Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Congressional research reportFeb 7, 2012
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2012 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
February 7, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R41896
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
numerous other entities.
On December 23, 2011, Congress enacted H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012
(P.L. 112-74). Division E contained $29.23 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies in FY2012. This figure included an across-the-board reduction of $47.0 million. The
FY2012 appropriation was a $381.4 million (1.3%) decrease from the FY2011 level ($29.61
billion) and a $2.11 billion (6.7%) decrease from the President’s request for FY2012 ($31.34
billion).
While the Administration had primarily proposed increases over FY2011 for major agencies
funded by the bill, the FY2012 law included few increases over FY2011. However, one notable
increase in the FY2012 law was $244.2 million (6%) for the Indian Health Service, and another
was $51.9 million (7%) for the Smithsonian Institution.
While the FY2012 law reduced most agencies from the FY2011 levels, the amount of reduction
varied. Among the enacted decreases were the following:
•
$219.1 million (3%) for the Environmental Protection Agency,
•
$83.4 million (2%) for the Forest Service,
•
$27.3 million (1%) for the National Park Service, and
•
$25.3 million (2%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Neither the House nor the Senate passed a free-standing regular, annual appropriations bill for
FY2012. From July 25, 2011, to July 28, 2011, the House had considered H.R. 2584, but it came
to no resolution thereon. No bill to fund Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2012
was introduced in the Senate. However, on October 14, 2011, the leaders of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies released a draft
bill for FY2012. Because no regular appropriations bill was enacted before the October 1, 2011,
start of the fiscal year, agencies and activities in the bill were funded through a series of
continuing appropriations laws until the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012.
Congress typically debates a variety of funding and policy issues when considering each year’s
appropriations legislation. Issues debated during consideration of FY2012 legislation included
regulatory actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, energy development onshore and
offshore, wildland fire fighting, royalty relief, Indian trust fund management, climate change,
DOI science programs, endangered species, wild horse and burro management, and agency
reorganizations. Other issues included 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: FY2012 Appropriations
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Duration of Appropriations........................................................................................................ 2
FY2012 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 3
FY2012 Enacted Appropriations ......................................................................................... 3
Prior Action ......................................................................................................................... 5
Administration’s Request .................................................................................................... 6
Major Issues............................................................................................................................... 6
FY2004-FY2012........................................................................................................................ 8
Status of Bill .............................................................................................................................. 8
Title I: Department of the Interior.................................................................................................... 9
Bureau of Land Management .................................................................................................... 9
Overview ............................................................................................................................. 9
Management of Lands and Resources ............................................................................... 10
Construction ...................................................................................................................... 11
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 12
Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................ 12
Endangered Species Funding ............................................................................................ 12
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)....................................................................... 14
Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation .................................................................. 14
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science ........................................... 14
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 14
Wildlife Refuge Fund ........................................................................................................ 15
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants .............................................................. 15
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ........................................................................................ 15
National Park Service .............................................................................................................. 16
Operation of the National Park System ............................................................................. 16
National Recreation and Preservation ............................................................................... 17
Historic Preservation ......................................................................................................... 18
Construction ...................................................................................................................... 18
Land Acquisition and State Assistance .............................................................................. 18
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 19
Climate and Land Use Change .......................................................................................... 20
Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health ................................................................... 21
Natural Hazards ................................................................................................................. 22
Water Resources ................................................................................................................ 22
Core Science Systems ....................................................................................................... 22
Administration and Enterprise Information ...................................................................... 23
Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 23
National Land Imaging...................................................................................................... 23
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement, and Office of Natural Resources Revenue ..................................................... 23
FY2012 Budget and Appropriations ................................................................................. 25
Offshore (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing................................................................................ 28
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ....................................................... 29
Budget and Appropriations................................................................................................ 30
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education ...................................................... 31
Public Safety and Justice ................................................................................................... 33
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) .................................................................................... 34
Construction ...................................................................................................................... 36
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs .......................................................... 36
Office of Insular Affairs .................................................................................................... 36
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 38
Key Issues................................................................................................................................ 40
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure ................................................................. 41
Climate Change and Related Air Quality Issues ............................................................... 41
Cleanup of Superfund Sites and Brownfields ................................................................... 43
Title III: Related Agencies ............................................................................................................. 44
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service .............................................................................. 44
Forest and Rangeland Research ........................................................................................ 45
State and Private Forestry.................................................................................................. 45
National Forest System ..................................................................................................... 46
Capital Improvement and Maintenance ............................................................................ 46
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 47
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service ....................................... 47
Health Services.................................................................................................................. 49
Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 49
Smithsonian Institution ............................................................................................................ 50
Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................................................... 51
Facilities Capital................................................................................................................ 51
Trust Funds ........................................................................................................................ 51
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities ................... 52
NEA................................................................................................................................... 52
NEH................................................................................................................................... 53
Cross-Cutting Topics ..................................................................................................................... 54
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) .......................................................................... 54
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 54
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 55
Grants to States.................................................................................................................. 56
Other Purposes .................................................................................................................. 56
Wildland Fire Management ..................................................................................................... 57
Wildfire Preparedness ....................................................................................................... 58
Wildfire Suppression ......................................................................................................... 58
Other Wildfire Operations ................................................................................................. 59
FLAME Funding ............................................................................................................... 59
Other Wildfire Funding ..................................................................................................... 60
Five-Year Appropriations History.................................................................................................. 60
Figures
Figure 1. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, by Major Title,
FY2008-FY2012 ......................................................................................................................... 64
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Tables
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004-FY2012 .............. 8
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2012 ............ 9
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FY2011-FY2012............... 9
Table 4. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2011-FY2012 ................... 13
Table 5. Appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS), FY2011-FY2012 .......................... 16
Table 6. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FY2011-FY2012 .................... 20
Table 7. Appropriations for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement (BOEMRE), FY2011-FY2012 .............................................................................. 25
Table 8. Appropriations for Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE),
FY2011-FY2012 ......................................................................................................................... 26
Table 9. Appropriations for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), FY2011FY2012 ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 10. Appropriations for the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), FY2011FY2012 ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), FY2011-FY2012............................................................................................................ 31
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Education
(BIE), FY2011-FY2012 .............................................................................................................. 32
Table 13. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
FY2011-FY2012 ......................................................................................................................... 39
Table 14. Appropriations for the Forest Service (FS), FY2011-FY2012 ....................................... 45
Table 15. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS), FY2011-FY2012 ......................... 48
Table 16. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution (SI), FY2011-FY2012 ......................... 50
Table 17. Appropriations for the Arts and Humanities, FY2011-FY2012 ..................................... 52
Table 18. Appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
FY2008-FY2012 ......................................................................................................................... 54
Table 19. Appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): Other
Programs, FY2008-FY2012 ....................................................................................................... 57
Table 20. Appropriations for FS and DOI Wildland Fire Management, FY2011-FY2012............ 58
Table 21. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2008-FY2012 ......................................................................................................................... 61
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 65
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 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 (FS) 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 U.S. 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.
Previously, 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 These programs currently are funded in the annual Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill. 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 and they are now funded in the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. 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
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.
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: FY2012 Appropriations
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 spending 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.
Duration of Appropriations
Appropriations for accounts within annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations laws are available to be obligated for differing periods of time, depending on the
nature and needs of the programs and activities funded. In general, appropriations in these laws
are available only for the fiscal year covered by the act, unless otherwise specified. In recent
practice, Interior appropriations laws have provided such one-year appropriations for several
accounts. For instance, the appropriation in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 11274) for the National Park Service, for the National Recreation and Preservation account, was for
FY2012 only, as the law did not specify a different period of availability: “For expenses
necessary to carry out recreation programs, natural programs, cultural programs, heritage
partnership programs, environmental compliance and review, international park affairs, and grant
administration, not otherwise provided for, $59,975,000.”
However, many accounts within the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations laws have contained appropriations for longer periods of availability, involving
multiple fiscal years. Some of these have been for two years. For these accounts, appropriations
may be carried over from the first fiscal year to the second, and must be obligated by the end of
the second year. For example, the appropriation in P.L. 112-74 to the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, for the Regulation and Technology account, was provided for
FY2012 and FY2013. The law provided, in part: “For necessary expenses to carry out the
provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87, as
amended, $122,950,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013.”
Many other accounts have contained appropriations that were available for obligation without
fiscal year limitation, often referred to as “no-year appropriations.” Such appropriations typically
were “to remain available until expended.” For these accounts, appropriations may be carried
over from fiscal year to fiscal year with no deadline for obligation. In P.L. 112-74, the
appropriation for the Fish and Wildlife Service, for the Construction account, provides an
example of no-year appropriations: “For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal of
buildings and other facilities required in the conservation, management, investigation, protection,
and utilization of fish and wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and interests therein;
$23,088,000, to remain available until expended.”3
3
For information on the duration of appropriations, see U.S. General Accounting Office (now the U.S. Government
Accountability Office), Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition, Volume I, GAO-04-261SP, January
2004, pp. 5-3 though 5-9, on the agency’s website at http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/d04261sp.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
FY2012 Overview
FY2012 Enacted Appropriations
On December 23, 2011, Congress enacted H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012
(P.L. 112-74). Division E contained $29.23 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies in FY2012. This figure included an across-the-board reduction of 0.16%, which was
$47.0 million. The FY2012 level was a $381.4 million (1.3%) decrease from the FY2011 level
($29.61 billion) and a $2.11 billion (6.7%) decrease from the President’s request for FY2012
($31.34 billion). While the bill total in this report reflects the across-the-board rescission,4 figures
for agencies, accounts, and programs throughout this report do not reflect this reduction. This is
because the law called for the rescissions for accounts in the bill to be calculated by OMB and
reported to the Appropriations Committees. However, sections of this report reflect other
rescissions specific to particular agencies and programs in the FY2012 appropriations law.
While the Administration had primarily proposed increases over FY2011 for major agencies
funded by the bill, the FY2012 law included few increases over FY2011. One increase in the
FY2012 law was $244.2 million (6%) for the Indian Health Service, and another was $51.9
million (7%) for the Smithsonian Institution.
While the FY2012 law reduced most agencies from the FY2011 levels, the amount of reduction
varied. Among the enacted decreases were the following:
•
$219.1 million (3%) for the Environmental Protection Agency,
•
$83.4 million (2%) for the Forest Service,
•
$27.3 million (1%) for the National Park Service, and
•
$25.3 million (2%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The FY2012 law and joint explanatory statement of the conference report5 addressed diverse
issues affecting multiple agencies. Further, the conferees expressed that language in the report of
the House Appropriations Committee on the FY2012 bill,6 which included guidance and reporting
requirements to agencies, would carry the same emphasis as if included in the joint explanatory
statement itself and should be followed “unless specifically addressed to the contrary herein.”
However, conferees noted that where the House committee report “speaks more broadly to policy
issues or offers views that are subject to interpretation, such views remain those of the House and
do not reflect the views of the conferees unless otherwise repeated in this statement.”7 Some of
the broader issues addressed in law or report language are covered in relevant sections throughout
this report, while others are discussed here.
The FY2012 law included a provision to require DOI agencies, EPA, FS, and IHS to report
quarterly to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on balances of appropriations. The
4
A rescission is the cancellation of budget authority previously provided by Congress.
The joint explanatory statement of the conference report is contained on pp. 1046-1119 of H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R.
2055.
6
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584.
7
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, p. 1046.
5
Congressional Research Service
3
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
reports are to identify balances that are uncommitted, committed, and unobligated. The House
Appropriations Committee had expressed interest in knowing not only what levels of funding
remain from previous years, but the source year of those funds, in order to ascertain whether
appropriations have been provided in excess of need or whether administrative inefficiencies have
impeded the expenditure of funds.8
The FY2012 law also included a provision to extend the Service First initiative, under which DOI
agencies and the FS co-locate field offices and establish common business practices to improve
services and reduce costs. The House Appropriations Committee had requested a report from DOI
and the FS on the initiative, including costs, successes, and recommendations for improvement.9
The joint explanatory statement of the conference report contained additional reporting
requirements. One directed the DOI, EPA, and FS to report on actions taken to address
management weaknesses and to implement reforms identified by each agency’s Inspector General
and the Government Accountability Office.10 A second reporting requirement pertained to the
costs of litigation related to agency actions. Specifically, conferees directed DOI agencies, EPA,
and FS to report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and make publicly
available, information on payments of attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to
Justice Act,11 as detailed in the report of the House Appropriations Committee. The House
committee had observed that the costs of litigation are rising, and that some agencies’ state and
field offices spend more than half of their funds on responding to litigation. The information was
to include the amount of program funds used and the names and hourly rates of fee recipients,
among other information.12
The report of the House Appropriations Committee contained additional views,
recommendations, and direction affecting multiple agencies. For instance, the committee asserted
that 56 agencies or programs within the bill (as reported) “remain unauthorized or have an
expired congressional authorization of appropriations.” The committee recommended a total
appropriation of $7.25 billion for these agencies and programs, but expressed that future funding
might be limited or discontinued as “continual appropriation for unauthorized programs
circumvents the rigorous process of legislative review and revision.” The committee urged
interested parties to work with the authorizing committees on securing authorizations.13 An
authorizing measure can establish, continue, or modify an agency or program for a fixed or
indefinite period of time. It also may set forth the duties and functions of an agency or program,
its organizational structure, and the responsibilities of agency or program officials. Authorizing
legislation also authorizes the enactment of appropriations for an agency or program. The amount
authorized to be appropriated may be specified for each fiscal year or may be indefinite
8
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, pp. 5-6.
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, pp. 11-12.
10
See Department of the Interior: Major Management Challenges, GAO-11-424T, on the GAO website at
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-424T; Environmental Protection Agency: Major Management Challenges,
GAO-11-422T, on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-422T; and Forest Service: Continued
Work Needed to Address Persistent Management Challenges, GAO-11-423T, on the GAO website at
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-423T.
11
28 U.S.C. §2412; 5 U.S.C. §504. For information on the payment of attorneys’ fees by agencies, see CRS Report 94970, Awards of Attorneys’ Fees by Federal Courts and Federal Agencies, by (name redacted), or contact Vivian Chu at 7.....
12
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, pp. 8-9.
13
Ibid., pp. 9-10 and pp. 158-159.
9
Congressional Research Service
4
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
(providing “such sums as may be necessary”). The authorization of appropriations is intended to
provide guidance regarding the appropriate amount of funds to carry out the authorized activities
of an agency.14
To achieve economies of scale, the House Appropriations Committee encouraged agencies to
downsize and restructure. An emphasis was on consolidation of regional offices across agencies,
such as in cities where three or more agencies have offices or in offices with one or two
employees. The committee directed DOI, EPA, FS, and IHS to submit a joint proposal on
consolidating offices, and to provide, as part of their annual budget requests, lists of field office
staffing and funding levels.15
Prior Action
No regular FY2012 appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was
enacted before the October 1, 2011, start of the fiscal year. Thus, from October 1, 2011, until the
enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, agencies and activities in the bill were
funded through a series of continuing appropriations laws. Under the last such law, P.L. 112-68,
for example, agencies and activities were funded at the FY2011 account level, minus 1.503%,
under the authority and conditions in the FY2011 appropriations law (P.L. 112-10).16 Overall, the
continuing appropriations law was intended to reduce discretionary spending to the $1.043 trillion
government-wide total allowed under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25).17
No bill to fund Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2012 was introduced in the
Senate. However, on October 14, 2011, the chair and ranking Member of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies released a draft
bill for FY2012.18
From July 25, 2011, to July 28, 2011, the House had considered H.R. 2584, providing FY2012
appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, but it came to no resolution
14
This text on authorizing measures is derived from CRS Report RS20371, Overview of the AuthorizationAppropriations Process, by (name redacted)
15
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, pp. 11-12.
16
For additional information on the use, duration, and impact of continuing appropriations resolutions, see,
respectively, the following CRS reports: CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief
Overview of Recent Practices, by (name redacted); CRS Report RL32614,Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent
Years, by (name redacted); and CRS Report RL34700, Interim Continuing Resolutions (CRs): Potential Impacts on
Agency Operations, by (name redacted).
17
The FY2012 appropriations bills are the first that were affected by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25),
which established discretionary security and non-security spending caps for FY2012 and FY2013, and overall
caps governing the actions of appropriations committees in both houses. In FY2012, the BCA set a separate cap of
$684 billion for security spending, defined to include the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, Budget
Function 150 for all international affairs programs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Intelligence
Community Management Account that funds the offices of the Director of National Intelligence. All other spending
was capped at $359 billion out of the total of $1.043 trillion. For more information on the Budget Control Act of 2011,
see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redac
ted).
18
Because this draft was not formally introduced in the Senate, it is not discussed in sections of this report. For a copy
of the draft, a related detailed funding table, and a committee press release, see the website of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations at http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=3f4832f4-6adb-4be8-9c6feabff62cc056.
Congressional Research Service
5
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
thereon. The bill considered on the House floor, H.R. 2584, had been reported (H.Rept. 112151) by the House Appropriations Committee on July 19, 2011, with $27.52 billion in
appropriations for FY2012. If enacted, this would have been a $2.09 billion (7%) reduction from
the FY2011 appropriation of $29.61 billion and $3.82 billion (12%) less than the Administration’s
FY2012 request of $31.34 billion.
The House committee had proposed one notable increase over FY2011—$392.4 million (10%)
for the Indian Health Service. The committee bill would have reduced funding from the FY2011
levels for most other agencies. Among the decreases recommended by the committee were the
following:
•
$1.53 billion (18%) for the Environmental Protection Agency,
•
$310.6 million (21%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service,
•
$172.1 million (4%) for the Forest Service, and
•
$131.7 million (5%) for the National Park Service.
Administration’s Request
In contrast to the bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee, which contained reduced
appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, the President had requested a
$1.73 billion (6%) increase for FY2012 over the FY2011 appropriation. The President’s proposed
increases for major agencies included the following:
•
$554.6 million (14%) for the Indian Health Service,
•
$290.9 million (3%) for the Environmental Protection Agency,
•
$280.4 million (11%) for the National Park Service,
•
$248.2 million (5%) for the Forest Service,
•
$191.5 million (13%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
•
$101.9 million (13%) for the Smithsonian Institution.
The President had proposed fewer decreases for major agencies in the bill, and these decreases
tended to be smaller than the increases requested for other agencies. Among the decreases were
the following:
•
$93.4 million (4%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
•
$16.9 million (5%) for the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities,
and
•
$16.6 million (10%) for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement.
Major Issues
Congress typically debates a variety of funding and policy issues when considering each year’s
appropriations legislation. For FY2012, these issues included regulatory actions of the
Environmental Protection Agency, energy development onshore and offshore, wildland fire
Congressional Research Service
6
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
fighting, royalty relief, Indian trust fund management, climate change, DOI science programs,
endangered species, wild horse and burro management, and agency reorganizations. Other issues
included 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.
Among the major issues that have arisen during hearings and debates on FY2012 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations, which are discussed in subsequent sections of
this report, are the following:
•
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, especially the adequacy
of funding to meet state and local wastewater and drinking water needs. These
state revolving funds provide seed money for state loans to communities for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. (For more information, see
the section of this report on “Title II: Environmental Protection Agency.”)
•
Endangered Species, including the provision or elimination of funding for the
addition of new species for protection (listing) under the Endangered Species Act
and designation of their critical habitat. (For more information, see the “Fish and
Wildlife Service” section in this report.)
•
EPA Regulatory Actions, notably whether to provide or restrict funding for
implementation of pending and promulgated regulations that cut across various
environmental pollution control statutes, including those that address greenhouse
gas emissions. (For more information, see the section of this report on “Title II:
Environmental Protection Agency.”)
•
Indian Health Service, particularly the appropriate level of funding for new
programs included in the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act. (For more information, see the section of this report on “Department of
Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service.”)
•
Land Acquisition, including the amount of funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition and for the state grant program,
and the extent to which the fund should be used for activities not involving land
acquisition. (For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)” section in this report.)
•
Outer Continental Shelf Leasing, particularly preleasing and leasing activities in
offshore areas. (For more information, see the section of this report on the
“Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement, and Office of Natural Resources Revenue.”)
•
Reorganization of the Former Minerals Management Service, especially the
appropriate level of funding for successor entities to address regulatory, safety,
and compliance issues related to development of energy and minerals resources
in the Outer Continental Shelf. (For more information, see the section of this
report on the “Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and Office of Natural
Resources Revenue.”)
•
Superfund, notably the adequacy of proposed funding to meet hazardous waste
cleanup needs, and whether to continue using general Treasury revenues to fund
Congressional Research Service
7
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
the account or reinstate a tax on industry that originally paid for most of the
program. (For more information, see the section of this report on “Title II:
Environmental Protection Agency.”)
•
U.S. Geological Survey Realignment, particularly whether to implement a
proposed restructuring of science programs to correspond with interdisciplinary
themes, such as ecosystems. (For more information, see the “U.S. Geological
Survey” section in this report.)
FY2004-FY2012
Table 1 shows appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2004FY2012. Funding for earlier years is not readily available due to changes in the makeup of the
Interior appropriations bill. The FY2012 appropriation represented a $1.90 billion increase (7.0%)
over the FY2004 level in current dollars, or a $2.87 billion decrease (8.9%) in constant dollars.19
See Table 21 at the end of this report for a detailed budgetary history (by agency) for FY2008FY2012.
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004-FY2012
($ in billions)
FY2009 FY2009 FY2009
FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 Omnibus Stimulus Total FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
Current
Dollars
27.33
27.02
25.94
27.40
28.42
27.59
10.95
38.79a
32.32
29.61
29.23
Constant
2011 Dollarsb
32.10
30.72
28.56
29.31
29.75
28.62
11.36
40.24a
33.20
29.97
29.23
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. The
FY2012 total reflects a reduction of $47.0 million from a 0.16% across-the-board rescission in the law.
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 projections of 1.5% for 2011
and 1.2% for 2012, at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12316.
Status of Bill
Table 2 reflects action on FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
legislation.
19
These calculations use the Congressional Budget Office’s inflation projections of 1.5% for 2011 and 1.2% for 2012.
Congressional Research Service
8
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations, FY2012
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Senate
H. Com.
Report
House
Passage
7/7/11
—
7/19/11
H.Rept.
112-151
—
S. Com. Senate
Report Passage
—
—
Conference
Rept. Approval
Conf.
Report
House
Senate
Public
Law
12/15/11
H.Rept.
112-331
12/16/11
12/17/11
12/23/11
P.L. 112-74
Note: House subcommittee and committee action was on H.R. 2584. Conference action occurred on H.R.
2055, and this bill was enacted into law.
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management20
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 FY2012, the appropriations law contained $1.12 billion for BLM, a $1.4 million (0.1%)
increase over the FY2011 appropriation ($1.11 billion) and $0.5 million (<0.1%) more than the
Administration’s FY2012 request ($1.11 billion). Table 3 identifies funding for BLM accounts.
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FY2011-FY2012
($ in millions)
FY2011
Approp.
FY2012
Request
950.8
919.5
947.6
Construction
4.6
3.6
3.6
Land Acquisition
22.0
50.0
22.4
Oregon and California Grant Lands
111.3
112.0
112.0
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and
Forfeituresa
0
0
0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds and
Permanent Operating Funds
15.2
19.7
19.7
1,113.9
1,114.8
1,115.3
Bureau of Land Management
Management of Lands and Resources
Total Appropriations
a.
FY2012
Approp.
The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
20
Figures in this section, as in other sections of this report, do not reflect a 0.16% across-the-board rescission in
discretionary appropriations that was included in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (Section 436, Division E, P.L. 112-74). For more information on BLM funding, contact (name
redacted) at 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
9
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 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 FY2012 appropriation was $947.6 million, $3.2 million
(0.3%) less than the FY2011 appropriation ($950.8 million) but $28.1 million (3%) more than the
Administration’s request for FY2012 ($919.5 million).
Enacted funding levels for FY2012 for several key programs and accounts are provided below, in
comparison with the FY2011 appropriation and the Administration’s request for FY2012. Further,
the FY2012 law contained funding limitations and legislative provisions affecting BLM
programs, some of which also are identified below.
21
•
For range management, which focuses on livestock grazing on 158 million acres
of BLM land, the appropriation was $87.5 million, an increase of $10.6 million
over the FY2011 appropriation and $15.9 million over the Administration’s
request. The increase was intended in part for hiring seasonal employees,
completing the grazing permit renewal process, and monitoring grazing
allotments. The House Appropriations Committee had referred to the program as
“significantly underfunded in the past,” and noted an increasing cost to BLM of
grazing-related litigation.21 Further, a provision of the law would continue (for
FY2012 and FY2013) the automatic renewal of BLM and Forest Service grazing
permits and leases that expire (or are transferred or waived) until the permit
renewal process is completed under applicable laws and regulations, including
any necessary environmental analyses.
•
For cultural resources management, the appropriation was $16.1 million. This
was a $0.7 million decrease from FY2011 and a $9.5 million decrease from the
Administration’s request. The Administration had sought the increase to enhance
the preservation and protection of cultural, historical, and paleontological
resources. Some of the requested increase was for the inventory and stabilization
of cultural resource sites. To date, roughly 21 million acres (8%) of BLM lands
have been inventoried for cultural resources.
•
For recreation management, the appropriation was $67.6 million, $1.2 million
below FY2011 and $9.2 million less than the Administration’s request. The
Administration’s proposed increase was intended primarily for interpretation,
visitor services, managing off-highway vehicles, and developing and
implementing travel management plans.
•
For the Alaska land conveyance program, the appropriation was $29.1 million,
level with the FY2011 appropriation. The Administration had requested a decline
of $12.5 million from FY2011, as part of an effort to reevaluate and streamline
the conveyance process. The BLM is required by law to transfer ownership of
about 150 million acres of federal lands to the State of Alaska, Alaska Natives,
and Alaska Native corporations, most of which have already been conveyed.
•
For energy and minerals management, the appropriation was $107.8 million. This
was an increase of $17.3 million from the FY2011 level and $33.0 million from
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, pp. 18-19.
Congressional Research Service
10
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
the FY2012 request. The differences in appropriations among the three levels
resulted primarily from differences in the amount of funds to be derived from
other sources, namely (1) a higher expected amount of collections in FY2011
from fees for processing applications for permits to drill, and (2) the inclusion in
the President’s request only of a proposal to shift the cost of oil and gas
inspections from appropriations to a proposed industry inspection fee. Further,
the FY2012 law did not include a provision recommended by the House
Appropriations Committee to prevent about a million acres of BLM and Forest
Service land in Arizona near the Grand Canyon from being withdrawn from
development under the General Mining Law of 1872 except as authorized by law.
The Secretary of the Interior had withdrawn the lands from new development
under that law due to concerns about the potential impact of uranium mining on
the Grand Canyon watershed. BLM prepared an environmental impact statement
on the withdrawal.22
•
For the National Landscape Conservation System, the base appropriation was
$31.9 million, equal to the FY2011 appropriation but $7.5 million less than the
Administration’s FY2012 request. This system receives funding from other BLM
programs; the total appropriated for FY2012 was not specified. Established
legislatively in 2009, the system consists of BLM’s protected areas, including
BLM wilderness, national monuments, and national conservation areas. In
addition, the FY2012 law would continue to prohibit the use of funds from being
used to implement an order of the Secretary of the Interior (No. 3310) pertaining
to the protection of wilderness characteristics of BLM lands.23
•
For wild horse and burro management, $75.0 million was appropriated. This was
$0.7 million less than the FY2011 appropriation and equal to the
Administration’s request. The FY2012 law retained the prohibition on using
funds 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 law also contained a
provision to allow the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative
agreements with nonprofit organizations and other entities for the care of wild
horses and burros on private lands.
Construction
For BLM Construction in FY2012, the FY2012 appropriations law contained $3.6 million. This
was a decline of $1.0 million from the FY2011 level of $4.6 million, but equal to the
Administration’s request. Of the request, $1.1 million was intended for the disposal of 64 assets
(e.g., water distribution systems) in multiple states, with most of the rest of the funds distributed
among nine line-item construction projects in six states. The FY2012 appropriation was the
lowest funding level in at least a decade. Over the prior decade, BLM construction funding had
ranged from a high of $186.6 million in FY2009 (including stimulus appropriations in P.L. 1115) to a low of $4.6 million for FY2011.
22
For information on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, see the BLM website at http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/
prog/mining/timeout.html.
23
For more information, see CRS Report R41610, Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 112th Congress, by (name
redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
11
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Land Acquisition
For land acquisition by the BLM, the FY2012 appropriations law provided $22.4 million, $0.4
million above the FY2011 level ($22.0 million) and $27.6 million below the Administration’s
request ($50.0 million). The appropriation for BLM acquisitions has fluctuated widely over the
past decade, ranging from a high of $49.9 million for FY2002 to a low of $8.6 million for both
FY2006 and FY2007. Money for land acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, which the Administration proposed to fund at the full authorized level of
$900.0 million in FY2012. (For more information, see “Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)” section of this report.)
Fish and Wildlife Service24
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
FY2012 appropriation was $1.48 billion, down $25.3 million (2%) from the FY2011 level of
$1.50 billion. (See Table 4.) The Administration had requested $1.69 billion for FY2012. The
FY2012 appropriations law reduced most accounts and subaccounts relative to FY2011 levels.
Exceptions included the Construction account, with an increase of $2.3 million (11%) and the
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science subaccount, with an increase of $1.3
million (4%).
By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resource Management
account. For this account, the FY2012 appropriations law provided $1.23 billion, a decrease of
$16.7 million (1%) from the FY2011 appropriation of $1.24 billion. The Administration had
requested $1.27 billion for FY2012. The account includes the Endangered Species program, the
Refuge System, Law Enforcement, Fisheries, and Cooperative Landscape Conservation and
Adaptive Science Capacity. Selected accounts and programs are discussed below.
Endangered Species Funding
Funding for the Endangered Species program is part of the Resource Management account and is
one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The FY2012 appropriation was
$176.2 million, an increase of $0.8 million from the FY2011 appropriation of $175.4 million. The
Administration’s request was $182.7 million. P.L. 112-74 contained limits on spending for
listing25 species in response to petitions, for listing foreign species, and for designation of critical
habitat.26 The limitations on listing foreign species and responding to petitions were not included
24
Figures in this section, as in other sections of this report, do not reflect a 0.16% across-the-board rescission in
discretionary appropriations that was included in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (Section 436, Division E, P.L. 112-74).
For more information on FWS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... In addition, more detail on FWS
appropriations and a discussion of FWS policy issues that arise in an appropriations context are included in CRS Report
R41928, Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy, by (name redacted).
25
“Listing” refers to the addition of new species to the list of species protected under ESA.
26
FWS has long argued that responding to listing petitions uses agency resources that would be better spent on listing
species that the agency judges to be more in need of protection. For more on other ESA funding restrictions, see CRS
Report R41928, Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
12
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
in the FY2011 appropriations law; limitations on critical habitat designation have been a feature
of appropriations laws for over 15 years.
Table 4. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2011-FY2012
($ in millions)
Fish and Wildlife Service
FY2011
Approp.
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Approp.
Resource Management
1,244.9
1,271.9
1,228.1
—Endangered Species
175.4
182.7
176.2
—Habitat Conservation
112.5
118.4
110.8
—Environmental Contaminants
13.3
13.8
13.1
—National Wildlife Refuge System
492.1
502.9
486.5
—Migratory Birds, Law Enforcement, and
International Conservation
128.2
130.0
126.8
—Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation
138.9
136.0
135.5
—Cooperative Landscape Conservation
and Adaptive Science
31.0
37.5
32.3
—General operations
153.4
150.5
146.9
Construction
20.8
23.1
23.1
Land Acquisition
54.9
140.0
54.7
Landowner Incentive Program
(cancellation of prior year balances)
-4.9
0
0
Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund
59.9
100.0
47.8
National Wildlife Refuge Fund
14.5
0
14.0
North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund
37.4
50.0
35.6
Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund
4.0
5.0
3.8
Multinational Species Conservation
Fund
10.0
9.8
9.5
State & Tribal Wildlife Grants
61.9
95.0
61.4
1,503.2
1,694.7
1,477.9
Total Appropriations
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 FY2012 appropriation was $47.8 million, down $12.1 million from the
FY2011 appropriation of $59.9 million. The FY2012 request was $100.0 million.
Congressional Research Service
13
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)
The FY2012 appropriations law contained $486.5 million for the Refuge System, a decrease of
$5.6 million from the FY2011 appropriation of $492.1 million. The Administration had requested
$502.9 million. Of the five activities within the NWRS, the Administration had sought to increase
the wildlife and habitat management activity by $13.3 million, from $227.0 million in FY2011 to
$240.2 million in FY2012. However the FY2012 appropriation ($223.8 million) was a reduction
from FY2011 of $3.2 million.
Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation
For Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation, the FY2012 appropriation was $135.5 million,
a decrease of $3.4 million from the FY2011 level of $138.9 million. Congress rejected much of
the President’s proposed cut in the hatchery program, appropriating $46.1 million rather than the
requested $42.8 million. Nevertheless, the FY2012 appropriation was a reduction of $2.7 million
from the FY2011 level of $48.9 million. The Administration had proposed that FWS negotiate
reimbursable agreements with responsible parties for water project mitigation activities at
National Fish Hatcheries. Until such reimbursement was negotiated, FWS proposed to eliminate
or substantially reduce activities at the nine National Fish Hatcheries where mitigation costs were
at least 40% of total operating expenses. In response, the FY2012 appropriations law authorized
the transfer of $3.8 million to FWS from the Corps of Engineers for hatchery mitigation
expenses.27
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science28
The FY2012 appropriation for Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science was
$32.3 million, an increase of $1.3 million from the FY2011 level of $31.0 million. The
Administration had proposed $37.5 million. The conferees directed FWS to explain how it
planned to integrate certain programs within this activity with its Joint Ventures and its Fish
Habitat Partnerships, as well as with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Climate Science Centers,
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research units, and Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units.29
Land Acquisition
For land acquisition by the FWS, the FY2012 appropriation was $54.7 million, a $0.2 million
reduction from the FY2011 appropriation of $54.9 million. The Administration’s request for
FY2012 was $140.0 million. This program is funded with annual appropriations from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. (For more information, see “Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)” below.)30
27
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, p. 1053.
This program was previously called Climate Change Planning and Adaptive Science Capacity.
29
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, p. 1054.
30
Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS (in contrast to the other three federal lands
agencies) has a source of mandatory spending for land acquisition. The MBCA does not receive funding in annual
Interior appropriations bills. The account is permanently appropriated, with funds for FY2011 estimated at $44.0
million, derived from the sale of duck stamps to hunters and recreationists and from import duties on certain arms and
ammunition. The Administration proposed an increase in the price of duck stamps from $15 to $25, which would add
(continued...)
28
Congressional Research Service
14
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Wildlife Refuge Fund
The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates
counties for the presence of the non-taxable federal lands under the jurisdiction of FWS. A
portion of the fund is supported by the permanent appropriation of receipts from various activities
carried out on FWS lands. 31 Receipts have not been sufficient for full funding at authorized levels
for many years, so additional funds have come from annual appropriations, though not enough to
provide the fully authorized level. County governments have long urged additional appropriations
to make payments at the full authorized level. The FY2011 appropriations law contained $14.5
million, sufficient to pay each county 30% of the authorized level. The Administration requested
no funding for the program in FY2012; it asserted that refuges place few demands for services on
local governments, while conveying economic benefits through visiting tourists, hunters,
birdwatchers, and others. With reliance solely on receipts (estimated at $2.9 million for FY2012),
payments to counties would have decreased to 5% of the authorized level in FY2012. Counties
with refuge lands within their borders would likely oppose the loss of funding. Congress rejected
the proposed elimination of funding, and instead appropriated $14.0 million, a decrease of $0.5
million from the FY2011 appropriation of $14.5 million.
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants
The Multinational Species Conservation Fund generates considerable public interest despite the
small size of the program. It benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses, great apes,
and marine turtles. The FY2012 law provided $9.5 million, a decrease of $0.5 million from the
FY2011 appropriation of $10.0 million. The FY2012 request was $9.8 million. For the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, the FY2012 law contained $3.8 million. The
FY2012 request was $5.0 million; the FY2011 law contained $4.0 million.32
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 conservation projects. The FY2012 appropriation
was $61.4 million, a decrease of $0.5 million from the FY2011 appropriation of $61.9 million.
The Administration’s FY2012 request was $95.0 million. Also, the FY2012 law required at least a
25% non-federal cost share for planning grants and a 35% non-federal cost share for
implementation grants.
(...continued)
an additional $14.0 million if enacted. No such bill has been introduced to date.
31
The National Wildlife Refuge Fund is distinct from the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program administered by
DOI, for which many types of federal lands are eligible. FWS lands in the NWRS that are reserved from the public
domain are eligible for PILT; acquired lands are not. For further information, see CRS Report RL31392, PILT
(Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by (name redacted).
32
For more information on the funds, see CRS Report RS21157, International Species Conservation Funds, by (name re
dacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
15
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
National Park Service33
The National Park Service (NPS) administers the National Park System—397 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.
The FY2012 appropriations law contained $2.58 billion for the NPS, a decrease of $27.3 million
(1%) from the FY2011 appropriation ($2.61 billion) and $307.8 million (11%) from the
Administration’s FY2012 request ($2.89 billion). Much of the decrease from the President’s
request would come from the Land Acquisition and State Assistance account and the Operation of
the National Park System account, as detailed below. Table 5 provides the appropriations for NPS
by account, and several of the major accounts and programs are discussed below.
Table 5. Appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS), FY2011-FY2012
($ in millions)
National Park Service
FY2011 Approp.
FY2012 Request
FY2012 Approp.
Operation of the National Park System
2,250.1
2,296.9
2,240.2
—Park Management
2,083.6
2,127.7
2,071.0
—Administrative Costs
166.5
169.2
169.2
National Recreation and Preservation
57.9
51.6
60.0
Historic Preservation Fund
54.4
61.0
56.0
Construction
184.6a
152.1
155.6
Land and Water Conservation Fundb
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
94.8
360.0
102.1
—Assistance to States
39.9
200.0
45.0
—NPS Acquisition
54.9
160.0
57.1
2,611.1c
2,891.6
2,583.8
Total Appropriations
a.
Figure reflects a rescission of $25.0 million in prior year balances.
b.
Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
c.
Includes a general rescission of $0.6 million not reflected in column figures above.
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 that constitute the day-to-day operations of the Park System.
For this account, the FY2012 appropriations law contained $2.24 billion for FY2012, a decrease
33
Figures in this section, as in other sections of this report, do not reflect a 0.16% across-the-board rescission in
discretionary appropriations that was included in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (Section 436, Division E, P.L. 112-74). 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-.....
Congressional Research Service
16
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
of $9.9 million from the FY2011 appropriation ($2.25 billion) and $56.7 million from the
Administration’s request ($2.30 billion). The law provided funding at $1.0 million more than the
FY2011 level for the visitor services activity, but less than the FY2011 level for the other four
park management activities in this account: resource stewardship, park protection, facility
operations and maintenance, and park support. The conferees included report language on a
variety of issues under this account, including language to encourage the use of historic leases,
maintain funding for the National Capital Area Performing Arts Program, increase funding to
protect the Statue of Liberty and the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, and direct the National
Academy of Sciences to assess the science used in the NPS Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on a possible extension for oyster operations at Point Reyes National Seashore.34
The law provided less than the President’s request for all five of the park management activities
within the account. By contrast, the Administration had sought increases over FY2011 for all five
activities. They included resource stewardship, with a proposed $12.6 million increase primarily
for managing natural resources and preserving cultural resources; visitor services, with a
proposed $11.5 million increase focusing on interpretation and education; and facility operations
and maintenance, with a proposed $11.5 million increase.
National Recreation and Preservation
For the National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P) account for FY2012, the appropriations
law contained $60.0 million, an increase of $2.1 million over the FY2011 appropriation ($57.9
million) and of $8.4 million from the Administration’s request ($51.6 million).
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 FY2012 law supported funding for programs within this account essentially at the FY2011
levels, and at the levels requested by the President for FY2012, with one exception in each case.
For natural programs, the FY2012 law contained $13.4 million, an increase over the $11.2 million
appropriated for FY2011 but equal to the President’s request. For the heritage partnership
programs, the FY2012 law maintained funding at the FY2011 level of $17.4 million, although the
Administration had sought to reduce funding to approximately half that amount─$9.0 million.
The program supports national heritage areas (NHAs), which are neither owned nor managed by
the NPS. According to the NPS, the reduction for FY2012 would have allowed the agency to
focus resources on other partnership programs and address concerns of appropriators about the
expanding number of NHAs and their ability to become more financially self-sufficient.35 The
House Appropriations Committee had directed heritage areas to move expeditiously towards
developing plans for long-term self-sustainability.36
34
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, pp. 1056-1057, contains the views and direction of the conferees on these and other
issues under the Operation of the National Park System account.
35
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year
2012, pp. NR&P-56.
36
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, p. 34.
Congressional Research Service
17
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Historic Preservation
The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid for
activities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. §470), such as
restoring historic districts, sites, buildings, and objects significant in American history and
culture. The fund’s preservation grants are normally funded on a 60% federal and 40% state
matching share basis.
The FY2012 appropriations law contained $56.0 million for the HPF, a $1.6 million increase over
FY2011 ($54.4 million) but a $5.0 million decrease from the Administration’s request ($61.0
million). Of the $56.0 million, $47.0 million was for state historic preservation offices and $9.0
million was for tribal historic preservation offices.
Construction
For NPS Construction for FY2012, the law contained $155.6 million, a $29.0 million decrease
from the FY2011 level of $184.6 million.37 The appropriation included $77.8 million for line-item
construction projects, which the conferees asserted would fund the NPS priorities included in a
revised request list. A total of $7.5 million was for the stabilization and repair of the Washington
Monument, to be matched by a private citizen, according to the conferees.
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. For general
management planning, the law contained $14.6 million for FY2012, nearly level with FY2011
($14.8 million) and identical to the President’s request. Of the requested amount, $2.4 million was
intended for the development of special resource studies. The conferees urged the NPS to
complete previously authorized studies before beginning new ones.
Construction funds are used in part to address deferred maintenance, which 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 estimated deferred maintenance
for the NPS for FY2010 at between $8.77 billion and $12.89 billion, with a mid-range figure of
$10.83 billion. In the past, additional funding also has been provided for NPS road construction
and repair through the Federal Lands Highway Program of the Federal Highway Administration.
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
For FY2012, the appropriation was $102.1 million for Land Acquisition and State Assistance.
This would be an increase of $7.3 million from the FY2011 appropriation ($94.8 million) but
$257.9 million less than the Administration’s request ($360.0 million). The law included
increases over FY2011 for both components of the program. For land acquisition, the law
contained $57.1 million, as compared with $54.9 million in FY2011. Land acquisition funds are
used to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for inclusion within the National Park System. For
37
The law states that the construction appropriation is to include modifications under the Everglades National Park
Protection and Expansion Act of 1989. NPS funding has been used to modify water management systems to improve
water deliveries to the park. For additional information on funding for restoration of the Everglades, see CRS Report
R42007, Everglades Restoration: Federal Funding and Implementation Progress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
18
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
grants to states, the law provided $45.0 million, as compared with $39.9 million for FY2011.
State assistance is for outdoor 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.
The Administration had sought $360.0 million for Land Acquisition and State Assistance, nearly
four times the FY2011 appropriation. Relatively large increases over FY2011 were requested for
both components of the program—an increase of $160.1 million for state assistance and $105.1
million for land acquisition. NPS appropriations for land acquisition have fluctuated widely
throughout history, with a high of $130.0 million (FY2002) and a low of $34.4 million (FY2006
and FY2007) over the past decade. (For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF).”)
U.S. Geological Survey38
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is a science agency that provides physical and biological
information related to geological resources; climate change; and 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.
In 2011, the USGS reorganized its science programs to interdisciplinary themes39 related to those
outlined in the USGS 2007-2017 strategic plan,40 a shift from an alignment based primarily on the
traditional disciplinary fields of geology, biology, geography, and hydrology, together with two
themes: global climate change and geospatial information. The new interdisciplinary programs
are Ecosystems; Climate and Land Use Change; Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health;
Natural Hazards; Water Resources; Core Science Systems; Administration and Enterprise
Information; and Facilities. In addition, the USGS had proposed a new account for the National
Land Imaging Program, which includes the development of the Landsat satellite program. The
FY2012 appropriations law appropriated funding for interdisciplinary programs under this new
alignment, yet rejected the creation of the National Land Imaging Program as a new account.
The FY2012 appropriations law contained $1.07 billion for the USGS, a $13.9 million (1%)
decrease from the FY2011 appropriation ($1.08 billion) and a $48.1 million (4%) decrease from
the Administration’s FY2012 request ($1.12 billion) (see Table 6). The following sections discuss
the FY2012 USGS appropriations in comparison with the FY2011 appropriations under the
agency’s new alignment.
The FY2012 appropriations law contained $161.5 million for the Ecosystems program, an
increase of $0.7 million over the FY2011 appropriation ($160.8 million). The conferees stated
that “support for ecosystem restoration activities throughout the Survey’s programs is maintained
38
Figures in this section, as in other sections of this report, do not reflect a 0.16% across-the-board rescission in
discretionary appropriations that was included in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (Section 436, Division E, P.L. 112-74). For more information on USGS funding, contact (name re
dacted) at 7-.....
39
Hereinafter these “themes” are referred to as programs.
40
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: U.S. Geological Science in the
Decade 2007-2017, Circular 1309, 2007. Hereinafter cited as USGS 2007-2017 Strategic Plan.
Congressional Research Service
19
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
at the FY2011 enacted level.”41 Exceptions noted in the report included a $1.5 million increase
over the FY2011 appropriation for implementing the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, and a
$2.5 million increase over the FY2011 appropriations for the Great Lakes Asian Carp Control
Framework. The conferees also expressed their support for the Administration’s request to
conduct an in-depth analysis of the extent and sources of endocrine disrupting agents in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Table 6. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FY2011-FY2012
($ in millions)
U.S. Geological Survey
FY2011 Approp.
FY2012 Request
FY2012 Approp.
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
1,083.7
1,018.0
1,069.7
—Ecosystems
160.8
166.4
161.5
—Climate and Land Use Change
138.1
106.4
144.3
——Climate Variability
64.3
72.9
59.0
——Land Use Change
73.8
33.5
85.3
—Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health
99.9
88.5
96.4
—Natural Hazards
136.0
133.9
134.7
—Water Resources
212.4
199.6
215.0
—Core Science Systems
113.0
105.9
106.8
—Administration and Enterprise Information
118.6
116.6
110.4
—Facilities
104.7
100.8
100.6
National Land Imaginga
─
99.8
─
Total Appropriations
1,083.7
1,117.9
1,069.7
a.
The Administration’s FY2012 request proposed a transfer of activities to a new National Land Imaging
account. The FY2012 appropriations law did not approve a new account for National Land Imaging and
appropriated funds for this program in other accounts in the Service.
Climate and Land Use Change
The Climate and Land Use Change program is a hybrid of the Global Change program and Land
Use Change Program from FY2011. The FY2012 appropriations law contained $144.3 million for
this program, an increase of $6.2 million over the FY2011 appropriation ($138.1 million). Of this
amount, there was an $11.5 million increase over FY2011 appropriations to complete funding for
Landsat 8 ground operations development.42 This increase reflects the inclusion of some funding
that was requested for the National Land Imaging account, which was not funded by the FY2012
appropriations law. The conferees stated that all funding for satellite operations will remain in the
Land Use Change subactivity. Further, the conferees did not agree to transfer budgetary authority
for the launch of Landsat satellites 9 and 10 to USGS from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). The conferees provided $2.0 million of the $48.0 million requested for
41
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, p. 1058.
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.
42
Congressional Research Service
20
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
implementation of Landsat 9 and 10.43 They noted that the estimated expenses for this program
through FY2014 (approximately $400.0 million) would be difficult to support in an Interior
appropriations law without making cuts to other USGS programs. They recommended that all
interested parties should re-examine Landsat missions and consider less costly options for
acquiring Landsat data.44
Under the Climate Variability sub-program, the FY2012 law provided $2.4 million for science
support for DOI bureaus, a decrease of $2.6 million from the FY2011 level ($5.0 million) and of
$6.5 million from the President’s request ($8.9 million). In providing $25.5 million, the FY2012
appropriations law essentially funded the Administration’s request for supporting the full
deployment of climate science centers. The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center
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.
Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health
The Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health program includes research and assessments on
the nation’s mineral and energy resources. There are four components: minerals resources, energy
resources, contaminant biology, and toxic substances hydrology, which shifted from the Water
Resources Program under the previous USGS organization. The contaminant biology subprogram reflects the intent for energy and mineral resources to be understood in the context of the
life cycle of the energy or mineral commodity. Under this context, activities would address how
energy and mineral resources influence landscape, water, climate, ecosystems, and human health.
The FY2012 appropriations law contained $96.4 million for the Energy, Minerals, and
Environmental Health program, a decrease of $3.5 million from the FY2011 appropriation ($99.9
million) but an increase of $7.9 million from the Administration’s request for FY2012 ($88.5
million). The FY2012 law included higher levels than requested by the Administration for three
of the four subprograms. For instance, the Administration had proposed reducing Minerals
Resources from $52.2 million in FY2011 to $44.2 million for FY2012, but the FY2012 law
provided $49.3 million. The Administration’s proposed reduction would have delayed the
completion of the next National Mineral Resource Assessment, and was controversial. Opponents
had asserted that reductions in funding for mineral assessments together with proposed increases
in funding for ecosystem restoration would take USGS away from its core responsibilities. USGS
had asserted that some ecosystem studies are related to energy production.45
43
The development process of Landsat 9 is expected to include surveying users for their remote sensing needs,
conducting trade studies on data needs, initiating the procurement for instruments and spacecraft, and establishing a
science advisory team.
44
For more information on the Landsat program, see CRS Report R40594, Landsat and the Data Continuity Mission,
by (name redacted).
45
For a discussion of this issue, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy
and Mineral Resources, Examining the Spending Priorities and the Missions of the U.S. Geological Survey and the
President’s FY2012 Budget Proposal, 112th Cong., 1st sess., March 9, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
21
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Natural Hazards
This program is expected to provide scientific information and knowledge necessary to address
and mitigate the effects of natural hazards such as volcanoes, earthquakes, storm surges, and
landslides. Most of the six sub-programs under this program would be shifted from the previous
Geology discipline. The bulk of the activities correlate directly with the hazards-related programs
under the former structure. The Coastal and Marine Geology sub-program is expected to address
natural hazards-related issues, such as the impacts of hurricanes and tsunamis on the coast, and
the effects of rising relative sea level on coastal ecosystems and communities.
The FY2012 appropriations law contained $134.7 million for this program, a reduction of $1.3
million from FY2011 appropriations ($136.0 million). The conferees expressed that they did not
agree to some proposed reductions in the Administration’s request and that they restored funding
for Earthquake grants, the 2012 Multi-hazards Initiative, and the National Volcano Early Warning
System.
Water Resources
The Water Resources program includes activities that collect, assess, and disseminate
hydrological data, and analyze and research hydrological systems and methods for water
conservation. With the omission of toxic substances hydrology, the Water Resources program is
similar to the previous USGS Water Resources program. This program contains the National
Streamflow Information sub-program and the cooperative water sub-program, both of which fund
streamgages throughout the nation.
The FY2012 appropriations law contained $215.0 million for the Water Resources program, an
increase of $2.6 million over FY2011 appropriations ($212.4 million). The FY2012
appropriations law restored funding for several programs which the Administration had proposed
to cut. For instance, funding for the National Water Quality Assessment was increased by $5.5
million over the request, to $63.0 million for FY2012. The Administration’s proposed decrease
for the assessment would have eliminated groundwater monitoring in 76 study areas and delayed
the start of a national synthesis of suspended sediments in streams and rivers. The conferees
encouraged the USGS to present a proposal in its FY2013 budget request to establish a national
groundwater monitoring network. The FY2012 law did not reflect the Administration’s request to
eliminate funding for the Water Resources Research Act Program. Instead, this program received
$6.5 million in the FY2012 appropriations law, essentially level with FY2011 appropriations. The
National Streamflow Information Program received $29.4 million for FY2012, $2.5 million
above the Administration’s request for FY2012. This program provides funding for maintaining
and developing streamgages throughout the country.
Core Science Systems
The Core Science Systems program provides data in a geospatial framework for managing
resources and planning for natural hazards. Activities under this program resemble activities
previously found under the Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing program.
The FY2012 appropriations law contained $106.8 million for this program, a decrease of $6.2
million from the FY2011 appropriations ($113.0 million).
The FY2102 law included $15.1 million for the biological information management and delivery
subprogram, level with the Administration’s request but a decrease of $3.5 million from FY2011
Congressional Research Service
22
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
appropriations. The Administration had proposed to eliminate funding for the National Biological
Information Infrastructure, which seeks to provide a mechanism for accessing biological and
natural resources data, information, and analytical tools.
Administration and Enterprise Information
This program reflects administrative activities and Enterprise Information. Enterprise Information
consolidates funding of all USGS information needs, including information technology, security,
services, and resources management, as well as capital asset planning. The FY2012
appropriations law contained $110.4 million for this program, a decrease of $8.3 million from
FY2011 appropriations ($118.6 million). Most of the decrease was in the Science Support subactivity, which provides scientific support for other DOI agencies.
Facilities
The Facilities program includes sites where USGS activities are housed—offices, laboratories,
storage, parking, and more—as well as eight large research vessels. The FY2012 appropriations
law contained $100.6 million for this program, a decrease of $4.1 million from FY2011
appropriations ($104.7 million). The conferees did not support the Administration’s proposal to
create a separate Construction line item, and maintained funds within the Deferred Maintenance
and Capital Improvement sub-activity. According to the conferees, USGS has the authority it
needs to manage its facilities and space requirements within the current structure.46
National Land Imaging
The Administration’s proposal to establish a National Land Imaging account was not accepted in
the FY2012 appropriations law. Conferees expressed that Landsat and related activities should
continue to be funded under the Surveys, Investigations, and Research account. For the proposed
account, the Administration had sought $99.8 million to carry out DOI’s role in land imaging and
remote sensing. A portion of the requested funding for the Landsat program was provided in the
Climate and Land Use Change Program (see above for more details).
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and
Office of Natural Resources Revenue47
In response to the April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, 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. On May 19, 2010, the Secretary decided to establish the following three new entities to
46
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, p. 1060.
Figures in this section, as in other sections of this report, do not reflect a 0.16% across-the-board rescission in
discretionary appropriations that was included in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (Section 436, Division E, P.L. 112-74). For more information on BOEM, BSEE, and ONRR
funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....
47
Congressional Research Service
23
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
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). The transition to the new framework was completed on October 1, 2011. Each of the
three new entities has a director under the supervision of an assistant secretary.48
BOEM manages development of the nation’s offshore resources, including administering offshore
leasing, conducting environmental and economic analyses, and preparing resource evaluations.
BSEE enforces safety and environmental regulations. Functions include offshore regulatory
programs, research, and oil spill response. Field operations include permitting, inspections, and
environmental compliance. ONRR was established under the Office of the (DOI) Secretary to
collect, account for, analyze, audit, and disburse revenues from energy and mineral leases on the
outer continental shelf, federal onshore, and American Indian lands.
Prior to the establishment of BOEM and BSEE, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) temporarily handled the activities now being
performed by BOEM and BSEE. For FY2012, the Administration requested appropriations for
BOEMRE and ONRR,49 but the FY2012 appropriations law provided appropriations for the three
new agencies. Table 7 illustrates the transitional framework.
Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10 identify the FY2012 appropriations for BSEE, BOEM, and
ONRR, respectively. No comparisons with FY2011 appropriations, and few comparisons with
FY2012 requested funding, are provided in these tables, consistent with the detailed funding
tables in the FY2012 conference report.50
In FY2011, there was $11.2 billion in disbursements from mineral leases on federal and Indian
lands, up from $9.2 billion in FY2010 but down from the FY2008 record amount of $23.5 billion.
This amount fluctuates annually based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas and has
averaged about $13 billion per year over the last five years (FY2006-FY2010). Other sources of
ONRR receipts include bonus bids and rents for all leasable minerals and royalties from coal and
other minerals.
Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states in which they were collected, the general
fund of the U.S. Treasury, and designated programs. Revenues from offshore leases are allocated
among coastal states, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund, and
the Treasury.
48
Additional information on the reassignment of MMS’s responsibilities is contained in Secretarial Order No. 3299, on
the DOI website at http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=32475, and
in a September 30, 2011, DOI news release on the DOI website, at http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/InteriorDepartment-Completes-Reorganization-of-the-Former-MMS.cfm.
49
On August 8, 2011, the Department of the Interior submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a
proposed reprogramming indicating how funds for BOEMRE in the President’s budget request would be allocated
between BOEM and BSEE.
50
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, pp. 1101-1102 and 1105.
Congressional Research Service
24
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Table 7. Appropriations for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation,
and Enforcement (BOEMRE), FY2011-FY2012
($ in millions)
FY2011
Approp.
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Approp.
—Offshore Energy and Minerals
Management
232.5
297.0
─
——Renewable Energy
23.2
23.1
─
——Leasing and Environmental Program
65.4
75.4
─
——Resource Evaluation
35.1
34.7
─
——Regulatory Program
88.4
143.3
─
BOEMRE
Ocean Energy Management
——Information Management Program
20.5
20.5
─
—Royalty Managementa
109.4
n/a
─
—General Administration
62.1
46.4
─
Subtotal (Gross)
403.9
343.4
─
Use of Receipts and Cost Recovery Fees
-154.9
-160.2
─
Inspection Fees
-10.0
-62.0
─
Total, Ocean Energy Management
239.0
121.3
─
Oil Spill Research
11.7
14.9
─
OCS Connect (Rescission)
-25.0
0
─
Total Appropriations
225.7
136.2
─
Note: FY2012 appropriations were provided to BOEMRE’s successor agencies, BSEE and BOEM, as shown in
Tables 8 and 9 in this section.
a.
For FY2012, the Administration requested appropriations for this activity through ONRR.
FY2012 Budget and Appropriations
The FY2012 appropriations law contained a gross funding level of $160.9 million for BOEM,
$197.5 million for BSEE, and $119.6 million for ONRR. The gross funding level for all three
programs was $478.0 million for FY2012. The law supported use of receipts and other fees at
$101.1 million for BOEM and $121.1 million for BSEE. For BSEE, this included the collection
of additional inspection fees, for a total of $62.0 million, as had been requested by the
Administration. The FY2012 net amounts were $59.8 million for BOEM and $76.4 million for
BSEE. Thus, the total net amount enacted for FY2012 for the three newly created agencies
replacing MMS was $255.8 million.
The Administration’s FY2012 gross funding request of $478.0 million for both BOEMRE
($358.4 million) and ONRR ($119.6 million)51 was equal to the amount enacted. Similarly, when
the use of receipts and cost recovery fees ($222.2 million) are deducted, the Administration’s net
request for the agencies replacing MMS was equal to the net amount enacted ($255.8 million). By
51
These totals do not reflect certain funding. Specifically, for FY2012, the leadership and administration program
within the Office of the Secretary included an additional $28.3 million for the administration of the royalty
management program previously handled by MMS.
Congressional Research Service
25
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
comparison, the FY2011 enacted gross funding level was lower─$415.6 million─while the net
funding level was nearly identical─$225.7 million. Finally, there was an additional $42.0 million
cost-share deduction (a deduction from the states’ share of royalty receipts) for the FY2011 and
FY2012 enacted appropriations and the FY2012 requested funding.
While it is difficult to compare program by program from FY2011 to FY2012, because of
reorganizations and name changes, it appears that the Operations, Safety and Regulation program
currently within BSEE received the most significant increase over FY2011─from about $88
million in FY2011 to about $132 million in FY2012. See Table 8. Oil spill research increased
from $11.7 million to $14.9 million from FY2011 to FY2012, but has shown an even greater
increase since the FY2010 level of $6.3 million.
Table 8. Appropriations for Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE), FY2011-FY2012
($ in millions)
FY2011
Approp.
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Approp.
—Environmental Enforcement
─
─
4.1
—Operations, Safety, and Regulation
─
─
132.1
—Administrative Operations
─
─
15.6
—General Support Services
─
─
12.6
—Executive Direction
─
─
18.1
182.6
BSEE
Offshore Safety and Environmental
Enforcement
Subtotal
─
─
(BOEMRE subtotal)
─
(182.6)
─
Offsetting rental receipts
─
─
-52.6
Inspection fees
─
─
-62.0
Cost recovery fees
─
─
-6.5
(BOEMRE inspection fees)
─
(-62.0)
─
(BOEMRE cost recovery fees)
─
(-6.5)
─
Total, Offshore Safety and
Environmental Enforcement
─
─
61.5
Oil spill research
─
─
14.9
Total Appropriations
─
─
76.4
Note: FY2011 appropriations were provided to, and FY2012 appropriations were requested for, BSEE’s
predecessor agency, BOEMRE, as shown in Table 7 in this section.
The Administration established an Office of Offshore Alternative Energy Programs in FY2010 to
develop and implement its offshore renewable energy policies and comply with departmental
goals. The agency 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 wind energy project
offshore with 130 turbines. BOEMRE has plans to more efficiently site, lease, and construct
offshore wind energy projects with its “Smart from the Start” program. For FY2012, the
Congressional Research Service
26
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
appropriation to BOEM for renewable energy was $22.7 million, lower than the $23.2 million
appropriated for FY2011 and the $23.1 million requested for FY2012. See Table 9.
Table 9. Appropriations for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM),
FY2011-FY2012
($ in millions)
FY2011
Approp.
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Approp.
—Renewable Energy
─
─
22.7
—Conventional Energy
─
─
47.3
—Environmental Assessment
─
─
62.0
—General Support Services
─
─
12.8
—Executive Direction
─
─
16.1
Subtotal
─
─
160.9
Subtotal, BOEMRE
─
(160.9)
─
Offsetting rental receipts
─
─
-99.0
Cost recovery fees
─
─
-2.1
(BOEMRE rental receipts)
─
(-99.0)
─
(BOEMRE cost recovery fees)
─
(-2.1)
─
Total Appropriations
─
─
59.8
BOEM
Ocean Energy Management
Note: FY2011 appropriations were provided to, and FY2012 appropriations were requested for, BOEM’s
predecessor agency, BOEMRE, as shown in Table 7 in this section.
In addition, the Administration had proposed a $4 per acre fee on new nonproducing oil and gas
leases in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and onshore to further encourage diligent
development of those leases, and the repeal of royalty relief provisions (§344) in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. Neither proposal was included in the FY2012 law. The House Appropriations
Committee had expressed concern over delays in issuing OCS exploration and development
permits, and encouraged BOEMRE to issue permits in a timely and consistent manner while
ensuring safety and environmental protection.52 The conferees further expressed that the highest
priority for BSEE is “ensuring safety and prompt consideration of permits,” and that applications
for permits to drill “should be processed with all due speed.”53
The total FY2012 appropriation for ONNR was $119.6 million for its two major programs—
compliance and asset management (CAM) and revenue and operations—funded at $77.2 million
and $42.4 million respectively, as had been requested by the Administration. See Table 10. CAM
would implement reforms in the way the agency uses data mining to detect missing or inaccurate
royalty payments and implement its risk-based compliance strategy to ensure proper revenue
collections. The revenue and operations program would continue to phase-out the royalty-in-kind
program (RIK, wherein payments are made in fuel rather than in cash) and replace it with a
royalty-in-value program and strengthen the auditing and oversight functions of ONRR.
52
53
H.Rept. 112-151, on H.R. 2584 , p. 39.
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, pp. 1060-1061.
Congressional Research Service
27
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Table 10. Appropriations for the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR),
FY2011-FY2012
($ in millions)
FY2011
Approp.
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Approp.
Compliance and Asset Managementa
n/a
77.2
77.2
Revenue and Operationsa
n/a
42.4
42.4
Total Appropriations
n/a
119.6
119.6
ONRR
a.
These activities were funded previously under the former MMS. ONRR is one of three new entities
established to perform the functions of the MMS, as discussed above in this section.
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.54 Two issues have been
the focus of recent debates: moratoria (areas off limits to leasing), 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, potentially opening these areas
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. Further, the Obama Administration, under executive authority, withdrew
the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area from oil and gas leasing activity until June 30, 2017. On
November 8, 2011, the Administration announced its second draft proposed oil and gas leasing
program for 2012-2017, which 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 for leasing. Since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico, President Obama has cancelled the August 2010 lease sale (215) and the Mid-Atlantic
lease sale (220). On December 14, 2011, the Obama Administration held lease sale 218 in the
Western Gulf of Mexico, the first sale since the oil spill.
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
54
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.
Congressional Research Service
28
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
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 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been a factor in the debate.55
Audit and Compliance Program
A major challenge confronting 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.
Further, DOI established an independent panel, the Royalty Policy Committee (RPC), to review
the Mineral Leasing Program. The RPC offered over 100 recommendations to BOEMRE/ONRR
for improving its leasing program and auditing function. The review included an examination of
the RIK program, which grew from 41.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) in 2004 to 112
million BOE in 2007.56 GAO issued a report on September 26, 2008, concluding that the RIK
Program could be improved.57 After review of the RIK program, the Secretary of the Interior
announced its “phased-in termination.”58 The FY2012 appropriations law and ONRR’s FY2012
request reflected the Administration’s plan to continue phasing out the RIK program.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement59
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
Land Reclamation (AML) Fund60 to reclaim abandoned mine lands that posed serious health or
safety hazards.
55
For more information on the spill, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background and
Governance, by (name redacted).
56
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.
57
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.
58
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.
59
Figures in this section, as in other sections of this report, do not reflect a 0.16% across-the-board rescission in
discretionary appropriations that was included in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (Section 436, Division E, P.L. 112-74). For more information on OSM funding, contact (name
redacted) at 7-.....
60
AML is the acronym for abandoned mine lands.
Congressional Research Service
29
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Monies accrue to the AML fund based on fees assessed on coal production. Through FY2007,
disbursements from the AML fund to states and tribes, to reclaim abandoned sites, were
determined strictly by annual appropriations. However, beginning with FY2008, under P.L. 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.61 Other OSM
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 by 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 2009.62 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.
On October 26, 2011, the Secretary of the Interior signed a Secretarial Order (No. 3315) to
consolidate the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement within the Bureau of
Land Management. The Order was to be effective December 1, 2011. The goal was to integrate
the oversight and accountability related to abandoned mine land reclamation, revenue collections,
and safety and environmental practices. However, as a result of congressional and stakeholder
concerns, the Secretary suspended the effective date on November 28, 2011. Following an
internal report (due on February 15, 2012, to the Secretary) that may include proposed
modifications to the Order, a new effective date will be set. The conferees on the FY2012
appropriations bill were “deeply concerned about the lack of coordination and consultation”
before the order was issued, and expressed an expectation of increased coordination and
consultation on this issue.63
Budget and Appropriations
The FY2012 appropriations law funded OSM at $150.5 million for FY2012. This would be a
decrease of $12.1 million (7%) from FY2011 ($162.5 million) but an increase of $4.6 million
(3%) over the Administration’s request for FY2012 ($145.9 million). See Table 11. The
Administration supported having states increase user fees from the coal industry to offset a
proposed reduction in appropriations for the regulation and technology account. The
Administration noted that other energy industries pay higher fees for the cost of regulating their
61
The mandatory appropriation has a ceiling of $490 million annually. If demands on that money exceed the cap,
distributions will be proportional.
62
See http://www.osm.gov/topic/grants/docs/2010/FY10GrantDist.pdf.
63
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, p. 1062.
Congressional Research Service
30
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
industry and that this proposal would treat similar industries more comparably. The FY2012 law
did not include the proposal by the Administration to increase fees on the coal industry. The law
also did not support the Administration’s proposal to increase federal oversight of state regulatory
programs. The House Appropriations Committee had asserted that these programs “do not need
enhanced Federal oversight to ensure continued implementation of a protective regulatory
framework.”64
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), FY2011-FY2012
($ in millions)
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
FY2011
Approp.
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Approp.
Regulation and Technology
127.0
118.5
123.1
—Environmental Protection
94.6
87.4
92.0
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
35.5
27.4
27.4
—Environmental Restoration
15.0
9.5
9.5
Total Appropriations
162.5
145.9
150.5
Further, the FY2012 law did not include the Administration’s request for an end of payments to
states and tribes that have finished restoring their abandoned coal mines. The Administration
asserted that because these funds can be used for any purpose, these distributions are inconsistent
with the purpose of the AML program. The remaining reclamation funding would be
competitively allocated and used for emergencies and program administration. As these payments
are made from mandatory appropriations, the Administration’s proposal would have required a
change in law. Such a change has been opposed by the affected states and tribes. The
Administration had a similar proposal in FY2011.
The FY2012 appropriations law supported the Administration’s proposed $27.4 million for the
AML Fund, a decrease of $8.1 million from FY2011 appropriations ($35.5 million). The
Administration had included a decrease of $6.9 million, within the total decrease for the AML
Fund, on the expectation that mandatory appropriations would cover the costs of state and tribal
emergency grants and federally managed emergency projects.65
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education66
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally recognized
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and historically has been the lead
agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs provided or funded through the BIA include
64
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, p. 41.
Mandatory grants to states and tribes in FY2012 were estimated by the Administration to be $228.4 million, an
increase of $78.3 million in mandatory grants over FY2011.
66
Figures in this section, as in other sections of this report, do not reflect a 0.16% across-the-board rescission in
discretionary appropriations that was included in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (Section 436, Division E, P.L. 112-74). For more information on BIA funding, contact (name r
edacted) at 7-...., coordinator for BIA appropriations issues. CRS analysts Betsy Cody, (name redacted), and (name r
edacted), and information research specialist Merete
Gerli, also contributed to this section.
65
Congressional Research Service
31
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
government operations, courts, law enforcement, fire protection, social programs, roads,
economic development, employment assistance, housing repair, irrigation, dams, Indian rights
protection, implementation of land and water settlements, and management of trust assets (real
estate and natural resources). Education programs are provided by the Bureau of Indian Education
(BIE), a sister agency to BIA.67
The FY2012 appropriations law contained $2.54 billion for the BIA and BIE, $58.7 million (2%)
below the $2.59 billion appropriated for FY2011 and $34.7 million (1%) more than the
Administration’s request for FY2012 ($2.50 billion). Table 12 presents appropriations enacted for
FY2011 and FY2012 and requested for FY2012. Discussed below are selected topics and
programs within BIA and BIE appropriations.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of
Education (BIE), FY2011-FY2012
($ in millions)
FY2011
Approp.
FY2012
Request
FY2012
2,329.8
2,359.7
2,371.5
—Tribal Government
509.6
497.1
520.2
—Human Services
136.6
137.8
136.6
—Trust - Natural Resources Management
156.1
162.3
157.5
—Trust - Real Estate Services
145.8
125.5
127.0
—Education (Bureau of Indian Education,
BIE)
752.7
795.6
796.8
——Elementary and Secondary Programs
(Forward Funded)
520.0
526.1
523.1
——Post Secondary Programs (Forward Funded)
64.2
64.3
67.4
——Elementary and Secondary Programsa
76.9
122.7
122.7
——Post Secondary Programs
61.6
60.4
61.5
——Education Management
29.9
22.0
22.0
—Public Safety and Justice
334.1
354.7
346.8
——Law Enforcement
305.9
330.4
322.5
——Tribal Courts
27.1
23.4
23.4
—Community and Economic Development
36.9
34.9
34.9
—Executive Direction and Administrative
Services
258.1
251.9
251.9
Construction
209.6
105.0
123.8
—Educationa
140.5
52.1
70.9
—Public Safety and Justice
17.9
11.3
11.3
—Resources Management
42.1
33.0
33.0
Indian Affairs
Operation of Indian Programs
Approp.
67
In August 2006, the BIA’s administrative office for its education programs was removed from the BIA, made a
parallel agency under DOI’s Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs, and renamed the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).
Congressional Research Service
32
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
FY2011
Approp.
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements
and Miscellaneous Payments to Indians
46.4
32.9
32.9
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program Account
8.2
3.1
7.1
2,594.0
2,500.7
2,535.3
Indian Affairs
Total Appropriations
Approp.
Note: The table does not list all activities and subactivities relevant for Indian appropriations. As such, individual
lines do not necessarily sum to the totals listed.
a.
For FY2012, the Administration proposed transferring $50.7 million for facilities maintenance from
education construction to elementary and secondary programs within the BIE.
Public Safety and Justice
The federal government has primary jurisdiction over major criminal offenses on most Indian
reservations, while tribes share jurisdiction but with limited sentencing options. BIA funds most
law enforcement, jails, and courts in Indian country, whether operated by tribes or by the BIA.
Currently, BIA supports 187 law enforcement agencies (of which 151 are operated by tribes), 85
detention programs (of which 63 are tribally operated), and 288 court systems (of which 156 are
operated under Indian self-determination contracts).
The sufficiency of funding for public safety and justice has been under consideration. In general,
tribes and BIA have fewer law enforcement resources than comparable state and local
jurisdictions. The National Congress of American Indians has reported that tribal law
enforcement agencies are understaffed when compared to other law enforcement agencies. In
policing, for instance, a 2006 analysis showed that there were 2,555 law enforcement officers in
Indian Country, but that 4,409 were needed to provide adequate services to tribal residents.68
Further, detention and corrections facilities funded by BIA had significant shortfalls in staffing,
training, operating procedures, reporting, and maintenance, according to a 2004 Interior Inspector
General report.69 According to the BIA, while the agency has taken steps to remedy the
deficiencies noted in the Inspector General’s report, detention facilities remain understaffed by a
total of 459 positions (177 Indian Affairs and 282 tribally funded positions).
The Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA)70 placed new responsibilities on BIA’s Office of Justice
Services. According to BIA, the act will have a “significant impact on tribal courts, law
enforcement, and detention centers.”71 The act allows tribal courts to give extended jail sentences
to tribal citizens convicted of crimes under tribal codes. The act also requires BIA to develop
guidelines for approving correctional centers for long-term incarceration and a long-term plan for
the construction, maintenance, and operation of tribal detention centers. The ability of tribal
courts to hand down longer sentences under the TLOA could prompt a need for additional court
68
National Congress of American Indians, Indian Country Budget Request, FY2012, p. 26, http://www.ncai.org/
fileadmin/Budget_2012/1-20-11_Budget_Doc_color.pdf.
69
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Officer of Inspector General, “Neither Safe Nor Secure”: An Assessment of Indian
Detention Facilities, report no. 2004-I-0056, September 2004, http://www.doioig.gov/images/stories/reports/pdf/
IndianCountryDetentionFinal%20Report.pdf.
70
P.L. 111-211.
71
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2012, Indian Affairs, p.
IA-PSJ-4. Hereinafter cited as FY2012 Indian Affairs Budget Justification.
Congressional Research Service
33
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
capacity, such as staff or equipment. Longer sentences for tribal offenders could also result in a
need for increased detention capacity, either through construction of new facilities or contracting
for bedspace with local jails.
The FY2012 appropriations law included a total of $346.8 million for the Public Safety and
Justice activity. This was $12.7 million more than the FY2011 appropriation ($334.1 million) but
$7.9 million less than the Administration’s request ($354.7 million). Of the FY2012 total, there
was $322.5 million for law enforcement on tribal lands; this was $16.6 million more than the
FY2011 appropriation but $7.9 million less than the Administration’s request. The
Administration’s proposed increase for law enforcement funding was intended primarily for
hiring additional law enforcement officers for Indian Country and staff for detention centers that
were built or expanded with stimulus funding provided under P.L. 111-5. The FY2012 total also
included $23.4 million for tribal courts, which was $3.6 million less than FY2011 but the same as
the Administration’s request.
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)
The BIE funds an elementary and secondary school system, institutions of higher education
(IHEs), and other educational programs. The BIE-funded elementary and secondary school
system serves approximately 41,000 students in 183 schools and residential facilities. Tribes
operate 126 of the BIE-funded schools and residential facilities. The BIE operates two IHEs and
provides funding support to 29 tribally controlled IHEs. The BIE also funds early childhood and
adult education programs, postsecondary scholarships, and education programs for Indian
children in public schools.
The FY2012 appropriations law contained a total of $796.8 million for the BIE, a $44.1 million
increase from the FY2011 level ($752.7 million) and a $1.2 million increase from the President’s
request for FY2012 ($795.6 million). The FY2012 appropriation matched the President’s request
for non-forward funded elementary and secondary education programs, increasing the
appropriation from $76.9 million in FY2011 to $122.7 million for FY2012. The increase was due
to transferring elementary and secondary school facilities maintenance from the Construction
account to the elementary and secondary education subactivities. The Administration had
indicated that since facilities maintenance is part of daily operations, it would be more
appropriately accounted for as such rather than as longer term capital improvements.
The FY2012 law included legislative provisions affecting the BIE. One provision authorized the
BIE to expend over a five-year period any funds that it recovered from a BIE school for which the
BIE assumes operation from a tribe or tribal governing body after July 1, 2008.72 A second
provision authorized the BIE to rent or lease the land or facilities of a BIE-operated school to
public and private persons and entities in an effort to benefit the school. Under a third provision
of the law, BIE personnel were permitted to engage in fundraising for BIE-operated schools while
in an official capacity as part of their official duties.
The House Appropriations Committee had directed the BIE, in coordination with the Department
of Education, to count the number of students eligible for (participating in) the Johnson O’Malley
72
An Indian tribe or tribal organization may upon request retrocede the activities and programs of a contract under P.L.
93-638 or grant under P.L. 100-297 to the BIE. The BIE may reassume through rescission, in whole or in part, a
contract or grant to assume or resume control or operation of the program without consent of the Indian tribe or tribal
organization if the tribe or organization fails to fulfill its responsibilities properly.
Congressional Research Service
34
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
(JOM) program.73 The JOM program provides supplementary financial assistance, through
contracts, to meet the unique and specialized educational needs of eligible Indian students in
public schools and nonsectarian private schools. JOM funds are distributed by a formula based on
a count of Indian students and average per-pupil operating costs. Student counts have been
effectively frozen since FY1995.74 As a result of the 1995 freeze, the BIE no longer
systematically collects data about the students served by projects. The freeze allows pre-1995
contractors to receive funding based on their 1995 student count regardless of the number of
students actually served. The freeze included each tribe’s 1995 JOM allocation into its base
funding tribal priority allocation (TPA). TPA allows tribes flexibility in the management and use
of funds for various programs and services. Tribes that receive JOM funding through TPA are
dependent on this as a fairly stable source of funding.
The Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act75 states that Congress will “assur[e]
maximum Indian participation in the direction of educational as well as other Federal services to
Indian communities” and “transition ... to effective and meaningful participation by the Indian
people in the planning, conduct, and administration of [federal] programs.” To that end, the
House Appropriations Committee had provided $2.0 million to build the capacity of tribal
education departments (TEDs; sometimes also referred to as tribal education agencies) and to
conduct a pilot project of TEDs collaborating with states and school districts to administer some
programs that are authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act at public schools
on current or former Indian reservations. Further, the committee had expressed an expectation
that BIA would collaborate with the Department of Education on this effort.76 Neither the FY2012
Interior appropriations law nor its explanatory statement contained additional provisions on
funding for TEDs. However, the conferees on the FY2012 Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill noted the inclusion of $2.0 million for
the Department of Education for this purpose, and expressed an expectation that the department
would collaborate with the BIA on this effort.77
Since the mid-90s, appropriations acts have prohibited the BIE from funding schools that were
not in the BIE system as of September 1, 1996, and from using BIE funds to expand a school’s
grade structure beyond the grades in place as of October 1, 1995. In the 1990s, Congress was
concerned that adding new BIE schools or expanding existing schools would, in circumstances of
limited financial resources, “diminish funding for schools currently in the system.”78 The FY2012
appropriations law maintained these prohibitions except in the instance of schools and school
programs that were closed and removed from the BIE school system between 1951 and 1972 and
whose respective tribe’s relationship with the federal government was terminated. This would
require the BIE to fund the grades 1-6 school of the Jones Academy in Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as
had been proposed by the President. Jones Academy is currently funded by the BIE as a
peripheral dormitory for students attending schools in grades 1-12, and by the local public school
district as a grades 1-6 elementary school.
73
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, pp. 42-43.
For more information on the JOM program freeze, see CRS Report RL34205, Federal Indian Elementary-Secondary
Education Programs: Background and Issues, by (name redacted), pp.19-20.
75
ISDEAA; 25 U.S.C. §450 et seq.
76
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, p. 42.
77
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, p. 1149.
78
U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bill, 1995, report to accompany H.R. 4602, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 103-294 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 58.
74
Congressional Research Service
35
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Construction
For BIA Construction for FY2012, the appropriation was $123.8 million. This was an $85.8
million decrease from FY2011 ($209.6 million) but an $18.8 million increase from the President’s
request for FY2012 ($105.0 million). The difference among the three levels resulted primarily
from differences in funding for construction of education facilities. Specifically, the FY2012
appropriation for construction of education facilities was $70.9 million, a $69.6 million decrease
from FY2011 ($140.5 million). Much of the decrease from FY2011 was due to the transfer of
funds from the Construction account to BIE elementary and secondary education for facilities
maintenance. Of the $70.9 million for educational facilities, $17.8 million was for replacement
school construction to fund the next school on the 2004 priority list.79 The President had not
requested funding for replacement school construction.
Through the education construction program, the BIA replaces, repairs, and improves facilities in
the BIE elementary and secondary school system, including employee housing, to ensure safety
and functionality. BIE school facilities are characterized by a very large number of old facilities
with a high rate of deficiencies, higher than that for public schools.80 On December 31, 2009, the
BIA estimated that the costs to replace, repair, construct, and improve existing facilities in poor
condition would be $1.3 billion.81
Another portion of the $123.8 million Construction total was for public safety and justice
construction. For FY2012, the appropriation was $11.3 million, a decrease of $6.5 million from
the FY2011 level ($17.9 million) but the same as the Administration’s request. The request had
eliminated funding for detention center construction on the grounds that the funding overlapped
with grant funding for tribal detention center construction in the Department of Justice (DOJ).82
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs83
Office of Insular Affairs84
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
79
In 2004 as required by statute, the BIA published the ‘‘Replacement School Construction Priority” to demonstrate
the order in which education construction appropriations would be used. See Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, “Replacement School Construction Priority List as of FY 2004,” 69 Federal Register 13870, March 24, 2004.
80
For instance, the Government Accountability Office reported that in 2000, BIA school administrators reported 65%
of schools and 76% of peripheral dormitories had one or more buildings in inadequate condition, compared to 24% of
public schools (GAO-01-934, p. 25).
81
“Indian Affairs Funded Schools in Poor Condition as Indicated by Facility Condition Index (FCI),” provided by the
BIA to CRS in February 2010.
82
The Administration also expressed that when formulating the FY2012 request, it considered the $232.3 million
investment in the construction and repair of tribal detention centers through stimulus funding in P.L. 111-5. FY2012
Indian Affairs Budget Justification, p. IA-CON-PSJ-2.
83
This section addresses selected activities/offices that fall under Departmental Offices or Department-Wide Programs.
However, for information on DOI Wildland Fire Management, a Department-Wide Program, see the “Wildland Fire
Management” section, below. Total funding for these entities is identified in Table 21 at the end of this report.
84
Figures in this section, as in other sections of this report, do not reflect a 0.16% across-the-board rescission in
discretionary appropriations that was included in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (Section 436, Division E, P.L. 112-74). For more information on OIA funding, contact (name r
edacted) at 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
36
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
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.85 OIA staff manage
relations between each jurisdiction and the federal government and work to build the fiscal and
administrative capacities of local governments. OIA aid can be particularly important for
addressing ongoing financial challenges among territorial governments, particularly amid the
decline of the tuna and garment industries, respectively, in American Samoa and the CNMI. OIA
funds also have supported various infrastructure projects in preparation for the military buildup
on Guam.86 Each of the territorial governments, however, faces economic challenges,
complicated by natural resources, population, and limited land.87
OIA funding consists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite (mandatory) appropriations, and
(2) funds provided in the annual appropriations process (discretionary funds).88 The latter come
from two accounts: Assistance to Territories (AT) and Compact of Free Association (CFA). AT
funding provides grants for the operation of the government of American Samoa, infrastructure
improvement projects on many of the insular area islands, and specified natural resource
initiatives. The CFA account provides federal assistance to the freely associated states pursuant to
compact agreements negotiated with the U.S. government. The AT and CFA accounts, however,
provide a relatively small portion of the office’s overall budget; permanent and indefinite funds
provide the bulk of U.S. financial assistance to U.S. insular areas, FSM, RMI, and Palau.
The FY2012 appropriation for insular affairs was $105.3 million, $3.8 million (4%) more than the
FY2011 level ($101.5 million) and $18.1 million (21%) more than the President’s request for
FY2012 ($87.2 million). Of the FY2012 total, there was $88.0 million in AT funds, $3.8 million
more than the FY2011 appropriation ($84.2 million) and $3.9 million more than the President’s
request for FY2012 ($84.1 million). The difference in funding between the FY2012 enacted and
requested levels is primarily attributable to differences in funding for CFA. The FY2012
appropriation for CFA was $17.3 million, level with the FY2011 appropriation. The OIA had
provided additional CFA funds in FY2011 in lieu of a renegotiated compact agreement with
Palau.89 By contrast, the President had sought $3.1 million on the assumption that a recently
negotiated agreement with Palau would be approved during FY2012. However, the FY2012 law
included a provision for Palau to continue to receive federal financial assistance while a new
compact agreement is negotiated.
The FY2012 law contained language permitting the Department of the Interior to transfer some of
the funding for Guam, at the governor’s request, to the U.S. Agriculture Department to subsidize
expenses related to the military buildup on the island. Similar language has been included in
previous appropriations measures. Conferees specified various other conditions on the FY2012
appropriation, some of which were new and some of which had appeared previously. In
particular, the conference report specified spending priorities related to sustainable energy
85
On behalf of the United Nations, the U.S. government formerly administered these areas as the Trust Territories of
the Pacific Islands (TTPI).
86
For additional discussion of the buildup, see CRS Report RS22570, Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments, by (name redac
ted).
87
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2012, Office of Insular
Affairs, pp. 1-2.
88
Ibid., p. 4.
89
The compact agreement governs political, military, and economic relationships between the United States and Palau.
Congressional Research Service
37
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
projects in the territories, educational opportunities and medical services for the freely associated
states, and OIA staffing to implement the compact agreements.90
The total OIA request (including mandatory and discretionary funds) for FY2012 was $468.4
million. Of that amount, $377.1 million (81%) is required through statutes, as follows. These
amounts are, therefore, not subject to the annual appropriations process.
•
an estimated $232.1 million under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts
of Free Association; and
•
an estimated $145.0 million in fiscal assistance for Guam and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency91
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 their regulatory role and in complying with federal
requirements to control pollution. The FY2012 appropriations law provided $8.46 billion for
EPA, $219.1 million (3%) less than the FY2011 appropriation of $8.68 billion and $510.0 million
(6%) less than the President’s FY2012 request of $8.97 billion.
Table 13 presents the FY2012 enacted amounts compared to the President’s FY2012 budget
request and the FY2011 enacted appropriations for the eight accounts that fund the agency. Note
that the name of the “Oil Spill Response” account was changed to “Inland Oil Spill Program” in
FY2012, as had been proposed by the President, to more clearly reflect the agency’s jurisdiction
for oil spill response in the inland coastal zone. The FY2012 appropriations were lower than the
President’s FY2012 request for each of the eight EPA accounts and lower than most of the
FY2011 account levels.92 As indicated in Table 13, the largest dollar decreases below FY2011
enacted and the FY2012 request are in three accounts: Environmental Programs and Management
(EPM), Hazardous Substance Superfund, and State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). Further,
the FY2012 appropriations reflect mostly decreases for individual programs and activities funded
within each of the eight appropriations accounts, although funding for some programs and
activities was maintained or increased compared to FY2011 levels.
90
H.Rept. 112-94 on H.R. 2055, pp. 1065-1066.
Figures in this section, as in other sections of this report, do not reflect a 0.16% across-the-board rescission in
discretionary appropriations that was included in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (Section 436, Division E, P.L. 112-74).
For more information on EPA funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... In addition, for an overview comparison of
the FY2012 enacted and proposed appropriations and associated provisions, see CRS Report R42332, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations, by (name redacted). 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.
92
Including the across-the-board rescission of 0.16%, the FY2012 appropriation would be lower than the FY2011
appropriation for all eight EPA accounts.
91
Congressional Research Service
38
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Table 13. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
FY2011-FY2012
($ in millions)
FY2011
Approp.
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Approp.
—Base Appropriations
813.5
825.6
795.0
—Transfer in from Hazardous Substance Superfund
26.8
23.0
23.0
840.3
848.6
818.0
2,756.5
2,876.6
2,682.5
—Base Appropriations
44.7
46.0
42.0
—Transfer in from Hazardous Substance Superfund
10.0
10.0
10.0
Office of Inspector General Total
54.7
56.0
52.0
Buildings & Facilities
36.4
42.0
36.4
1,280.9
1,236.2
1,215.8
—Transfer out to Office of Inspector General
-10.0
-10.0
-10.0
—Transfer out to Science and Technology
-26.8
-23.0
-23.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund (after transfers)
1,244.2
1,203.2
1,182.8
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
112.9
112.5
104.3
Inland Oil Spill Program
18.3
23.7
18.3
—Clean Water State Revolving Fund
1,522.0
1,550.0
1,468.8
—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
963.1
990.0
919.4
1,104.2
1,201.4
1,090.6
—Other State and Tribal Assistance Grants
169.7
119.0
140.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
3,758.9
3,860.4
3,618.7
Rescissions (various EPA accounts)a
-140.0
-50.0
-50.0
8,682.1
8,973.0
8,463.0
EPA Appropriations Accounts
Science and Technology
Science and Technology Total
Environmental Programs and Management
Office of Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund (before transfers)
—Base Appropriations
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
—Categorical Grants
Total Appropriations
a.
Figures refer to EPA specific rescissions for FY2011 and FY2012, and do not reflect the across-the-board
rescission of 0.16% for FY2012, as noted above. Specifically, under the Administrative Provisions in Division
E, Title II of P.L. 112-74, $50.0 million in unobligated balances from the STAG ($45.0 million) and the
Hazardous Substance Superfund ($5.0 million) accounts would be rescinded. Rescissions specified within the
STAG account include $20.0 million from categorical grants, $10.0 million from the Clean Water SRF, and
$5.0 million each from Brownfields grants, Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants, and Mexico Border. See
Section 1740 of Div. B under P.L. 112-10 for the FY2011 rescission.
The following sections highlight issues associated with certain accounts and programs that have
been prominent in the debate on EPA’s FY2012 appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
39
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Key Issues
In addition to funding priorities among the various EPA programs and activities, several recent
and pending EPA regulatory actions93 were central to the debate on the FY2012 appropriations.
These EPA regulatory actions, which were also the focus of considerable attention during
deliberations on EPA’s FY2011 appropriations,94 cut across the various environmental pollution
control statutes’ programs and initiatives. Some Members expressed concerns related to these
actions during hearings and markup of EPA’s FY2012 appropriations, and authorizing committees
have been addressing EPA regulatory actions through hearings and legislation.
The FY2012 appropriations law included several administrative and general provisions affecting
EPA actions and authorities (see examples discussed in the sections that follow), but not nearly as
many as the roughly 25 provisions included in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill (H.R. 2584) reported by the House Appropriations Committee.95
Many additional proposals to address EPA actions were included in amendments considered or
filed prior to suspension of floor debate on H.R. 2584.
The FY2012 law included EPA administrative provisions setting terms and conditions for the use
of FY2012 appropriations. One provision rescinded unobligated balances as referenced in Table
13 above. Another authorized EPA to transfer up to $10.0 million from any of its program
accounts to fund emergency response actions for oil spills in addition to amounts available in the
Inland Oil Spill Program account if the Administrator determines that the account will be
exhausted within 30 days. The funds transferred from other accounts would be reimbursed by
payments administered by the U.S. Coast Guard from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Still
other general provisions specified requirements and restrictions for the use of FY2012 funds for
certain Clean Air Act regulatory actions and greenhouse gas emission reporting requirements and
certain Clean Water Act permitting requirements associated with silvicultural activities.
Additionally, in lieu of certain provisions proposed in the House Appropriations Committee bill,
conferees on the FY2012 bill included extensive language with regard to specific actions by EPA.
For example, under the Science and Technology account, the conferees required specific
refinements and modifications to EPA’s policies and practices for conducting assessments under
the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).96
Considerable attention on EPA’s FY2012 funding focused on federal financial assistance for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects,97 grants to assist states in implementing air
pollution control requirements, environmental cleanup of Superfund sites, and climate change
research and related activities.
93
See CRS Report R41561, EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?, by (name redacted) and (name re
dacted), for a discussion of selected EPA regulatory actions.
94
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 enacted, 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).
95
CRS Report R42332, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations, by (name redacted),
contains tables comparing EPA provisions contained in P.L. 112-74 with those proposed in H.R. 2584.
96
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, p. 1072.
97
See CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
40
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure
In recent fiscal years, roughly one-third of EPA’s annual appropriations has been within the State
and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account for grants to aid states in capitalizing their Clean
Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs).98 The FY2012 combined total for the
Clean Water and the Drinking Water SRFs was $2.39 billion, compared to $2.49 billion
appropriated for FY2011, a 4% decrease. The SRFs help 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 SRF capitalization grants to states and
territories based on formulas.99 The FY2012 law provided $1.47 billion for the Clean Water SRF
capitalization grants and $919.4 million for the Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants, each
less than the President’s FY2012 request and the FY2011 enacted appropriations, as shown in
Table 13. The House Appropriations Committee bill (H.R. 2584) had proposed $689.0 million
(55% decrease) for the Clean Water and $829.0 million (14% decrease) for Drinking Water SRFs,
roughly the same as appropriated for FY2008.
An ongoing issue for Congress has been the extent of federal assistance still needed to help states
maintain sufficient capital in their SRFs to meet local water infrastructure needs. While
expressing a recognition of the importance of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water SRFs,
some Members have contended that funding these accounts through regular appropriations is
unsustainable and have encouraged the authorizing committees to examine funding mechanisms
for the SRFs that are sustainable in the long term.100 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.
Climate Change and Related Air Quality Issues
Congress’ consideration of FY2012 appropriations for EPA focused extensively on the agency’s
regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and several other
recently proposed or promulgated EPA actions under the CAA, including those addressing
hazardous air pollutants (including mercury), particulate matter emissions and other ambient air
quality pollutants, and livestock operation air emissions.101 Although relatively minor in terms of
EPA’s funding, but generally broader in terms of policy, the agency’s response to a 2007 U.S.
98
The STAG account also funds state and tribal “categorical” grants to support the day-to-day implementation of
environmental laws. For FY2012, P.L. 112-74 provided $1.09 billion for these grants, roughly the same as the FY2011
appropriation of $1.10 billion, but a decrease compared to the President’s FY2012 request of $1.20 billion.
99
Clean Water SRF capitalization grants are awarded to 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 allotments among the states.
100
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, pp. 7-8.
101
These issues also were debated during the FY2011 appropriations process, and 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. For a summary of provisions contained in House-passed
H.R. 1, see Table 2 in CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
41
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
Supreme Court decision102 remains a prominent issue in association with climate change. The
impacts of these several Clean Air Act actions on various sectors of the economy were the topic
of multiple hearings before the appropriations committees and various other committees.
Partly in response to some of the concerns raised during the debate, the FY2012 appropriations
law contained general provisions addressing EPA’s use of FY2012 funds to support the
development, implementation, or enforcement of certain Clean Air Act regulatory actions. These
provisions were a subset of 11 proposed general provisions affecting EPA air quality and climate
change actions contained in the House committee-reported bill.103 For example, one provision of
the FY2012 law amended Section 328 of the Clean Air Act effectively transferring authority to
regulate air emission from EPA to DOI in the Outer Continental Shelf off Alaska’s north coast.
Another provision prohibited the use of funds for promulgation or implementation of regulations
requiring permits under title V of the Clean Air Act for certain pollutants resulting from biological
processes associated with livestock production. Still another provision prohibited use of
appropriations for implementing any provision in a rule that requires mandatory reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions from manure “management systems.”104
More broadly, the FY2012 appropriations law required the President to submit a comprehensive
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees detailing all federal (including EPA)
obligations and expenditures, domestic and international, for climate change programs and
activities by agency for FY2011.105 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 those of
other federal agencies and departments. Issues that have emerged within the context of
appropriations include (1) how different agency programs may be complementary or duplicative,
(2) how these programs may together constitute an effective strategy to achieve U.S. objectives,
and (3) whether there are gaps or opportunities for efficiencies that may be addressed.
The conferees accepted the reorganized budget presentation of certain air quality and climateprotection program activities as proposed for FY2012, including consolidation and modifications
of headings, making it difficult to compare FY2012 appropriations with FY2011 (and prior year)
appropriations. The FY2012 appropriations law provided a total of $411.1 million within the
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and Science and Technology (S&T) accounts
for EPA “clean air and climate” programs, a 9% reduction compared to the President’s FY2012
request of $449.7 million. Also within the S&T account, the FY2012 law included $99.0 million
for “Research: Air, Climate, and Energy,” compared to $108.0 million in the President’s FY2012
102
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). This decision found greenhouse gases (GHGs) to be “air pollutants”
within the Clean Air Act’s definition of that term, and required EPA to consider whether GHGs endanger public health
or welfare, the first step in promulgating regulations to limit emissions. For additional information, see CRS Report
R41103, Federal Agency Actions Following the Supreme Court’s Climate Change Decision in Massachusetts v. EPA:
A Chronology, by (name redacted).
103
For a more detailed comparison of the provisions contained in P.L. 112-74 and H.R. 2584, see Table 2 in CRS
Report R42332, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations, by (name redacted).
104
P.L. 112-74 Sections 426 and 427 are the same as Sections 424 and 425 contained in the Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-88), and retained in the FY2011 Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations law (P.L. 112-10).
105
Section 426 of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L.
111-88) included a similar reporting requirement for FY2009 and FY2010. A similar recurring reporting requirement
had been in existence for nearly a decade through FY2007, under a provision in the annual appropriations bills for
Foreign Operations.
Congressional Research Service
42
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations
request. Comparable FY2011 appropriations for these and certain other climate protection and air
quality-related program activities are not readily available because of the changes requested by
the Administration in various programmatic subheadings and adopted by the conferees for
FY2012.
Within the STAG account, the FY2012 appropriations included $236.1 mill
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.