# Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL34011

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** February 3, 2008
- **Citation:** RL34011

## Text

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2008 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
February 3, 2008

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL34011

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 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 two agencies
within other departments—the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the
Indian Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also
includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
numerous other entities.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) included $26.89 billion for
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2008. An additional $500.0 million in
emergency appropriations for wildfires was included in P.L. 110-116, for an FY2008 total of
$27.39 billion. This would be about the same as enacted for FY2007 (including funds for Secure
Rural Schools), $240.2 million (0.9%) lower than passed by the House for FY2008 in H.R. 2643,
and $205.0 million (0.8%) higher than recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations
for FY2008 in S. 1696. The FY2008 level was an increase of $1.70 billion (6.6%) over the
Administration’s request for FY2008.
The FY2008 appropriations level was higher for some agencies than the FY2007 level, but lower
for others. Among the FY2008 increases over FY2007 were the following:
•

$292.6 million (6.2%) for the Forest Service (FS);

•

$185.2 million (9.9%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM);

•

$166.0 million (5.2%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);

•

$90.4 million (3.9%) for the National Park Service (NPS);

•

$47.7 million (7.5%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI); and

•

$28.1 million (2.1%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Among the FY2008 decreases from FY2007 were the following:
•

-$263.6 million (3.4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

•

-$124.2 million (42.2%) for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM);

•

-$43.6 million (27.3%) for the Minerals Management Service (MMS); and

•

-$33.9 million (15.2%) for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians
(OST).

Congress debated a variety of funding and policy issues during consideration of FY2008 Interior
appropriations legislation. They included appropriate funding for BIA construction, education,
and housing; IHS construction and urban Indian health; wastewater/drinking water needs; land
acquisition; the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program; the Superfund program; the Smithsonian
Institution; and wildland fire fighting. Other issues included Indian trust fund management,
leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf, and royalty relief. This report is not expected to be
updated.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
FY2004-FY2008...................................................................................................................2
FY2008 Budget and Appropriations ............................................................................................3
Current Overview .................................................................................................................3
Major Issues..........................................................................................................................5
Status of Bill .........................................................................................................................6
Title I: Department of the Interior................................................................................................7
Bureau of Land Management ................................................................................................7
Overview ........................................................................................................................7
Management of Lands and Resources..............................................................................8
Wildland Fire Management .............................................................................................9
Construction ................................................................................................................. 10
Land Acquisition........................................................................................................... 10
Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................................................... 10
Endangered Species Funding......................................................................................... 11
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement ................................. 12
Avian Flu ...................................................................................................................... 12
Land Acquisition........................................................................................................... 13
Wildlife Refuge Fund.................................................................................................... 13
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants............................................................ 14
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants .................................................................................... 14
National Park Service.......................................................................................................... 15
Major NPS Issues in Appropriations.............................................................................. 16
Operation of the National Park System.......................................................................... 16
United States Park Police (USPP).................................................................................. 18
Centennial Challenge .................................................................................................... 18
National Recreation and Preservation ............................................................................ 18
Construction ................................................................................................................. 19
Land Acquisition and State Assistance........................................................................... 19
Historic Preservation..................................................................................................... 19
U.S. Geological Survey....................................................................................................... 20
Enterprise Information .................................................................................................. 21
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing............................................ 21
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes................................................................. 22
Water Resources Investigations ..................................................................................... 22
Biological Research ...................................................................................................... 22
Science Support and Facilities....................................................................................... 23
Minerals Management Service ............................................................................................ 23
Budget and Appropriations............................................................................................ 23
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore ....................................................................................... 24
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ..................................................... 27
Bureau of Indian Affairs...................................................................................................... 29
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs.................................................................. 31
Law Enforcement Program............................................................................................ 34
Housing Improvement Program (HIP) ........................................................................... 34

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process ....................................................................... 35
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs........................................................ 36
Office of Insular Affairs ................................................................................................ 36
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) ................................................................... 36
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.............................................................. 38
National Indian Gaming Commission............................................................................ 41
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency................................................................................. 42
Key Funding Issues............................................................................................................. 44
Water Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 44
Superfund ..................................................................................................................... 45
Brownfields .................................................................................................................. 46
Office of Inspector General (OIG)................................................................................. 46
Scientific Research........................................................................................................ 47
State and Local Air Quality Management Grants ........................................................... 48
Proposed Commission on Climate Change .................................................................... 48
Title III: Related Agencies......................................................................................................... 49
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................................................................... 49
Major FS Issues in Appropriations................................................................................. 50
Wildland Fire Management ........................................................................................... 51
State and Private Forestry.............................................................................................. 53
Other Programs............................................................................................................. 54
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service...................................... 55
Health Services ............................................................................................................. 57
Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 59
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation ...................................................................... 60
Smithsonian Institution ....................................................................................................... 61
Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................... 61
Facilities Capital ........................................................................................................... 62
Trust Funds ................................................................................................................... 62
Legacy Fund ................................................................................................................. 62
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities................... 63
NEA ............................................................................................................................. 63
NEH ............................................................................................................................. 64
Cross-Cutting Topics................................................................................................................. 65
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) ................................................................ 65
Overview ...................................................................................................................... 65
FY2008 Funding ........................................................................................................... 65
Everglades Restoration........................................................................................................ 68
FY2008 Funding ........................................................................................................... 69
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation .......................................................................... 71

Figures
Figure 1. FS FY2008 Appropriation .......................................................................................... 50

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Tables
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2008 ..........3
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2008 .............7
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management, FY2007-FY2008 ..........................7
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs, FY2007-FY2008 ......... 11
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2007-FY2008 ......................... 13
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, FY2007-FY2008............................................................. 14
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2007-FY2008.......................... 15
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2007-FY2008 ................................... 17
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2007-FY2008................................. 20
Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service, FY2007-FY2008 .................... 24
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
FY2007-FY2008.................................................................................................................... 29
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2007-FY2008.............................. 30
Table 13. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu of Taxes,
FY2000-FY2008.................................................................................................................... 37
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
FY2007-FY2008.................................................................................................................... 38
Table 15. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, FY2007-FY2008 ............... 43
Table 16. Appropriations for FS and BLM Wildland Fire Management, FY2004-FY2008.......... 52
Table 17. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry, FY2005-FY2008 ............................ 53
Table 18. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2007-FY2008.................................. 55
Table 19. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2007-FY2008 ............................... 62
Table 20. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2007-FY2008 ......................................... 64
Table 21. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, FY2004-FY2008.......... 66
Table 22. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF, FY2006-FY2008 ....................... 68
Table 23. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget, FY2007-FY2008........ 69
Table 24. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2008.................................................................................................................... 72

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 75
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 75

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided $26.89 billion for
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Another $500.0 million in emergency funds for
wildfires was provided in P.L. 110-116, for an FY2008 total of $27.39 billion.

Introduction
The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for
agencies and programs in three separate federal departments, as well as numerous related
agencies and bureaus. It provides funding for Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies (except
for the Bureau of Reclamation, funded in Energy and Water Development appropriations laws),
many of which manage land and other natural resource or regulatory programs. The bill also
provides funds for agencies in two other departments—the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture, and the Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health and Human
Services—as well as funds for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Further, the annual
bill includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, National
Gallery of Art, National Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities,
and for numerous other entities and agencies.
In recent years, the appropriations laws for Interior and Related Agencies provided funds for
several activities within the Department of Energy (DOE), including research, development, and
conservation programs; the Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
However, at the outset of the 109th Congress, these DOE programs were transferred to the House
and Senate Appropriations subcommittees covering energy and water, to consolidate jurisdiction
over DOE.1 At the same time, jurisdiction over the EPA and several smaller entities was moved to
the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees covering Interior and Related Agencies. 2
This change resulted from the abolition of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees
on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, which
previously had jurisdiction over EPA.
Since FY2006, appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies have
contained three primary titles providing funding. This report is organized along these lines.
Accordingly, 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 cross-cutting topics that
encompass more than one agency.
Entries in this report are for major agencies (e.g., the National Park Service) and cross-cutting
issues (e.g., Everglades restoration) that receive funding in the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill. For each such agency or issue, we discuss some of the key funding
changes proposed or enacted for FY2008 that are likely to be of interest to Congress. We also
address related policy issues that occurred in the context of considering appropriations legislation.
Presenting such information in summary form is a challenge given that budget submissions for
1
2

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

Congressional Research Service

1

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

some agencies number several hundred pages and contain innumerable funding, programmatic,
and legislative changes for congressional consideration. Similarly, funding bills and
accompanying reports contain numerous line items and discussions of programs and issues.
This report contains final FY2007 enacted levels for agencies, programs, and activities. The
Administration did not use these figures as the basis of comparison in agency budget submissions
for FY2008, because agencies were being funded under a short-term continuing resolution at the
time of those submissions. Accordingly, the FY2007 figures used throughout this report will
differ in many cases from those contained in the FY2008 agency budget submissions. A further
difference is that FY2007 figures in this report include supplemental funding.3
Final FY2007 funding levels, as contained in this report, were determined by the agencies under
the provisions of P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007.
Continuing funding was needed to fund agency operations and activities because Congress did
not enact a regular FY2007 appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
P.L. 110-5 provided funds though September 30, 2007, which was the rest of the fiscal year. It
continued funds at the FY2006 account level, except where otherwise specified. The law required
that agencies and departments submit an allocation of funds below the account level, for example
for programs and activities, to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The
submissions were due within 30 days of enactment (March 17, 2007).
In general, in this report the term appropriations represents total funds available, including
regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as rescissions, transfers, and deferrals,
but excludes permanent mandatory budget authorities. Increases and decreases generally are
calculated on comparisons between the funding levels enacted for FY2008 and those enacted for
FY2007 and requested by the President for FY2008. 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 add to the precise totals provided due to rounding.

FY2004-FY2008
Table 1, below, shows the budget authority for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for
FY2004-FY2008. Funding for earlier years is not readily available due to the changes in the
makeup of the Interior appropriations bill. The President’s request for FY2008 ($25.69 billion), if
enacted, would have been the lowest level since FY2004. It would have been a $1.64 billion (6%)
decrease in funds from the FY2004 level in current dollars, or a 16% decrease in constant dollars
(assuming 2.24% inflation for 2007 and 2008). The House-approved funding of $27.63 billion
was slightly higher than FY2004—a $301.8 million increase (1%) in current dollars but a 10%
decrease in constant dollars. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $27.19
billion, which was a slightly lower level than FY2004—a $143.3 million decrease (0.5%) in
current dollars and an 11% decrease in constant dollars. For FY2008, the $26.89 billion contained
in the Consolidated Appropriations Act was a decrease of $483.3 million (2%) in current dollars
and a 12% decrease in constant dollars. The FY2008 total funding of $27.39 billion, including the
3

In addition, final FY2007 enacted levels are not included in CRS Report RL33399, Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations, because they were not available until after the start of the 110th Congress
and the beginning of the FY2008 appropriations cycle.

Congressional Research Service

2

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

$500.0 million in emergency fire funding, would be a $61.7 million increase (0.2%) over FY2004
in current dollars but a 10% decrease in constant dollars. See Table 24 for a budgetary history of
each agency for FY2004-FY2008.
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2008
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

$27.33

$27.02

$25.94

$27.38

$27.39

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.

FY2008 Budget and Appropriations
Current Overview
FY2008 funding for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was included in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). The enacted bill (H.R. 2764),
providing funding for government agencies and activities except defense, was signed into law on
December 26, 2007. An explanatory statement on the bill was printed in the Congressional
Record of December 17, 2007. The explanatory statement on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies (Division F of the bill) was published in Book II of the Record, at H16122-H16178. The
explanatory statement noted that it contained “a list of congressional earmarks and
congressionally directed spending items” as defined in House and Senate rules, at H16142H16157. However, the amounts in the list did not reflect a 1.56% across-the-board cut provided
in H.R. 2764 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The explanatory statement also
included a detailed funding table for Interior, at H16158-H16178. For activities, programs, and
agencies, the table contained funding levels enacted for FY2007, requested by the Administration
for FY2008, approved by the House for FY2008, recommended by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations for FY2008, contained in H.R. 2764 for FY2008, and reduced by a 1.56% acrossthe-board cut for FY2008.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided $26.89 billion for
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2008. That total reflects the 1.56% cut
provided in the Interior portion of the act. In general, FY2008 appropriations figures used
throughout this report also reflect the cut, which under the law was to be applied across the board
to programs, projects, and activities. An additional $500.0 million in emergency appropriations
for FY2008 for wildfires was included in an earlier law, P.L. 110-116, for an FY2008 total of
$27.39 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This would be about the same as
enacted for FY2007 (including funds for Secure Rural Schools), $240.2 million (0.9%) lower
than passed by the House for FY2008 in H.R. 2643, and $205.0 million (0.8%) higher than
recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations for FY2008 in S. 1696. The FY2008
level was an increase of $1.70 billion (6.6%) over the Administration’s request.
Of the $500.0 million in P.L. 110-116, $329.0 million was provided to the Forest Service for
wildland fire management. The funds were divided as follows: $110.0 million for suppression,

Congressional Research Service

3

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

$100.0 million for repayment of accounts from which funds were borrowed in FY2007, $80.0
million for hazardous fuels reduction, $25.0 million for rehabilitation and restoration of federal
lands, and $14.0 million for construction and reconstruction of federal facilities. For fire fighting
on DOI lands, the law provided BLM with the remaining $171.0 million in wildland fire
management funds. The funds were apportioned as follows: $40.0 million for suppression, $115.0
million for repayment of accounts from which funds were borrowed in FY2007, $10.0 million for
hazardous fuels reduction, and $6.0 million for rehabilitation and restoration of federal lands.
The FY2008 appropriations level was higher for some agencies than the FY2007 level, but lower
for others. Among the FY2008 increases over FY2007 were the following:
•

$292.6 million (6.2%) for the Forest Service (FS);

•

$185.2 million (9.7%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM);

•

$166.0 million (5.2%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);

•

$90.4 million (3.9%) for the National Park Service (NPS);

•

$47.7 million (7.5%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI); and

•

$28.1 million (2.1%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Among the FY2008 decreases from FY2007 were the following:
•

-$263.6 million (3.4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

•

-$124.2 million (42.2%) for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM);

•

-$43.6 million (27.3%) for the Minerals Management Service (MMS); and

•

-$33.9 million (15.2%) for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians
(OST).

Prior to the enactment of the consolidated bill, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies were
funded under a series of laws that generally continued funds at FY2007 levels. Continuing
funding was needed to fund ongoing projects and activities because Congress did not enact a
regular FY2008 funding bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies before the October
1, 2007, start of the fiscal year.
In earlier action, the Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported a regular annual
appropriations bill, but it was not considered on the Senate floor. Specifically, on June 26, 2007,
the Senate committee reported S. 1696 (S.Rept. 110-91), with $27.19 billion for FY2008 for all
agencies included in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. On June
27, 2007, the House passed H.R. 2643 with $27.63 billion for FY2008. The House-passed level
would have been an increase over the FY2007 level of $27.38 billion, including $425.0 million
for the Secure Rural Schools program (established under P.L. 106-393). The Senate committee
level would have been a decrease from FY2007. The House and the Senate committee levels both
would have been increases over the President’s request for FY2008 of $25.69 billion.
The Senate Appropriations Committee considered several amendments during its markup, in
addition to a managers’ package of amendments. The Committee agreed to an amendment to
remove language from the bill that barred funds from being used for new Outer Continental Shelf
leases for those holding leases without price thresholds, unless the leases were renegotiated. The

Congressional Research Service

4

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Committee also agreed to an amendment seeking to ban imports of polar bears and polar bear
parts. An amendment seeking to extend the Secure Rural Schools Act for four years was
withdrawn. The act provides a method for compensating counties for the tax exempt status of
most national forests (managed by the FS) and some public lands (managed by the BLM).
Amendments seeking to expedite the time frame for filing claims challenging the land
management plan for the Tongass National Forest (AK) also were withdrawn.
The House considered 58 amendments to H.R. 2643 during two days of floor debate, and adopted
18 of them before passing the bill (272-155) on June 27, 2007. The amendments addressed an
array of programs and issues. Some of them were broad, as in those that sought to cut the total
appropriation in the bill by a particular sum or reduce each appropriation in the bill by a fixed
percentage (which were not agreed to). Others were more narrow, such as those prohibiting funds
in the bill from being used for particular programs or purposes. Many of the amendments are
discussed in the pertinent sections throughout this report.
In earlier action, on June 11, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee had reported H.R. 2643
(H.Rept. 110-187) with a total of $27.63 billion. The House Appropriations Committee issued a
supplemental report (H.Rept. 110-187, Part II) on June 22, 2007. The report identified projects
that would be funded from various line items in the bill, such as the construction accounts of the
land management agencies. It specified whether the Administration or a particular Member of
Congress requested the funding and the state in which the project is located.

Major Issues
Controversial funding and policy issues typically have been debated during consideration of the
annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Debate on the FY2008
funding levels encompassed a variety of issues, many of which have been controversial in the
past, including the issues listed below.
•

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 “Title II: Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)

•

Construction of BIA Schools and IHS Health Facilities, particularly whether to
enact funding cuts proposed in the President’s FY2008 budget. (For more
information, see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the “Department of Health
and Human Services: Indian Health Service” sections in this report.)

•

Indian Trust Funds, especially whether to enact reductions proposed in the
President’s FY2008 request and the method by which a historical accounting will
be conducted of Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts to determine correct
balances in the class-action lawsuit against the government. (For more
information, see the “Office of Special Trustee for American Indians” section in
this report.)

•

Land Acquisition, including the appropriate level of funding for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition and the state grant
program, and extent to which the fund should be used for activities not involving

Congressional Research Service

5

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

land acquisition. (For more information, see “The Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)
•

Outer Continental Shelf Leasing, particularly the moratoria on preleasing and
leasing activities in offshore areas, and oil and gas leases in offshore California.
(For more information, see the “Minerals Management Service” section in this
report.)

•

Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT), primarily the appropriate level of
funding for compensating local governments for federal land within their
jurisdictions. (For more information, see the “Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program
(PILT)” section in this report.)

•

Royalty Relief, especially the extent to which oil and natural gas companies
receive royalty relief for production of oil and natural gas on federal lands. (For
more information see “Minerals Management Service” section of this report.)

•

Superfund, notably the adequacy of proposed funding to meet hazardous waste
cleanup needs, and whether to continue using general Treasury revenues to fund
the account or reinstate a tax on industry that originally paid for most of the
program. (For more information, see the “Title II: Environmental Protection
Agency” section in this report.)

•

Termination of BIA Education and Housing and IHS Urban Health Programs,
particularly whether to end funding for BIA’s Johnson-O’Malley grants to
schools and the Housing Improvement Program and for IHS’s urban Indian
health projects. (For more information, see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the
“Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service” sections in
this report.)

•

Wildland Fire Fighting, involving questions about the appropriate level of
funding to fight fires on agency lands; advisability of borrowing funds from other
agency programs to fight wildfires; implementation of a new program for
wildland fire protection and locations for fire protection treatments; and impact
of environmental analysis, public involvement, and challenges to agency
decisions on fuel reduction activities. (For more information, see the “Bureau of
Land Management” and “Department of Agriculture: Forest Service” sections in
this report.)

Status of Bill
Table 2 contains information on congressional consideration of the FY2008 Interior
appropriations bill.

Congressional Research Service

6

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2008
Subcommittee
Markup
House

05/23/07

Senate

House
Report

House
Passage

Senate
Report

06/19/07

H.R. 2643
H.Rept.
110-187
06/11/07;
Part II
06/22/07

H.R.
2643
06/27/07
272-155

S. 1696
S.Rept.
110-91
06/26/07

Senate
Passage

Conf.
Report

—

—

Conference
Report
Approval
House

—

Senate

Public
Law

—

H.R. 2764
P.L. 110161
12/26/07

Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Overview
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 258 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 resources throughout the nation, and supervises the
mineral operations on an estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands. Another key BLM
function is wildland fire management on about 370 million acres of DOI, other federal, and
certain nonfederal land.
For the BLM, the FY2008 law contained $1.89 billion, including $78.0 million in emergency
appropriations for wildfire suppression contained in Title V. An additional $171.0 million in
emergency wildfire funds was provided in an earlier law, P.L. 110-116, for a total BLM
appropriation of $2.06 billion for FY2008. This level was higher than enacted for FY2007 and
had been supported for FY2008 by the Administration, House, and Senate Appropriations
Committee, primarily due to the emergency appropriations for wildfires. See Table 3. Proposed
funding for several key activities is discussed below.
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management, FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

Management of Lands and Resources

866.9

879.4

888.6

902.9

853.9

Wildland Fire Managementa

853.4

801.8

806.6

829.5

1,057.1

—Preparedness

274.9

268.3

274.9

286.0

276.5

—Suppressiona

344.2

294.4

294.4

294.4

367.8

—Other Operations

234.3

239.1

237.4

249.1

241.8

Bureau of Land Management

Congressional Research Service

7

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Bureau of Land Management

FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

—Emergency Appropriations (P.L. 110-116)

—

—

—

—

171.0

Construction

11.8

6.5

6.5

11.5

6.4

Land Acquisition

8.6

1.6

18.6

12.2

8.9

Oregon and California Grant Lands

109.0

110.2

110.2

110.2

108.5

Range Improvements

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeituresb

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Miscellaneous Trust Funds

12.4

12.4

12.4

12.4

12.4

Total Appropriationsa

1,872.0

1,822.0

1,853.0

1,888.7

2,057.2

a.

The figures for FY2007 reflect a supplemental appropriation of $95.0 million for wildfire suppression
contained in P.L. 110-28. The figures for FY2008 appropriated reflect an emergency appropriation of $78.0
million for suppression included in Title V of the FY2008 law. The FY2008 appropriation figures for wildland
fire management and BLM total also include $171.0 million in emergency appropriations provided in P.L.
110-116.

b.

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

Management of Lands and Resources
Management of Lands and Resources includes funds for an array of BLM land programs,
including protection, recreational use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM
administration. For this line item, the FY2008 law contained $853.9 million, lower than enacted
for FY2007 and supported by the President, House, and Senate Appropriations Committee for
FY2008. The enacted level reflects $25.5 million in revenues from a new oil and gas cost
recovery program as an offset to the appropriation for energy and minerals management. Many
lands and resources programs received increases relative to FY2007, while others received
decreased or level funding.
For maintenance, the FY2008 law included $74.8 million, a $4.4 million increase over the
FY2007 level. Increases were included for both annual and deferred maintenance, with total
deferred maintenance funding of $36.5 million. BLM has estimated its deferred maintenance at
between $387 million and $473 million for FY2006. Wildlife and fisheries would receive $44.3
million in FY2008, a $3.5 million increase. For range management, the law contained $73.0
million, $4.8 million more than appropriated for FY2007. More than half the increase for each of
wildlife and fisheries and for range management was for the healthy lands initiative (see below).
Recreation and wilderness programs received $67.9 million, up $4.2 million.
For the healthy lands initiative, the FY2008 law provided about $5 million, an increase above the
$3.0 million appropriated for FY2007. The initiative consists of vegetation resources
enhancements to restore and improve the health and productivity of western public lands. The
House, like the Administration, had sought a large increase—to $15.0 million—while the Senate
Committee had recommended $6.0 million. The Administration had anticipated using another
$8.2 million in existing BLM funds, and leveraging $10.0 million in contributions from partners.
For the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), which consists of 26 million acres of
BLM’s protected conservation areas, the FY2008 law provided about $5 million over the
President’s request of $49.2 million. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee had
approved higher increases over the request. In the explanatory statement, the appropriations
Congressional Research Service

8

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

committees directed BLM to present annual NLCS reports with expenditures by unit and
subactivity to enhance fiscal accountability.
The FY2008 law included lower funding for energy and minerals, $109.9 million, than had been
enacted for FY2007—$138.1 million (including Alaska minerals). The reduction is to be
accomplished primarily through the collection of $25.5 million in offsetting fees. These revenues
are expected to be derived through a new program requiring payment of $4,000 for each
application for a permit to drill oil and gas wells. A similar program had been requested by the
Administration and supported by the House. The FY2008 law capped the appropriation for oil
and gas management at $90.2 million, due to concerns that BLM has used conservation and other
natural resource funds for oil and gas activities (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 16). Further, the law
prohibited funds from being used to prepare final regulations regarding a commercial leasing
program for oil shale or to conduct a commercial oil shale lease sale. In the explanatory
statement, the appropriations committees expressed that while oil shale has the potential to be an
important energy resource, there is concern that DOI “may be moving ahead before the full
impacts of such a program are known, and without full and complete cooperation of the affected
States ... Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.”4 Current law (P.L. 109-58) requires BLM to issue the
regulations and to move to a commercial leasing program.
For management of wild horses and burros, the FY2008 law provided nearly level funding—
$36.2 million. The Administration had sought to reduce funding to $32.1 million, but the House
and the Senate Committee supported increases over FY2007. In its report, the Senate
Appropriations Committee “strongly” encouraged federal agencies that use horses to first seek to
acquire a wild horse from BLM, and encouraged BLM to expedite providing wild horses to state
and local police (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 12).

Wildland Fire Management
For Wildland Fire Management, the FY2008 law contained $886.1 million, including the $78.0
million in emergency appropriations for wildfire suppression. This was an increase over the
FY2007 level and the levels supported by the President, House, and Senate Committee for
FY2008. An additional $171.0 million was provided in P.L. 110-116, for suppression, hazardous
fuels reduction, rehabilitation, and repayment of accounts from which funds were borrowed in
FY2007 for fire suppression. With these funds, the FY2008 total for wildland fire management
was $1.06 billion, which is about half the overall BLM appropriation for FY2008.
Fire suppression would increase from $344.2 million in FY2007 (including supplemental
funding) to $367.8 million in FY2008 under P.L. 110-161. This would fund the ten-year average
cost of fire suppression (about $289.8 million) and provide additional funds ($78.0 million) if
needed for an extreme fire season, according to the explanatory statement on the FY2008 bill.
Preparedness was increased from $274.9 million in FY2007 to $276.5 million in FY2008. The
Administration had sought to reduce preparedness funding, while the House had supported level
funding. The Senate Committee had recommended an increase on the grounds that cutting
preparedness funding does not save money, but shifts expenditures to suppression (S.Rept. 11091, p. 15). Funding for other fire operations would increase from $234.3 million in FY2007 to
$241.8 million in FY2008, primarily due to the inclusion of $5.9 million for rural fire assistance.
4

Congressional Record, v. 153, December 17, 2007, Book II, Explanatory Statement, Division F, Sec. 433, p. H16141H16142. Hereafter cited as “Explanatory Statement,” with the Congressional Record page number.

Congressional Research Service

9

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Most of the funding for other operations in FY2008 was for hazardous fuels reduction—$199.6
million—essentially level with FY2007 funding. In the explanatory statement, appropriators
directed the agencies to report on the allocation of funds for reducing hazardous fuels.
The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on all DOI lands. Interior
appropriations laws also provide funds for wildland fire management to the Forest Service
(Department of Agriculture) for fire programs primarily on its lands. A focus of both departments
is implementing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and the National Fire
Plan, which emphasize reducing hazardous fuels which can contribute to catastrophic fires. (For
additional information, see the “Department of Agriculture: Forest Service” section in this report.)

Construction
For FY2008, the law contained $6.4 million for BLM Construction, akin to the level requested by
the Administration and supported by the House. The explanatory statement expressed that the
funds should be allocated as described in the President’s budget request, which called for 12
construction projects in five states. The FY2008 level was a decrease of $5.4 million from
FY2007 ($11.8 million). The Senate Appropriations Committee had supported funding at nearly
the FY2007 level, to avoid an increase in the construction backlog, and had expressed
“disapproval” regarding DOI’s “lack of commitment to its infrastructure” (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 1516).

Land Acquisition
For Land Acquisition for FY2008, the law contained $8.9 million, a small increase over the
FY2007 level of $8.6 million. The explanatory statement specified how about two-thirds of the
funds would be used for eight acquisitions. Both the House and the Senate Committee initially
had supported higher increases for FY2008. However, the Administration had sought a reduction
to $1.6 million, with an additional $5.0 million from the proceeds of sales of the subsurface
mineral estate to the surface owners. BLM estimated that 500,000 acres could be sold annually
for approximately $10 per acre, for a total of $5.0 million per year. Such a redirection of the
proceeds of the sales to land acquisition was not included in the FY2008 law. The appropriation
for BLM acquisitions had fallen steadily from $49.9 million in FY2002 to $8.6 million for
FY2007. Money for land acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
(For more information, see the “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this
report.)
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its website at
http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm.
CRS Report RL33792, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the Forest Service (FS): Issues for the 110th Congress, by (name redacted) et al.
CRS Report RL33990, Wildfire Funding, by (name redacted).

Fish and Wildlife Service
For FY2008, the appropriation for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was $1.37 billion. The
FY2008 level was a 2% increase over the FY2007 level of $1.34 billion and a 6% increase over

Congressional Research Service

10

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

the President’s request of $1.29 billion. The House had approved $1.42 billion, while the Senate
Appropriations Committee had recommended $1.38 billion.
By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resource Management
account. The FY2008 appropriation for this account was $1.08 billion, a 6% increase over the
FY2007 level of $1.02 billion and a 5% increase over the Administration’s request of $1.03
billion. The House had approved $1.10 billion; the Senate Committee level was $1.08 billion.
Among the programs included in Resources Management are the Endangered Species program,
the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement.

Endangered Species Funding
Funding for the Endangered Species program is one of the perennially controversial portions of
the FWS budget. The FY2008 appropriation was $150.5 million for the Endangered Species
program, a 4% increase over FY2007. The Administration had proposed a smaller increase of
1%—from $144.7 million in FY2007 to $146.5 million in FY2008. See Table 4. The FY2008 law
did not include language from the Senate committee bill that had sought to limit funding for the
importation of polar bear parts taken in sport hunts. The House had rejected a similar amendment
during floor debate. The House had also rejected an amendment to prohibit use of funds for
Mexican wolf recovery.
A number of related programs also benefit conservation of species that are listed, or proposed for
listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The President proposed to end the Landowner
Incentive Program ($23.7 million in FY2007) as well as Stewardship Grants ($7.3 million in
FY2007). The President also sought to reduce the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund (for grants to states and territories to conserve threatened and endangered species) from
$81.0 million to $80.0 million. The FY2008 appropriation reflected these proposals, and included
a further reduction for the Cooperative Endangered Species program for an FY2008 appropriation
of $73.8 million. However, the FY2008 law also provided for the use of $5.0 million in prior year
balances, making total FY2008 funding of $78.8 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species
program. See Table 4.
In total, the FY2008 appropriations law contained $224.3 million for endangered species and
related programs, down 13% from the FY2007 level of $256.6 million. Under the President’s
request, total FY2008 funding would have decreased to $226.5 million, a 12% reduction.
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

—Candidate Conservation

8,425

8,635

9,135

10,135

9,731

—Listing

17,824

18,263

18,763

18,763

17,978

—Consultation

49,179

51,578

52,578

53,578

51,758

—Recovery

69,244

68,067

72,067

73,067

71,041

Endangered Species and
Related Programs
Endangered Species Program

Congressional Research Service

11

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

144,672

146,543

152,543

155,543

150,508

—Landowner Incentive Program

23,667

0

0

0

0

—Private Stewardship Grants

7,277

0

0

0

0

—Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund

81,001

80,001

81,001

80,001

73,754a

Subtotal, Related Programs

111,945

80,001

81,001

80,001

73,754

Total Appropriations

256,617

226,544

233,544

235,544

224,262

Endangered Species and
Related Programs
Subtotal, Endangered Species Program
Related Programs

a.

An additional $5.0 million in prior year funds was provided for FY2008.

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement
For refuge operations and maintenance, the FY2008 appropriation was $434.1 million. This was a
10% increase over the FY2007 level of $395.3 million. The President had proposed $394.8
million, a slight decrease from FY2007. However, both the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee had sought increases. The House had approved $451.0 million, an increase of 14%,
while the Senate committee level was $413.8 million, up 5%.
Costs of operation have increased on many refuges, partly due to special problems such as
hurricane damage and more aggressive border enforcement. Reductions in funding for operations
in the NWRS, combined with the need to meet fixed costs such as rent, salaries, and utilities,
have led to cuts in funding for programs to aid endangered species, reduce infestation by invasive
species, protect water supplies, address habitat restoration, and ensure staffing at the less popular
refuges. The Northeast Region (roughly Virginia to Maine, with 71 refuges) took the lead in
addressing this issue by attempting to consolidate management at refuges, and increasing the
number of refuges which are not staffed on a regular basis (termed “de-staffing”). This region
also attempted to consolidate some services in order to spread remaining resources more
effectively. Other regions have begun their own plans to address reduced operating budgets. In
the Explanatory Statement for FY2008, FWS was directed to use the additional FY2008 funding
to reestablish basic operations nationwide. FWS was further directed to report back to the
Appropriations Committees on allocation of the increased funding within 60 days.
The FY2008 appropriations law contained $59.6 million for Law Enforcement, a 4% increase
over the FY2007 level of $57.3 million. The President had proposed $57.6 million, a modest
increase over FY2007, but the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee had sought larger
increases. Specifically, the House had approved $60.1 million, up 5%, while the Senate
committee recommended $61.1 million, a 7% increase.

Avian Flu
For FY2008, Congress enacted $7.3 million for the study, monitoring, and early detection of
highly pathogenic avian flu. The Administration, House, and Senate Appropriations Committee
initially approved $7.4 million. The FY2007 appropriation was $12.4 million, including a $7.4
million supplemental appropriation in P.L. 110-28. FWS cooperates with other federal and
nonfederal agencies in studying the spread of the virus through wild birds. Attention is on North

Congressional Research Service

12

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

American species whose migratory patterns make them likely to come into contact with infected
Asian birds. The geographic focus is on Alaska, the Pacific Flyway (along the west coast), and
Pacific islands, with smaller samples in other areas. (See CRS Report RL33795, Avian Influenza
in Poultry and Wild Birds, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).)

Land Acquisition
For FY2008, the appropriation for Land Acquisition was $34.6 million. This was an increase of
92% over the Administration’s request and 23% increase over FY2007, with the increase going to
the acquisition of new lands and inholdings. The Administration had proposed $18.0 million for
Land Acquisition, $10.0 million (36%) below FY2007. See Table 5. In the past, the bulk of this
FWS program had been for acquisitions of land for specified federal refuges, but a portion was
used for closely related functions such as acquisition management, land exchanges, emergency
acquisitions, purchase of inholdings, and general overhead (“Cost Allocation Methodology”). In
recent years, less of the funding has been reserved for traditional land acquisition. The
Administration had proposed to continue this trend for FY2008, reserving $5.5 million for
specified acquisitions, and funding the remainder of the program at $12.5 million.5 This program
is funded with appropriations from LWCF. (For more information, see the “The Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF)” in this report.)
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FWS Land Acquisition

FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

Acquisitions—Federal Refuge Lands

13,650

5,544

28,650

28,904

20,676

Inholdings

1,500

1,500

1,500

1,500

2,953

Emergencies & Hardships

1,478

1,500

1,478

1,500

0

Exchanges

1,485

1,537

1,485

1,500

1,477

Acquisition Management

8,140

6,436

8,140

8,140

8,013

Cost Allocation Methodology

1,793

1,494

1,793

1,500

1,477

28,046

18,011

43,046

43,044

34,596

Total Appropriations

Wildlife Refuge Fund
The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates
counties for the presence of the non-taxable federal lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(NWRS). A portion of the fund is supported by the permanent appropriation of receipts from
various activities carried out on the NWRS. However, these receipts are not sufficient for full
funding of amounts authorized in the formula, and county governments have long urged
5

Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS has a permanently appropriated source of mandatory
funding (from the sale of duck stamps to hunters, and import duties on certain arms and ammunition) for land
acquisition. As annual appropriations for acquisitions under LWCF have declined, the MBCA ($41.9 million in
FY2006) has become increasingly important in the protection of habitat for migratory birds, especially waterfowl.
Other species in these habitats benefit incidentally.

Congressional Research Service

13

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

additional appropriations to make up the difference. Congress generally provides additional
appropriations. For FY2008, the appropriation was $14.0 million, a small decrease from the
FY2007 level of $14.2 million. With refuge receipts, the FY2008 level would fund about 42% of
the authorized payment level, down from 52% in FY2007. The President had requested $10.8
million for FY2008, down $3.4 million (24%). That level, combined with expected receipts,
would have provided about 35% of the authorized full payment. The House had approved the
FY2007 level, as did the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants
The Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) has generated considerable constituent
interest despite the small size of the program. It benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers,
rhinoceroses, great apes, and marine turtles. For FY2008, the appropriations law contained $7.9
million for MSCF and $4.4 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
(NMBCF), both increases over the FY2007 level and the Administration’s request for FY2008.
The President had proposed $4.3 million for the MSCF and $4.0 million for the NMBCF.6 The
proposal would have cut each of the MSCF programs and held funding level for NMBCF. See
Table 6.
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

African Elephant

1,379

990

2,000

1,500

1,477

Tiger and Rhinos

1,576

990

2,500

2,000

1,969

Asian Elephant

1,379

990

2,000

1,500

1,477

Great Apes

1,379

990

2,000

2,000

1,969

Marine Turtles

691

297

1,500

1,000

984

Total MSCF Appropriations

6,404

4,257

10,000

8,000

7,876

Neotropical Migratory Birds

3,941

3,960

5,000

4,000

4,430

Multinational Species
Conservation Fund

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants help fund efforts to conserve species (including nongame
species) of concern to states, territories, and tribes. The grants have generated considerable
support from these governments. The program was created in the FY2001 Interior appropriations
law (P.L. 106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior appropriations bills. (It does not
have any separate authorizing statute.) Funds may be used to develop state conservation plans as
well as to support specific practical conservation projects. A portion of the funding is set aside for
competitive grants to tribal governments or tribal wildlife agencies. The remaining portion is for
6

The President’s FY2008 budget did not propose to move funding for NMBCF into the MSCF. Congress had rejected
the Administration’s proposed transfer for the previous six fiscal years, beginning in FY2002.

Congressional Research Service

14

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

matching grants to states. A state’s allocation is determined by formula. The appropriation for
FY2008 was $73.8 million. See Table 7.
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
State Grants
Competitive Grants for States, Territories, & Other
Jurisdictions
Tribal Grants
Total Appropriations

FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

61,852

59,210

73,000

60,580

62,724

0

5,000

5,000

5,000

6,184

5,640

5,282

7,000

6,912

4,922

67,492

69,492

85,000

72,492

73,830

For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at http://www.fws.gov/.
CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th
Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33795, Avian Influenza in Poultry and Wild Birds, by (name redacted) and (name red
acted).
CRS Report RL33779, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 110th Congress: Conflicting
Values and Difficult Choices, by (name redacted) et al.
CRS Report RS21157, Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by (name redacted) and (na
me redacted).

National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the National Park System, currently
comprising 391 separate and diverse park units covering 85 million acres. The NPS and its more
than 20,000 permanent, temporary, and seasonal employees protect, preserve, interpret, and
administer the park system’s diverse natural and historic areas representing the cultural identity of
the American people. The NPS mission is to protect park resources and values, unimpaired, while
making them accessible to the public. Annual park visitation is now 273 million visits. The Park
System has some 20 types of area designations, including national parks, monuments, memorials,
historic sites, battlefields, seashores, recreational areas, and other classifications. 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 FY2008 appropriations law provided $2.39 billion for the NPS, $26.6 million (1%) more
than the FY2008 request and $90.3 million (4%) above the FY2007 level, but $71.1 million (3%)
below the Senate Appropriations Committee level and $122.8 million (5%) below the House
total. See Table 8. The parks remain popular with the public and the condition of the parks and
the adequacy of their care and operating capacity continues to be of concern.

Congressional Research Service

15

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

To be ready for the NPS’s 100th anniversary in 2016, the Administration proposed a multi-year
initiative, beginning in FY2008, to strengthen visitor services and other park programs. The
National Parks Centennial Initiative, announced by President Bush in August 2006, could add up
to $3 billion in new funds for the parks over the next 10 years through a public/private joint
effort. The initiative has three components: (1) a commitment to add $100.0 million annually in
discretionary funds; (2) a challenge for the public to donate $100.0 million annually; and (3) a
commitment to match the public donations with federal funds of up to $100.0 million annually.
The second part of the initiative—the proposed $1 billion “Centennial Challenge”—would rely
on corporate, foundation, and other private donations, raising concerns among some park
supporters about potential commercialization and privatization influence on the parks. Many
claim that the park system has long experienced chronic budget shortfalls. Park advocacy groups
have estimated that, on average, the national parks operate with two-thirds of needed funding—a
budget shortfall of more than $600 million annually.7

Major NPS Issues in Appropriations
The FY2008 law included language proposed by the House extending the authorization of the
National Park System Advisory Board until January 1, 2009. Board authority expired on January
1, 2007, preventing statutorily required participation in some NPS programs. The law did not
include a transfer of $1.0 million from the Office of the DOI Secretary to park operations to help
fully reopen the Statue of Liberty to park visitors, as had been approved by the House.
The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) grant program has not been funded since
FY2002. The House Appropriations Committee reminded the NPS of its responsibility to enforce
§1010 of the authorizing legislation (16 U.S.C. §2509), generally prohibiting the conversion of
UPARR project sites from public recreational use to other (e.g., commercial) use, regardless of
whether funding is provided (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 46). The FY2008 law provided no
administrative or new grant monies for UPARR.
The Senate committee bill had directed the NPS to keep in force, for the 2007-2008 winter
season, the interim Yellowstone snowmobile use regulations of the past three years. The FY2008
law did not include that language because the NPS issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on winter
use management on November 30, 2007, with implementing regulations expected thereafter.
Lawsuits challenging the ROD did not request preliminary injunctions, allowing local operations
to continue for the 2007-2008 winter season. The Appropriations Committees expressed that this
was in the best interest of all parties (Explanatory Statement, H16130-H16131). The FY2008 law
retained a provision of the Senate committee bill repealing Section 1077(c) of P.L. 109-364 that
had prohibited the NPS from complying with a court-approved agreement to remove nonnative
deer and elk from Santa Rosa Island in the Channel Islands National Park. The provision sought
to resolve a long-running hunting concession controversy.

Operation of the National Park System
The park operations line item is the primary source of funding for the national parks, accounting
for more than 80% of the total NPS budget. The FY2008 law provided $1.97 billion for park
7

See the website of the National Parks Conservation Association at http://www.npca.org/media_center/reports/
analysis.html.

Congressional Research Service

16

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

operations, $122.2 million above the FY2007 enacted level but less than the Administration’s
request and the Senate committee and House bills. The difference was due in part to a $44.3
million reduction in the enacted level, apparently comprised of a $19.7 million general reduction
and a $24.6 million “offset” for the centennial funding provided separately (see below)
(Explanatory Statement, H16124-H16125). The FY2008 law agreed with the House in
incorporating the Park Police account into the operations line item. See Table 8.
The majority of operations funding is provided directly to park managers. It supports the
activities, programs, and services essential to the day-to-day operations of the park system, and
covers resource protection, visitors’ services, facility operations and maintenance, and park
support programs, as well as such administrative expenses as employee pay, benefits, and other
fixed costs. The FY2008 law provided $1.74 billion for park management, more than enacted for
FY2007 but less than the House, Senate committee, and requested levels. The Administration,
House, and Senate committee had sought relatively large increases for maintenance, visitor
services, and resource stewardship.
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

Operation of the National Park System

1,848.4

2,057.1

2,047.8

2,046.8

1,970.6

—Park Management

1,627.6

1,822.3

1,818.1

1,817.1

1,744.5

—Administrative Costs

135.1

146.7

141.6

141.6

139.4

—U.S. Park Police

85.2

88.1

88.1

88.1

86.7

Centennial Challenge (Matching Prog.)

0.0

0.0a

50.0

0.0

24.6

National Recreation and Preservationb

54.4

48.9

62.9

68.5

67.4

Historic Preservation Fundb

65.7

63.7

81.5

75.0

70.4

Construction

297.5

201.6

201.6

227.2

218.4

Land and Water Conservation Fundc

-30.0

-30.0

-30.0

-30.0

-30.0

Land Acquisition and State Assistance

64.0

22.5

99.4

78.7

69.0

—Assistance to States

29.6

0.0

50.0

30.0

24.6

—NPS Acquisition

34.4

22.5

49.4

48.7

44.4

2,300.0d

2,363.8

2,513.2

2,461.4

2,390.3

National Park Service

Total Appropriations
a.

The Administration requested the establishment of a mandatory fund with $100.0 million annually for ten
years, to match nonfederal contributions to the NPS for certain purposes. The fund has not been
authorized to date. This figure reflects that the Administration did not seek funding through annual
appropriations.

b.

For Preserve America, the Senate committee and the FY2008 appropriation reflect funding in the National
Recreation and Preservation line item. The FY2007 appropriation, FY2008 request, and FY2008 House
figures reflect Preserve America funds in Historic Preservation.

c.

Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.

d.

Includes an emergency appropriation of $0.5 million not reflected in the figures above.

Congressional Research Service

17

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

United States Park Police (USPP)
The U.S. Park Police is an urban-oriented, full-service, uniformed law enforcement entity with
primary jurisdiction at park sites within the metropolitan areas of Washington, DC, New York
City, and San Francisco. USPP law enforcement authority extends to all NPS units and to certain
other federal and state lands. The park police provide specialized law enforcement services to
other park units when requested, through deployment of professional police officers to support
law enforcement trained and commissioned park rangers working in park units system-wide. The
FY2008 law provided $86.7 million, $1.5 million above FY2007. The House and Senate
committee bills matched the request of $88.1 million. Increased funding was proposed primarily
for enhanced security at National Mall icons, special events in Washington, DC, and at the Statue
of Liberty in New York. As noted above, the FY2008 law moved the U.S. Park Police to the
Operation of the National Park System line item.

Centennial Challenge
As discussed above, the Administration proposed a three-part National Parks Centennial
Initiative, with additional funding for park operations (presumably included in the request for
park management discussed above), donations, and federal funds to match the donations. The
FY2008 law provided $24.6 million for a signature projects matching program. This is considered
interim funding to initiate the program in 2008, and requires a 50:50 match. The House and
Senate Appropriations Committees expressed an expectation that authorization will be enacted
during the 110th Congress for a ten year program (Explanatory Statement, H16125). The House
had approved $50.0 million to be available for matching donations in FY2008, while the Senate
committee bill provided no money for the program. The Senate committee expressed support for
the concept, but a preference that the authorizing committee address the issue (S.Rept. 110-91, p.
25). The President did not seek an annual appropriation for this purpose, but instead proposed the
establishment of a mandatory program with $100.0 million annually for ten years. This program
has not been authorized to date, and legislation would be required to effect this 10-year
mandatory spending program.

National Recreation and Preservation
This line item funds a variety of park system recreation, natural and cultural resource protection
programs, and an international park affairs office, as well as programs connected with state and
local community efforts to preserve natural and historic resources. The FY2008 law provided
$67.4 million, $18.5 million above the request and $13.0 million more than FY2007. The increase
was partly the result of moving funding for Preserve America ($7.4 million) to this line item from
Historic Preservation. Preserve America was funded at $4.9 million in FY2007, and the Senate
committee originally supported $5.0 million. The Administration and the House had sought $10.0
million for FY2008.
The FY2008 appropriation included $15.3 million for the heritage partnership program that funds
National Heritage Areas (NHAs). NHA funding was $5.3 million more than the request and
$1.9 million above FY2007. For the statutory and contractual aid programs in specific, non-NPS
sites, the FY2008 law allowed $7.5 million, $4.3 million more than FY2007. The Administration
had proposed discontinuing statutory and contractual aid, as proposed (but not enacted) for
FY2005-FY2007.

Congressional Research Service

18

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Construction
The construction line item funds new construction projects, as well as improvements, repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. The FY2008 law provided $218.4 million for
NPS construction, $79.1 million less than FY2007 and $8.8 million less than the Senate
committee bill but $16.8 million more than the House approved and the Administration requested.
Recent DOI data (March 2007) report an NPS deferred maintenance backlog of $7.9 billion, of
which $4.3 billion is park roads, while another DOI source estimates an NPS backlog (mid-range)
of $9.1 billion for FY2006. (For information on NPS maintenance, see CRS Report RL33484,
National Park Management, coordinated by (name redacted).)

Land Acquisition and State Assistance
FY2008 appropriations for the NPS under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) were
$69.0 million, comprised of $44.4 million for NPS land acquisition and $24.6 million for state
assistance programs. Land acquisition funds are used to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for
inclusion within the National Park System. State assistance is for recreation-related land
acquisition and recreation planning and development by the states, with the appropriated funds
allocated by formula and states determining their spending priorities.
The $44.4 million for NPS land acquisition was $10.0 million above the FY2007 level and nearly
double the Administration’s request of $22.5 million. The House and Senate committee had
sought higher funding levels. The Administration did not seek funds for state assistance from
LWCF, requesting $1.4 million for program administration under National Recreation and
Preservation. The $24.6 million for state assistance was $25.4 million less than the House, $5.4
million less than the Senate, and $5.0 million below the FY2007 enacted level. (For more
information, see the “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)

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. NHPA reauthorization (P.L. 109-235) was enacted on December 22, 2006, and extends
authority to fund the HPF through 2015. The Fund’s preservation grants are normally funded on a
60% federal, 40% state matching share basis. The HPF also includes funding for Save America’s
Treasures grants.
The FY2008 law provided $70.4 million for the HPF, compared to an FY20007 amount of $65.7
million, representing a 7% increase. The FY2007 level included a $10.0 million hurricane
recovery supplemental appropriation. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee
versions of the FY2008 funding bill would have provided $81.5 million and $75.0 million,
respectively. The largest HPF activity, grants to state historic preservation offices, rose 6% from
$37.2 million in FY2007 to $39.4 million for FY2008.
Additional funding was also provided for the Save America’s Treasures and the Preserve America
grant programs, which had been cut from $29.6 million in FY2006 to $13.0 million in FY2007.
The FY2008 law provided $24.6 million for Save America’s Treasures—triple the FY2007 level
of $8.1 million, with over 55% of these funds allocated to congressionally-directed projects.

Congressional Research Service

19

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

While Preserve America funding also was increased, from $4.9 million to $7.4 million, the
program was moved from the HPF to National Recreation and Preservation.
New for FY2008, the Park Service proposed to establish a $5.0 million program to help states and
tribal governments create an integrated inventory of historic properties. Of that amount, $4.0
million would be to fund grants through the HPF and the balance would be provided through
National Recreation and Preservation funding. This proposal was not funded.
For further information on the National Park Service, see its website at http://www.nps.gov/.
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its website at http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/.
CRS Report RL33617, Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33484, National Park Management, coordinated by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33525, Recreation on Federal Lands, by Kori Calvert, (name redacted), and
(name redacted).

U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation’s premier science agency in providing physical
and biological information related to natural hazards; certain aspects of the environment; and
energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In addition, it is the federal government’s
principal civilian mapping agency and a primary source of data on the quality of the nation’s
water resources.
Funds for the USGS are provided in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and Research, for
seven activities: Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing; Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes; Water Resources Investigations; Biological Research; Enterprise
Information; Science Support; and Facilities. The FY2008 law provided $1.01 billion for the
USGS. This was the first time the USGS budget has been over a billion dollars. This amount was
$31.5 million (3%) over the Administration’s request of $975.0 million, and $18.4 million (2%)
over the FY2007 enacted level of $988.1 million. See Table 9.
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Enacted

Enterprise Information

111.8

112.1

112.1

112.1

110.4

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing

80.2

75.0

80.0

78.5

77.7

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes

237.0

222.1

249.8

243.3

243.5

Water Resources Investigations

214.9

212.5

223.5

224.1

220.5

Biological Research

175.7

181.1

187.1

182.1

179.9

67.8

70.7b

68.7

68.2

67.2

U.S. Geological Survey

Science Support

Congressional Research Service

20

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Enacted

Facilities

95.4

101.6

101.6

101.6

100.0

Global Climate Change Research

0.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

7.4

988.1a

975.0

1,032.8

1,009.9

1,006.5

U.S. Geological Survey

Total Appropriations
a.

The FY2007 total includes $5.3 million in P.L. 110-28.

b.

This figure includes $2.4 million for the Financial and Business Management System. This amount was not
included in the FY2008 law.

The FY2008 law provided $6.3 million for water resources research institutes and full funding for
the mineral resource assessment program. Funding for these programs was not requested by the
Administration. The law included an increase of $7.4 million for global climate change research,
of which $2.5 million was directed to establish the National Global Warming and Wildlife
Science Center.

Enterprise Information
In FY2005, the Administration proposed a new line item for funding within the USGS called
Enterprise Information. This program consolidates funding of all USGS information needs
including information technology, security, services, and resources management, as well as
capital asset planning. The FY2008 law provided 110.4 million for Enterprise Information, which
was $1.7 million below the Administration’s request of $112.1 million and $1.4 million below the
FY2007 level of $111.8 million.
There are three primary programs within Enterprise Information: (1) enterprise information
security and technology, which supports management and operations of USGS
telecommunications (e.g., computing infrastructure and email); (2) enterprise information
resources, which provides policy support, information management, and oversight over
information services; and (3) national geospatial program, which provides operational support
and management for the Federal Geographic Data committee (FGDC). The FGDC is an
interagency, intergovernmental committee that encourages collaboration to make geospatial data
available to state, local, and tribal governments, as well as communities.

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing
This program aims to provide access to high quality geospatial information to the public. The
FY2008 law provided $77.7 million for this program, which was $2.8 million above the
Administration’s request of $75.0 million, and $2.5 million below the FY2007 level of $80.2
million. Under the Land Remote Sensing subheading, $24.2 million was requested to support the
Landsat Data Continuity Mission, also known as Landsat 8. Landsat 8 is an upcoming satellite
that is to take remotely sensed images of the Earth’s land surface and surrounding coastal areas
primarily for environmental monitoring. The volume of data taken by Landsat 8 is to be four
times greater than its predecessor, Landsat 7, and Landsat 8 is to include additional spectral bands
and higher resolution than Landsat 7 data. The FY2008 law appeared to support the requested
funding level for Landsat 8. The Senate recommendation for a priority ecosystem restoration
program was not included in the FY2008 law.

Congressional Research Service

21

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes
For Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes activities, the FY2008 law provided $243.5
million, which is $21.4 million above the Administration’s request, and $6.5 million about the
FY2007 level. This line item covers programs in three activities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape
and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments.
The primary reduction sought by the Administration was a $20.1 million cut in the mineral
resources program. According to the Administration, universities or other entities will undertake
assessments and research that support nonfederal needs. In previous years the Administration
requested similar cuts in this program, yet each year funding was provided. The FY2008 law
reinstated funding for this program and the Appropriations Committees referred to the
Administration’s request as irresponsible (Explanatory Statement, H16128).
The FY2008 law contained $85.7 million for the geologic hazards program, $1.6 million above
the Administration’s request. Some of the funds would go towards supporting research and
monitoring on volcanoes, landslides, and earthquakes. The joint explanatory statement states
Congress’s strong support for the multi-hazard initiative.

Water Resources Investigations
The FY2008 law provided $220.5 million for Water Resources Investigations, which was $8.1
million above the Administration’s request of $212.5 million, and $5.6 million above the FY2007
level of $214.9 million. As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-FY2007 budget requests, the
FY2008 request had sought to discontinue USGS support for water resources research institutes
because, according to the Administration, most institutes have succeeded in leveraging sufficient
funding for program activities from non-USGS sources. Nevertheless, the institutes received
funding from FY2002-FY2007, with $5.4 million appropriated for FY2007. The FY2008 law
provided $6.3 million.
The FY2008 law provided $20.1 million for the National Streamflow Information Program
(NSIP), an increase of $3.5 million over the FY2007 enacted level. Funds would be used to
continue the operation of the streamgage network of 7,400 streamgages. Further, they would
allow for several new streamgages to be built and maintained. Through the NSIP, the USGS
collects the streamflow data needed by federal, state, and local agencies for planning, operating
water-resources projects, and regulatory programs.

Biological Research
The Biological Research Program under the USGS generates and distributes information related
to conserving and managing the nation’s biological resources. The FY2008 law provided 179.9
million for the program, $1.2 million below the Administration’s request of $181.1 million and
$4.2 million above the FY2007 level of $175.7 million.
In cooperation with the FWS and other federal and state agencies, the USGS is surveying for the
early detection of avian flu in wild birds, and collecting samples from birds that are known to
migrate through the Russian Far East and Southeast Asia. For 2008, the USGS will continue
sampling birds for avian flu and coordinate with other agencies to address the potential for avian
flu in North America.

Congressional Research Service

22

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Science Support and Facilities
Science Support focuses on those costs associated with modernizing the infrastructure for
managing and disseminating scientific information. The FY2008 law provided $67.2 million for
Science Support, a decrease of $3.5 million from the Administration’s request of $70.7 million
and decrease of $0.6 million from the FY2007 level of $67.8 million
Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair. The FY2008 law provided $100.0
million for Facilities, which is $1.6 million below the Administration’s request and an increase of
$4.5 million above the FY2007 enacted level of $95.4 million.
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website at http://www.usgs.gov/.

Minerals Management Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the Offshore Minerals
Management (OMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM) Program. OMM
administers competitive leasing on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands and oversees production
of offshore oil, gas, other minerals, and offshore alternative energy. MRM collects and disburses
bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal onshore and OCS leases and Indian mineral leases.
Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states in which they were collected, the general
fund of the U.S. Treasury, and designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases are
allocated among the coastal states, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic
Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.
The MMS collected and disbursed about $11.5 billion in revenue in FY2007 from mineral leases
on federal and Indian lands. This amount fluctuates annually based primarily on the prices of oil
and natural gas. Over the past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for
40% to 45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties have been not more than 25%. However,
in FY2007, oil royalties accounted for about 38.5% of MMS receipts. Other sources of MMS
receipts include rents and bonuses for all leaseable minerals and royalties from coal and other
minerals.

Budget and Appropriations
The FY2008 funding level for MMS was $294.7 million, composed of: $115.9 million in
appropriations; $135.7 million in offsetting collections, which MMS has been retaining since
1994; and $43.0 million in state cost sharing deductions, as had been proposed by the House. This
would be an increase of $6.4 million (2%) over the total funding of $288.2 million in FY2007.
The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended a total MMS budget of $302.1 million,
consisting of a $166.4 million appropriation and $135.7 million in offsetting collections. The
House had approved a total of $295.7 million, but much less funding through the annual
appropriation process. Specifically, the House had included $67.0 million in appropriations,
$135.7 million in offsetting collections, and an “administrative provisions” section resulting in a
$50.0 million deferral for ultra deepwater research and a $43.0 million deduction for state royalty
administrative costs. See Table 10.

Congressional Research Service

23

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service, FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

—OCS Lands (OMM)

152.8

160.0

159.0

164.9

160.1

—Royalty Management (MRM)

80.1

82.4

82.4

82.4

81.1

—General Administration

48.5

48.5

48.0

48.5

47.2

—Gross, Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management

281.3

290.8

289.3

295.7

288.4

—Use of Receipts

-128.7

-135.7

-135.7

-135.7

-135.7

Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
Appropriations

152.6

155.0

153.6

159.9

152.6

6.9

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.3

—Ultra Deepwater Research Deferral

—

—

-50.0

—

—-

—State Royalty Administrative Cost Deduction

—

—

-43.0

—

-43.0

159.5

161.5

67.0

166.4

115.9

Minerals Management Service
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management

Oil Spill Research
Administrative Provisions

Total Appropriations

The FY2008 appropriations law included House-passed language regarding state royalty
administrative costs. The law required the Secretary of the Interior to deduct 2% from the states’
50% share of revenue from onshore federal leases for FY2008. Congress established net receipts
sharing in 1991, which required states to pay for a portion of the administrative costs associated
with managing federal leases in their states. In 2000, P.L. 106-393 ended that requirement and
allowed states to receive their full share of revenue from federal leases within their state.
The FY2008 appropriations law did not include other House-passed language to prevent transfers
of funds into the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum
Research Fund (the Fund). The Fund was created as a mandatory program in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and was authorized to receive $50 million each year from FY2007FY2017 from federal oil and gas leasing receipts. The Administration had proposed both to repeal
the Fund and reintroduce net receipts sharing among states. The House-passed bill reflected
support for the Administration’s proposals through scoring credits, resulting in a $50.0 million
deferral for ultra deepwater research as well as the $43.0 million deduction for state royalty
administrative costs. See Table 10.

Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore
Issues not directly tied to specific funding accounts remain controversial. Oil and gas
development moratoria in the OCS along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, parts of Alaska, and the
Gulf of Mexico have been in place since 1982, as a result of public laws and executive orders of
the President. However, Congress enacted separate legislation (P.L. 109-432) to open part of the
Gulf of Mexico (about 5.8 million acres) previously under the moratoria, but the law places
nearly all of the eastern Gulf under a leasing moratorium until 2022. The law also contains
revenue sharing provisions for selected coastal states. Two areas—Bristol Bay (AK) and
Virginia—contained in the MMS Proposed Final Five-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Congressional Research Service

24

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

(2007-2012) remain controversial. Bristol Bay was removed from the congressional moratoria,
while oil and gas leasing off Virginia remains under the moratoria. The new five-year program
took effect July 1, 2007. (For more information, see CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental
Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, by (name redacted).)
The FY2008 appropriations law did not contain House-passed language barring funds in the bill
from being used for new leases for those holding leases under the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act
of 1995 without price thresholds. The Appropriations Committees expressed continued
commitment to this issue and the expectation that the authorizing committees would complete
action on this matter (Explanatory Statement, H16130). The Senate Appropriations Committee
had rejected bill language that would have prohibited the government from issuing new offshore
leases to companies holding deepwater leases without price thresholds.
Royalty relief for OCS oil and gas producers also was debated during consideration of FY2007
Interior appropriations. On February 13, 2006, the New York Times reported that the MMS would
not collect royalties on leases awarded in 1998 and 1999 because no price threshold was included
in the lease agreements during those two years. Without the price thresholds, producers may
produce oil and gas up to specified volumes without paying royalties no matter what the price.
The MMS asserts that placing price thresholds in the lease agreements is at the discretion of the
Secretary of the Interior. However, according to the MMS, the price thresholds were omitted by
mistake during 1998 and 1999.8
On January 18, 2007, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6) that would deny new Gulf of Mexico
leases to those holding leases without price thresholds or payment or an agreement to pay a
“conservation of resources” fee that would be established by H.R. 6. DOI has asserted that the
House-passed bill could lead to legal challenges which could delay oil and gas development in
the Gulf of Mexico. The Department also suggested that Congress offer the lessees a three-year
extension to their leases as an incentive to amend the leases to include price thresholds. The
House-passed language was not enacted in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(P.L. 110-140).9
During consideration of FY2008 Interior appropriations, the House considered other amendments
related to the OCS. An amendment which would have lifted the OCS moratoria for natural gas
leasing and development beyond 25 miles from the coastline was defeated. Related amendments
to open the OCS for oil and gas drilling beyond 100 miles of the coastline and to open the entire
OCS currently under the moratoria were defeated.
For FY2008, the Appropriations Committees provided direction related to drilling in the North
Aleutian Basin Planning Area, also known as Bristol Bay (Explanatory Statement, H16128). They
expressed that drilling in that area should be conducted only after the availability of detailed
studies and information. They directed MMS and other scientific bodies to document oil spill
containment and responses to accidents. Further, the MMS was required to complete a 2½–3 year
pre-sale and NEPA process including the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
before proceeding with the North Aleutian Basin sale.
8

This information is from discussions with Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of MMS, during April 2006.

9

For more information, see CRS Report RS22567, Royalty Relief for U.S. Deepwater Oil and Gas Leases, by (name
redacted) and CRS Report RL33974, Legal Issues Raised by Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R. 6) Creating
Incentives for Certain OCS Leaseholders to Accept Price Thresholds, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

25

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Another challenge confronting the MMS is to ensure that its audit and compliance program is
consistently effective. Critics contend that less auditing and more focus on compliance review has
led to a less rigorous royalty collection system and thus a loss of revenue to the federal Treasury.
DOI’s Inspector General (IG) has made recommendations to strengthen and improve
administrative controls of the Compliance and Asset Management Program (CAM). Further, DOI
established an independent panel to review the MMS Mineral Leasing Program. The review
included an examination of the Royalty-in-Kind Program which has grown significantly over the
past three years—from 41.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) sold in 2004 to 112 million
BOE sold in 2007.10 The House Appropriations Committee, in report language on the FY2008
bill, expressed concern about IG reports on the need for more and better audits, and directed
MMS to report on corrective actions it is taking (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 58).
Oil and gas leasing in offshore California also has continued to be a controversial issue. Under
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. §1451-64) (CZMA),
development of federal offshore leases must be consistent with state coastal zone management
plans. In 1999, MMS extended the terms of 36 leases in offshore California by granting
suspensions of the leases’ five-year terms. A suspension extends the term of the lease, to allow the
lessee to facilitate development. 11 The state of California sued, contending that MMS should have
made a consistency determination showing that the lease suspensions were consistent with
California’s coastal management plan before issuing the suspensions. In June 2001, the U.S.
Court for the Northern District of California agreed with the state of California and struck down
the lease suspensions.12 MMS appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
However, in December 2002, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court decision. 13
Following this ruling, nine oil company lessees brought breach of contract claims against MMS
seeking restitution for “bonus payments” made to MMS in order to obtain and suspend their
leases in offshore California. In November 2005, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the
federal government breached its contract with the lessees when it enacted the amendments to the
CZMA in 1990 that, according to the decisions described above, required lease suspensions to be
evaluated for consistency with a state’s coastal management plan.14 The Court reasoned that the
lessees had not bargained for the more extensive consistency determination requirements to be
applied to suspension requests when the leases were signed, and that therefore the legislation
creating these new requirements amounted to breach of the leases. 15 The government was ordered
to repay the lessees for all so-called “bonus payments” made to the government in exchange for
the leases.16
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website at
http://www.mms.gov.

10

The report of the panel, Mineral Revenue Collection from Federal and Indian Lands and the Outer Continental Shelf,
is available on the MMS website at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/RoyPC/PdFDocs/RPCRMS1207.pdf.
11
The regulations on suspension are at 30 C.F.R §250.168.
12
California v. Norton, 150 F.Supp.2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
13
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, California v. Norton, 311 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2002)01-16637.
14
Amber Resources Co. v. U.S., 68 Fed. Cl. 535 (2005).
15
Id. at 546-48.
16
Id. at 560. The lessees continued to pursue further recovery under other breach of contract theories. These matters
remain unsettled. See Amber Resources Corp. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 738 (2006).

Congressional Research Service

26

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

CRS Report RL33974, Legal Issues Raised by Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R. 6) Creating
Incentives for Certain OCS Leaseholders to Accept Price Thresholds, by (name redacted) and (name
redacted).
CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue
Sharing, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RS22567, Royalty Relief for U.S. Deepwater Oil and Gas Leases, by (name
redacted).

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
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 (AML) fund, with fees levied on coal production, to reclaim abandoned sites that posed
serious health or safety hazards. The law provided that individual states and Indian tribes would
develop their own regulatory programs incorporating minimum standards established by law and
regulations. Reclamation in states with no approved programs is directed by OSM.
Historically, AML collections have been divided up and assigned to different accounts, some of
which fall into a federal designation allocated to individual states based upon their ranking in
historical coal production. A portion of fee collections also has been credited to a state share
account. Grants to states and tribes for reclamation have been awarded after applying a formula to
annual congressional appropriations from the AML fund. Grants to a state or tribe would draw on
both that state’s federal-share and state-share accounts. Collections have exceeded appropriations
for a number of years. The total unappropriated balance—including both federal and state share
accounts in the AML fund—was over $1.95 billion by the end of FY2006, of which
approximately $1.2 billion was in the state-share accounts.
As coal production has shifted westward, western states have paid more into the fund. These
states have contended that they are shouldering a disproportionate share of the reclamation
burden because the great majority of the sites requiring remediation are in the East.17 Several
states were pressing for increases in the AML appropriations, with an eye on those unappropriated
balances in the state-share accounts.
The Tax Relief and Health Care Act (P.L. 109-432) reauthorized AML fee collections through
FY2021, and also made significant changes in the procedures for disbursing grants. Grants will be
funded by permanent appropriations from the AML fund and the general fund of the U. S.
Treasury. All the revenues paid to the fund during a given fiscal year will be returned during the
fiscal year that follows.18 Under the restructuring, the balances in the state- and tribal-share
17

Interest generated by unappropriated balances in the AML fund is transferred to the United Mine Workers of
America Combined Benefit Fund, established by P.L. 102-486 to cover the unreimbursed health cost requirements of
retired miners.
18
The permanent appropriation has a ceiling of $490 million annually. If demands on that money, which include annual
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

27

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

accounts will be returned to all states and tribes in seven annual installments paid with general
Treasury funds.19
States and tribes are categorized as “Certified” or “Uncertified,” and distributions to each differ.
Certified states are those that have reclaimed the most serious sites, while uncertified states have
not yet done so. Beginning in FY2008, and over a period of seven years, certified states will
receive equal installments of the unappropriated balances in their state-share accounts as of the
end of FY2006. Additionally, they will receive whatever grants they would be entitled to based
upon application of the distribution formula to both prior year collections and that state’s
entitlement based upon its historic coal production.20 Beginning with fees collected during
FY2008, the amounts that would have been deposited to certified states’ state-share accounts
will instead be credited to the federal-share account representing historical coal production.
Certified states will not receive this allocation in their annual grants after FY2008. This is
intended to have the effect of increasing the pool of money available for distribution to
uncertified states in future years.
The level of grants distributed to uncertified states will be based upon their proportionate
entitlement from the historical coal production account (which, as just noted, will hold more
money than under the old system), as well as the amount that would have otherwise been
deposited to the state-share account.21
Owing to the establishment of the permanent appropriation, the FY2008 OSM budget request was
sharply lower than the FY2007 level. Overall, the FY2008 budget request for OSM totaled
$168.3 million in discretionary spending, a reduction of $126.3 million (43%) from the FY2007
level of $294.6 million. However, due to the restructuring of the program to provide for
repayment of the unappropriated state balances from Treasury funds, one cannot make a direct
comparison between the FY2007 appropriated level for OSM and the FY2008 levels.
In FY2008, some activities will remain subject to 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 agency budget also has an additional component—regulatory and technology programs.
The FY2008 appropriations law provided a total of $118.5 million for Regulation and Technology
and $52.0 million for the AML fund. The total appropriation of $170.4 million for the Office of
Surface Mining is roughly $2.1 million (1%) higher than the Administration’s request.

(...continued)
payments to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, would exceed the cap, distributions will be
proportional.
19
Added to these totals will be any money needed to fund minimum program states. These states have sites remaining
with serious problems. However, these states also have insufficient levels of current coal production to generate
significant fees to the AML fund. Each minimum program state is to receive $1.5 million annually.
20
Payments will be ramped up. For the first three years, certified states will receive 25%, 50%, and 75% of the amount
the state would receive under the restructured program.
21
An allocation of fee collections under the old program to the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP) is
discontinued by P.L. 109-432, which transfers the RAMP balances to the fund pool representing state historical coal
production. Whether or not fee collections are reauthorized beyond FY2021, mandatory distributions will continue so
long as money remains in the AML fund.

Congressional Research Service

28

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

As is summarized in Table 11, there was, in fact, no wide disparity in the funding levels
recommended by the House and the Senate committee on Appropriations. The House had
approved a $1.9 million boost to Regulation and Technology, an addition of 2%, over the
Administration’s request for $115.5 million. The additional funds were intended for
environmental protection activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $121.5
million, an increase of $6.0 million above the Administration’s request. The increase was to
include additional funds to match state costs for the conduct of regulatory programs intended to
minimize impacts of coal extraction on local environments and populations. Both the full House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the Administration request of $52.8
million for AML. In total, the House approved $170.2 million for OSM, $1.9 million (1%) over
the Administration’s request and $124.5 million (42%) below FY2007. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended a total of $174.3 million for OSM, $6.0 million (4%) over the
Administration’s request and $120.3 million (41%) below FY2007.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

Regulation and Technology

109.2

115.5

117.3

121.5

118.5

—Environmental Protection

78.7

83.8

85.9

89.8

87.4

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund

185.4

52.8

52.8

52.8

52.0

Total Appropriations

294.6

168.3

170.2

174.3

170.4

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement

For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, see its
website at http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm.
CRS Report RL32993, Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fee on Coal, by (name redacted).

Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally recognized
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and historically has been the lead
agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs provided or funded through the BIA include
government operations, courts, law enforcement, fire protection, social programs, education,
roads, economic development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian rights
protection, implementation of land and water settlements, management of trust assets (real estate
and natural resources), and partial gaming oversight.
BIA’s direct appropriations were $2.31 billion in FY2007. For FY2008, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act provided $2.29 billion for the BIA, a decrease of $17.0 million (1%) from
FY2007. The Administration had proposed $2.23 billion for FY2008, the House had approved
$2.35 billion, and the Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended $2.27 billion. The
FY2008 enacted amount for the BIA was $62.4 million (3%) more than the Administration’s
proposal, $55.7 million (2%) less than the House amount, and $25.6 million (1%) more than the
Senate committee’s recommendation. See Table 12 for more detailed BIA appropriations figures.

Congressional Research Service

29

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Key issues for the BIA include education programs—including the Administration’s proposals to
increase education management spending, eliminate funding for the Johnson-O’Malley program
and tribal technical colleges, and reduce education construction—as well as BIA law enforcement
and housing programs, and the Interior Department’s process for acknowledging Indian tribes.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
Bureau of Indian Affairs

FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

Operation of Indian Programs
Tribal Government

392,261

397,698

403,009

406,398

399,862

—Johnson-O’Malley Grantsa

7,700

0

5,311

7,700

N/A

—Housing Improvement Programb

4,266

0

0

0

N/A

143,628

149,628

149,628

149,628

147,294

144,824

120,703

146,548

134,128

139,339

—Welfare Assistance

80,179

74,164

80,179

77,164

78,928

—Housing Improvement Programb

18,824

0

18,830

9,425

13,614

Trust - Natural Resources Management

145,238

141,684

152,684

147,489

147,157

Trust - Real Estate Services

144,073

150,722

150,722

151,722

148,371

—Probate

15,884

19,883

19,883

19,883

N/A

—Real Estate Services

43,510

47,964

47,964

48,964

N/A

—Land Records Improvement

7,897

16,065

16,065

16,065

N/A

657,912

660,540

699,040

685,540

689,611

—Elementary/ Secondary (ForwardFunded)

458,310

476,500

487,500

476,500

479,895

—ISEP Formula Funds

351,817

364,020

364,020

364,020

N/A

—Elementary/ Secondary [Other]

60,390

61,803

61,803

69,803

74,620

—Johnson-O’Malley Grantsa

12,000

0

16,500

8,000

N/A

108,619

98,520

109,520

115,520

111,749

—Tribal Colleges and Universities

54,721

54,721

54,721

59,721

N/A

—Tribal Colls. and Univs.
Supplements to Grantsc

4,588

1,292

1,292

1,292

N/A

—Tribal Technical Collegesc

2,004

0

6,000

6,000

N/A

18,593

23,717

23,717

23,717

23,347

Public Safety and Justice

217,611

233,818

250,018

237,818

243,657

—Law Enforcement

204,454

221,753

231,753

225,753

228,138

58,678

65,038

65,038

67,038

N/A

12,013

12,065

17,065

12,065

14,338

42,234

39,061

47,339

39,061

39,436

—Contract Support Costs
Human Services

Bureau of Indian Education

—Post Secondary Programs

—Education Management

—Detention/Corrections
—Tribal Courts
Community and Economic Development

Congressional Research Service

30

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

FY2007
Approp.

FY2008
Request

FY2008
House
Passed

FY2008
Senate
Comm.

FY2008
Approp.

Executive Direction and Administrative Services

244,070

246,692

244,185

244,185

240,376

—Office of Federal Acknowledgment

1,900

1,900

2,900

1,900

N/A

—Information Resources Technology

53,199

53,704

53,704

53,704

N/A

1,988,223

1,990,918

2,093,545

2,046,341

2,047,809

204,956

139,844

145,200

125,029

142,935

—Replacement School Construction

83,891

14,815

14,815

0

N/A

—Replacement Facility Construction

26,873

22,578

22,578

22,578

N/A

—Education Facilities Improvement and
Repair

92,219

100,834

105,834

100,834

N/A

Public Safety and Justice Construction

11,605

11,621

14,621

11,621

14,393

—Law Enforcement Facilities
Improvement and Repair

8,103

8,111

11,111

8,111

N/A

Resources Management Construction

45,125

37,916

39,916

37,916

38,309

General Administration Construction and
Construction Management

10,137

8,246

8,246

8,246

N/A

Subtotal, Construction

271,823

197,627

207,983

179,012d

203,754

Land and Water Claim Settlements and
Miscellaneous Payments

42,000

34,069

39,136

34,069

33,538

Indian Guaranteed Loan Program

6,258

6,276

6,276

6,276

6,178

2,308,304

2,228,890

2,346,940

2,265,698

2,291,279

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Subtotal, Operation of Indian Programs
Construction
Education Construction

Total Appropriations
Note: N/A = Not available.
a.

The Johnson O’Malley program is split between two budget activities, Tribal Government and Bureau of
Indian Education.

b.

The Housing Improvement Program is split between two budget activities, Tribal Government and Human
Services.

c.

Of the FY2007 amount for Tribal Colleges and Universities Supplements to Grants, $3.3 million is for tribal
technical colleges.

d.

Reflects a rescission of $3.8 million of unobligated prior year balances.

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs22
BIE funds an elementary-secondary school system and higher education programs. The BIE
school system comprises 184 BIE-funded schools and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000
structures, educating about 46,000 students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under
self-determination contracts and other grants, operate 123 of these institutions; the BIE operates
22
In August 2006, the BIA’s administrative office for its education programs was removed from the BIA, made a
parallel agency under the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, and renamed the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). BIE
appropriations remain within BIA appropriations.

Congressional Research Service

31

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

the remainder. The BIE operates two postsecondary schools and provides grants to 26 tribally
controlled colleges and two tribally controlled technical colleges. Key problems for the BIEfunded school system are low student achievement, the high proportion of schools failing to make
adequate yearly progress (AYP), and the large number of inadequate school facilities.

Proposed Indian Education Initiative
The Administration proposed a nearly $15-million initiative in FY2008 to enhance education at
BIE-funded schools. BIE’s forward-funded elementary and secondary budget activity would
receive $9.6 million of the new program funds; these funds would be used to improve
instructional resources (especially through teacher development and principal training) at BIE
schools being restructured to meet AYP goals ($5.3 million), and to increase operation and
maintenance funds for student transportation ($4.3 million). The remaining $5.3 million of the
initiative would go to BIE’s education management budget activity, to add education and
administrative specialists at education line offices ($4.0 million) and maintain BIE’s new student
and school information system ($1.2 million). Both the full House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved these initiatives, but the House approved an additional $7.0 million for
meeting AYP goals and an additional $1.0 million for stude

[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%3ARL34011. Public record. Not legal advice.