# Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40685 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** January 5, 2010 - **Citation:** R40685 ## 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 1 2 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 1 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). 3 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 2 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. a. 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. b. 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 10/29/09 10/30/09 P.L. 111-88 3 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 6.6 8.6 8.6 Land Acquisition 14.8 0 14.8 25.0 26.5 28.7 29.7 Oregon and California Grant Lands 109.9 0 109.9 111.6 111.6 111.6 111.6 Range Improvements 10.0 0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeituresa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Trust Funds and Permanent Operating Funds 7.1 0 7.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 —Current Appropriations 20.1 0 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 —Naval Oil Shale Reserves, Mineral Leasing Receipts -13.0 0 -13.0 0 0 0 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 4 a. The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees. b. 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 4 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 5 H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 75-76. Congressional Research Service 5 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 6 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) 7 S.Rept. 111-38 on H.R. 2996, p. 11. 8 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 6 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 n/a 164,157 166,507 174,657 179,457 —Ecological Services: Habitat Conservation and Environmental Contaminants 118,297 n/a n/a 126,920 128,620 131,020 131,770 —National Wildlife Refuge System 462,859 n/a n/a 483,279 503,279 488,629 503,279 —Migratory Birds, Law Enforcement & International Conservation 126,717 n/a n/a 130,093 133,593 133,573 134,743 9 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). 10 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 7 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 n/a 140,695 144,195 143,695 148,345 0 0 0 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 143,285 n/a n/a 154,062 153,562 152,812 152,812 Construction 35,533 115,000 150,533 29,791 21,139 39,741 37,439 Land Acquisition 42,455 0 42,455 65,000 69,250 82,790 86,340 —Acquisitions: Federal Refuge Lands 28,315 0 28,315 45,445 49,695 63,235 66,765 —Inholdings, Emergencies, & Hardships 3,000 0 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 —Exchanges 1,500 0 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 —Acquisition Management 8,140 0 8,140 10,555 10,555 10,555 10,555 —Cost Allocation Methodology 1,500 0 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund 75,501 0 75,501 100,000 100,000 85,001 85,000 National Wildlife Refuge Fund 14,100 0 14,100 14,100 14,100 14,500 14,500 North American Wetlands Conservation Fund 42,647 0 42,647 52,647 52,647 45,147 47,647 Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 4,750 0 4,750 4,750 5,250 5,000 5,000 Multinational Species Conservation Fund 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 11,500 11,500 11,500 State and Tribal Wildlife Grants 75,000 0 75,000 115,000 115,000 80,000 90,000 —State Grants 63,000 0 63,000 63,000 83,000 68,000 78,000 —Competitive Grants for States, Territories, & Other Jurisdictions 5,000 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 —Tribal Grants 7,000 0 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 —Climate Change 0 0 0 40,000 20,000 0 0 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration 0 0 0 28,000 0 0 0 -497 0 -497 0 0 0 0 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 8 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 22,103 —Consultation 53,462 56,863 56,863 59,363 59,363 —Recovery 74,575 76,599 77,449 81,349 85,399 157,973 164,157 166,507 174,657 179,457 75,501 100,000 100,000 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 11 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 9 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 10 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. 12 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). 13 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 11 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 $10.0 million for NPS climate change activities. 14 S.Rept. 111-38 on H.R. 2996, p. 24. S.Rept. 111-38 on H.R. 2996, p. 24. 16 This section originally was prepared by David Whiteman. For current information on NPS funding, contact (name redact ed) at 7-..... For more information on funding for historic preservation, contact Shannon Loane at 7-..... 15 Congressional Research Service 12 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations Table 6. Appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS), FY2009-FY20010 ($ 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 n/a 2,110.5 2,105.2 2,105.8 2,106.0 —Administrative Costs 148.1 n/a n/a 155.5 155.5 155.5 155.5 Signature Projects (Matching Program) 0 0 0 25.0 25.0 0.0 5.0d National Recreation and Preservation 59.7 0 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 0 -30.0 -30.0 -30.0 -30.0 -30.0 Land Acquisition and State Assistance 64.2 0 64.2 98.0 113.2 118.6 126.3 —Assistance to States 19.0 0 19.0 30.0 40.0 35.0 40.0 —NPS Acquisition 45.2 0 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. a. 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. b. Includes direction to continue the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program from prior year balances, but includes no new funding for the program. c. Includes funding for the U.S. Park Police. d. Reflects an appropriation of $5.0 million and the use of $10.0 million in carryover balances from the recreational fee program. e. 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 13 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 17 H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 90. H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996. p. 91. 19 For information on NHA establishment, management, and legislation, see CRS Report RL33462, Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues, by (name redacted). 20 Preserve America had traditionally been funded through the HPF; in FY2008, however, it was funded through the (continued...) 18 Congressional Research Service 14 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. 21 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. 22 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 15 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 $7.4 million over the original Senate-passed level. For all eight USGS activities, the FY2010 law provided more funding than FY2009 omnibus appropriations. See Table 7. The FY2010 law provided new funding to address several DOI-wide programs, including the 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps and Climate Impacts in the Arctic. Further, it reflected the Administration’s proposal to transfer the National Geospatial Program from the Enterprise Information activity to the Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing activity. Table 7 and discussions below reflect this change. 23 For more information on USGS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... Congressional Research Service 16 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations Table 7. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FY2009-FY2010 ($ 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 n/a 199.3 202.5 202.7 204.9 Enterprise Information 42.7a n/a n/a 46.0 46.0 45.0 46.0 Science Support 67.4 n/a n/a 69.2 69.2 69.2 69.2 Facilities 102.1 29.4 n/a 106.4 106.4 106.4 106.4 Global Climate Change Research 40.6 n/a n/a 58.2 58.2 58.2 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. a. 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. b. 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 17 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 18 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. 24 H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 97. H.Rept. 111-180 on H.R. 2996, p. 56. 26 H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 97-98 and p. 76. 25 Congressional Research Service 19 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 $21.4 million, and was supported by both the House and the Senate. The MMS already has created a new Office of Offshore Alternative Energy Programs to develop and implement its offshore renewable energy policies and comply with departmental goals. MMS expects to initiate its offshore renewable energy leasing program in the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic states in FY2010. The FY2010 Interior appropriations law reflected new inspection fees that the Administration had proposed. The Administration also had sought to impose an excise tax on certain OCS production (related to those leases without price threshold levels), impose fees on non-producing leases (as a disincentive to hold those leases with no prospect for development), repeal the royalty relief provisions,29 and review the royalty rate structure with the intention of making rate reforms and adjustments. These additional fees and royalty-related provisions were not contained in the law. 27 For more information on MMS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... For details on the regulations, see the MMS website at http://www.mms.gov. 29 Sections 344 and 345 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 28 Congressional Research Service 20 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations Table 8. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service (MMS), FY2009-FY2010 ($ in millions) FY2009 Omnibus FY2010 Request FY2010 House Passed FY2010 Senate Passed FY2010 Approp. —OCS Lands (OEMM) 166.2 196.0 196.0 196.9 196.9 —Royalty Management (MRM) 86.7 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 —General Administration 51.2 55.7 55.7 55.7 55.7 Gross, Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management 304.1 341.0 341.0 341.9 341.9 —Use of Receipts and Cost Recovery Fees -146.7 -156.7 -156.7 -156.7 -156.7 0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 157.4 174.3 174.3 175.2 175.2 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 -47.0 0 -49.0 -45.0 -45.0 116.7 180.6 131.6 136.5 136.5 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 30 The issues discussed in this section also are being addressed by Congress outside the appropriations process, for instance through legislation and hearings. 31 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 21 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. 32 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. 33 H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 98. 34 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). 35 The report is on the DOI website at http://www.doioig.gov/upload/MMS%20ROI%20REDACTED.pdf. 36 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. 37 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. 38 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 22 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 39 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. 40 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. 41 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. 42 For more information on OSM funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... 43 Hereafter this fund is referred to as the AML fund. 44 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 23 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. 45 See http://www.osm.gov/topic/grants/docs/2009/09pageA1.pdf. 46 Mandatory appropriations in FY2010 are projected at $398.3 million, a reduction of $23.9 million from the projected level of $422.1 million in FY2009. 47 Inquiries to OSM about the status of these grants in the FY2010 Interior appropriations law received no response. Congressional Research Service 24 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations Table 9. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, FY2009-FY2010 ($ in millions) FY2009 Omnibus FY2010 Request FY2010 House Passed FY2010 Senate Passed FY2010 Approp. 120.3 127.3 127.3 127.3 127.3 —Environmental Protection 88.4 94.8 94.8 94.8 94.8 Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund 52.9 32.1 32.1 39.6 35.6 -8.5 0 0 0 0 164.7 159.4 159.4 166.9 162.9 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 $10.0 million for BIA’s guaranteed loan program.50 Table 10, below, presents funding figures for FY2009 and FY2010. Key programs for BIA include law enforcement, Indian land consolidation, and the Interior Department’s process for acknowledging Indian tribes. BIE’s key programs include education improvement, forward funding for tribal colleges, and education construction. 48 For more information on BIA funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... In August 2006, the BIA’s administrative office for its education programs was removed from the BIA, made a parallel agency under DOI’s Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, and renamed the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). 50 On April 25, 2009, DOI released details on projects which will be funded with BIA stimulus monies. For further information, see the BIA stimulus page at http://recovery.doi.gov/press/bureaus/bureau-of-indian-affairs/. 49 Congressional Research Service 25 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations Table 10. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), including Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), FY2009-FY2010 ($ 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 0 402,531 416,572 422,862 418,572 429,778 Indian Affairs —Self-Governance Compacts 144,397 0 144,397 147,762 147,762 147,762 147,762 —Johnson-O’Malley Grantsb 7,565 0 7,565 7,836 7,836 7,836 7,836 —Welfare Assistancec 5,000 0 5,000 5,087 5,087 5,087 5,087 —Contract Support Costs 147,294 0 147,294 152,794 159,084 154,794 166,000 137,448 19,000 156,448 136,996 136,996 138,059 136,996 —Welfare Assistancec 74,915 0 74,915 74,915 74,915 74,915 74,915 —Housing Improvement Program 13,614 19,000 32,614 12,620 12,620 13,683 12,620 Trust - Natural Resources Management 147,710 0 147,710 160,768 174,768 161,618 175,618 Trust - Real Estate Services 150,087 0 150,087 152,493 152,493 152,493 152,493 Public Safety and Justice 270,785 0 270,785 303,855 303,855 328,855 328,855 —Law Enforcement 255,077 0 255,077 283,152 283,152 303,152 303,152 —Crim. Investigations & Police Services 163,148 0 163,148 175,053 175,053 185,053 185,053 —Detention/Corrections 64,648 0 64,648 70,433 70,433 75,433 75,433 —Tribal Justice Support 1,462 0 1,462 5,697 5,697 5,697 5,697 14,508 0 14,508 19,704 19,704 24,704 24,704 Community and Economic Development 43,589 19,000 62,589 43,910 44,910 43,910 44,910 —Road Maintenanced 26,046d 0d 26,046d 26,490 26,490 26,490 26,490 —Construction workforce onthe-job training in maintenance 0 13,300 13,300 0 0 0 0 —Workforce training 0 5,700 5,700 0 0 0 0 Executive Direction and Administrative Services 260,327 0 260,327 267,915 267,915 267,915 267,915 —Office of Federal Acknowledgment 2,624 0 2,624 2,682 2,682 2,682 2,682 Bureau of Indian Education 716,153 0 716,153 796,300 796,300 797,900 799,400 —Elementary/Secondary (Forward-Funded) 499,470 0 499,470 516,702 518,702 516,702 518,702 —ISEP Formula Funds 375,000 0 375,000 391,699 391,699 391,699 391,699 —Elementary/Secondary: Other 75,126 0 75,126 77,379 77,379 77,379 77,379 Human Services —Tribal Courts Congressional Research Service 26 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations FY2010 Request FY2010 House Passed FY2010 Senate Passed FY2010 Approp. 13,797 13,589 13,589 13,589 13,589 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 115,272 0 115,272 125,691 123,691 127,291 126,791 —Tribal Colleges and Universities (incl. Supplements) 60,593 0 60,593 65,609 63,609 65,609 65,609 —Tribal Technical Colleges 6,000 0 6,000 6,069 6,069 6,669 6,669 26,285 0 26,285 26,528 26,528 26,528 26,528 Construction 217,688 427,500e 645,188 200,000 200,000 225,000 225,000 Education Construction 128,837 277,700 406,537 112,994 112,994 112,994 112,994 —Replacement School Construction 22,405 134,600 157,005 5,964 5,964 5,964 5,964 —Replacement Facility Construction 17,013 0 17,013 17,013 17,013 17,013 17,013 —Education Facilities Improvement and Repair 84,974 143,100 228,074 85,566 85,566 85,566 85,566 Public Safety and Justice Construction 39,399 7,300 46,699 39,407 39,407 64,407 64,407 —Facilities Replacement/ New Construction 21,500 0 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 41,500 —Law Enforcement Facilities Improvement and Repair 10,941 7,300 18,241 10,947 10,947 30,947 10,947 40,306 0 40,306 38,385 38,385 38,385 38,385 —d 142,500d 142,500d 0 0 0 0 Land and Water Claim Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments 21,627 0 21,627 47,380 47,380 47,380 47,380 Indian Guaranteed Loan Program 8,186 9,500e 17,686 8,215 8,215 8,215 8,215 Administrative Costs for Stimuluse 0 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 Indian Land Consolidation Programf 0 0 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 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 0 —Post Secondary Programs (Forward-Funded) 0 —Post Secondary Programs Indian Affairs —Johnson-O’Malley Grantsb —Education Management Resources Management Construction Road Maintenanced Total Appropriations a. b. c. 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 27 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations d. e. f. 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 51 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. 52 Ibid. 53 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. 54 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 28 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 55 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). 56 “Bush Administration Seeks Another Cut in BIA Budget,” Indianz.com (Feb. 5, 2008), available at http://www.indianz.com/News/2008/006991.asp. 57 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 29 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 58 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). 59 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. 60 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). 61 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 30 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations two-year, four-year, and graduate institutions of higher education. According to BIE, tribal college administrators have reques [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40685. Public record. Not legal advice.