proposed by the

Administration and passed by the House, and an increase of $48.1 million (19%) over the FY2009

omnibus appropriation. The $20.0 million increase was under the authorization of the Emergency

Fund for Indian Safety and Health54 and was directed chiefly to criminal investigations and police

services ($10.0 million increase above the House and Administration amount) and detention and

corrections ($5.0 million increase), but also included added funding for police training. The

Administration’s request had included increases over FY2009 for criminal investigations and police

services, chiefly to fund hiring more BIA and tribal law officers. Operation of detention and

corrections facilities would receive $70.4 million under the Administration request for FY2010, an

increase of $5.8 million (9%) over FY2009, for additional correctional officers, staffing of new

U.S. Department of the Interior, The Interior Budget In Brief: Fiscal Year 2010 (May 2009), p. DH-68; available at

http://www.doi.gov/budget/2010/10Hilites/2010_Highlights_Book.pdf.

Ibid.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Officer of Inspector General, “Neither Safe Nor Secure”: An Assessment of Indian

Detention Facilities, report no. 2004-I-0056, Sept. 2004; available at http://www.doioig.gov/upload/

IndianCountryDetentionFinal%20Report.pdf.

The fund was established by § 601 of the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against

HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-293, 25 U.S.C. § 443c).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

facilities, and development of armed transport officer teams. Congress appeared to agree with these

allocations.

For tribal courts, whose BIA appropriations are separate from law enforcement, the Interior

appropriations law contained $24.7 million, the same as the Senate and an increase of $5.0 million

(25%) over the amount passed by the House and proposed by the Administration, and an increase of

$10.2 million (70%) over FY2009. The increase was authorized under the Emergency Fund for

Indian Safety and Health. The Administration’s request had included increases over FY2009 for

development and implementation of corrective action plans to improve nine individual tribal courts.

In addition, under the Administration’s proposal, the Tribal Justice Support item, under BIA law

enforcement, would receive an additional $4.2 million (an increase of 290%), of which $3 million

would be for the development of corrective action plans for an additional 6 tribal courts. Congress

appeared to agree with these allocations.

Indian Land Consolidation Program

The purpose of the Indian land consolidation program is to reduce the fractionation of ownership of

individual Indian trust lands—and the consequent multiplication of individual Indian trust accounts

that the federal government must administer—by purchasing small ownership interests in individual

trust lands and transferring the interest to the relevant Indian tribe (or to a holder of a large interest

in the land).55 The land consolidation program was first funded in FY1999 in the Office of the

Special Trustee for American Indians (see “Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians”

below). The FY2009 omnibus appropriations law did not fund Indian land consolidation. See Table

10. For FY2010, Congress agreed with the Administration’s proposal to transfer the program to the

BIA, with an appropriation of $3.0 million. The Bush Administration had not sought funding for

FY2009, contending that the Indian land consolidation program had failed to reduce either the

fractionation of ownership or the costs of trust management.56 The Obama Administration had stated

that the FY2010 funding was for maintaining the program and developing alternative means of

reducing fractionation.

Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process

Federal recognition brings an Indian tribe unique benefits, including partial sovereignty,

jurisdictional powers, and eligibility for federal Indian programs. Tribes have been acknowledged in

many ways, but it was not until 1978 that the Interior Department established a regulatory process

for acknowledgment decisions (25 CFR 83).57 First located within BIA, the recognition office is

now in the office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs and is known as the Office of Federal

Acknowledgment (OFA). OFA employs teams of professional ethnohistorians, genealogists, and

anthropologists to consider recognition petitions. The OFA process has often been criticized for

Fractionation of Indian lands results most frequently from the death of a holder of an ownership interest and inheritance

of the interest by multiple heirs. The lands involved were allotted in trust to individual Indians, pursuant to various federal

laws or treaties (mostly under the General Allotment Act of 1887), and have stayed in trust. At inheritance, the ownership

interest, not the plot of allotted land, is subdivided (i.e., fractionated).

“Bush Administration Seeks Another Cut in BIA Budget,” Indianz.com (Feb. 5, 2008), available at

http://www.indianz.com/News/2008/006991.asp.

For further information on the BIA acknowledgment process, see CRS Report RS21109, The Bureau of Indian Affairs's

Process for Recognizing Groups as Indian Tribes, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

taking too long, one reason for which is a lack of resources.58 Tribes approaching Congress for

acknowledgment legislation often cite as one reason the length of time the OFA process takes.59 The

Administration’s FY2010 proposal for the Executive Direction and Administrative Services budget

activity, which funds the Assistant Secretary’s office and hence OFA, included $2.7 million for

OFA. This would be an increase of $58,000 (2%) over the FY2009 omnibus law, and would fund

the same number of OFA professional employees as FY2009. Congress agreed with the

Administration’s proposed amount for FY2010.

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs

BIE funds an elementary-secondary school system and higher education programs. The BIE school

system comprises 184 BIE-funded schools and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000 structures,

educating about 44,000 students in 23 states. At the beginning of school year 2008-2009, tribes and

tribal organizations, under grants for tribally controlled schools and self-determination contracts,

operated 124 of these institutions; BIE operated the remainder. BIE also operates two postsecondary

schools and provides grants to 26 tribally controlled colleges and two tribally controlled technical

colleges. Key problems for the BIE-funded elementary-secondary school system are low student

achievement and the high proportion of schools failing to make adequate yearly progress (AYP).

Key appropriations issues include increased formula funding to help meet AYP, forward funding for

tribal colleges, and the large number of inadequate school facilities.60

Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)

In school years 2003-2007, 68%-70% of BIE-funded schools failed to make AYP, according to BIE.

The chief source of BIE funding for school operations is the Indian School Equalization Program

(ISEP) formula grant program, within the elementary/secondary education (forward-funded) budget

activity. For FY2010, the Administration proposed $391.7 million in ISEP formula funding, an

increase of $16.7 million (4%) from FY2009 omnibus appropriations. The FY2010 increase would

be used for textbooks, classroom materials, equipment, and additional education specialists.

Congress approved the Administration’s proposal for ISEP. In addition, the House Appropriations

Committee required BIE to report on the fiscal impact of restoring to the BIE system those schools

removed from the system between 1951 and 1972.

Tribal Colleges Forward Funding

BIE administers operating grants authorized by the Tribally Controlled College or University

Assistance Act,61 which is the major DOI funding source for 26 tribally chartered and controlled

See U.S. General Accounting Office, Indian Issues: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recognition Process (GAO-02-49,

November 2001), and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Issues: Timeliness of the Tribal Recognition

Process Has Improved, But It Will Take Years to Clear the Existing Backlog of Petitions (GAO-05-347T, February 2005).

See, e.g., testimony of Chief Stephen R. Adkins, Chickahominy Indian Tribe, on H.R. 1385 (111th Cong.), before the

House Natural Resources Committee, March 18, 2009, p. 4, available at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/

Documents/20090318/testimony_adkins.pdf; and “Testimony of the Hon. John Sinclair, President, the Little Shell Tribe of

Chippewa Indians of Montana,” in U.S. Congress, Senate Indian Affairs Committee, S. 724, S. 514, S. 1058, and H.R.

1294, hearings, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 25, 2008, S.Hrg. 110-686 (Washington: GPO, 2009), pp. 17-18.

For more information on the BIE and current issues for Congress, see CRS Report RL34205, Federal Indian

Elementary-Secondary Education Programs: Background and Issues, by (name redacted).

P.L. 95-471, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1325, as amended; 25 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq., § 640c-1, § 640a note, and amending

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

two-year, four-year, and graduate institutions of higher education. According to BIE, tribal college

administrators have requested a change in funding distribution because the disjunction between

school years (July 1-June 30) and fiscal years (October 1-September 30) made planning difficult and

exacerbated financial insecurity. The Administration proposed to shift fiscal-year funding so as to

fund the school year that begins during the same fiscal year as the appropriation. To do so would

require a one-time advance appropriation for school year 2010-2011, in addition to the regular

funding for school year 2009-2010. The Administration requested $50.0 million for the one-time

appropriation to start forward funding for tribal colleges, and Congress agreed.

Education Construction

Many BIE school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety deficiencies. BIA

education construction covers replacement of all of a school’s facilities, or replacement of individual

facilities at schools, as well as improvement and repair of existing school facilities and repair of

education employee housing. School facilities are replaced or repaired according to priority lists.

For FY2010, the Interior appropriations law contained $113.0 million for BIA education

construction, the same as the Senate and House amounts and the Administration’s request, and a

decrease of $15.8 million (12%) from FY2009 omnibus appropriations. This decrease was contained

in the budget for replacement school construction, for which $6.0 million was appropriated for

FY2010, a reduction of $16.4 million (73%) from the FY2009 omnibus. The Administration had

asserted that the reduction allowed the agency to focus on stimulus-funded construction. Under the

stimulus law, BIA education construction received an additional $277.7 million, for a total of $406.5

million for education construction in FY2009. See Table 10. Of the stimulus-act funding,

replacement school construction received $134.6 million, for a total of $157.0 million for FY2009.

Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs62

Office of Insular Affairs 63

OIA provides financial assistance to four insular areas—American Samoa, the Commonwealth of

the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)—as well as three

freely associated states in the Western Pacific—the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Republic of Palau.64 OIA staff manage relations

between each jurisdiction and the federal government and work to build the fiscal and

administrative capacity of local governments. OIA aid can be particularly important to the insular

areas, which have experienced recent fiscal challenges.65 OIA funding also could support the

ongoing strengthening of U.S. military forces on Guam.66

(...continued)

§ 640c.

This section addresses selected activities/offices that fall under Departmental Offices or Department-Wide Programs.

Total funding for these entities is identified in Table 22 at the end of this report.

For more information on OIA funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

On behalf of the United Nations, the U.S. government formerly administered these areas as the Trust Territories of the

Pacific Islands (TTPI).

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2010, Office of Insular

Affairs, p. 1. Hereafter referred to as OIA Budget Justification.

Ibid. For additional discussion of the buildup, see CRS Report RS22570, Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments, by Shirley

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

OIA funding consists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite appropriations, and (2) funds

provided in the annual appropriations process (discretionary and current mandatory funds). The

latter comes from two accounts: Assistance to Territories (AT) and Compact of Free Association

(CFA). AT funding provides grants for the operation of the government of American Samoa,

infrastructure improvement projects on many of the insular area islands, and specified natural

resource initiatives. The CFA account provides federal assistance to the freely associated states

pursuant to compact agreements negotiated with the U.S. government. The AT and CFA accounts,

however, provide a relatively small portion of the office’s overall budget; permanent and indefinite

funds provide the bulk of U.S. financial assistance to U.S. insular areas, FSM, RMI, and Palau.

The total OIA request (including permanent and indefinite annual appropriations) for FY2010 was

$423.3 million. Of that amount, $336.9 million (80%) in permanent and indefinite funding is

required through statutes, as follows:

•

an estimated $207.9 million under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts

of Free Association; and

•

an estimated $129.0 million in fiscal assistance through payments to territories,

divided between the U.S. Virgin Islands for estimated rum excise and income tax

collections, and Guam for income tax collections.67

Discretionary and current mandatory funds in the AT and CFA accounts require annual

appropriations that constitute the remainder of the OIA budget. The FY2010 Interior appropriations

law provided $85.2 million in AT funding—1% more than the $84.0 million passed by the House

and 5% more than the $81.1 million passed by the Senate. Of the $85.2 million appropriated, $75.9

million was to be reserved for various types of technical assistance to territories (e.g., grants

supporting local governments and infrastructure projects), and $9.3 million is to be reserved for OIA

salaries and expenses. The law also provided $5.3 million in CFA funds—the same amount

requested and supported throughout the FY2010 appropriations process. The CFA appropriation

provides funding for certain federal services, such as U.S. mail.68 In total, the FY2010 law

appropriated $90.5 million in discretionary and current mandatory funds to OIA (AT and CFA

accounts combined). This was a $6.5 million (8%) increase over the FY2009 level of $84.0 million.

As is typical with OIA appropriations, the law provides that funding may be audited by the

Government Accountability Office (GAO). Also, an “administrative provision” in the law would

permit the Secretary of the Interior, at the request of the Governor of Guam, to transfer certain funds

to the Secretary of Agriculture for rural development projects on the island.69 While this provision

did not appear in the House-passed bill, the Senate-passed bill had included similar language.

(...continued)

A. Kan and (name redacted); and CRS Report R40731, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies:

FY2010 Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted).

The figures in this section appear in the OIA Budget Justification, p. 2.

For additional information about the CFA account, see, for example, the OIA Budget Justification, p. 79.

For background on the USDA’s rural development program, see CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural

Development Programs, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians70

The Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST), in the Secretary of the Interior’s

office, was authorized by Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of

1994.71 The OST generally oversees the reform of Interior Department management of Indian trust

assets, establishment of an adequate trust fund management system, and support of department

claims settlement activities related to the trust funds. OST also manages Indian funds directly,

including operating the software systems and managing and archiving trust records (paper and

electronic).72

Indian trust funds managed by OST comprise (1) tribal funds owned by over 250 tribes in

approximately 2,700 accounts, with a total asset value over $3.0 billion; and (2) individual Indians’

funds, known as Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about 380,000 accounts with a current

total asset value over $440 million.73 The funds include monies received from claims awards, land

or water rights settlements, and other one-time payments, and from income from land-based trust

assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as from investment income.

The Administration proposed $186.0 million for FY2010 for OST, an increase of $4.3 million (2%)

over FY2009 omnibus appropriations. The FY2010 Interior appropriations law included this level.

See Table 11. Key issues for OST include balancing historical accounting expenditures for tribal

and IIM accounts, and the possible effects of litigation involving IIM and tribal accounts (which

may lead to significant awards against the United States). The transfer of the Indian land

consolidation program from OST to BIA is discussed under “Bureau of Indian Affairs,” above.

Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST),

FY2009-FY2010

($ in thousands)

Office of Special Trustee

for American Indians

Federal Trust Programs

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Request

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2010

Approp.

181,648

185,984

56,445

56,536

—IIM Accounts

40,000

31,536

n/a

—Tribal Accounts

16,445

25,000

n/a

─

181,648

185,984

—Historical Accounting Office

Indian Land Consolidationa

Total Appropriations

FY2009

Omnibus

Program transferred to BIA for FY2010 (see above).

For more information on OST funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

P.L. 103-412, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4239; 25 U.S.C. §§ 4001 et seq.

The OST has nearly completed indexing and digitizing the backlog of historical trust records, and in FY2009 the agency

reduced these operations to handle the remaining backlog and ongoing trust records.

Figures were taken from: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year

2010, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. Hereafter, this document is cited as OST FY2010 Budget

Justification.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Historical Accounting

The historical accounting effort seeks to assign correct balances to all tribal and IIM accounts.

Historical accounting activities are carried out through the Office of Historical Trust Accounting,

which was transferred from the Interior Secretary’s office to OST in July 2007. Appropriations for

historical accounting usually have been made through OST. For FY2010, the Administration

proposed limiting historical accounting to no more than $56.5 million, an increase of $91,000

(0.2%) from the FY2009 omnibus appropriation. Of the total, the Administration proposed reducing

funds for IIM historical accounting to $31.5 million, a decrease of $8.5 million (21%) from

FY2009, while increasing funds for tribal historical accounting to $25.0 million, an increase of $8.6

million (52%) over FY2009. Enacted FY2010 appropriations provided for no more than $56.5

million for historical accounting, as requested by the Administration.

IIM and tribal historical accounting are both linked to litigation against the United States by IIM

account holders and by Indian tribes (see “Litigation,” below). Early expenditures for historical

accounting were almost entirely for IIM litigation, but in recent years an increase in tribal litigation

has led to a shift in expenditures to tribal historical accounting.

IIM historical accounting proved expensive and time-consuming, because of the large number of

IIM accounts, the long historical period to be covered (some accounts date well back into the 19th

century), and a large number of missing account documents. OST’s IIM historical accounting is

based on a plan developed in 2003 and last revised in 2007. OST estimated in 2008 that its IIM plan

would cost a total of $271 million and would be completed in FY2011 if funded at $40 million per

year.74

IIM historical accounting is subject not only to executive and congressional actions but also to court

rulings in the IIM suit, Cobell v. Salazar (see “Litigation”), where plaintiffs strongly disagreed with

OST’s plan. In January 2008, the district court in the Cobell suit rejected OST’s IIM historical

accounting plan, finding that a historical accounting was impossible given insufficient congressional

appropriations. The district court, however, ordered neither a new or revised IIM historical

accounting process, nor a cessation of IIM historical accounting. On appeal, the appeals court in

July 2009 reversed the finding that a historical accounting was impossible, and instead ordered the

district judge “to enforce the best accounting that Interior can provide, with the resources it receives,

or expects to receive, from Congress.”75 Following the appeals court decision, the district court did

not issue an order to OST regarding its IIM historical accounting activities; OST continues its IIM

historical accounting.

A settlement of the IIM suit was announced (see “Litigation,” below). If the settlement is approved

by Congress and the court, OST may change its allocation of historical accounting appropriations

between IIM and tribal historical accounting.

Tribal historical accounting activities are based on numerous tribal suits, many filed at the end of

2006 in fear of an impending statute of limitations deadline. According to OST, currently 94 tribal

trust fund and accounting suits have been filed by 116 tribes.76 Each suit may require not only

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of the Special

Trustee for American Indians, p. OST-81 – OST-83.

Cobell v. Salazar, No. 08-5500, consolidated with 08-5506, slip op. at 7 (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2009), available on the web

at http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200907/08-5500-1197936.pdf.

OST FY2010 Budget Justification, p. OST-79.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

historical accounting but also data provision, accounting analysis, and other litigation support,

separate from other suits.

Litigation

The IIM trust funds case, Cobell v. Salazar, is a class-action lawsuit filed against the federal

government in 1996 by IIM account holders in the Federal District Court for the District of

Columbia.77 A settlement in the Cobell suit was announced by the plaintiffs and the federal

government on December 8, 2009.78 Under this settlement, the United States will pay a total of $3.4

billion from the Treasury Department’s “Judgment Fund”79 as compensation for the IIM historical

accounting claim (and for potential trust asset mismanagement claims). Of this total, $1.4 billion is

to be distributed to plaintiffs under a formula in the settlement agreement. The remaining $2.0

billion will be placed in a fund for the purchase of fractionated land interests from IIM accountholders, on a voluntary basis, in order to consolidate the interests and transfer them to tribes under

the Indian Land Consolidation Act (P.L. 97-459, as amended). Under the settlement agreement, both

Congress and the district court must approve the settlement.80

Estimates of the total owed by the United States for the Cobell case had varied. DOI had estimated

the total owed to be in the low millions of dollars. The Cobell plaintiffs (using different methods)

had made varying estimates of the total owed; the highest estimate was $176 billion81 and the most

recent estimate was $48 billion.82 Settlement proposals had similarly varied. In 2005 the Cobell

plaintiffs had proposed $27.5 billion as a settlement amount, and in the 109th Congress Members of

Congress had proposed $8 billion. On August 7, 2008, the district court ruled that the United States

owed $455.6 million in restitution to the IIM plaintiffs. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants

appealed the award. The appeals court vacated the award in July 2009, ruling that the IIM historical

accounting should proceed before an award could be made and distributed. As noted, the amount in

the new settlement agreement is $3.4 billion.

Many OST activities are related to the IIM case, including litigation support activities in Cobell. The

most significant issues for appropriations, other than historical accounting, had concerned the

amount the federal government might need to pay to settle the litigation and bring IIM accounts to

their proper balances, and whether such payment would jeopardize spending on other Indian

programs. The use of the Judgment Fund to settle the Cobell case, instead of OST or BIA

Cobell v. Salazar (Civil No. 96-1285) (D.D.C.). For more information on the litigation, see CRS Report RL34628, The

Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v. Salazar, by Yule Kim. Additional information is available on the

websites of the plaintiffs at http://www.indiantrust.com, of the DOI at http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust/, and of the Justice

Department at http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/cobell/index.htm. Note that the name of the defendant changes to match

the current Secretary of the Interior.

U.S. Department of the Interior, “Secretary Salazar, Attorney General Holder Announce Settlement of Cobell Lawsuit

on Indian Trust Management,” press release, December 8, 2009, http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/

120809a.html.

The Judgment Fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation from the Treasury for paying judgments against, and

settlements by, the U.S. government. (See 31 U.S.C. § 1304.)

For relevant documents, including the text of the settlement agreement, see http://www.cobellsettlement.com/.

Testimony of Eloise Cobell, in U.S. Congress, House Resources Committee, H.R. 4322, the Indian Trust Reform Act of

2005, hearing, 109th Congress, 1st session, Dec. 8, 2005, Serial No. 109-38 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 39.

Noelle Straub, “Cobell, Indian Plaintiffs Request ‘Rough Justice',” E&E News PM, May 11, 2009,

http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2009/05/11/6/.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

appropriations, would relieve this concern, as long as there is no requirement that the Judgment

Fund be reimbursed.

The Cobell settlement does not settle the numerous tribal trust fund and accounting suits, which

may involve much larger potential costs of settlements. Cumulatively, tribal claims may total far

more than the IIM claim, since the value of tribal accounts (currently $3 billion) has always been

larger than the value of IIM accounts (currently $440 million). Hence the potential costs of tribal

settlements may be far larger than the cost of the Cobell settlement.

Title II: Environmental Protection Agency83

The EPA’s primary responsibilities include the regulation of air quality, water quality, pesticides,

and toxic substances; the regulation of the management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes;

and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also distributes grants to assist states and

local governments in complying with federal requirements to control pollution.84

For FY2010, the Interior appropriations law provided $10.29 billion for EPA, an increase above the

$10.16 billion proposed by the Senate but less than the $10.46 billion proposed by the House and

the $10.49 billion included in the President’s FY2010 budget request. The FY2010 appropriation

was 35% above the FY2009 omnibus appropriations of $7.64 billion for EPA. Including the

additional $7.22 billion in FY2009 stimulus appropriations, Congress appropriated a total of $14.86

billion for EPA in FY2009.85 Table 12 presents funding levels proposed and enacted for FY2010

compared to appropriations enacted in FY2009 for the eight statutory accounts that fund EPA.

Key Funding Issues

Much of the attention focused on federal assistance for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure

projects, environmental cleanup, and climate change research and related activities. There was also

interest in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a new initiative that expands EPA’s and other

agencies’ existing efforts to restore this ecosystem. This section provides a discussion of selected

EPA funding issues that received more prominent attention in the FY2010 appropriations debate.

Certain EPA regulatory actions also received attention. For example, one provision of the Interior

appropriations law 86 prohibited EPA from using funds to issue a final rule that would include fuel

sulfur standards applicable to existing steamships that operate exclusively within the Great Lakes

and their connecting and tributary waters. This provision impacts proposed EPA regulations of ship

and port emissions under the Clean Air Act.87

For more information on EPA funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

For a comprehensive overview of laws administered by EPA, including discussion of the basic authorities underlying

EPA programs, see CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes Administered by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

EPA must obligate the FY2009 stimulus funds by the end of FY2010 whereas appropriations for EPA are usually

available until expended by the agency; for the status of stimulus funds, see http://www.epa.gov/recovery.

§ 442 of Title IV of P.L. 111-88.

For information regarding pollution from ships and port facilities, and measures being implemented and considered by

local, state, and federal regulatory agencies, see CRS Report RL34548, Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from

Ships, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Table 12. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, FY2009- FY2010

($ in millions)

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2009

Stimulus

FY2009

Total

FY2010

Request

FY2010

House

Passed

FY2010

Senate

Passed

FY2010

Approp.

—Base Appropriations

790.1

0.0

790.1

842.3

849.6

842.8

846.1

—Transfer in from Superfund

26.4

0.0

26.4

26.8

Science and Technology Total

816.5

0.0

816.5

869.2

876.5

869.6

872.9

2,392.1

0.0

2,392.1

2,940.6

3,022.1

2,878.8

2,993.8

—Base Appropriations

44.8

20.0

64.8

44.8

—Transfer in from Superfund

10.0

0.0

10.0

Office of Inspector General Total

54.8

20.0

74.8

54.8

Buildings & Facilities

35.0

0.0

35.0

37.0

33.0

35.0

37.0

1,285.0

600.0

1,885.0

1,308.5

1,306.5

1,308.5

1,306.5

—Transfer out to Office of Inspector General

10.0

0.0

10.0

—Transfer out to Science and Technology

26.4

0.0

26.4

26.8

1,248.6

600.0

1,848.6

1,271.7

1,269.7

1,271.7

1,269.7

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust

Fund Program

112.6

200.0

312.6

113.1

114.2

113.1

Oil Spill Response

17.7

0.0

17.7

18.4

—Clean Water State Revolving Fund

689.1

4,000.0

4,689.1

2,400.0

2,307.0

2,100.0

—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

829.0

2,000.0

2,829.0

1,500.0

1,443.0

1,387.0

—Special Project Grants

145.0

0.0

145.0

0.0

160.0

150.0

156.8

—Categorical Grants

1,094.9

0.0

1,094.9

1,111.3

1,115.4

1,111.3

1,116.4

—Brownfields Section 104(k) Grants

97.0

100.0

197.0

100.0

101.0

100.0

—Diesel Emission Reduction Grants

60.0

300.0

360.0

60.0

—Other State and Tribal Assistance Grants

53.5

0.0

53.5

20.0

30.0

45.0

50.0

State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total

2,968.5

6,400.0

9,368.5

5,191.3

5,215.4

4,954.3

4,970.2

-10.0

0.0

-10.0

-142.0

-40.0

7,635.7

7,220.0

14,855.7 10,486.0

10,461.0

10,156.7

10,289.9

EPA Accounts

Science and Technology

Environmental Programs and Management

Office of Inspector General

Hazardous Substance Superfund

(before transfers)

Hazardous Substance Superfund

(after transfers)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Rescissions (various EPA accounts)a

Total EPA Accounts

The rescissions are from unobligated balances from funds appropriated in prior years, and made available for

expenditure in a later year. In effect, these “rescissions” increase the availability of funds for expenditure by the agency in

the years in which they are applied (as shown in the table), functioning as an offset to new appropriations.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure

The largest FY2010 funding increases for EPA above the FY2009 omnibus appropriations were for

capitalization grants for the Clean Water and the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs)

within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account.88 SRF funding is used for local

wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, such as construction of and modifications to

municipal sewage treatment plants and drinking water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with

Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act requirements, respectively.

The FY2010 Interior appropriations law provided $2.10 billion for the Clean Water SRF

capitalization grants and $1.39 billion for the Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants. As

indicated in Table 12, these FY2010 appropriations were the same as proposed by the Senate but

were below the amounts proposed by the House and the President. The FY2010 Clean Water SRF

appropriation was more than three times the level provided in the FY2009 omnibus appropriations,

and the appropriation for Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants was 67% above the FY2009

omnibus appropriation. The stimulus law provided substantial additional funding in FY2009 for the

SRF grants, with $4.00 billion in supplemental funds for the Clean Water SRF grants and $2.00

billion in supplemental funds for the Drinking Water SRF grants.

EPA allocates annual appropriations for these capitalization grants among the states based on a

formula that is authorized in the Clean Water Act and on the needs surveys required by the Safe

Drinking Water Act.89 States must provide 20% matching funds in order to receive the federal funds.

States combine their matching funds with the federal monies to capitalize their SRFs, which they

use to issue low-interest or no-interest loans to finance local water infrastructure projects in

communities. The recipients must repay the loan to the issuing state. Monies that states collect from

the repayment of these loans are deposited back into the SRFs to provide capital for issuing new

loans. In this sense, the SRFs are intended to be “revolving” and eventually self-sustaining over the

long term.

The extent of federal assistance still needed to help states maintain sufficient capital in their SRFs to

finance projects has been an ongoing issue. Some advocates of a substantial federal funding role

have cited estimates of hundreds of billions of dollars in long-term needs among communities, and

the expansion of federal water quality requirements over time, as reasons for maintaining or

increasing the level of federal assistance.90 Others have called for more self-reliance in the water

sector.

The FY2010 Interior appropriations law required that, for FY2010, at least 20% of funds made

available to each state under the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs be used for “green

infrastructure,” water and energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative

projects. The law also required that states use, at a minimum, 30% of the funds made available for

SRF capitalization grants to provide additional subsidies in the form of principal forgiveness,

For a chronological discussion of congressional activity to fund wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects,

see CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by (name redacted).

EPA must allocate the Clean Water SRF grants among the states according to a formula specified in the Clean Water

Act itself, whereas the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes EPA to allocate the Drinking Water SRF grants among the

states based on the results of a quadrennial survey of each state’s drinking water infrastructure funding needs.

For more information on the sufficiency of federal funding for the SRFs, see CRS Report RL31116, Water

Infrastructure Needs and Investment: Review and Analysis of Key Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

negative interest loans, or grants to eligible recipients. Similar provisions were included in the

FY2009 stimulus law.91

Two administrative provisions in the FY2010 Interior appropriations law required that, for FY2010,

any construction project using assistance made available through the Clean Water and Drinking

Water revolving loan funds adhere to provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act. The Davis-Bacon Act

requires, among other provisions, that not less than the locally prevailing wage be paid to workers

employed, under contract, on federal construction work “to which the United States or the District

of Columbia is a party.” Compliance with, and the applicability of, Davis-Bacon to both programs

has been an ongoing contentious issue among Members of Congress.92

Although the SRF capitalization grants represent the bulk of EPA funding for water infrastructure,

Congress also has supported these needs through congressionally directed funding for “special

project grants” in the STAG account. The FY2010 Interior appropriations law included $156.8

million for 333 special project grants distributed across the United States and technical corrections

to prior year grants, as specified in the conference report.93 As identified in their respective reports,94

the House had proposed $160.0 million for 167 special project grants, and the Senate had proposed

$150.0 million for 164 special project grants. The FY2009 omnibus appropriations included $145.0

million for 301 special project grants.95 As in past years, the FY2010 Interior appropriations law

required recipients to provide 45% of a project’s cost in matching funds, while authorizing EPA to

make some exceptions in cases of financial hardship. The President’s FY2010 budget did not

include funding for these special projects, which is consistent with past administrations’ budget

requests. Administrations have viewed these projects solely to be the priorities of Congress.

Superfund

The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) account supports the assessment and cleanup of

contaminated sites administered under EPA’s Superfund program established under the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).96

Most of the program’s funding is allocated to sites that EPA has placed on the National Priorities

List (NPL) of the most hazardous sites in the United States.97 The adequacy of funding to clean up

the nation’s most hazardous waste sites has been a long-standing issue.

For a discussion of the green infrastructure and loan forgiveness provisions included in the FY2009 stimulus law, see

CRS Report R40216, Water Infrastructure Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by (name re

dacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

For discussion of the debate regarding the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act and other federal cross cutting

requirements and their impact on the Clean Water and Drinking Water capitalization grant programs see CRS Report

RL31116, Water Infrastructure Needs and Investment: Review and Analysis of Key Issues, by (name redacted) and (name

redacted).

H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 118-127.

H.Rept. 111-180 on H.R. 2996, p. 113-115 and 217-233; S.Rept. 111-38 on H.R. 2996, p. 59-62 and 107-116.

See, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Committee Print (unnumbered) on the Omnibus

Appropriations Act, 2009, H.R. 1105/P.L. 111-8, p. 1133–1142.

As amended, CERCLA (P.L. 96-510) established the Superfund program to require responsible parties to pay for the

cleanup of environmental contamination that they caused or to which they otherwise contributed, and to authorize the

federal government to pay the costs of cleanup at sites where the responsible parties cannot pay or cannot be found.

For a discussion of programmatic concerns and specific issues regarding implementation of the Superfund program, see

CRS Report RL33426, Superfund: Implementation and Selected Issues, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

The FY2010 appropriation of $1.31 billion (prior to transfers) for the Superfund account for

FY2010 was the same as proposed by the House, but $2.0 million less (for operations and

administration) than the President and Senate had supported. Also, the FY2010 appropriation was

$21.5 million more than the FY2009 omnibus appropriation of $1.29 billion. See Table 12. Funding

for the Superfund account has remained fairly close to these levels over the past several years. The

stimulus law provided an additional $600.0 million for the Superfund account, exclusively for

“remedial” cleanup projects.

Within the Superfund total, the Interior appropriations law included $605.0 million for remedial

cleanup projects, nearly the same as the FY2009 omnibus appropriations. Remedial projects receive

nearly half of the funding within the Superfund account. These projects are long-term cleanup

actions that are intended to provide a more permanent solution to address potential risks to human

health and the environment, as opposed to “removal” actions that typically are shorter term actions

intended to address more immediate risks.

Some Members of Congress have maintained that a steady level of federal funding in the Superfund

account allows for a constant pace and adequate degree of cleanup, and have emphasized that

contributions from responsible parties augment federal monies to meet overall cleanup needs. Other

Members have countered that more federal funds could help to improve the pace and quality of

cleanup at sites where there are no viable parties to pay the costs, and could allow the listing of

more sites on the NPL that may warrant cleanup. There also has been some concern that, as a result

of inflation over time, the amount of funding today cannot accomplish as much cleanup as that same

amount in the past.

There has been renewed interest in reinstating Superfund taxes on industry to help support the

Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund.98 Congress appropriates monies out of this trust fund to

finance the Superfund appropriations account that funds EPA’s Superfund program, discussed

above. The authority to collect these taxes expired on December 31, 1995. As the remaining

revenues were expended over time, Congress has increased the amount of revenues from the

General Fund of the U.S. Treasury that historically have contributed to the Superfund Trust Fund, in

an effort to make up for the shortfall from the expired industry taxes. Congress now supports the

Superfund Trust Fund mostly with general Treasury revenues, but other sources do contribute some

revenue.99 Although the special taxes on industry have expired, industry continues to contribute to

the Superfund Trust Fund through corporate income taxes that contribute to general Treasury

revenues, along with individual income taxes and other federal receipts and collections.

Brownfields

In addition to Superfund, EPA administers a program to clean up contaminated “brownfields” as

established by amendments to CERCLA in 2002.100 Typically, brownfields are abandoned, idled, or

underutilized commercial and industrial properties with levels of contamination less hazardous than

The Superfund tax consisted of two excise taxes, one on petroleum and one on chemical feedstocks, and a special

environmental tax on corporate income.

Interest on the remaining balance of the Superfund Trust Fund, fines and penalties collected for violations of cleanup

requirements, and recovery of cleanup costs from responsible parties still generate revenues to the trust fund, which are

available for appropriation by Congress to supplement general Treasury revenues to fund the Superfund Program.

100

Title II of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-118) amended

CERCLA to provide explicit authority for EPA’s Brownfields program.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations

an NPL site, but for which cleanup still may be needed to make the land suitable for reuse.101

Section 104(k) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to award competitive grants directly for the assessment

and cleanup of individual brownfields, and Section 128 authorizes EPA to award grants to the states

(and territories) to establish or enhance their own brownfields programs. These state programs

complement the federal program, as they also aid communities with the cleanup of individual

brownfields.

Congress appropriates funding for both of these grants within the STAG account, and funding for

EPA’s expenses to administer these grants within the Environmental Programs and Management

(EPM) account. The Interior appropriations law provided $173.4 million for EPA’s Brownfields

program within these accounts. The House had proposed $174.1 million, the Senate had proposed

$174.4 million, and the President had requested $174.7 million. Funding for administrative

expenses is the primary reason for the differences in the FY2010 levels. All the amounts were an

increase above the FY2009 omnibus appropriation of $169.5 million but less than the total

appropriation of $269.5 million for FY2009 (including stimulus funding of $100.0 million for

Section 104(k) grants).

Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Reduction102

The efforts of EPA and other federal agencies to address climate change and greenhouse gas

emissions were an area of interest to Congress during the debate on FY2010 appropriations. EPA is

one of 13 federal agencies that have received appropriations annually for climate change activities

in recent fiscal years. EPA funding represents a relatively small portion (less than 2%) of total

federal funding for climate change activities.103 FY2010 funding for EPA climate change activities

was included in three EPA accounts: Science and Technology (S&T), EPM, and STAG. Within the

three accounts, the Interior appropriations law included $161.5 million for FY2010 for EPA climate

change research and implementation activities. The House had proposed $163.1 million, and the

Senate had proposed $151.5 million, the same as requested by the Administration. All are above the

FY2009 enacted appropriations of $139.0 million for these activities.

The FY2010 appropriations law included a provision in Title II requiring EPA to study domestic and

international black carbon emissions. Black carbon refers to a form of particulate air pollution most

often produced from diesel exhaust and burning of biomass. The study is to include an inventory of

the major sources of black carbon, an assessment of the impacts of black carbon on global and

regional climate, an assessment of potential metrics and approaches for quantifying the climatic

effects of black carbon emissions and comparing those effects to the effects of carbon dioxide and

other greenhouse gases, and an identification of cost-effective approaches for mitigating black

carbon emissions. EPA is to report the results of the study to committees of Congress within 18

months of enactment.104

101

For a description of the scope of the Brownfield program and a review of historical funding, see CRS Report

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.