# Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41896 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** February 7, 2012 - **Citation:** R41896 ## 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 wi [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41896. Public record. Not legal advice.