Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Congressional research reportMay 12, 2011
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2011 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
May 12, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R41258
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 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 FY2011 appropriation for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was $29.67 billion, a
reduction of $2.65 billion (8%) from the FY2010 level of $32.32 billion. The FY2011 funding
was included in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10). While most of
the major agencies funded by the law received reduced appropriations relative to FY2010, a few
received additional funding. Among the decreases for FY2011 from FY2010 appropriations were
the following:
•
$1.59 billion (15%) for the Environmental Protection Agency,
•
$602.0 million (11%) for the Forest Service,
•
$140.6 million (9%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
•
$127.2 million (5%) for the National Park Service.
Among the increases were the following:
•
$72.7 million (53%) for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation,
and Enforcement, and
•
$25.0 million (0.6%) for the Indian Health Service.
No regular appropriations bill to fund Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2011
had been enacted before the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2010. Initially, a series of laws
was enacted to continue appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for
relatively short periods, mostly at FY2010 account levels. However, the Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act provided funding for accounts in the bill through the end of the fiscal year
(September 30, 2011), with many accounts funded at less than the FY2010 level. The FY2011
law did not generally identify funding below the account level for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies. Rather, it directed the agencies to submit plans for spending for activities and
programs below the account level, to the Appropriations Committees, within 30 days of
enactment. The law was enacted on April 15, 2011.
Congress typically debates a variety of funding and policy issues when considering each year’s
appropriations legislation. These issues have included energy development onshore and offshore,
wildland fire fighting, Indian trust fund management, royalty relief, climate change, DOI science
programs, and wild horse and burro management. Other issues have included the appropriate
funding levels for Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement and education; Indian Health Service
construction and contract health services; wastewater/drinking water needs; the arts; land
acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and the Superfund program.
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
FY2011: Final Appropriations ................................................................................................... 2
FY2011: Earlier Legislative Action ........................................................................................... 3
FY2004-FY2011 ........................................................................................................................ 6
Status of Bill .............................................................................................................................. 7
Title I: Department of the Interior.................................................................................................... 8
Bureau of Land Management .................................................................................................... 8
Overview ............................................................................................................................. 8
Management of Lands and Resources ................................................................................. 9
Construction ...................................................................................................................... 10
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 10
Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................ 10
Wolf Delisting ................................................................................................................... 11
Endangered Species Funding ............................................................................................ 11
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement .................................. 12
Climate Change Planning and Adaptive Science Capacity ............................................... 12
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 13
Wildlife Refuge Fund ........................................................................................................ 13
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants .............................................................. 13
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ........................................................................................ 14
National Park Service .............................................................................................................. 14
Operation of the National Park System ............................................................................. 15
National Recreation and Preservation ............................................................................... 16
Historic Preservation ......................................................................................................... 16
Construction ...................................................................................................................... 17
Land Acquisition and State Assistance .............................................................................. 17
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 18
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing ............................................. 19
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes ................................................................... 19
Water Resources Investigations......................................................................................... 19
Biological Research........................................................................................................... 20
Global Climate Change Research...................................................................................... 20
Enterprise Information ...................................................................................................... 21
Science Support and Facilities .......................................................................................... 21
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement ................................... 21
FY2011 Budget and Appropriations.................................................................................. 22
Offshore (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing................................................................................ 24
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ....................................................... 26
Budget and Appropriations................................................................................................ 27
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs .......................................................... 28
Office of Insular Affairs .................................................................................................... 28
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 29
Key Funding Issues ................................................................................................................. 31
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure ................................................................. 32
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and other Geographic-Specific Programs .................. 32
Cleanup of Superfund Sites ............................................................................................... 33
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Climate Change and Related Air Quality Issues ............................................................... 33
Title III: Related Agencies ............................................................................................................. 35
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service .............................................................................. 35
FS Research ....................................................................................................................... 36
State and Private Forestry.................................................................................................. 36
National Forest System ..................................................................................................... 36
Capital Improvement and Maintenance ............................................................................ 37
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 37
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service ...................................... 37
Health Services.................................................................................................................. 39
Contract Health Services ................................................................................................... 40
Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 41
Smithsonian Institution ............................................................................................................ 41
Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................................................... 42
Facilities Capital................................................................................................................ 42
Legacy Fund ...................................................................................................................... 42
Trust Funds ........................................................................................................................ 43
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities .................. 43
NEA................................................................................................................................... 43
NEH................................................................................................................................... 43
Cross-Cutting Topics ..................................................................................................................... 44
Everglades Restoration ............................................................................................................ 44
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)................................................................... 45
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 45
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 47
Grants to States.................................................................................................................. 47
Other Purposes .................................................................................................................. 48
Wildland Fire Management ..................................................................................................... 49
FLAME Funding ............................................................................................................... 50
Other Wildfire Funding ..................................................................................................... 51
Tables
Table 1. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2010-FY2011 ........................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004-FY2011 .............. 7
Table 3. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2011............. 7
Table 4. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FY2010-FY2011............... 8
Table 5. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2010-FY2011 ................... 12
Table 6. Appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS), FY2010-FY2011 .......................... 15
Table 7. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FY2010-FY2011 .................... 18
Table 8. Appropriations for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement (BOEMRE), Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR)
FY2010-FY2011 ......................................................................................................................... 23
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 9. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
FY2010-FY2011 ......................................................................................................................... 28
Table 10. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
FY2010-FY2011 ......................................................................................................................... 30
Table 11. Appropriations for the Forest Service (FS), FY2010-FY2011 ....................................... 35
Table 12. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS), FY2010-FY2011 ......................... 38
Table 13. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution (SI), FY2010-FY2011 ......................... 41
Table 14. Appropriations for the Arts and Humanities, FY2010-FY2011 ..................................... 44
Table 15. Appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
FY2007-FY2011 ......................................................................................................................... 46
Table 16. Appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): Other
Programs, FY2007-FY2011........................................................................................................ 48
Table 17. Appropriations for FS and DOI Wildland Fire Management, FY2010-FY2011............ 49
Table 18. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2007-FY2011 ......................................................................................................................... 51
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 54
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 54
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 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.
Congress typically debates a variety of funding and policy issues when considering each year’s
appropriations legislation. These issues have included onshore and offshore energy development,
wildland fire fighting, Indian trust fund management, royalty relief, climate change, DOI science
programs, and wild horse and burro management. Other issues have included the appropriate
funding levels for Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement and education; Indian Health Service
construction and contract health services; wastewater/drinking water needs; the arts; land
acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and the Superfund program.
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., wildland fire management) 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
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: FY2011 Appropriations
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 mandatory budget authorities. 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. In the tables throughout this report, some columns of funding figures do not match the
precise totals provided due to rounding.
FY2011: Final Appropriations
The FY2011 appropriation for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was $29.67 billion,3 a
reduction of $2.65 billion (8%) from the FY2010 level of $32.32 billion. The FY2011 funding
was included in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Division B, P.L. 112-10).4
The FY2011 enacted level was $2.76 billion (8%) lower than the Obama Administration’s request
($32.43 billion). It was also $1.48 billion (5%) lower than the amount contained in Senate
Amendment 149 ($31.15 billion) ─ a full-year continuing appropriations measure offered as an
amendment to H.R. 1. The Senate rejected both the amendment and H.R. 1, the House-passed
full-year continuing appropriations measure. The FY2011 enacted amount was an increase of
$1.82 billion (7%) from the level approved by the House in H.R. 1 ($27.85 billion).
While most of the major agencies funded by the FY2011 law received reduced appropriations
relative to FY2010, a few received additional funding. Among the decreases for FY2011 from
FY2010 appropriations were the following:
•
$1.59 billion (15%) for the Environmental Protection Agency,
•
$602.0 million (11%) for the Forest Service,
•
$140.6 million (9%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
•
$127.2 million (5%) for the National Park Service.
Among the increases were the following:
•
$72.7 million (53%) for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation,
and Enforcement, and
•
$25.0 million (0.6%) for the Indian Health Service.
3
This FY2011 total does not include an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% in Sec. 1119 of Division B of P.L. 112-10,
estimated at $61.0 million for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
4
Specifically, the appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations were contained in
Title VII of Division B of P.L. 112-10.
Congressional Research Service
2
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act provided funding for accounts in the bill through
the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2011), with many accounts funded at less than the
FY2010 account level. The requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and other provisions
of the FY2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations law (P.L. 111-88)
were continued for FY2011, except where the FY2011 law provided otherwise.
The FY2011 law did not generally identify funding below the account level for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies. Rather, it directed the agencies to submit plans for spending
for activities and programs below the account level, to the Appropriations Committees, within 30
days of enactment. The law was enacted on April 15, 2011, making the plans due by May 15,
2011.
FY2011: Earlier Legislative Action
The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies held hearings on the FY2011 agency budget requests,5 and the House subcommittee
held a markup. However, no regular appropriations bill to fund Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies for FY2011 was enacted6 before the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2010.
Between September 30, 2010, and April 9, 2011, a series of seven laws was enacted to continue
appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for relatively short periods,
mostly at FY2010 account levels.7 Under these interim continuing appropriations laws, funding
for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was provided at FY2010 account levels, and
under the terms and conditions contained in the FY2010 appropriations law, with exceptions. For
instance, one of the interim continuing appropriations laws (P.L. 111-322) had provided increased
funding over FY2010 for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement (BOEMRE). To implement a reorganization of the BOEMRE, the law authorized
the Secretary of the Interior to establish accounts, transfer funds among affected offices and
bureaus, and take other administrative actions that conform with the reprogramming guidance of
the appropriations committees. P.L. 111-322 also altered the distribution of revenues from
geothermal leasing on federal lands to direct 25% of the funding to counties, as under P.L. 111212. Another of the continuing appropriations laws (P.L. 112-4) had eliminated funding for the
Smithsonian’s Legacy Fund.
Still another of the interim continuing appropriations laws (P.L. 112-6) had made about two dozen
changes to accounts for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in FY2011, relative to
FY2010. The changes were reductions below the FY2010 account levels, and affected several
agencies: Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S.
Geological Survey, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Insular Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency,
and Forest Service.
5
House and Senate hearings on FY2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations are available via
the website of the Government Printing Office at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys.
6
In fact, no regular appropriations bill to fund Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2011 was introduced
in either chamber.
7
These laws covered the period from October 1, 2010, through April 15, 2011. For information on the history, nature,
scope, and duration of continuing resolutions, see CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and
Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
3
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
In addition, as mentioned above, on February 19, 2011, the House had passed H.R. 1, a full-year
(through September 30, 2011) continuing appropriations bill including funds for FY2011 for
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. However, on March 9, 2011, the Senate defeated
the bill. During its consideration of H.R. 1, the Senate also considered an alternative full-year
continuing funding measure, in the form of a Senate amendment (S.Amdt. 149). The Senate did
not agree to this amendment. Consequently, the Senate returned H.R. 1 to the calendar on March
9, 2011. On April 14, 2011, the House and Senate both passed a different full-year continuing
appropriations measure ─ H.R. 1473 ─ which was signed into law on April 15, 2011, as P.L. 11210.
Hereafter, references in this report to the House-passed bill refer to H.R. 1 and to the Senate
amendment refer to Senate Amendment 149 to H.R. 1. References to the FY2011 law or to the
FY2011 full-year continuing appropriations law are to P.L. 112-10. References to the FY2010 law
are to P.L. 111-88.
Table 1 identifies funding for agencies covered by the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill. It provides the levels of appropriations that were enacted for
FY2010, requested by the Administration for FY2011, passed by the House in H.R. 1, included in
S.Amdt. 149, and enacted for FY2011. In this table and throughout this report, FY2011 enacted
amounts do not reflect the across-the-board rescission of 0.2% provided in the FY2011 law (Sec.
1119, Division B). Sections throughout this report also address funding at these stages of action.
In general, they do not address appropriations for programs and activities below the account level,
as these amounts generally were not provided in the FY2011 law. Instead, the law provided that
within 30 days of enactment, agencies submit to the Appropriations Committees spending plans at
a level of detail below the account level.
Table 1. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2010-FY2011
($ in thousands)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
Bureau of Land
Management
1,133,604
1,132,372
1,056,620
1,129,739
1,116,089
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
1,646,832
1,642,234
1,267,375
1,596,932
1,506,261
National Park Service
2,743,730
2,728,865
2,503,816
2,677,757
2,616,486
U.S. Geological Survey
1,111,740
1,133,359
1,086,163
1,104,844
1,085,844
Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation,
and Enforcementa
136,520
222,890
208,110
223,381
209,246
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and
Enforcement
162,868
146,135
162,868
162,868
162,868
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,619,560
2,566,001
2,610,660
2,554,210
2,599,210
Departmental Officesb
540,999
486,644
482,623
511,099
495,115
Bureau or Agency
FY2011, H.R. 1 FY2011, SA 149
Passed House Not Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
Title I: Department of the
Interior
Congressional Research Service
4
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Bureau or Agency
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011, H.R. 1 FY2011, SA 149
Passed House Not Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
Department-Wide
Programsc
958,357
1,034,630
927,511
883,357
883,357
General Provisions
-7,000
-75,000
-25,000
-25,000
-25,000
Subtotal, Title I:
Department of the
Interior
11,047,210
11,018,130
10,280,746
10,819,187
10,649,476
Subtotal, Title II:
Environmental
Protection Agency
10,291,864
10,020,000
7,239,634
9,903,480
8,699,797
U.S. Forest Service (FS)
5,297,256
5,376,629
4,696,049
4,786,827
4,695,252
Indian Health Service
4,052,375
4,406,429
4,139,383
4,052,375
4,077,375
National Institute of
Environmental Health
Sciences
79,212
81,763
77,546
79,212
79,212
Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease
Registry
76,792
76,337
74,039
76,792
76,792
Council on Environmental
Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality
3,159
3,448
2,848
3,159
3,159
Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board
11,147
10,799
10,799
10,547
10,799
Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
Institute of American Indian
and Alaska Native Culture
and Arts Development
8,300
8,750
8,300
8,300
8,300
Smithsonian Institution
761,395
797,600
758,261
761,161
761,161
National Gallery of Art
167,005
162,800
158,967
158,967
158,967
John F. Kennedy Center for
the Performing Arts
40,447
37,420
36,420
36,920
36,420
Woodrow Wilson
International Center for
Scholars
12,225
9,922
9,844
12,225
11,225
National Endowment for
the Arts
167,500
161,315
124,406
167,500
155,000
National Endowment for
the Humanities
167,500
161,315
145,000
167,500
155,000
Commission of Fine Arts
2,294
2,349
2,294
2,294
2,294
National Capital Arts and
Cultural Affairs
9,500
4,500
0
4,500
3,000
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
5,908
5,908
5,908
5,908
5,908
Title III: Related Agencies
Congressional Research Service
5
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Bureau or Agency
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011, H.R. 1 FY2011, SA 149
Passed House Not Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
National Capital Planning
Commission
8,507
9,100
8,507
8,507
8,507
U.S. Holocaust Memorial
Museum
49,122
50,521
49,122
49,122
49,122
Presidio Trust
23,200
15,000
10,000
23,200
15,000
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Memorial Comm.
19,000
0
0
0
0
Subtotal, Title III:
Related Agencies
10,969,844
11,389,905
10,325,693
10,423,016
10,320,493
Subtotal, Title IV:
General Provisions
11,000
0
2,000
2,000
2,000
32,319,918
32,428,035
27,848,073
31,147,683
29,671,766
Grand Total
Appropriations (in Bill)d
Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
a.
The FY2010 figure represents funding for the former Minerals Management Service.
b.
The Departmental Offices figures include the Office of the Secretary, Insular Affairs, Office of the Solicitor,
Office of Inspector General, and Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.
c.
The Department-Wide Programs figures include Wildland Fire Management, Central Hazardous Materials
Fund, Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fund, and Working Capital Fund.
d.
Figures generally do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments. The FY2010 total reflects appropriations of
$32.39 billion, emergency appropriations of $31.0 million, and rescissions of $100.8 million. The FY2011
request reflects appropriations of $32.49 billion and rescissions of $65.0 million. The FY2011 House-passed
level reflects appropriations of $28.46 billion and rescissions of $611.9 million. The FY2011 Senate
amendment level reflects appropriations of $31.81 billion and rescissions of $659.9 million. The FY2011
total reflects appropriations of $30.50 billion and rescissions of $825.6 million. The total does not reflect an
across-the-board rescission of 0.2% in Sec. 1119 of Division B of P.L. 112-10, estimated at $61.0 million for
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
FY2004-FY2011
Table 2, below, shows appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for
FY2004-FY2011. Funding for earlier years is not readily available due to changes in the makeup
of the Interior appropriations bill. The FY2011 appropriation represented a $2.35 billion increase
(8.6%) over the FY2004 level in current dollars, or a $1.83 billion decrease (5.8%) in constant
dollars.8 See Table 18 for a budgetary history of each agency for FY2007-FY2011.
8
These calculations use the Congressional Budget Office’s inflation estimate of 0.9% for 2010 and projection of 0.9%
for 2011.
Congressional Research Service
6
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 2. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004-FY2011
($ in billions)
FY200
4
FY200
5
FY200
6
FY200
7
FY200
8
FY2009
Omnibu
s
FY2009
Stimulu
s
FY200
9
Total
FY201
0
FY201
1
Current
Dollars
27.33
27.02
25.94
27.40
28.42
27.59
10.95
38.79a
32.32
29.67
Constant
2011 Dollars
31.50
30.15
28.03
28.77
29.19
28.09
11.15
39.24a
32.61
29.67
b
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 estimate of 0.9% for 2010
and projection of 0.9% for 2011, on the CBO website at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12039. For
inflation forecasts for earlier years, see the GDP Price Index in “CBO’s Year-by-Year Forecast and
Projections for Calendar Years 2011 to 2021,” on the CBO website at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=
12039.
Status of Bill
Table 3, below reflects legislative action on FY2011 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations legislation.
Table 3. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations, FY2011
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
7/22/10
n/a
a.
H. Comm. House S. Comm. Senate
Report
Passage Report Passage
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Conference
Rept. Approval
Conf.
Report
House
Senate
Public
Lawa
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies have been funded through a full-year continuing appropriations
law, P.L. 112-10. This law provides funding through September 30, 2011, at accounts levels specified in the
law, or at FY2010 account levels if not specified in the FY2011 law.
Congressional Research Service
7
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management9
Overview
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 250 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.
For FY2011, the full-year continuing appropriations law contained $1.12 billion for BLM, which
was $17.5 million (2%) less than the FY2010 appropriations of $1.13 billion. The FY2011
enacted amount also was $16.3 million (1%) less than the Administration’s FY2011 request
($1.13 billion), $59.5 million (6%) more than the House-passed level ($1.06 billion), and $13.7
million (1%) less than the Senate amendment ($1.13 billion). See Table 4. Below is a discussion
of the funding in the law for some of the major BLM accounts. The FY2011 law did not generally
identify funding below the account level, but rather directed the BLM (and other agencies) to
submit plans for spending below the account level to the Appropriations Committees within 30
days of enactment.
Table 4. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FY2010-FY2011
($ in millions)
Bureau of Land Management
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
Management of Lands and Resources
958.6
912.6
914.5
959.7
952.7
Construction
8.6
3.6
2.6
6.6
4.6
Land Acquisition
29.7
83.7
2.8
26.7
22.0
Oregon and California Grant Lands
111.6
105.6
111.6
111.6
111.6
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and
Forfeituresa
0
0
0
0
0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds and
Permanent Operating Funds
15.2
17.0
15.2
15.2
15.2
1,133.6
1,132.4
1,056.6
1,129.7
1,116.1
Total Appropriations
a.
9
FY2011
SA 149
Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
For more information on BLM funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
8
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 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 account, the FY2011 law contained $952.7 million, a $5.9 million
reduction from the FY2010 level of $958.6 million. The FY2011 level also was $38.2 million
above the House-passed level ($914.5 million), $7.0 million below the Senate amendment
($959.7 million), and $40.1 million above the President’s request ($912.6 million).
The Administration had sought a number of changes in funding relative to FY2010 for activities
and programs funded by this account. For instance, the Administration had sought increased
funding for wild horse and burro management; reduced funding for energy and minerals, the
Alaska conveyance program, and resource management planning; and the elimination of funding
for the Challenge Cost Share program.
The FY2011 law anticipated that the costs of mining law administration would be more than fully
offset by fees for maintaining mining claims and other fees. Specifically, an anticipated $47.7
million in fee collections would exceed the expected $36.7 million in program costs. This would
have the effect of reducing the need for discretionary appropriations for FY2011. Mining law
administration provides for the exploration and development of minerals on public lands under
the General Mining Law of 1872. In addition, the FY2011 law continued language from FY2010
providing for offsetting fees for oil and gas development. The law provided an appropriation of
$45.5 million for processing applications for permits to drill and related use authorizations, to be
offset by fees derived through a program requiring payment of $6,500 for each new application
for a permit to drill oil and gas wells.
The FY2011 law retained language in the FY2010 Interior appropriations law to prohibit 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. The appropriation for BLM wild horse and burro management was not
specified in the FY2011 law. The Administration had sought $75.7 million, an $11.7 million
increase over the FY2010 level of $64.0 million. The FY2010 level itself was the highest annual
appropriation in the history of the program. Nevertheless, the Administration sought additional
funds to reflect the escalating costs of caring for animals removed from the range in long-term
pasture (“holding”) facilities, and to implement wild horse and burro proposals announced by the
Secretary of the Interior in October 2009.10
Another funding limitation in the FY2011 law prohibited funds from being used to implement an
order of the Secretary of the Interior pertaining to the protection of wilderness characteristics of
BLM lands.11 This order, issued on December 22, 2010, has been controversial, with supporters
anticipating additional protections for BLM lands and opponents anticipating additional
restrictions on use and development.12
10
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal
Year 2011, p. IV-71-75.
11
See Secretarial Order No. 3310 on the BLM website at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/
Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachments.Par.26564.File.dat/sec_order_3310.pdf.
12
For more information on the policy, see CRS Report R41610, Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 112th
Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted), p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
9
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Construction
Construction appropriations for FY2011 were $4.6 million, a reduction of $4.0 million from the
FY2010 level of $8.6 million. The FY2011 level was the lowest level in at least a decade, in
which BLM construction funding had ranged from a low of $6.4 million in FY2008 to a high of
$16.8 million in FY2001. The Administration and the House had supported lower levels still for
FY2011 ─ $3.6 million and $2.6 million respectively, while the Senate amendment had contained
a higher level ─ $6.6 million.
Land Acquisition
For land acquisition by the BLM, the FY2011 law contained $22.0 million, a $7.7 million
reduction from FY2010 appropriations of $29.7 million. The number of specific acquisitions that
would be funded in FY2011 was not clear. The House had supported a lower level ─ $2.8 million,
while the Senate amendment had contained higher funding ─ $26.7 million. The Administration
had sought an increase of $54.0 million, to $83.7 million, for FY2011. The FY2011 request had
included $42.0 million to acquire land for a new wild horse preserve, as proposed by the
Secretary of the Interior, and funding for 20 specific acquisitions in nine states. The appropriation
for BLM acquisitions had fallen from $49.9 million for FY2002 to $8.9 million for FY2008,
before increasing to $29.7 million for FY2010. Money for land acquisition is appropriated from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (For more information, see “The Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF).”)
Fish and Wildlife Service13
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for implementing the Endangered Species
Act, managing the National Wildlife Refuge System for wildlife habitats and appropriate uses,
conserving migratory birds, administering grants to aid state fish and wildlife programs, and
coordinating with state and other federal agencies on fish and wildlife issues. For the FWS, the
FY2011 full-year continuing appropriations law contained $1.51 billion, which was $140.6
million (9%) less than the FY2010 enacted level of $1.65 billion. The FY2011 level also was
$136.0 million (8%) less than the Administration’s FY2011 request ($1.64 billion), $238.9
million (19%) more than the House-passed level ($1.27 billion), and $90.7 million (6%) less than
the amount in the Senate amendment ($1.60 billion). See Table 5.
By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is the Resource Management account,
which includes the Endangered Species program, the Refuge System, Law Enforcement, and
Climate Change Adaptive Science Capacity. The FY2011 appropriation law provided $1.25
billion, down $22.1 million (2%) from $1.27 billion for FY2010. In contrast, the House-passed
bill had contained less than enacted ─ $1.20 billion ─ and the Senate amendment included more
than enacted ─ $1.26 billion.14
13
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 R41155, Fish and Wildlife Service:
Appropriations and Policy, by (name redacted).
14
The FY2011 law did not generally identify funding below the account level, but rather directed the FWS to submit a
plan for spending below the account level to the Appropriations Committees within 30 days of enactment.
Congressional Research Service
10
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Wolf Delisting15
Section 1713 of the FY2011 appropriations law removed wolves in the Northern Rockies from
the protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This removal from the ESA’s list of
protected species (or “delisting”) makes these gray wolves the 49th species to be delisted, and the
only one delisted due to specific legislative action.16 In April 2009, FWS had issued a regulation
to delist the population of wolves that had been reintroduced in the Northern Rockies.17 The rule
would have removed wolves in Montana, Idaho, and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah from
ESA protections. The rule did not change the wolf’s status outside these five states. The wolves of
Wyoming were to remain protected because FWS held that Wyoming’s proposed management
plan was not adequate to avoid population declines that would result in relisting the wolves. In
August 2010, a federal court overturned the rule.18 In addition, in December 2010, a federal
district court in Wyoming ordered FWS to reconsider the Wyoming plan for wolf management,
holding that FWS had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting the plan.19 Section 1713
ordered FWS to reissue the April 2009 rule and insulated the new rule from judicial review. It
further stated that the section was to have no effect on the Wyoming case. FWS reissued the rule
on May 5, 2011.20 The provision appears to leave open the option for a subsequent proposal to relist the species.
Two factors make this delisting distinct from past efforts to delist species legislatively: (1) the
FWS had previously attempted to delist the species, meaning FWS believed that the best
available science supported delisting, and (2) the species had met and exceeded the numeric goals
for delisting in the species’ recovery plan, although the genetic connectivity was disputed.
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.21 The FY2011 appropriations
law did not specify the allocation to the Endangered Species Program from the overall Resource
Management account. The Administration had sought $181.3 million, an increase of 1% from the
FY2010 level.
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 FY2011 appropriation was $60.0 million, a $25.0 million decrease from the
15
For more information on gray wolf controversies, see CRS Report RL34238, Gray Wolves Under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA): Distinct Population Segments and Experimental Populations, by (name redacted) and (name red
acted), and CRS Report R41730,The Gray Wolf and the Endangered Species Act (ESA): A Brief Legal History, by
(name redacted).
16
For background on the 48 species delisted to date, see the FWS website at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/
delistingReport.jsp.
17
74 Federal Register 15123-15188, April 2, 2009.
18
Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010).
19
Section 1713 specifically cites “United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09-CV118J and 09-CV-138J on November 18, 2010.”
20
76 Federal Register 25590-25592, May 5, 2011.
21
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
11
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
$85.0 million enacted for FY2010 and requested by the Administration for FY2011. The Housepassed bill and the Senate amendment contained $2.5 million and $84.8 million respectively.
Table 5. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2010-FY2011
($ in thousands)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
1,269,406
1,266,410
1,204,240
1,257,356
1,247,356
Construction
37,439
23,737
23,737
27,139
20,846
Land Acquisition
86,340
106,340
15,055
63,890
55,000
0
0
-4,941
-4,941
-4,941
Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund
85,000
85,000
2,479
84,841
60,000
National Wildlife Refuge Fund
14,500
14,100
14,500
14,500
14,500
North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund
47,647
42,647
0
47,647
37,500
Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund
5,000
4,000
4,430
5,000
4,000
Multinational Species Conservation
Fund
11,500
10,000
7,875
11,500
10,000
State & Tribal Wildlife Grants
90,000
90,000
0
90,000
62,000
1,646,832
1,642,234
1,267,375
1,596,932
1,506,261
Fish and Wildlife Service
Resource Management
Landowner Incentive Program
(cancellation of prior year balances)
Total Appropriations
FY2011
SA149 Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement
The FY2011 appropriation law did not specify the allocation to the Refuge System and to Law
Enforcement from the overall Resource Management account. The FY2011 request for refuge
operations and maintenance was $499.5 million, a decrease of 1% from FY2010. The
Administration had proposed to increase programs for wildlife and habitat management and
maintenance, while cutting conservation planning, visitor services, and refuge-based law
enforcement. The Administration’s FY2011 request for nationwide law enforcement was $63.3
million, down 4% from the FY2010 level. 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
The FY2011 appropriations law did not specify funding for climate change programs from the
overall Resource Management account. The Administration had proposed $28.8 million to
address climate change—a 44% increase over the FY2010 level. Part of the requested funding
was to 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 remainder was to support
cooperative scientific research on climate change impacts to wildlife and habitats. Both portions
Congressional Research Service
12
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
were to support and work through a network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) to
ameliorate the effects of climate change. Under the President’s proposal, the number of LCCs, a
network of research institutions and federal and other resource managers and scientists, would
increase from 9 to 12, with an eventual goal of 21 LCCs.
Land Acquisition
For land acquisition by the FWS, the FY2011 law contained $55.0 million, a $31.3 million
decrease from the FY2010 appropriation ($86.3 million). The Administration had requested
$106.3 million for land acquisition, an increase of $20.0 million (23%) from the FY2010 level.
This program is funded with annual appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
(For more information, see “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),” below.) The
House-passed bill and the Senate amendment contained $15.1 million and $63.9 million,
respectively.
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. It does not
receive funding in annual Interior appropriations bills. The account is permanently appropriated,
with funds for FY2011 estimated at $58.0 million, derived from the sale of duck stamps to
hunters and recreationists, and import duties on certain arms and ammunition. If Congress were to
approve an increase in the price of duck stamps from $15 to $25, the Administration estimated the
change would produce an additional $14.0 million above the previous year. No such bill has been
introduced to date.
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. 22 However, receipts are not sufficient for full funding of authorized levels, and county
governments have long urged additional appropriations to make up the difference. The FY2011
appropriations law retained the FY2010 level of $14.5 million, which also had been included in
the House-passed bill and the Senate amendment. The Administration had requested $14.1
million. A projected increase in receipts, combined with the appropriation of $14.5 million for
FY2011, should increase the payment from 36% of the authorized level in FY2010 to 39% for
FY2011.
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. For FY2011, the appropriations law included $10.0 million, as
requested by the President, a decrease of $1.5 million from FY2010 ($11.5 million).23 The House
22
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. For further information, see CRS Report RL31392, PILT
(Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by (name redacted).
23
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
13
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
had supported a further reduction, to $7.9 million, while the Senate amendment had level funding
of $11.5 million. For the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, the FY2011 law
contained $4.0 million, as requested by the President, a decrease of $1.0 million from the FY2010
level. The House bill and Senate amendment had contained higher amounts ─ $5.0 million and
$4.4 million, respectively.
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 program was created in the FY2001
Interior appropriations law (P.L. 106-291) 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
FY2011 appropriation was $62.0 million, a decrease of $28.0 million from the $90.0 million
enacted for FY2010, requested for FY2011, and included in the Senate amendment. By contrast,
the House-passed bill contained no funding.
The FY2011 appropriations law did not change language in the FY2010 law reducing the
required minimum state share of implementation grants from 50% to 35%. The Administration
proposal for FY2011 would have returned to a minimum of 50%.
National Park Service24
The National Park Service (NPS) administers the National Park System—394 units covering
more than 84 million acres, with 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.
For FY2011, the full-year continuing appropriations law contained $2.62 billion for the NPS,
which was $127.2 million (5%) less than the FY2010 appropriation of $2.74 billion. The FY2011
enacted amount also was $112.4 million (4%) less than the Administration’s FY2011 request of
$2.73 billion, $112.7 million (4%) more than the House-passed level of $2.50 billion, and $61.3
million (2%) less than the Senate amendment of $2.68 billion. See Table 6. Below is a discussion
of the funding in the law for some of the major NPS accounts.25
24
For more information on NPS funding in general, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... For more information on
funding for historic preservation, contact Shannon Loane at 7-.....
25
The FY2011 law did not generally identify funding below the account level, but rather directed the NPS (and other
agencies) to submit plans for spending below the account level to the Appropriations Committees within 30 days of
enactment.
Congressional Research Service
14
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 6. Appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS), FY2010-FY2011
($ in millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011 H.R.
1 Passed
House
FY2011 SA
149 Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
Operation of the
National Park System
2,261.6
2,296.9
2,237.7
2,261.6
2,254.6
—Park Management
2,106.0
2,126.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Administrative Costs
155.5
170.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
Park Partnerships
Project Grants
5.0a
5.0
0
0
0
National Recreation and
Preservation
68.4
51.0
57.8
58.0
57.4b
Historic Preservation
Fund
79.5
54.5
54.5
69.3
54.5
Construction
233.0
195.2
169.7c
210.1
185.1d
Land and Water
Conservation Funde
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and
State Assistance
126.3
156.3
14.1
108.8
95.0
—Assistance to States
40.0
50.0
0
40-.0
40.0
—NPS Acquisition
86.3
106.3
14.1
68.8
55.0
2,743.7
2,728.9
2,503.8
2,677.8
2,616.5
National Park Service
Total Appropriations
a.
Total funding was $15.0 million, composed of a $5.0 million appropriation and the use of $10.0 million in
carryover balances from the recreation fee program.
b.
Figure reflects a rescission of $0.6 million.
c.
Figure reflects a rescission of $2.0 million in prior year balances.
d.
Figure reflects a rescission of $25.0 million in prior year balances.
e.
Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
Operation of the National Park System
The largest portion of the NPS annual appropriations is for the Operation of the National Park
System Account. 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. For
this account, the full-year continuing appropriations law contained $2.25 billion for FY2011, a
$7.0 million decrease from both the FY2010 appropriations and the level in the Senate
amendment ($2.26 billion). The FY2011 enacted level was $16.9 million higher than the Housepassed level ($2.24 billion), and $42.3 million lower than the Administration’s request for
FY2011 ($2.30 billion). Among the increases requested by the Administration over FY2010 were
visitor services ($13.2 million increase) and resource stewardship ($6.2 million increase).
Funding for “park partnership project grants” was eliminated by the FY2011 appropriations law.
The program was developed to help refurbish and prepare the National Park System for its 100th
anniversary in 2016, and was intended to leverage private donations for certain park projects. The
grants have been used to match partner donations with federal funds to complete projects
Congressional Research Service
15
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
throughout the National Park System. The Administration had requested $5.0 million for this
program for FY2011. Total FY2010 funding was $15.0 million, composed of a $5.0 million
appropriation and the use of $10.0 million in carryover balances from the recreation fee program.
National Recreation and Preservation
For the National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P) account for FY2011, the full-year
continuing appropriations law contained $57.4 million, an $11.1 million reduction from the
FY2010 level ($68.4 million). The FY2011 level was lower than the level passed by the House
($57.8 million) and the amount included in the Senate amendment ($58.0 million) for FY2011.
The Administration had sought a further reduction, to $51.0 million for FY2011. NR&P funds a
variety of Park System activities, including natural and cultural resource protection programs,
environmental and compliance 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 FY2011 law did not fund the “Preserve America” program, a matching grant program that
has assisted communities with preservation efforts through heritage tourism, education, and
historic preservation planning. The program was among the park partnership programs that the
Administration had sought to discontinue or reduce funding for, to focus on national parks and
other activities more consistent with the core mission of the NPS. The program was funded at
$4.6 million in FY2010, and the proposal to eliminate funding had been controversial. In a report
to Congress, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation called the program effective, despite
its short history and relatively small federal investment.26
The Administration also had proposed to discontinue funding for statutory and contractual aid,
funded at $5.9 million in FY2010. This program supports a variety of areas not managed by the
NPS by providing limited financial assistance through partnerships with stakeholders. This effort
supports NPS endeavors to promote systems of parks and open space nationwide. Further, the
Administration requested $9.0 million for heritage partnership programs, approximately half the
FY2010 level. The program supports national heritage areas (NHAs), which are neither owned
nor managed by the NPS. The reduction was proposed not only to allow the NPS to address core
activities, but to address concerns of appropriators about the expanding numbers of NHAs and
their inability to become more financially self-sufficient.27 Funding for statutory and contractual
aid, heritage areas, and other partnership programs will be determined by the NPS.
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.
26
For information on this report, see the website of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at
http://www.achp.gov/news090610.html.
27
For information on NHA establishment, management, and legislation, see CRS Report RL33462, Heritage Areas:
Background, Proposals, and Current Issues, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
16
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
For FY2011, the full-year continuing appropriations law contained $54.5 million for the HPF, a
decrease of $25.0 million from FY2010 appropriations of $79.5 million. The FY2011 level was
equal to the Administration’s request and the House-passed level for FY2011, but $14.8 million
less than the amount in the Senate amendment of $69.3 million. The law eliminated 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. The
Administration had proposed to eliminate funding for Save America’s Treasures, as part of its
goal to focus on activities more closely aligned with its core mission.
Construction
The appropriation for construction in FY2011 was $185.1 million, composed of an appropriation
of $210.1 million in the full-year continuing appropriations law and a rescission of $25.0 million
in unobligated balances (through an earlier continuing appropriations law ─ P.L. 112-6). This
total was $47.9 million less than the FY2010 appropriations ($233.0 million), $10.1 million less
than the Administration’s FY2011 request ($195.2 million), and $25.0 million less than the Senate
amendment ($210.1 million), but $15.4 million more than the House-passed level ($169.7
million). 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 is also provided for NPS road construction and repair through the Federal
Lands Highway Program of the Federal Highway Administration.
Addressing deferred maintenance is 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. DOI estimates deferred maintenance for the NPS for FY2009 at between
$8.23 billion and $12.11 billion, with a mid-range figure of $10.17 billion.
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
For FY2011, Land Acquisition and State Assistance appropriations totaled $95.0 million. This
was a decrease of $31.3 million from the FY2010 appropriations of $126.3 million, of $61.3
million below the Administration’s request of $156.3 million for FY2011, and $13.8 million
below the Senate amendment of $108.8 million. However, the FY2011 appropriation was an
increase of $80.9 million over the House-passed level of $14.1 million. For the state assistance
component, the FY2011 law provided the same funding level as FY2010 ─ $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 the NPS land acquisition component, the FY2011 law
provided $55.0 million, a reduction of $31.3 million from FY2010 ($86.3 million). Land
acquisition funds are used to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for inclusion within the National
Park System. The FY2011 law did not identify which lands would be acquired with the funding
provided. (For more information, see the “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).”)
Congressional Research Service
17
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
U.S. Geological Survey28
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is a science agency that provides physical and biological
information related to climate change; to geological resources; and to energy, mineral, water, and
biological sciences and resources. 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; Global Climate
Change Research; Enterprise Information; Science Support; and Facilities.
The FY2011 enacted level for the USGS was $1.09 billion, which was $25.9 million (2%) below
the FY2010 enacted level of $1.11 billion. The FY2011 level also was $47.5 million (4%) below
the FY2011 Administration request ($1.13 billion), $19.0 million (2%) below the amount in the
Senate amendment ($1.10 billion), and nearly level with the funding in the House-passed bill
($1.09 billion). See Table 7. The FY2011 enacted level for each of eight activities under the
USGS was not specified in the appropriations law for FY2011.29
The FY2011 Administration request for USGS was $1.13 billion, $21.6 million above the
FY2010 enacted level. The FY2011 request would have provided more funding than FY2010 for
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes; Science Support; and Global Climate Change Research. However, the FY2011 request
would have provided less funding than FY2010 for Water Resources Investigations, Biological
Research, Enterprise Information, and Facilities. See Table 7.
Table 7. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FY2010-FY2011
($ in millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011 H.R.
1 Passed
House
FY2011 SA
149 Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
Geographic Research,
Investigations, and Remote
Sensing
145.6
153.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
Geologic Hazards, Resources,
and Processes
249.1
253.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
Water Resources
Investigations
232.3
228.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
Biological Research
204.9
201.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
Global Climate Change
Research
58.2
72.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
Enterprise Information
46.0
41.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
U.S. Geological Survey
28
For more information on USGS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....
Instead, the law directed the USGS to submit plans for spending below the account level to the Appropriations
Committees within 30 days of the enactment.
29
Congressional Research Service
18
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011 H.R.
1 Passed
House
FY2011 SA
149 Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
Science Support
69.2
77.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
Facilities
106.4
104.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,111.7
1,133.4
1,086.2
1,104.8
1,085.8
U.S. Geological Survey
Total Appropriations
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing
This activity aims to provide public access to high-quality geospatial information through the
National Geospatial Program (NGP). NGP organizes, maintains, and publishes data and maps on
topography, natural landscapes, and the built environment (e.g., transportation features) of the
country. The baseline is the National Map, a set of geospatial databases.
This activity supports the Landsat satellite series under the Landsat Data Continuity Mission.
Landsat 8 is being developed to take remotely sensed images of the Earth’s land surface and
surrounding coastal areas primarily for environmental monitoring. Landsat data are freely
available to the public. The FY2010 enacted level for this program was $24.1 million, but the
FY2011 law did not specify funding for FY2011.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes
This activity provides earth science information for a wide variety of partners and customers,
including federal, state, and local agencies, non-government organizations, industry, and
academia. It includes funds for Geologic Hazard Assessment programs to operate monitoring
networks and provide warnings, assessments, and evaluations of impacts from hazards such as
earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides. Hazard assessments cover geologic landscape and coastal
assessments as well as geologic resource assessments. This initiative is part of a DOI initiative to
increase resilience to natural hazards. The Administration had sought increases under this
initiative to enhance the Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project, improve hazard mitigation and
planning activities in the Pacific Northwest, build resilience in Alaskan communities, and
improve USGS disaster response capabilities.
Water Resources Investigations
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: groundwater resources; the National WaterQuality Assessment Program (NAWQA); toxic substances hydrology; hydrologic research and
development; the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP); and Hydrologic Networks
and Analysis (HNA). These programs are primarily research oriented. However, NSIP and
portions of HNA focus on long-term data collection, and NAWQA provides status and trends
information on water quality conditions across the nation.
Congressional Research Service
19
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
NSIP and the Cooperative Water Program support the National Streamgage Network to monitor
the flow of water and associated components in rivers and streams throughout the nation. The
7,500 gages are funded in partnership with over 800 federal, state, and local agencies.
The WaterSMART Program under USGS is funded under this sub-activity. Through this program,
the USGS aims to implement the requirements of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of
2009 (P.L. 111-11): to determine the quantity, quality, and use of the water supply in the United
States. According to the FY2011 budget justification, the USGS is expected to develop critical
information to characterize water flows, storage, use, quality, and ecological needs.30
Biological Research
This program generates and distributes information related to conserving and managing the
nation’s biological resources. For example, funding in FY2010 covered studying species at risk
due to changing arctic ecosystems. Loss of arctic sea ice and terrestrial permafrost-supported
habitats could potentially harm polar bears and other species and ecosystems in the arctic region.
Global Climate Change Research
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. There were no specified increases or decreases in climate change funding
under the USGS in the FY2011 full-year continuing appropriations law.
Under the Administration’s FY2011 request, increased funding was requested for DOI Climate
Science Centers. According to the FY2011 budget justification, the National Climate Change and
Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) and its regional entities—currently referred to as
Department of the Interior Climate Science Centers (DOI CSCs)—support research, assessment,
and synthesis of global change data for use at regional levels. The DOI CSCs are intended to
“adapt and evaluate global climate change models to scales that are appropriate for research
managers of species and habitats, and facilitate data integration and outreach to collaborators and
stake holders.”31 According to the USGS, three CSCs were established in FY2010, funding was
requested for FY2011 to establish two more CSCs in FY2011, and the final three centers are
expected to be established in FY2012.
The USGS is a key contributor to the DOI Climate Effects Network (CEN). CEN provides
science and data on earth systems to understand, track, and forecast the effects of climate change
on ecosystems, natural resources, and society, and assist in adaptation and mitigation. USGS
integrates climate and environmental data and provides decision-support tools for adapting to
climate change under CEN. USGS is conducting a national assessment of biological carbon
sequestration pursuant to P.L. 110-140, which calls for a comprehensive assessment of geologic
and biologic carbon sequestration.
30
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, USGS Budget Justifications and Performance Information for FY2011,
p. B-4.
31
Ibid., p. N-10.
Congressional Research Service
20
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
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.
Science Support and Facilities
Science Support focuses on costs associated with modernizing the infrastructure for managing
and disseminating scientific information. Facilities include sites where USGS activities are
housed—offices, laboratories, storage, parking, and more—as well as eight large research vessels.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement32
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) has a twofold mission: (1) managing all federal and Indian mineral revenues, and (2) managing all federal
offshore renewable and traditional energy and mineral resources.
In response to the April 20, 2010, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, on May 11, 2010, Secretary of the
Interior Ken Salazar announced a plan to separate the safety and environmental functions of the
Minerals Management Service (MMS) from its leasing and revenue collection function. The goal
was to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency. Subsequently, on May 19, 2010, a
decision was made by the Secretary to establish the following three new entities to perform the
functions of the MMS: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR).33
Each of the three new entities as proposed is to have a director who would be under the
supervision of an assistant secretary. For the purposes of this discussion, functions formerly
performed by MMS will be referred to as BOEMRE or ONRR functions when discussing
historical actions. It is unclear what the budgetary implications will be for appropriations for
BOEM and BSEE. The transition to this new framework is expected to be complete and
implemented by October 1, 2011, as reflected in the Administration’s FY2012 budget request.34
ONRR disbursed about $9.2 billion in FY2010 from mineral leases on federal and Indian lands,
down from $10.7 billion in FY2009 and from $23.5 billion in FY2008. This amount fluctuates
annually based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas and has averaged about $13 billion
per year over the last five years. For about a decade prior to FY2007, royalties from natural gas
production accounted for 40% to 45% of annual ONRR35 receipts, while oil royalties were not
more than 25%. However, in FY2007, oil royalties accounted for about 39% of ONRR receipts.
In FY2010, royalties from natural gas and oil leases contributed 28% and 51%, respectively, of
32
For more information on BOEMRE funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....
Additional information on the reassignment of MMS’s responsibilities is contained in Secretarial Order No. 3299, on
the DOI website at http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=32475.
34
For instance, the Royalty Management budget activity was included in the ONRR in the President’s FY2012 budget
request.
35
As noted above, the former MMS is being referred to here and elsewhere as ONRR or BOEMRE, as appropriate.
33
Congressional Research Service
21
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
total ONRR receipts. Other sources of ONRR receipts include bonus bids and rents for all
leasable minerals and royalties from coal and other minerals.
FY2011 Budget and Appropriations
The FY2011 appropriations included funding for two major programs. First, the Offshore Energy
and Minerals Management (OEMM) Program 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.36 Second, the Royalty Management Program 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.
The full-year continuing appropriations law for FY2011 provided net funding for
BOEMRE/ONRR of $209.2 million. This was an increase of $72.7 million (53%) over the
FY2010 level ($136.5 million), but $13.6 million (6%) below the Administration’s request
($222.9 million).37
The FY2011 gross funding level was $416.1 million, composed of appropriations of $404.4
million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management and $11.8 million for Oil Spill Research.
These appropriations were offset by $10.0 million in inspection fees, $154.9 million in receipts
and cost recovery fees, and $42.0 million in cost-share deductions (a deduction from the states’
share of royalty receipts). BOEMRE has been retaining a portion of the OCS revenues as
offsetting collections since 1994.
The FY2011 gross funding was an increase of $67.9 million (19%) over the FY2010 level of
$348.3 million. It included a $62.4 million increase (18%) for Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management and a near doubling of funding for Oil Spill Research, from $6.3 million in FY2010.
See Table 9.
The Administration initially submitted an FY2011 gross funding level of $364.8 million for
BOEMRE/ONRR. On September 13, 2010, the Administration submitted a budget amendment
containing additional funding for BOEMRE/ONRR, reflecting safety and inspection needs in the
aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.38 The amended request contained gross funding of
$464.8 million for FY2011, an increase of $100 million (27%) over the Administration’s initial
request for FY2011. This increase was composed of an additional $75.0 million in appropriations
and $25.0 million in fees. Specifically, the amended FY2011 request included $449.9 million for
36
On April 22, 2009, the Obama Administration announced that regulations for the administration of alternative energy
leases in the OCS had been finalized. For details on the regulations, see the BOEMRE website at
http://www.boemre.gov.
37
The FY2011 law did not generally identify funding for BOEMRE/ONRR programs. Rather, the law directed the
agencies to submit plans for spending below the account level to the Appropriations Committees within 30 days of
enactment.
38
Office of Management and Budget, Estimate #11, September 13, 2010, on the website of the agency at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/budget_amendments/amendment_09_13_10.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management and $14.9 million for Oil Spill Research, with
$199.9 million in offsetting collections and $42.0 million in cost-share deductions.
For FY2011, the Administration had proposed increasing inspection fees, with $45.0 million
collected in FY2011, up from $10.0 million in inspection fees for FY2010. In addition to
increasing inspection fees, the Administration proposed a $4.00 per acre fee on new
nonproducing OCS and onshore leases to further encourage diligent development of those leases,
and to repeal the royalty relief provisions (§344) in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05, P.L.
109-58). These additional fees and royalty-related provisions were not contained in the FY2011
appropriations law.
In the FY2010 budget, BOEMRE requested and received a new subactivity within OEMM for
renewable energy programs. It created a new Office of Offshore Alternative Energy Programs to
develop and implement its offshore renewable energy policies and comply with departmental
goals. BOEMRE issued four limited leases (three in New Jersey, one in Delaware) for site testing
and data collection in late 2009. On April 28, 2010, the Secretary of the Interior announced the
BOEMRE record of decision to issue a commercial lease to Cape Wind Associates, LLC at
Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, to develop a 130-turbine wind energy project offshore. The
FY2011 request for funding renewable energy development offshore was $23.6 million, $2.2
million above FY2010.
Table 8. Appropriations for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation,
and Enforcement (BOEMRE), Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR)
FY2010-FY2011
($ in millions)
FY2011
SA 149
Not
Agreed
To
FY2011
Approp.
FY2010
Approp
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
—OCS Lands (OEMM)
196.9
266.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Royalty Management (MRM)
89.4
118.5
109.5
104.7
109.5
—General Administration
55.7
64.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
Gross, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management
341.9
449.9
404.4
418.5
404.4
—Use of Receipts and Cost Recovery Fees
-156.7
-154.9
-154.9
-154.9
-154.9
—Inspection Fees
-10.0
-45.0
-10.0
-10.0
-10.0
Subtotal, Royalty and Offshore
Minerals Management
Appropriations
175.2
250.0
239.5
253.6
239.5
6.3
14.9
10.6
11.8
11.8
—State Royalty Administrative Cost
Deduction
-45.0
-42.0
-42.0
-42.0
-42.0
Total Appropriations
136.5
222.9
208.1
223.4
209.2
BOEMRE/ONRR
Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management
Oil Spill Research
Administrative Provisions
Congressional Research Service
23
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Offshore (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing
Issues not directly tied to specific funding accounts remain controversial and typically are
debated during consideration of the annual Interior appropriations bills.39 Three issues have been
the focus of debates: moratoria (areas off limits to leasing); royalty relief; and the audit and
compliance program.
Moratoria
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 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.
On December 1, 2010, the Obama Administration announced its Revised Program (RP) for the
remainder of the 2007-2012 OCS Leasing Program. Among other components, the RP eliminates
five Alaskan lease sales (sales 209, 212, 214, 217 and 221) that had been contemplated in the
current lease program. Lease sale 219 in the Cook Inlet (scheduled to be held in 2011) was
cancelled because of a lack of industry interest. Further, the Obama Administration, under
executive authority, withdrew the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area from oil and gas leasing
activity until June 30, 2017. Public hearings began in 2010 on the scope of the 2012-2017 OCS
oil and gas leasing program, but the RP excludes all three Atlantic and all four Pacific Coast
planning areas at least through 2017. Three planning areas in Alaska (Cook Inlet, Chukchi, and
Beaufort Sea) are being scoped as well. Since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, President Obama
has cancelled the August lease sale (215) and the Mid-Atlantic lease sale (220).
The current BOEMRE five-year leasing program is in effect,40 despite an April 17, 2009, order by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to vacate and remand the 2007-2012 program.
However, after clarification from the court, the decision affects only the Alaska lease sales in the
five-year program.41
Whether to lift the remaining moratorium in the eastern Gulf of Mexico under the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act (GOMESA) remains controversial. This law placed nearly all of the eastern
Gulf under a leasing moratorium until 2022, and 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,
and note 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. The April 20, 2010, oil spill off the Louisiana coast is a factor in the debate.42
39
The issues discussed in this section also are being addressed by Congress outside the appropriations process, for
instance through legislation and in hearings by the authorizing committees.
40
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, News Release, July 29, 2009, http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/072909.html.
41
For more information, see CRS Report RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework, by (name
redacted), especially pp. 17-18.
42
For more information on the spill, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Because of uncertainty over resource assessments and environmental concerns, DOI studied, and
published a 2009 report on, OCS resource data gaps.43 In an effort to gather more data on the
OCS, the conferees on the FY2010 Interior appropriations bill directed the BOEMRE 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.44 On April 2, 2010, the
Administration issued a statement on its planned scoping meeting for the preparation of a PEIS of
planned geophysical and geological exploration in the Mid-Atlantic and South-Atlantic OCS
Planning Areas. Under the December 1, 2010, RP, the Administration is proceeding with the
PEIS.
Royalty Relief
Royalty relief for OCS oil and gas producers has been debated during consideration of Interior
appropriations bills.45 The BOEMRE/ONRR 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.46
Without the price thresholds, producers may produce oil and gas up to specified volumes without
paying royalties no matter what the price.
BOEMRE/ONRR asserts that placing price thresholds in the lease agreements is at the discretion
of the Secretary of the Interior. The authority of the Secretary to impose price thresholds was
challenged by Kerr-McGee.47 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).48 On July 13,
2009, the Administration petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. On October
5, 2009, the Supreme Court rejected the Administration’s petition. The ruling of the U.S. Court of
Appeals could apply to $23-$31 billion in future OCS royalties, according to BOEMRE/ONRR,
but may not affect congressional efforts to impose new fees or establish new lease eligibility
criteria.49 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated the range of royalty revenue
loss to the Treasury at $21-$53 billion over 25 years. The ranges of BOEMRE/ONRR and GAO
estimated losses were based on assumptions including future prices and production rates. As of
(...continued)
Governance, by (name redacted).
43
U.S. Dept. 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, http://www.doi.gov/ocs/report.pdf.
44
H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, p. 98.
45
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).
46
The report is on the DOI website at http://www.doioig.gov/upload/MMS%20ROI%20REDACTED.pdf.
47
Kerr-McGee v. Allred, No, 2:06 CV 0439, 2007 WL 3231634 (W.D. La. Oct. 30, 2007). For more details on this
case, see CRS Report RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework, by (name redacted). Also, KerrMcGee has been acquired by Anadarko Petroleum.
48
Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 554 F.3d 1082 (5th Cir. 2009).
49
See CRS Report RL33974, Legal Issues Raised by Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R. 6) Creating Incentives for
Certain Outer Continental Shelf (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
25
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
March 28, 2011, the Administration has repaid $2 billion to companies based on the court
decision. 50
Audit and Compliance Program
Another challenge confronting the BOEMRE/ONRR 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 adoption of
a risk-based compliance approach. According to the BOEMRE/ONRR, its FY2011 budget request
reflects the agency’s commitment to this approach. Funding for this program was not specified in
the FY2011 appropriations law.
Further, DOI established an independent panel, the Royalty Policy Committee (RPC), to review
the BOEMRE Mineral Leasing Program. The RPC offered over 100 recommendations to
BOEMRE for improving its leasing program and auditing function. The review included an
examination of the Royalty-in-Kind (RIK) Program (wherein payments are made in fuel rather
than in cash), which grew from 41.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) in 2004 to 112
million BOE in 2007.51 GAO issued a report on September 26, 2008, concluding that the RIK
Program could be improved.52 After review of the RIK program, the Secretary of the Interior
announced its “phased-in termination.”53 BOEMRE’s FY2011 budget request reflects its plan to
continue phasing out the RIK program.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement54
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 premining 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 (AML) Fund55 to reclaim abandoned mine lands 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
50
Data received from ONRR, Public Affairs Office, March 28, 2011.
The report of the panel, Mineral Revenue Collection from Federal and Indian Lands and the Outer Continental Shelf,
is available on the BOEMRE website at http://onrr.gov/Laws_R_D/RoyPC/PDFDocs/RPCRMS1207.pdf.
52
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.
53
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.
54
For more information on OSM funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....
55
AML is the acronym for abandoned mine lands.
51
Congressional Research Service
26
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
determined strictly by annual appropriations. However, beginning with FY2008, under P.L. 109432, 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.56 Other activities
exclusively receive annual appropriations. Among these are the expenses of federal AML
programs in states with no 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 $2.3 billion at the end of November 2009.57 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 received grants to which they are entitled under a
formula from prior-year collections.
Budget and Appropriations
The FY2011 full-year continuing appropriations law retained funding for OSM at the FY2010
level of $162.9 million, as had been approved by the House and included in the Senate
amendment. The FY2011 level was $16.7 million (11%) above the $146.1 million requested by
the Administration. The Administration had supported increasing user fees from the coal industry
to offset the proposed reduction. The Administration noted that other energy industries, “such as
oil and gas producers, pay inspection or permit fees to reimburse the Federal government for the
cost of regulating their industry.” Increasing user fees on coal producers to contribute to the cost
of coal mine regulation, the Administration asserted, “will treat these similar industries more
comparably.” See Table 9.
In its FY2011 budget request—as it did in the FY2010 request—the Administration expressed its
intention to seek an end of payments to certified states and tribes. The Administration asserted
that because these funds can be used for any purpose, these distributions are inconsistent with the
purpose of the AML program. As these payments are made from the mandatory appropriations,
the Administration’s proposal would require a change in law, which is strongly opposed by the
affected states and tribes. Such a change in law has not been enacted to date. A proposed decrease
of $4.5 million, within the total decrease for the AML Fund, reflected the expectation of the
Administration that mandatory appropriations would cover the costs of state and tribal emergency
grants and federally managed emergency projects.58
56
The mandatory appropriation has a ceiling of $490 million annually. If demands on that money exceed the cap,
distributions will be proportional.
57
See http://www.osm.gov/topic/grants/docs/2010/FY10GrantDist.pdf.
58
Mandatory appropriations in FY2011 are estimated by the Administration to be $295.5 million, a reduction of over
$100 million from the $398.3 million in mandatory appropriations projected for FY2010. The difference reflects an
Administration assumption that its proposal in the budget request to cease the return of unappropriated balances to
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Table 9. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, FY2010-FY2011
($ in millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
Regulation and Technology
127.3
115.8
127.3
127.3
127.3
—Environmental Protection
94.8
83.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
35.6
30.4
35.6
35.6
35.6
Total Appropriations
162.9
146.1
162.9
162.9
162.9
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
FY2011 S
A 149 Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs59
Office of Insular Affairs60
OIA provides financial assistance to four insular areas—American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)—as well as
three freely associated states in the Western Pacific—the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM),
the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Republic of Palau.61 OIA staff manage
relations between each jurisdiction and the federal government and work to build the fiscal and
administrative capacities of local governments. Given ongoing financial challenges throughout
the insular areas, OIA assistance can be especially important to maintain government services.
OIA funds are also supporting infrastructure projects needed for the increased U.S. military
presence on Guam.62
OIA funding consists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite (mandatory) appropriations, and
(2) funds provided in the annual appropriations process (current discretionary funds). The latter
comes from two accounts: Assistance to Territories (AT) and Compact of Free Association (CFA).
AT funding provides grants for the operation of the government of American Samoa,
infrastructure improvement projects on many of the insular area islands, and specified natural
resource initiatives. The CFA account provides federal assistance to the freely associated states
pursuant to compact agreements negotiated with the U.S. government. The AT and CFA accounts,
however, provide a relatively small portion of the office’s overall budget; permanent and
indefinite funds provide the bulk of U.S. financial assistance to U.S. insular areas, FSM, RMI,
and Palau.
(...continued)
certified states will be agreed to by Congress.
59
This section addresses selected activities/offices that fall under Departmental Offices or Department-Wide Programs.
Total funding for these entities is identified in Table 18 at the end of this report.
60
For more information on OIA funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....
61
On behalf of the United Nations, the U.S. government formerly administered these areas as the Trust Territories of
the Pacific Islands (TTPI).
62
For additional discussion of the buildup, see CRS Report RS22570, Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments, by (name redac
ted).
Congressional Research Service
28
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
For FY2011, the total OIA funding was $472.4 million. Of this total, existing statute required
approximately $370.8 million (78% of the total) in permanent and indefinite funding,
consisting of
•
an estimated $224.8 million under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts
of Free Association; and
•
an estimated $146.0 million in fiscal assistance for Guam and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Discretionary funds in the AT and CFA accounts require annual appropriations. The FY2011
appropriation for these activities was $101.6 million, which constituted the remaining 22% of the
total OIA budget of $472.4 million. The FY2011 level was $0.9 million (1%) less than the $102.5
million appropriated for FY2010. It was the same as the amount in the Senate amendment, but
$17.7 million (21%) higher than the $83.9 million in the House-passed bill.
As is typical, AT funding represented the bulk of appropriated OIA funds. The FY2011 law
specified $84.3 million in AT funds, which provide various technical assistance to territories (e.g.,
grants supporting local governments and infrastructure projects). That amount was the same as
the Senate had included in its amendment, 1% less than the $85.2 million enacted for FY2010,
and 7% higher than the House-passed level of $78.5 million.
The FY2011 law contained $17.3 million in CFA funding (which provides amounts for certain
federal services, such as U.S. mail). That amount was the same as enacted in FY2010 and
included in the Senate amendment. The House had approved less ─ $5.4 million.
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency63
EPA’s primary responsibilities include the implementation of federal statutes regulating air
quality, water quality, pesticides, toxic substances, the management and disposal of solid and
hazardous wastes, and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to
assist states and local governments in complying with federal requirements to control pollution.
The FY2011 full-year continuing appropriations law provided $8.70 billion for EPA, which was
$1.59 billion (15%) less than the FY2010 appropriation of $10.29 billion. The FY2011 enacted
level also was $1.32 billion (13%) less than the $10.02 billion included in the President’s FY2011
budget request and $1.20 billion (12%) less than the $9.90 billion in the Senate amendment, but
an increase of $1.46 billion (20%) above the $7.24 billion in the House-passed bill.
Table 10 presents funding levels proposed and enacted for FY2011 compared to appropriations
enacted in FY2010 for the eight statutory accounts that fund the agency. With a few exceptions,
FY2011 appropriations for EPA were specified only at the account level. Within 30 days of
enactment of the FY2011 appropriations law, EPA and other agencies must submit spending plans
at a level below the account level to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate.
63
For more information on EPA funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... For a more detailed analysis of EPA’s
FY2011 appropriations and discussion of EPA funding levels historically, see CRS Report R41149, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011, by (name redacted) et al.
Congressional Research Service
29
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
As indicated in the table, the overall decrease for EPA for FY2011 compared to the FY2010
enacted, FY2011 President’s request, and Senate amendment was reflected in reductions for five
of the eight EPA regular accounts. FY2011 funding levels for the other three accounts ─ Office of
Inspector General, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program, and Oil Spill
Response ─ are the same as FY2010 enacted levels. The overall decrease for EPA for FY2011
was mostly specified in reductions within the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM)
and the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) accounts. Within the STAG account, the
decrease was reflected primarily in amounts provided for the Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds (SRFs) and for Special Project Grants (“earmarks”).
Table 10. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
FY2010-FY2011
($ in millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
—Base Appropriations
848.0
846.7
790.5
826.4
815.1
—Transfer in from Hazardous
Substance Superfund
26.8
24.5
24.5
24.5
26.8
Science and Technology Total
874.9
871.2
815.0
850.9
841.9
2,993.8
2,891.0
2,562.6
2,789.4
2,762.0
—Base Appropriations
44.8
45.6
44.8
44.8
44.8
—Transfer in from Hazardous
Substance Superfund
10.0
10.2
10.0
10.0
10.0
Office of Inspector General Total
54.8
55.8
54.8
54.8
54.8
Buildings & Facilities
37.0
40.0
37.0
37.0
36.5
—Base Appropriations
1,306.5
1,293.1
1,273.8
1,293.5
1,283.5
—Transfer out to Office
of Inspector General
-10.0
-10.2
-10.0
-10.0
-10.0
—Transfer out to Science
and Technology
-26.8
-24.5
-24.5
-24.5
-26.8
Hazardous Substance Superfund (after
transfers)
1,269.7
1,258.4
1,239.3
1,259.0
1,246.7
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund Program
113.1
113.2
106.1
113.1
113.1
Oil Spill Response
18.4
18.5
18.4
18.4
18.4
2,100.0
2,000.0
690.0
2,100.0
1,525.0
EPA Appropriations Accounts
FY2011
SA 149
Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
Science and Technology
Environmental Programs
and Management
Office of Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund (before
transfers)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
—Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Congressional Research Service
30
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
EPA Appropriations Accounts
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
1,387.0
1,287.0
830.0
1,387.0
965.0
—Special Project Grants
156.8
0
0
0
0
—Categorical Grants
1,116.4
1,276.6
1,056.4
1,106.4
1,106.4
—Other State and
Tribal Assistance Grants
210.0
218.3
130.0
187.5
170.0
4,970.2
4,781.9
2,706.4
4,780.9
3,766.4
-40.0
-10.0
-300.0
0
-140.0
10,291.9
10,020.0
7,239.6
9,903.5
8,699.8
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
Rescissions (various EPA accounts) a
Total Appropriations
a.
FY2011
SA 149
Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
For FY2010, rescissions were from unobligated balances from funds appropriated in prior years, and made
available for expenditure in a later year. In effect, these “rescissions” increased the availability of funds for
expenditure by the agency in the years in which they are applied (as shown in the table), functioning as an
offset to new appropriations. Sec. 1740 of Div. B of P.L. 112-10 refers only to “unobligated balances
available for “Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants”[not across all
accounts], and does not specify that these funds are to be rescinded from prior years. The EPA
Administrator is to submit a proposed allocation of such rescinded amounts to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and the Senate.
Key Funding Issues
Much of the attention on EPA’s FY2011 funding focused on federal financial assistance for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects,64 environmental cleanup of Superfund
sites, grants to assist states in implementing air pollution control requirements, and climate
change research and related activities. There also was interest in funding for geographic-specific
water quality initiatives, including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative established in the
FY2010 Interior Appropriations law, and efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay.65
Several recent and pending EPA regulatory actions were also the focus of considerable attention
during committee hearings and floor debate on EPA FY2011 appropriations, and were reflected in
several provisions and amendments included in the House-passed bill. Although generally not
retained in the FY2011 law, more than 20 provisions that would have restricted and prohibited the
use of appropriated funds to implement various regulatory activities under EPA’s jurisdiction
were included in the House-passed bill.66 These EPA regulatory actions cut across the various
environmental pollution control statutes’ programs and initiatives, such as those that address
greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous air pollutants (including mercury), mountaintop mining
regulation, management of coal ash, particulate matter emissions, and water quality management
including geographical ecosystems (e.g., Chesapeake Bay). The Senate amendment generally
64
See CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by (name redacted).
See Executive Order 13508: Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, May 12, 2009, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
presdocs/2009/DCPD-200900352.pdf.
66
For an overview of funding levels and provisions contained in House-passed H.R. 1 and S.Amdt. 149, and a
comparison with the FY2011 requested and FY2010 enacted funding levels, see CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year
FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions, by (name redacted).
65
Congressional Research Service
31
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
omitted the House-passed provisions related to EPA regulatory activities. The following sections
briefly highlight issues of debate.67
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure
Most of the overall FY2011 decrease relative to the FY2010 appropriations for EPA is attributed
to a reduction in EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account for grants to aid states
to capitalize their Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs).68 The FY2011
total for the Clean Water and the Drinking Water SRFs was $2.49 billion, compared to $3.49
billion for FY2010. The SRFs finance local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects,
such as constructing and modifying municipal sewage treatment plants and drinking water
treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water
Act, respectively. EPA awards Clean Water SRF capitalization grants among the states according
to a statutory formula established in the Clean Water Act. The Drinking Water SRF capitalization
grants are awarded among the states based on a formula developed administratively by EPA,
using the results of a drinking water needs survey to determine priorities among the states.
The FY2011 law provided $1.53 billion for the Clean Water SRF capitalization grants and $965.0
million for the Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants. As indicated in Table 10, these FY2011
appropriations were more than amounts proposed by the House, but below the FY2010 enacted
appropriations and the amount in the Senate amendment. Some Members objected to the
reductions, while others maintained that the reductions were offset by unspent FY2009
supplemental funding (in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5).
An ongoing issue has been the extent of federal assistance still needed to help states maintain
sufficient capital in their SRFs to meet local water infrastructure needs. Some advocates of a
prominent federal role have cited estimates of hundreds of billions of dollars in long-term needs
among communities, and the expansion of federal water quality requirements over time, as
reasons for maintaining or increasing the level of federal assistance. Others have called for more
self-reliance among state and local governments in meeting water infrastructure needs within
their respective jurisdictions.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and other Geographic-Specific Programs
EPA’s Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account also funds several programs
that address water quality and ecosystem restoration needs in specific geographic areas of the
United States. Much of the attention to these programs within the context of the FY2011 request
focused on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the ongoing Chesapeake Bay Program. 69
The FY2011 law provided $300.0 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the same as
67
For a more detailed discussion of EPA’s FY2011 appropriations and for historical background regarding EPA
appropriations over time, see CRS Report R41149, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for
FY2011, by (name redacted) et al.
68
The STAG account also funds state and tribal “categorical” grants to support the day-to-day implementation of
environmental laws. The FY2011 law provided $1.11 billion for these grants, the same as the Senate amendment, but
above the $1.06 billion in the House-passed bill, and below the FY2010 appropriation of $1.12 billion and the
President’s FY2011 budget request of $1.28 billion.
69
See Executive Order 13508: Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, May 12, 2009, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
presdocs/2009/DCPD-200900352.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
32
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
the Senate amendment and the FY2011 request, but more than the $225.0 million included in the
House-passed bill, and below the $475.0 million appropriated to establish it in FY2010. Although
some stakeholders and some Members opposed the proposed reduction in funding for this
initiative, the decrease was attributed primarily to the timing of the funds, and contention that less
funding was needed in FY2011 because EPA had not yet obligated all of the funding appropriated
for FY2010. Funding for the Chesapeake Bay program was not specified in the FY2011 law or in
the Senate amendment, but the House-passed bill would have reduced the FY2010 appropriation
of $50.0 million by $10.0 million. The President had requested $63.0 million.
Cleanup of Superfund Sites
The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) account supports the assessment and cleanup of
contaminated sites administered under EPA’s Superfund program, established under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).70
The FY2011 law provided $1.28 billion for the Superfund account (prior to transfers to other EPA
accounts). As indicated in Table 10, the FY2011 appropriation was less than enacted for FY2010,
included in the Senate amendment, and requested by the President, but an increase above the
level in the House-passed bill. Funding levels for the Superfund account have remained fairly
similar to these amounts over the past decade (not accounting for inflation), with the exception of
$600.0 million in supplemental funds provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-5.
Most of the funding within the Superfund account is allocated to the cleanup of sites that EPA has
placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). Debate over the sufficiency of funding for the
Superfund program centered primarily around the pace and adequacy of cleanup at these sites.
The source of funding for the program also was an issue, and there was interest in reinstating
Superfund taxes on industry to help support the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund.71
Congress appropriates monies out of this trust fund to support EPA’s Superfund program. The
President’s FY2011 budget request included a proposal to reinstate Superfund taxes beginning in
FY2011, subject to the enactment of reauthorizing legislation. Such legislation has not been
enacted to date.
Climate Change and Related Air Quality Issues
In hearings and floor debate on EPA’s FY2011 appropriations, some Members expressed concern
with EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Other
recently promulgated and pending EPA actions under the CAA, including those addressing
hazardous air pollutants (mercury) and particulate matter emissions, also received attention in the
context of the FY2011 appropriations. Congress has addressed EPA’s development of certain
CAA regulations through the appropriations process in the past—either explicitly providing or
restricting the availability of agency funds for such purposes.
The House-passed bill included seven provisions that would have restricted or prohibited use of
funds appropriated for activities related to specific EPA actions under the CAA.72 These
70
CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.), requires responsible parties to pay for the cleanup of environmental
contamination, and authorizes the cleanup of sites where the responsible parties cannot pay or cannot be found.
71
The Superfund tax consisted of two excise taxes, one on petroleum and one on chemical feedstocks, and a special
environmental tax on corporate income. The authority to collect these taxes expired on December 31, 1995.
72
For a more detailed summary of these provisions contained in House-passed H.R. 1, see Table 2 in CRS Report
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
33
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
provisions were not included in the Senate amendment or the FY2011 law. The FY2011 law
specified that no funding be provided in the STAG account for the Targeted Airshed Grants
Program and for Climate Change Grants to Local Governments, a categorical grant within the
STAG account, the same as in the House bill, Senate amendment, and President’s FY2011
request. The FY2010 enacted amounts for these grants were $20.0 million and $10.0 million,
respectively. Also, the FY2011 appropriations law specified $50.0 million within the STAG
account for the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants Program for FY2011, a reduction from the
$60.0 million provided in FY2010 and included in the FY2011 request. The House-passed bill
and Senate amendment had proposed no FY2011 funding for the Diesel Emission Reductions
Grant Program. FY2011 funding for other EPA CAA program activities below the account level
were not specified in the law.
EPA is one of 17 federal agencies that have received appropriations for climate change activities
in recent fiscal years. EPA’s share of this funding is relatively small, but EPA’s policy and
regulatory roles are proportionately larger than other federal agencies and departments. EPA’s
response to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision73 with regard to greenhouse gas emissions has
become a prominent issue of debate.74 The Supreme Court found greenhouse gases (GHGs) to be
“air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, requiring EPA to consider whether GHGs endanger
public health or welfare, the first step in promulgating regulations to limit emissions. In 2008,
EPA found that greenhouse gas emissions endangered human health and the environment,
compelling regulatory action. EPA’s subsequent promulgation of emission limits for motor
vehicles triggered additional provisions under the CAA to limit emissions from stationary
sources. EPA’s regulatory actions in response to the Supreme Court decision were central to the
debate among Members of Congress, and the focus of many of the restrictions and prohibitions
on funding proposed during the consideration of EPA’s FY2011 appropriations.
(...continued)
R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Provisions, by (name redacted).
73
Massachusetts v. EPA , 549 U.S. 497 (2007), see CRS Report R41103, Federal Agency Actions Following the
Supreme Court’s Climate Change Decision: A Chronology, by (name redacted).
74
See CRS Report R41212, EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases: Congressional Responses and Options, by (name red
acted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
34
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Title III: Related Agencies
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service75
For FY2011, the appropriations law provided $4.70 billion in appropriations for the Forest
Service (FS), $0.8 million (<1%) less than the House-passed level ($4.70 billion), $91.6 million
(2%) less than the Senate amendment ($4.79 billion), and $681.4 million (13%) less than the
Administration requested ($5.38 billion).The enacted level was $602.0 million (11%) less than
the FY2010 appropriation of $5.30 billion.
As shown in Table 1, FS appropriations are provided in several major accounts: Forest and
Rangeland Research (FS Research); State and Private Forestry; National Forest System; Capital
Improvement and Maintenance (Capital); Land Acquisition; Wildland Fire Management; and
Other programs. Wildland Fire Management, nearly half of the FS budget request, is discussed
with DOI Wildland Fire Management in the “Cross-Cutting Topics” section at the end of this
report.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Forest Service (FS), FY2010-FY2011
($ in millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
FS Research
312.0
304.4
297.3
312.0
307.3
State & Private Forestry
308.1
321.6
232.7
301.6
278.2
National Forest System
1,551.3
1,585.7
1,525.3
1,566.3
1,545.3
Capitala
538.1
438.4
482.4
496.8
460.6
Land Acquisitionb
64.8
75.0
10.4
34.5
34.3
Other
6.2
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.2
Wildland Fire Management
2,516.7
2,645.4
2,141.7
2,069.4
2,063.4
Total Appropriations
5,297.3
5,376.6
4,696.0
4,786.8
4,695.3
Forest Service
75
FY2011
SA 149
Not Agreed
To
FY2011
Approp.
a.
Reflects savings of $18.0 million from the deferral of payments to the road and trail fund in FY2010 and
$13.0 million for all FY2011 funding levels except the Administration’s request.
b.
Figures include funds for the Land Acquisition account, which are derived from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF), as well as other Forest Service acquisitions. For the LWCF Land Acquisition
account only, the FY2010 enacted level was $63.5 million, FY2011 request was $73.7 million, the FY2011
House-passed amount was $9.1 million, the FY2011 Senate amendment level was $33.2 million, and the
FY2011 enacted level was $33.0 million.
For more information on FS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.... or (name redacted) at 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
35
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
FS Research
The FY2011 appropriations law included $307.3 million for FS Research, $4.8 million less than
the FY2010 appropriations and the level in the Senate amendment. However, it was $10.0 million
more than the House-passed level.
State and Private Forestry
State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs provide financial and technical assistance to states
and to private forest owners. For FY2011, the appropriations law contained $278.2 million for
S&PF, $29.9 million less than the FY2010 enacted level. The FY2011 enacted amount for S&PF
was $45.5 million more than the House-passed level and $23.5 million less than the Senate
amendment.
Funding for the Forest Legacy program—a program to acquire lands or easements to preserve
forests threatened by conversion to non-forests uses—was particularly controversial. The FY2011
appropriations law specified Forest Legacy funding at $53.0 million, a $23.5 million decline from
FY2010. The Administration had sought to increase Forest Legacy funding to $100.1 million for
FY2011. The House-passed bill would have cut funding from $76.5 million in FY2010 to $6.2
million. In contrast, the Senate Amendment did not specify a reduction in Forest Legacy funding.
FY2011 funding for other programs was not specified in the FY2011 law.76
National Forest System
For the National Forest System (NFS), the FY2011 appropriations law included $1.55 billion,
$6.0 million less than the FY2010 appropriations. The FY2011 enacted amount for NFS was
$20.0 million more than the House and $21.0 million less than the Senate.77
The FY2011 appropriation directed funding for two programs. It specified $15.0 million for the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund. The Fund, authorized in Title IV of the
Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11), “is to encourage collaborative,
science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes … through a process that
encourages ecological and economic sustainability, leverages national resources with local and
private resources, re-establishes natural fire regimes, tracks performance, and uses of forest
restoration byproducts to offset treatment costs.”78 The Administration had requested $40.0
million for this new program.
The other program with specified funding was forest products (timber sales). The FY2011 law
directed $336.7 million for this program, matching the FY2010 funding and the FY2011 request.
76
The law did not generally identify funding below the account level, but rather directed the Forest Service to submit
plans for spending below the account level to the Appropriations Committees within 30 days of enactment.
77
See footnote 75.
78
USDA Forest Service, Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Justification, p. 7-6.
Congressional Research Service
36
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Capital Improvement and Maintenance
This account includes funding for the construction and maintenance of facilities, roads, and trails,
as well as for deferred maintenance (i.e., the maintenance backlog). For FY2011, the
appropriations law included $460.6 million, $77.5 million less than the FY2010 level. The
FY2011 enacted amount was $21.8 million less than the House and $36.2 million less than the
Senate. The Administration had requested a further reduction still, to $438.4 million. As part of
the request, the Administration had proposed eliminating funding for road construction, to focus
on road maintenance. The appropriation for road construction for FY2010 was $69.6 million.
Deferred maintenance and the backlog of needed infrastructure improvements has continued to be
a concern; the agency’s backlog of deferred maintenance was estimated at $5.3 billion as of
September 30, 2009. Legacy road remediation (to decommission roads, repair and maintain roads
and trails, remove fish passage barriers, and protect community water resources) was addressed in
the FY2011 law. The FY2011 enacted amount was $45.0 million, which was half the FY2010
level of $90.0 million. The House-passed bill had included $50.4 million for legacy road
remediation, as had been requested by the President, while the Senate amendment had included
$50.0 million.
Land Acquisition
For FY2011, the appropriations law included $34.3 million for FS land acquisition. This was
$30.5 million less than land acquisition appropriations for FY2010. The FY2011 enacted amount
was $23.9 million more than the House and $0.2 million less than the Senate. By contrast, the
Administration had sought to boost land acquisition to $75.0 million. Most of the funds for FS
land acquisition are derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (For more information,
see “LWCF,” below.)
Department of Health and Human Services:
Indian Health Service79
The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
responsible for providing comprehensive medical and environmental health services for
approximately 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) who belong to 565
federally recognized tribes located in 35 states. Health care is provided through a system of
facilities and programs operated by IHS, tribes and tribal groups, and urban Indian organizations.
As of October 2010, IHS operated 28 hospitals, 58 health centers, 2 school health centers, and 31
health stations. Tribes and tribal groups, through IHS contracts and compacts, operated another 17
hospitals, 235 health centers, 13 school health centers, 92 health stations, and 166 Alaska Native
village clinics. Urban Indian organizations operated 34 ambulatory or referral programs. IHS,
tribes, and tribal groups also operate 11 residential youth substance abuse treatment centers.80
79
For more information on IHS funding, contact (name redacted), at 7-.....
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Fiscal Year 2012 Indian Health Service
Justification of Estimates, http://www.ihs.gov/NonMedicalPrograms/BudgetFormulation/documents/
FY%202012%20Budget%20Justification.pdfHereafter this document is cited as IHS FY2012 Budget Justification.
80
Congressional Research Service
37
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
For FY2011, IHS received an appropriation of $4.08 billion under the full-year appropriations
law, an increase of $25.0 million (0.6%) from FY2010 and the amount in the Senate amendment.
The FY2011 appropriation was $329.1 million (7%) less than the Administration’s request ($4.41
billion) and $62.0 million (1%) less than the House-passed level ($4.14 billion). Besides
discretionary appropriations, IHS also receives funding from third-party reimbursements,
appropriations for a special Indian diabetes program, and rents on personnel quarters. The sum of
appropriations, reimbursements, diabetes funding, and rent is IHS’s “program level” total.
Reimbursements from Medicare/Medicaid and Private Insurance, and Other Collections in the
table are estimated by IHS at the time of the budget submission and are subject to change based
on final fiscal year data. See Table 12.
IHS funding is separated into two budget categories: Health Services and Facilities. Below is a
discussion of funding for these accounts and some of the major programs included in these
accounts. The House-passed bill increased funding for the two IHS accounts and specified
funding levels for certain activities and programs funded with the Indian Health Services account.
The Senate amendment would have continued funding for IHS at the account levels specified in
the FY2010 law, and under the terms and conditions of that law. The FY2011 appropriations law
increased funding for the two IHS accounts, while continuing the terms and conditions of that
law.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS), FY2010-FY2011
($ in millions)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
2,953.6
3,200.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Hospital and Health Clinics
1,754.4
1,893.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Indian Health Care
Improvement Fund
45.5
44.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Health Information
Technology: Health Records
Digitization
16.3
20.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Dental Health
152.6
161.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Mental Health
72.8
77.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Alcohol and Substance Abuse
194.4
205.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Methamphetamine
treatment and prevention
16.4
16.4
16.4
16.4
16.4
—Contract Health Services
779.3
862.8
862.8
779.3
779.3
—Catastrophic Health
Emergency Fund
48.0
53.0
53.0
48.0
48.0
Preventive Health Services
144.3
151.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Public Health Nursing
64.1
67.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Health Education
16.7
17.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Community Health
61.6
64.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
Indian Health Service
FY2011 SA
149 Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
Congressional Research Service
38
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
FY2011 SA
149 Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
1.9
2.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
559.7
610.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Urban Health Projects
43.1
45.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Indian Health Professions
40.7
41.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Tribal Management
2.6
2.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Direct Operations
68.7
69.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Self-Governance
6.1
6.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Contract Support Costs
398.5
444.3
444.3
398.5
398.5
Subtotal, Indian Health
Services
3,657.6
3,961.2
3,883.9
3,657.6
3,672.6
—Maintenance and Improvement
53.9
55.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Sanitation Facilities
Construction
95.9
97.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Health Care Facilities
Construction
29.2
66.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Facilities and Environmental
Health Support
193.1
202.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Equipment
22.7
23.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
Subtotal, Indian Health
Facilities
394.8
445.2
255.5
394.8
404.8
Total Appropriations
4,052.4
4,406.4
4,139.4
4,052.4
4,077.4
Reimbursements from
Medicare/Medicaid and Private
Insurance, and Other
Collectionsa
835.0
835.3
835.0
835.0
835.0
Special Diabetes Program for
Indiansb
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
5,037.4
5,391.8
5,124.4
5,037.4
5,062.4
Indian Health Service
Representatives
—Immunization (Alaska)
Other Services
Indian Health Facilities
Total Program Level
a.
Amounts noted for “Reimbursements from Medicare/Medicaid and Private Insurance, and Other
Collections are IHS estimates as of the submission of the FY2011 budget justification (February 2011).
These amounts may be adjusted based on final year data. In its FY2012 budget submission, IHS noted that its
FY2010 collections were $897 million and its FY2011 collections will be $914 million.
b.
The Special Diabetes Program for Indians has a direct appropriations of $150 million for each of fiscal years
FY2004 through FY2013 (P.L. 110-275 and P.L. 111-309). This program is funded through the General
Treasury; therefore, it is not a part of IHS appropriations.
Health Services
The FY2011 full-year appropriations law provided $3.67 billion for the Indian Health Services
account, an increase of $15.0 million (0.4%) over the $3.66 billion enacted for FY2010 and
Congressional Research Service
39
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
included in the Senate amendment. The House-passed bill included a further increase to $3.88
billion, while the Administration had proposed a higher level ─ $3.96 billion for FY2011.81
Contract Health Services
The FY2011 appropriations law continued funding for Contract Health Services (CHS) at the
FY2010 level of $779.3 million, as had the Senate amendment. The House-passed bill and the
Administration request had sought to increase CHS funding by $83.4 million (11%) from $779.3
million in FY2010 to $862.8 million in FY2011. CHS funds the purchase of essential health
services from local and community health care providers when IHS cannot provide medical care
and specific services through its own system. In general, funding for CHS has not allowed it to
meet all requests, so IHS prioritizes CHS payments based on relative medical need and denies
other CHS requests. The Administration and the House-passed bill had included an 11% increase
for this program to reduce the number of denials of CHS requests in FY2011.82
Included in the CHS program is the Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF), which pays
CHS costs in critical, high-cost cases (above $25,000), such as disaster victims or catastrophic
illnesses. In FY2008 CHEF funded 1,084 cases but could not fund another 1,096 cases.83 The
FY2011 law continued the FY2010 level of $48.0 million for CHEF, as had the Senate
amendment. The Administration and the House-passed bill had included $53.0 million for CHEF,
an increase of $5.0 million (10%) over FY2010 appropriations. IHS estimated the increase would
allow CHEF to fund 200 more high-cost cases.84
Contract Support Costs
For contract support costs (CSC), the FY2011 appropriations law continued the FY2010 level of
$398.5 million, as had the Senate amendment. The Administration and the House-passed bill had
sought to increase funding by $45.8 million (12%) from the FY2010 level to $443.0 million for
FY2011. CSC funds are provided to tribes to help pay the costs of administering IHS-funded
programs under self-determination contracts or self-governance compacts authorized by the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). 85 CSC pays for costs that
tribes incur for such items as financial management, accounting, training, and program start-up.
The CSC program has long been subject to shortfalls, causing reduced services or decreased
administrative efficiency for tribes with contracts and compacts.86 IHS estimated that the
proposed increase would not change the proportion of CSC need that gets funded, because current
ISDEAA tribes are expected to expand their contracts and compacts, new tribes will sign
81
The FY2011 full-year appropriations law did not specify amounts below the account level for the Indian Health
Services account. Instead it required IHS to develop a spending plan within 30 days of enactment.
82
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Fiscal Year 2011 Indian Health Service
Justification of Estimates, p. CJ-95, http://www.ihs.gov/NonMedicalPrograms/BudgetFormulation/documents/
IHS%20FY%202011%20Congressional%20Justification.pdf. Hereafter this document is cited as IHS FY2011 Budget
Justification.
83
IHS FY2011 Budget Justification, p. CJ-97.
84
IHS FY2011 Budget Justification, p. CJ-100.
85
P.L. 93-638, act Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, as amended; 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq.
86
See U.S. General Accounting Office, Indian Self-Determination Act: Shortfalls in Indian Contract Support Costs
Need to Be Addressed, GAO/RCED-99-150, June 1999, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99150.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
40
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
ISDEAA contracts and compacts, and the Administration proposed funding increases in programs
contracted and compacted.87
Facilities
The FY2011 appropriations law included $404.8 million for the Indian Health facilities account,
an increase of $10.0 million (3%) from the level enacted for FY2010 and included in the Senate
amendment. The House-passed bill would have reduced funding for this account by $139.3
million (35%), to a level of $255.5 million. In contrast, the Administration had proposed an
increase of $50.5 million (13%) to a funding level of $455.2 million for the facilities account to
continue construction of a hospital and two health centers. Indian health organizations assert that
many IHS facilities are old and in poor repair and that increased appropriations are needed for
health care facility construction.
Smithsonian Institution88
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum and research complex consisting of 19 museums
and galleries, the National Zoo, and nine research facilities throughout the United States and
around the world. Nearly thirty million people visited Smithsonian facilities in 2009. Established
by federal legislation in 1846 in acceptance of a trust donation by the Institution’s namesake
benefactor, SI is funded by both federal appropriations and a private trust, with more than $1
billion in total revenue from all sources of funding for FY2009.89
For FY2011, the full-year continuing appropriations law provided $761.2 million, a decrease of
$0.2 million (<1%) over the FY2010 amount of $761.4 million, and $36.4 million (5%) less than
the FY2011 request of $797.6 million. It represented a $2.9 million (<1%) increase over the
funding included in the House-passed bill, and was equivalent to the amount included in the
Senate amendment. Funding was provided for two main line items: (1) Salaries and Expenses and
(2) Facilities Capital. See Table 13.
Table 13. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution (SI), FY2010-FY2011
($ in thousands)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
636,161
660,850
634,661
636,161
636,161
—Museums and Research
Institutes
243,823
260,575
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Program Support and Outreach
42,871
45,001
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Office of Chief Information
Officer
43,536
46,806
n/a
n/a
n/a
Smithsonian Institution
Salaries and Expenses
FY2011 SA
149 Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
87
IHS FY2011 Budget Justification, pp. CJ-153 – CJ-154.
For more information on SI funding, contact Shannon Loane at 7-.....
89
Smithsonian Institution, What is Next: 2009 Annual Report. This and older annual reports are available online at
http://www.si.edu/About/Annual-Report.
88
Congressional Research Service
41
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
—Administration
32,989
34,252
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Inspector General
2,700
2,657
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Facilities Services
270,242
271,559
n/a
n/a
n/a
Facilities Capital
125,000
136,750
123,600
125,000
125,000
—Revitalization
89,300
106,190
n/a
n/a
n/a
—Facilities Planning and Design
35,700
30,560
n/a
n/a
n/a
234a
0
0
0
0
761,395
797,600
758,261
761,161
761,161
Smithsonian Institution
Legacy Fund
Total Appropriations
a.
FY2011 SA
149 Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
This figure reflects appropriations of $30.0 million for FY2010 and a rescission of the unobligated balance of
$29.8 million from FY2008 and FY2009.
Salaries and Expenses
For FY2011, the law contained $636.2 million to fund Salaries and Expenses for the SI’s
museums, research centers, and administration. This amount was equal to the level included in
the FY2010 appropriations law and the Senate amendment, $1.5 million less than the amount in
the House-passed bill ($634.7 million), and $24.7 million less than the FY2011 Administration
request ($660.9 million). Much of the Administration’s requested increase was for museum and
research institutes.
Facilities Capital
For FY2011, the SI received $125.0 million for Facilities Capital, equal to the FY2010
appropriations and the amount included in the Senate amendment, but $11.8 million less than the
amount requested for FY2011 and $1.4 million more than the amount included in the Housepassed bill. External studies90 and the SI estimate that an investment of $2.5 billion over 10 years
is needed to address advanced facilities deterioration. The FY2011 requested amount of $136.8
million included $106.2 million for baseline revitalization requirements and $30.6 million for
facilities planning and design, including $20.0 million for design of the National Museum of
African American History and Culture. The appropriations for these categories below the account
level will be determined by the Smithsonian in its spending plan, as required by the FY2011
appropriations law.
Legacy Fund
Established by Congress in 2008 (P.L. 110-161), the Legacy Fund was intended to address the
backlog of facilities capital repairs. The SI did not request and did not receive any funding for the
Legacy Fund for FY2011.
90
For further information, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Smithsonian Institution: Funding Challenges
Affect Facilities’ Conditions and Security, Endangering Collections, GAO-07-1127, September 2007.
Congressional Research Service
42
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
Trust Funds
In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian Institution receives income from trust
funds, which support salaries for some employees, donor-designated capital projects and exhibits,
and operations. In FY2009, the SI’s net assets increased by 3.3 percent to a total of almost $2.5
billion.91
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment
for the Humanities92
The primary vehicles for federal support for the arts and the humanities are the National
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services
(IMLS).93 The National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities is composed of the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
NEA
The NEA is a major federal source of support for all arts disciplines. Since 1965 it has awarded
more than 130,000 grants that have been distributed to all states. For FY2011, the full-year
continuing appropriations law provided $155.0 million for the NEA, a decrease of $12.5 million
(7%) from the FY2010 amount and the amount included in the Senate amendment. The amount
was an increase of $30.6 million (25%) over the $124.4 million included in the House-passed bill.
The House bill initially included $145.0 million for the NEA, but the version of the bill that
passed the House included an amendment to cut that funding by $20.6 million. The FY2011
enacted amount was $6.3 million (4%) less than the Administration’s FY2011 request of $161.3
million. The request had included $64.0 million for direct grants; $41.4 million for state/regional
partnership grants; $10.0 million for “Challenge America,” a program of matching grants for arts
education outreach, and community arts activities for rural and under-served areas; and $5.0
million for “Our Town,” a new grant program aimed at arts projects that engage and revitalize
communities. Funds for the “American Masterpieces” program were not included in the FY2011
request.94 See Table 14.
NEH
The NEH generally supports grants for humanities education, research, preservation and public
humanities programs; the creation of regional humanities centers; and development of humanities
programs under the jurisdiction of the state humanities councils. Since 1965, NEH has awarded
more than 61,000 grants. NEH also supports a “Challenge Grant” program to stimulate and match
private donations in support of humanities institutions.
91
Smithsonian Institution, What is Next: 2009 Annual Report, on the agency’s website at http://www.si.edu/About/
Annual-Report.
92
For more information on NEA/NEH funding, contact Shannon Loane at 7-.....
93
The IMLS receives funding through the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. Discussions of IMLS appropriations is outside the scope of this report.
94
The FY2011 appropriations for these and other programs within the account will be determined by NEA in its
spending plan, as required by the FY2011 appropriations law.
Congressional Research Service
43
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
For FY2011, the full-year continuing appropriations law provided $155.0 million for the NEH, a
decrease of $12.5 million (7%) from the FY2010 level and the amount included in the Senate
amendment. The amount was an increase of $10.0 million (7%) over the $145.0 million included
in the House-passed bill. The FY2011 enacted amount was $6.3 million (4%) less than the
Administration’s FY2011 request of $161.3 million. NEH’s FY2011 request had included a
decrease in the federal/state partnership grants program; a decrease in its “We the People” grants,
which support exhibitions, films, library programs, professional development programs for
teachers, scholarly research on American history and culture, and collection preservation; and
$2.5 million for a new initiative known as “Bridging Cultures,” for projects that increase
understanding of America’s diverse cultural heritage and of other cultures around the world.95 See
Table 14.
Table 14. Appropriations for the Arts and Humanities, FY2010-FY2011
($ in thousands)
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
National Endowment for the
Arts
167,500
161,315
124,406
167,500
155,000
Grants
138,725
131,580
n/a
n/a
n/a
Program Support
1,850
1,880
n/a
n/a
n/a
Administration
26,925
27,855
n/a
n/a
n/a
National Endowment for the
Humanities
167,500
161,315
145,000
167,500
155,000
Grants
125,700
118,765
n/a
n/a
n/a
Matching Grants
14,300
14,050
n/a
n/a
n/a
Administration
27,500
28,500
n/a
n/a
n/a
335,000
322,630
269,406
335,000
310,000
Arts and Humanities
Total NEA & NEH
Appropriations
FY2011 SA
149 Not
Agreed To
FY2011
Approp.
Cross-Cutting Topics
Everglades Restoration96
The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws have previously provided
funds to DOI for restoration projects authorized under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan (CERP) and other authorities.97 These projects were authorized to restore, protect, and
95
The appropriations for these and other programs within the account will be determined by NEH in its spending plan,
as required by the FY2011 appropriations law.
96
For more information on funding for Everglades restoration, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... Also see CRS
Report RS22048, Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, coordinated by (name redacted).
97
CERP was authorized in Title VI of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2000 (P.L. 106-541). Projects
that contribute to restoration but that are not authorized by CERP are collectively referred to as “non-CERP” projects.
Congressional Research Service
44
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
preserve the natural ecosystem of the Florida Everglades. DOI conducts both CERP and nonCERP activities in southern Florida through the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Other agencies, including the Army Corps
of Engineers, contribute to Everglades restoration activities under their own authorities and with
funding from other appropriations bills.
The full-year continuing appropriations law for FY2011 did not specify the appropriations for
Everglades restoration.98 The Administration’s FY2011 request for Everglades restoration for the
Department of the Interior was $74.5 million, an increase of $6.0 million over the FY2010
appropriation. The request included $8.0 million for DOI under CERP and $8.0 million for the
Modified Waters Delivery Project to Everglades National Park.99 Separate from the DOI request,
the Administration also requested approximately $180 million for Everglades restoration within
the Corps of Engineers budget, for total federal funding of approximately $255 million in the
Administration’s FY2011 request.100
The level of commitment by the federal government to implement restoration activities in the
Everglades continues to receive attention. Some observers measure commitment by the frequency
and number of projects authorized under CERP, and the appropriations they receive. Because
only three restoration projects have been authorized since the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) 2000, these observers are concerned that the federal commitment to Everglades
restoration is waning. Others assert that the federal commitment to CERP and Everglades
restoration has increased in recent years, evidenced by projects moving from design to
construction phases as well as through additional funding provided through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act.101 These observers note that in January of 2010, the first CERP
project broke ground at Picayune Strand in South Florida. The federal government also recently
broke ground on the Mod Waters construction project, which must be completed before
appropriations can be made for CERP projects in the eastern Everglades.102
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)103
Overview
The LWCF (16 U.S.C. §§ 460l-4, et seq.) is authorized at $900 million annually through FY2015.
However, these funds may not be spent without an appropriation. The LWCF is used for three
98
Total funding for Everglades restoration for a fiscal year usually is not publicly available until the Administration’s
budget request is submitted for the subsequent year. In this case, the President’s FY2012 budget did not contain final
funding levels for Everglades restoration for FY2011, because the FY2012 budget was submitted before enactment of
P.L. 112-10.
99
This project, also known as Mod Waters, is designed to improve water deliveries to Everglades National Park and, to
the extent possible, to restore the natural hydrological conditions within the park. The project broke ground in
December 2009. DOI projected that at current funding levels, Mod Waters would be completed in FY2013. For
additional background on Mod Waters, see CRS Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries
Project, by (name redacted).
100
For more on the Corps components of the request, see CRS Report R41150, Energy and Water Development:
FY2011 Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted).
101
Approximately $118 million was provided for Everglades restoration activities by the Corps and DOI under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).
102
This requirement is in WRDA 2000 (P.L. 106-541), §601.
103
For more information on LWCF funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
45
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations
purposes. First, the four principal federal land management agencies—Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Forest Service—draw
primarily on the LWCF to acquire lands. Second, the LWCF funds acquisition and recreational
development by state and local governments through a grant program administered by the NPS,
sometimes referred to as stateside funding. Third, Congress has appropriated money from the
LWCF to fund some related activities, with programs varying from year to year.
From FY1965 through FY2011, a total of about $34 billion was credited to the LWCF. A total of
roughly $16 billion of that amount has been appropriated. Annual appropriations from LWCF
have fluctuated considerably over time. Table 15 shows funding for LWCF since FY2007.
The FY2011 full-year continuing appropriations law provided $301.1 million for the LWCF, a
reduction of $149.2 (33%) from the FY2010 level. The enacted level was less than half the level
sought by the Administration ─ $619.2 million ─ as part of a multi-year plan to achieve “full
funding” for LWCF at the $900.0 million level. The FY2011 appropriation was $243.3 million
(421%) higher than the House-passed amount but $76.0 million (20%) less than the Senate
amendment.
Table 15. Appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
FY2007-FY2011
($ in millions)
Land and
Water
Conservation
Fund
FY2011
SA 149
Not
Agreed
To
FY2011
Approp.
FY2007
Approp.
FY2008
Approp.
FY2009
Approp.
FY2010
Approp.
FY2011
Request
FY2011
H.R. 1
Passed
House
Federal
Acquisition
113.0
129.1
152.2
265.8
369.9
41.0
192.6
165.0
—BLM
8.6
8.9
14.8
29.7
83.7
2.8
26.7
22.0
—FWS
28.0
34.6
42.5
86.3
106.3
15.1
63.9
55.0
—NPS
34.4
44.4
45.2
86.3
106.3
14.1
68.8
55.0
—FS
41.9
41.2
49.8
63.5
73.7
9.1
33.2
33.0
Appraisal
Servicesa
7.4
0
0
12.1
14.1
10.6
12.1
12.1
Grants to States
29.6
24.6
19.0b
40.0
50.0
0
40.0
40.0
Other Programs
216.1
101.3
104.1c
132.5
185.1
6.2
132.5
84.0
Total
Appropriations
366.1
255.1
275.3
450.4
619.2
57.8
377.2
301.1
Sources: Tables from the DOI Budget Office and the Appropriations Committees and legislation for FY2011.
a.
For FY2008 and FY2009, there were appropriations of $7.7 million and $8.0 million respectively for
appraisal services, but they did not appear to be derived from LWCF.
b.
This figure has been reduced by $1.0 million due to the use of prior year funds.
c.
This figure has been reduced by $8.0 million due to the use of prior year funds.
Congressional Research Service
46
Interior, Environmen
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.