Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Congressional research reportMay 29, 2009

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:

FY2009 Appropriations

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

May 29, 2009

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL34461

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 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.

On February 17, 2009, the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of

2009 (P.L. 111-5, H.R. 1). This broad economic stimulus legislation contained $10.95 billion in

emergency funds for FY2009 for some of the accounts within agencies typically funded by the

annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws. In general, the funds

were made available for obligation until September 30, 2010 (the end of FY2010).

On March 11, 2009, the President signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8, H.R.

1105). The omnibus law contained regular appropriations for FY2009 of $27.59 billion for

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This funding was $825.9 million (3%) below the

FY2008 level of $28.42 billion (including $1.82 billion in emergency appropriations), but $1.78

billion (7%) above the FY2009 Bush Administration request of $25.81 billion. Together with

funding in the stimulus law, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies received a total of

$38.54 billion for FY2009.

Regular appropriations for FY2009 were not enacted for Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies before the October 1, 2008, start of the fiscal year. Instead, agencies were receiving

funds under the terms of a continuing funding resolution—Division A, Continuing Appropriations

Resolution, 2009 (P.L. 110-329, FY2009 CR). The measure generally extended funding for

accounts in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill at the amounts

provided in the FY2008 regular appropriations law and under the terms and conditions provided

in that FY2008 law. A notable exception was that the FY2009 CR removed the prohibitions on

spending funds for oil and gas leasing activities in certain regions of the Outer Continental Shelf.

No bills providing regular appropriations for FY2009 for Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies were reported by the House or Senate Appropriations Committees or considered on the

House or Senate floor during the 110th Congress. Perhaps the biggest impediment to developing

and considering an Interior bill was divisiveness over whether to retain long-standing prohibitions

on funding for oil and gas leasing in the OCS. Other issues that have been controversial in

Interior deliberations have included funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs construction, education,

and housing; Indian Health Service construction and urban Indian health; wastewater/drinking

water needs; land acquisition; the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program; the Superfund program;

and wildland fire fighting, in addition to Indian trust fund management and royalty relief.

This report is not expected to be updated.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Contents

Most Recent Developments ............................................................................................................. 1

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

FY2004-FY2009........................................................................................................................ 2

Current Overview ...................................................................................................................... 3

Economic Stimulus Legislation, P.L. 111-5............................................................................... 4

Major Issues............................................................................................................................... 9

Status of Bill ............................................................................................................................ 10

Title I: Department of the Interior.................................................................................................. 11

Bureau of Land Management .................................................................................................. 11

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 11

Management of Lands and Resources ............................................................................... 12

Construction ...................................................................................................................... 14

Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 14

Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................ 14

Endangered Species Funding ............................................................................................ 15

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement .................................. 17

Refuges: Stimulus Funding .............................................................................................. 17

Construction ...................................................................................................................... 18

Avian Flu ........................................................................................................................... 18

Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 18

Wildlife Refuge Fund ........................................................................................................ 19

Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants .............................................................. 20

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ........................................................................................ 20

National Park Service .............................................................................................................. 21

Operation of the National Park System ............................................................................. 23

United States Park Police (USPP) ..................................................................................... 24

Centennial Challenge ........................................................................................................ 24

National Recreation and Preservation ............................................................................... 25

Historic Preservation ......................................................................................................... 25

Construction ...................................................................................................................... 26

Land Acquisition and State Assistance .............................................................................. 26

U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 27

Enterprise Information ...................................................................................................... 28

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing ............................................. 28

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes ................................................................... 29

Water Resources Investigations......................................................................................... 29

Biological Research........................................................................................................... 29

Science Support and Facilities .......................................................................................... 30

Global Climate Change Research...................................................................................... 30

Minerals Management Service ................................................................................................ 31

Budget and Appropriations................................................................................................ 31

Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore ........................................................................................... 32

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ....................................................... 34

Bureau of Indian Affairs .......................................................................................................... 37

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs .................................................................... 40

Law Enforcement and Courts Program ............................................................................. 42

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Housing Improvement Program (HIP) .............................................................................. 42

Road Maintenance ............................................................................................................. 43

Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process .......................................................................... 43

Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs .......................................................... 44

Office of Insular Affairs .................................................................................................... 44

Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) ...................................................................... 45

Office of Special Trustee for American Indians ............................................................... 47

National Indian Gaming Commission .............................................................................. 51

Title II: Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 51

Key Funding Issues ................................................................................................................. 54

Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure ................................................................. 54

Superfund .......................................................................................................................... 56

Brownfields ....................................................................................................................... 58

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks ................................................................................ 59

Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 60

Policy Provisions ............................................................................................................... 62

Title III: Related Agencies ............................................................................................................. 63

Department of Agriculture: Forest Service .............................................................................. 63

Major FS Issues in Appropriations .................................................................................... 63

State and Private Forestry.................................................................................................. 64

FS Research ....................................................................................................................... 66

National Forest System ..................................................................................................... 66

Capital Improvement and Maintenance ............................................................................ 66

Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 67

Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service ...................................... 67

Health Services.................................................................................................................. 69

Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 72

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation ......................................................................... 73

Smithsonian Institution ............................................................................................................ 74

Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................................................... 75

Facilities Capital................................................................................................................ 75

Legacy Fund ...................................................................................................................... 75

Trust Funds ........................................................................................................................ 76

National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities .................. 76

NEA................................................................................................................................... 77

NEH................................................................................................................................... 78

Cross-Cutting Topics ..................................................................................................................... 78

Everglades Restoration ............................................................................................................ 78

FY2009 Funding ............................................................................................................... 79

Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation ............................................................................. 81

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)................................................................... 82

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 82

Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 82

Grants to States.................................................................................................................. 83

Other Purposes .................................................................................................................. 84

Wildland Fire Management ..................................................................................................... 85

Wildfire Suppression ......................................................................................................... 87

Fire Preparedness .............................................................................................................. 87

Other Operations ............................................................................................................... 87

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Emergency Supplemental and Contingent Appropriations, FY2008 ................................ 88

Figures

Figure 1. FS FY2009 Appropriations Excluding Stimulus Funding.............................................. 64

Tables

Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to

FY2009 ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Table 2. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in P.L. 111-5 ................ 7

Table 3. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2009

(H.R. 1105) ................................................................................................................................. 10

Table 4. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FY2008-FY2009 ............ 12

Table 5. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2008-FY2009 ................... 15

Table 6. Appropriations for the Endangered Species Program and Related Programs,

FY2008-FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 16

Table 7. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Land Acquisition

Program, FY2008-FY2009 ......................................................................................................... 19

Table 8. Appropriations for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) and

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, FY2008-FY2009 ........................................... 20

Table 9. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2008-FY2009........................... 21

Table 10. Appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS), FY2008-FY2009 ........................ 23

Table 11. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FY2008-FY2009 .................. 28

Table 12. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service (MMS), FY2008FY2009 ....................................................................................................................................... 31

Table 13. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,

FY2008-FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 35

Table 14. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (including Bureau of

Indian Education (BIE)), FY2008-FY2009 ................................................................................ 38

Table 15. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT),

FY2000-FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 46

Table 16. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST),

FY2008-FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 47

Table 17. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FY2008FY2009 ....................................................................................................................................... 53

Table 18. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Brownfields

Program, FY2008-FY2009 ......................................................................................................... 59

Table 19. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Selected Air

Quality Programs and Activities, FY2008-FY2009 ................................................................... 61

Table 20. Appropriations for the Forest Service (FS), FY2008-FY2009 ....................................... 63

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Table 21. Appropriations for the Forest Service (FS): State and Private Forestry, FY2008FY2009 ....................................................................................................................................... 65

Table 22. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS), FY2008-FY2009 ......................... 68

Table 23. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2008-FY2009 ................................ 76

Table 24. Appropriations for the Arts and Humanities, FY2008-FY2009 ..................................... 77

Table 25. Appropriations for the Department of the Interior (DOI): Everglades

Restoration Budget, FY2008-FY2009 ........................................................................................ 80

Table 26. Appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),

FY2004-FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 82

Table 27. Appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): Other

Programs, FY2006-FY2009 ....................................................................................................... 84

Table 28. Appropriations for the Forest Service (FS) and the Department of the Interior

(DOI): Wildland Fire Management, FY2007-FY2009 ............................................................... 86

Table 29. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,

FY2004-FY2009 ......................................................................................................................... 90

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 93

Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 93

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments

On March 11, 2009, the President signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8, H.R.

1105). The omnibus law contained regular appropriations for FY2009 of $27.59 billion for

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. In earlier action, on February 17, 2009, the

President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5, H.R. 1). This

broad economic stimulus legislation contained $10.95 billion in emergency funds for FY2009 for

some of the accounts within agencies typically funded by the annual Interior, Environment, and

Related Agencies appropriations laws. Taken together, the two laws provided a total of $38.54

billion for FY2009.

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

Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities, and for numerous other

entities and agencies.

In former years, the appropriations laws for Interior and Related Agencies provided funds for

several activities within the Department of Energy (DOE), including research, development, and

conservation programs; the Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

However, at the outset of the 109th Congress, these DOE programs were transferred to the House

and Senate Appropriations subcommittees covering energy and water, to consolidate jurisdiction

over DOE.1 At the same time, jurisdiction over the EPA and several smaller entities was moved to

the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees covering Interior and Related Agencies.2

This change resulted from the abolition of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees

on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, which

previously had jurisdiction over EPA.

Since FY2006, appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies have

contained three primary titles. This report is organized along these lines. 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

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

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Agencies appropriations bill. For each agency or issue, we discuss some of the key funding

changes enacted for FY2009, or proposed by the George W. Bush Administration, that have been

of interest to Congress. We also address related policy issues that tend to occur in the context of

considering appropriations legislation. Presenting such information in summary form is a

challenge. For example, budget submissions for some agencies number several hundred pages

and contain innumerable funding, programmatic, and legislative changes for congressional

consideration. Further, appropriations laws provide funds for numerous accounts, activities, and

subactivities, and the accompanying explanatory statements provide additional directives and

other important information. For information on programs funded in the bill but not directly

discussed in this report, please contact the key policy staff members listed at the end of the report.

In general, in this report the term appropriations represents total funds available, including

regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as rescissions, transfers, and deferrals,

but excludes permanent mandatory budget authorities. This report contains final FY2009

appropriations levels for agencies, programs, and activities as enacted in the Omnibus

Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8, H.R. 1105). These funds generally are referred to as

omnibus funds, or funds provided by the omnibus law. Increases and decreases generally are

calculated on comparisons between these FY2009 omnibus funding levels and those requested by

President Bush for FY2009 and enacted for FY2008.

An overview of emergency funding for FY2009 provided in broad economic stimulus legislation

(P.L. 111-5, H.R. 1) is discussed in the introduction to this report. This law contained additional

FY2009 funding for some of the agencies and programs typically funded by the Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. These funds also are discussed in the

pertinent sections throughout the report, in both the text and accompanying tables. They generally

are referred to as stimulus funds, or funds provided by the stimulus law.

The House Committee on Appropriations is the primary source of the funding figures used

throughout the report. Other sources of information include the Senate Committee on

Appropriations, agency budget justifications, and the Congressional Record. References to the

“Explanatory Statement” for the omnibus law refer to the statement published in the February 23,

2009, Congressional Record. References to the “Explanatory Statement” for the stimulus law

refer to the statement published in the February 12, 2009, Congressional Record, together with

the tables published in the February 13, 2009, 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-FY2009

Table 1, below, shows appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for

FY2004-FY2009. Funding for earlier years is not readily available due to the changes in the

makeup of the Interior appropriations bill. The FY2009 omnibus funding represented a $265.5

million increase (1%) over the FY2004 level in current dollars, or an 11% decrease in constant

dollars (assuming the Congressional Budget Office’s inflation estimate of 2.2% for 2008 and

projection of 1.5% for 2009). See Table 29 for a budgetary history of each agency for FY2004FY2009.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,

FY2004 to FY2009

(in billions of dollars)

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2009

Stimulus

FY2009

Total

Current

Dollars

$27.33

$27.02

$25.94

$27.40

$28.42

$27.59

$10.95

$38.54

Constant

2009 Dollarsa

$31.03

$29.70

$27.64

$28.42

$28.84

$27.59

$10.95

$38.54

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.

These figures are based on the Congressional Budget Office’s inflation projection of 1.5% for 2009.

Current Overview

On March 11, 2009, the President signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8, H.R.

1105). The omnibus law contained regular appropriations for FY2009 of $27.59 billion for

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This funding was $1.78 billion (7%) over the

FY2009 Bush Administration request of $25.81 billion, but $825.9 million (3%) below the

FY2008 level of $28.42 billion. This FY2008 level included $1.82 billion in emergency

appropriations, most of which was for fighting wildfires on federal lands ($1.74 billion) with the

remainder ($75.0 million) for FWS construction. While the FY2009 omnibus level included

increases over FY2008 for many agencies, it contained decreases or level funding for others.

The enactment of the regular appropriations for FY2009 followed the enactment of emergency

funds for FY2009 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5, H.R. 1).

This broad economic stimulus legislation contained $10.95 billion in emergency funds for

FY2009 for some of the accounts within agencies typically funded by the annual Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws. In general, the funds were made

available for obligation until September 30, 2010 (the end of FY2010). These funds are discussed

in the next section (below). Taken together, the omnibus law and the stimulus law provided a total

of $38.54 billion for FY2009 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2009.

Regular appropriations for FY2009 were not enacted for Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies before the October 1, 2008 start of the fiscal year. Accordingly, on September 30, 2008,

President Bush signed the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2009 (FY2009 CR, P.L. 110-329).3 Division A, Continuing Appropriations

Resolution, 2009, generally extended funding for accounts in the Interior, Environment, and

Related Agencies Appropriations bill at the amounts provided in the FY2008 regular

appropriations law. Funds were available under the terms and conditions provided in the FY2008

law, except where otherwise specified. The FY2009 CR provided appropriations from October 1,

Information on the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, is contained

in CRS Report RL34711, Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329): An Overview, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

2008 through March 6, 2009, and continuing appropriations were later extended through March

11, 2009 (P.L. 111-6).4

The FY2009 CR contained additional provisions related to Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies. For instance, the law provided an additional $2.0 million to the National Park Service

for security for the Presidential inauguration. It removed the prohibitions on spending funds for

oil and gas leasing activities in certain regions of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which had

been controversial (see the “Minerals Management Service” section). The law also removed the

prohibition on using funds to prepare final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program

for oil shale or to conduct a commercial oil shale lease sale (see the “Bureau of Land

Management” section). Further, the law contained provisions on funding for the Modified Water

Deliveries Project, which pertains to water deliveries to Everglades National Park (see the

“Everglades Restoration” section).

President Bush had requested $25.81 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for

FY2009, a $2.61 billion (9%) reduction from the FY2008 level of $28.42 billion (including

emergency appropriations). While the President sought to increase funds for some agencies, he

requested reduced funds for most agencies.

The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies had held hearings on FY2009 agency budget requests, and the House Subcommittee

had marked up a draft appropriations bill. However, no bills providing regular appropriations for

FY2009 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies were reported by the House or Senate

Appropriations Committees or considered on the House or Senate floor during the 110th

Congress. Divisiveness over whether to retain long-standing prohibitions on funding for oil and

gas leasing in regions of the Outer Continental Shelf was perhaps the biggest impediment to

developing and considering an Interior appropriations bill.

Economic Stimulus Legislation, P.L. 111-5

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5, H.R. 1) was a $787 billion

broad economic stimulus package that contains tax cuts and spending.5 Among the purposes of

the economic stimulus law were preserving and creating jobs; promoting economic recovery; and

making investments in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will

provide long-term economic benefits.

The law included funds for certain agencies and activities typically funded by the annual Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law. In total, the law contained $10.95 billion

Information on continuing resolutions is contained in CRS reports including the following: CRS Report RL30343,

Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by (name redacted); CRS Report

RL32614, Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years, by (name redacted); and CRS Report RL34700,

Interim

Continuing Resolutions (CRs): Potential Impacts on Agency Operations, by (name redacted).

For an overview of the law, see CRS Report R40537, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5):

Summary and Legislative History, by (name redacted), (name redacted), (name redacted), (name redacted),

(name redacted), and (name redacted). For a discussion of stimulus issues and policies, see CRS Report R40104,

Economic

Stimulus: Issues and Policies, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.6 This amount was a 40% supplement to the

$27.59 billion in omnibus appropriations for FY2009.

Not every agency typically funded through the Interior bill received funding in the economic

stimulus law. Moreover, the agencies that were funded received widely varying dollar amounts. In

turn, these amounts constituted widely varying percentages of each agency’s FY2009 annual

appropriations. Table 2, below, identifies the agencies and accounts that were funded by P.L. 1115. For general information on the agencies and the purposes of these accounts, as well as

additional information on the stimulus funds, see the pertinent sections in the balance of this

report.

Of the $10.95 billion total in the economic stimulus law, $7.22 billion (66%) was provided to the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The majority of EPA funding was for clean water

($4.00 billion) and drinking water ($2.00 billion) state revolving fund grants.7 The remainder of

the funds was primarily for cleanup projects, specifically Superfund remediation, grants for

cleanup of Brownfields and leaking underground storage tanks, and diesel emission reduction

grants. Another portion of the funds was for the Office of Inspector General. EPA funding in the

economic stimulus law approached the agency’s total FY2009 appropriations of $7.64 billion.

Another $2.50 billion (23%) of the $10.95 billion total was provided to the four federal land

management agencies: the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park

Service, and Forest Service. These funds were provided for construction; wildfire management;

and maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of facilities and trails, among other purposes.8

Of the $10.95 billion, a total of $1.00 billion (9%) was provided to the Bureau of Indian Affairs

for activities including repair and restoration of roads, construction and improvement of schools,

and maintenance and repair of detention centers ($500.0 million) and to the Indian Health Service

for facilities construction, deferred maintenance, sanitation projects, and equipment purchases

($500.0 million), among other activities. The remaining $230.0 million (2%) of the $10.95 billion

was provided to several other agencies for purposes including deferred maintenance of the U.S.

Geological Survey, salaries and expenses of the DOI Inspector General, repair of Smithsonian

facilities, and grants for the arts.

In earlier action on the economic stimulus legislation (H.R. 1), the Senate had approved a slightly

higher total—$11.11 billion—while the House had passed a still larger one—$14.81 billion. As

shown in Table 2, there were a number of significant differences between the House- and Senatepassed versions of the bill. In general, the enacted appropriations for the various agencies and

accounts were closer to the Senate’s version of the measure.

Among the general provisions of the law,9 agencies were to begin spending the funds “as quickly

as possible consistent with prudent management.”10 With regard to funds for infrastructure,

These funds were contained in Division A, Title VII.

For information on these grants and other water infrastructure funding in the economic stimulus law, see CRS Report

R40216, Water Infrastructure Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by (name redacted)

and (name redacted).

For more information on funds for these agencies in the economic stimulus law, see CRS Report R40217, Federal

Lands Provisions of Economic Stimulus Legislation (P.L. 111-5), by (name redacted).

The law contains other provisions on the allocation of appropriations that are beyond the scope of this discussion.

Sec. 3, “Purposes and Principles.”

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

recipients were to give preference to activities “that can be started and completed expeditiously,”

with a goal of using at least 50% of the monies for activities that can be started within 120 days of

enactment.11

P.L. 111-5 provided emergency funding for FY2009, with the monies available for obligation

until September 30, 2010 (the end of FY2010), unless otherwise specified.12 In general, the

accounts funded in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations title of P.L.

111-5 did not contain different periods of obligation, although there were exceptions (e.g.,

funding for the DOI and EPA Inspectors General). By comparison, the regular, annual Interior

appropriations laws generally do not limit obligations to two years. For instance, in the FY2009

omnibus appropriations law, some of the accounts that were funded by P.L. 111-5 received

appropriations that would be available until expended, while others received appropriations only

for one or two fiscal years.

The economic stimulus law also stated that it shall have no effect on the availability of funds

under the FY2009 continuing appropriations resolution, and that appropriations were in addition

to amounts otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year involved.13 It required that each agency

receiving funding in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies title was to notify the House

and Senate Appropriations Committees as to how the monies were to be spent. Specifically, it

provided that each such agency was to submit to the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations, within 30 days of enactment, a general plan for the expenditure of the funds.

Each agency also was to submit to the committees, within 90 days of enactment, a report

“containing detailed project level information associated with the general plan.”14

The law authorized each agency receiving funding in the Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies title to transfer up to 10% of the funds in any account to other accounts within the

agency, if certain conditions were met. The conditions were that the agency head “determines that

the transfer will enhance the efficiency or effectiveness of the use of the funds without changing

the intended purpose,” and notifies the House and Senate Appropriations Committees “10 days

prior to the transfer.”15 In addition, in the explanatory statement on the bill, the Appropriations

Committees expressed that funds for administrative and support costs of activities funded in the

Interior title are not to exceed 5% of any specific appropriation, unless otherwise specified.16

Sec. 1602, Division A.

Sec. 1603, Division A.

Sec. 1601, Division A.

Sec. 701, Division A. The Administration has established a website for information related to implementation and

oversight of stimulus funds. Through that website, http://www.recovery.gov/, separate websites established by federal

agencies and states may be accessed.

Sec. 703, Division A.

H.Rept. 111-16, Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1, Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of

Conference, p. 447.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Table 2. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in P.L. 111-5

($ in millions)

Agency and Account

House Passed Senate Passed

Enacted

Department of the Interior

BLM

—Management of Lands and Resources

135.0

125.0

325.0

180.0

15.0

325.0

330.0

320.0

165.0

—Construction

300.0

110.0

115.0

Subtotal, FWS

300.0

275.0

280.0

—Operation of the National Park System

158.0

146.0

—Historic Preservation Funda

15.0

—Construction

1,700.0

589.0

——Historical and Cultural Resources

200.0

——Historic Preservation Funda

15.0

—Centennial Challenge

100.0

1,800.0

747.0

750.0

USGS, Surveys, Investigations, and Research

200.0

135.0

140.0

Subtotal, USGS

200.0

135.0

140.0

—Operation of Indian Programs

40.0

——Housing Improvement Program

20.0

—Construction

500.0

522.0

450.0

——Schools and Detention Centers

250.0

10.0

500.0

572.0

500.0

—Departmental Offices, Insular Affairs, Assistance to Territories

62.0

—Departmental Offices, Office of Inspector General, Salaries and

Expenses

15.0b

15.0

—Department-Wide Programs, Central Hazardous Materials

Fund

20.0

Subtotal, Other DOI

15.0b

97.0

15.0

3,140.0

2,156.0

2,005.0

—Construction

—Wildland Fire Management

Subtotal, BLM

FWS

—Resource Management

NPS

Subtotal, NPS

BIA

—Indian Guaranteed Loan Program Account

Subtotal, BIA

Other DOI

Subtotal, DOI

EPA

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Agency and Account

House Passed Senate Passed

Enacted

—Office of Inspector General

20.0

—Hazardous Substance Superfund

800.0

600.0

—Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program

200.0

—State and Tribal Assistance Grants

8,400.0

6,400.0

——Clean Water State Revolving Fund Grants

6,000.0

4,000.0

——Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Grants

2,000.0

——Brownfields Projects (grants for site assessment and cleanup

under §104(k) of CERCLA)c

100.0

—Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants (Title VII, Subtitle G, Energy

Policy Act of 2005)

300.0

9,420.0

7,200.0

7,220.0

—Capital Improvement and Maintenance

650.0

—Wildland Fire Management

850.0

485.0

500.0

——Federal Lands

300.0

250.0

——State/Private Forestry

550.0

260.0

250.0

50.0

1,500.0

1,135.0

1,150.0

—Indian Health Services

135.0

85.0

——Contract Health Services

50.0

——Health Information Technology

85.0

550.0

410.0

415.0

227.0

Subtotal, IHS

550.0

545.0

500.0

Smithsonian Institution, Facilities Capital

150.0

75.0

25.0

Subtotal, Smithsonian Institution

150.0

75.0

25.0

NEA, Grants and Administration

50.0

Subtotal NEA

50.0

Subtotal, EPA

——Grants for Using Biomassd

Subtotal, FS

IHS

—Indian Health Facilities

——Completion of Two Facilities

Total Appropriations

14,810.0

11,111.0

10,950.0

Source: The primary source of this information is the Congressional Record, February 13, 2009 p. H1546-H1548.

Note: The following agency acronyms are used in this table: BLM, Bureau of Land Management; FWS, Fish and

Wildlife Service; NPS, National Park Service; USGS, United States Geological Survey; BIA, Bureau of Indian

Affairs; DOI, Department of the Interior; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; FS, Forest Service; IHS, Indian

Health Service; NEA, National Endowment for the Arts.

The House-passed bill provided that $15.0 million of the funds provided for construction were to be

transferred to the Historic Preservation Fund. This appropriation is reflected in the table under the NPS

construction account for the House-passed bill.

The House-passed bill included these funds in Title I (General Provisions) of the bill, rather than in the title

for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

CERCLA is the acronym for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

of 1980.

In the Senate-passed bill, it appears that these funds were to be derived from the state/private forestry

amount. In the enacted bill, these funds were to be derived from the total for wildland fire management;

therefore, the $50.0 million is a subamount within the other line items.

Major Issues

Controversial funding and policy issues typically have been debated during consideration of the

annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Issues that have tended

to be controversial, that are discussed in subsequent sections of this report, include those 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 “Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)

•

Construction of BIA Schools and IHS Health Facilities, particularly whether to

enact funding cuts proposed in President Bush’s budget. (For more information,

see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the “Indian Health Service” sections in

this report.)

•

Indian Trust Funds, especially whether to enact reductions proposed in President

Bush’s FY2009 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

land acquisition. (For more information, see “The Land and Water Conservation

Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)

•

Outer Continental Shelf Leasing, particularly preleasing and leasing activities in

offshore areas. (For more information, see the “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 the “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

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

program. (For more information, see the “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

“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 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 “Wildland Fire

Management” section in this report.)

Status of Bill

Table 3, below, contains information on the development of the Omnibus Appropriations Act,

2009, which included funding for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Table 3. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,

FY2009 (H.R. 1105)

Subcommittee

Markup

House

Senate

06/11/08a

─

H. Comm. House S. Comm. Senate

Report

Passage

Report

Passage

─

02/25/09

245-178

Conf.

Report

Conference

Report

Approval

Public

Law

House

Senate

─

02/23/09

03/10/09

─ voice vote explanatory

statementb

03/11/09

P.L. 111-8

This subcommittee markup occurred on a draft of a different (unnumbered) bill.

This column identifies the explanatory statement on H.R. 1105 published in the Congressional Record on

February 23, 2009. Section 4 of P.L. 111-8 states that this statement “shall have the same effect with respect

to the allocation of funds and implementation of this Act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a

committee of conference. “

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Title I: Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management17

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 estate throughout the nation, and supervises 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.

The FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act provided $1.04 billion for the BLM, a $30.7 million

(3%) increase over FY2008 and a $39.5 million (4%) increase over the FY2009 Bush

Administration request.18 See Table 4. These figures do not include funds for DOI wildland fire

management. In the past, wildland fire funds have been appropriated to BLM for fire fighting on

all DOI lands. However, for FY2009, the Bush Administration proposed funding for DOI fire

fighting as a department-wide program, rather than through the BLM. The Bush Administration

had sought $850.1 million for DOI wildland fire management. The FY2009 omnibus law

contained $859.5 million, a $9.3 million (1%) increase over the FY2009 Bush Administration

request but a $332.6 million (28%) decrease from the $1.19 billion appropriated to the BLM for

FY2008. The FY2009 stimulus appropriations law contained an additional $15.0 million for BLM

for Wildand Fire Management. (For more information, see the “Wildland Fire Management”

section in this report.) Proposed funding for several key activities is discussed below.

The Bush Administration’s FY2009 budget included several suggested changes in law. For

instance, the Bush Administration suggested amending the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation

Act in part to alter the distribution of proceeds from land sales. Legislation would be needed to

make these changes, but such legislation has not been enacted. Under current law, proceeds are

deposited into a separate Treasury account and are available primarily for land acquisition.

President Bush’s proposal would have directed 70% of the proceeds to the general fund of the

Treasury. It would have capped receipts retained by DOI at $60 million annually, and directed

using updated land management plans to determine which lands to sell or exchange. The Bush

Administration supported these changes to increase the funds subject to oversight during the

appropriations process and to enhance the public benefits from land sales, according to the BLM

budget justification. The Bush Administration made similar proposals in earlier budget requests,

which were not enacted.

For more information on BLM funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

In this report, the Administration’s request for BLM is reported as $999.1 million, rather than the $987.4 million

indicated in the tables accompanying the explanatory statement on the FY2009 omnibus bill. Those tables reflect an

Administration reduction for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund as part of the BLM request, whereas this report

reflects that reduction in the request for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

The FY2009 omnibus law included $10.0 million for the Range Improvement Fund. The Bush

Administration had proposed to eliminate the fund, and consequently did not request an

appropriation. Table 4, below, nevertheless shows a request of $10.0 million because under

current law a portion of the grazing fees collected are deposited in the fund. The Administration

had sought a legislative change to direct that the grazing fee receipts that are deposited into the

fund instead be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury. Range improvements include

vegetation projects, fencing, and water developments. The Bush Administration had advocated

the change so that construction and maintenance of public land projects would be the

responsibility of public land users and interest groups, while allowing that BLM funds from other

accounts could be used for range improvements. The Bush Administration had proposed similar

changes in earlier budget requests.

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 FY2009 omnibus law contained $890.2 million, $36.3

million (4%) over the FY2008 level and $25.4 million (3%) over the FY2009 Bush

Administration request. The FY2009 stimulus law contained an additional $125.0 million for

Management of Lands of Resources, for activities including remediation of abandoned mines and

wells and also maintenance, rehabilitation, and restoration of facilities, property, trails, and lands.

Table 4. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),

FY2008-FY2009

($ in millions)

FY2008

Approp.

FY2009

Request

FY2009

Omnibus

FY2009

Stimulus

FY2009

Total

853.9

864.8

890.2

125.0

1,015.2

Construction

6.4

4.5

6.6

180.0

186.6

Land Acquisition

8.9

4.5

14.8

Oregon and California Grant Lands

108.5

108.3

109.9

Range Improvements

BLM

Management of Lands and Resources

10.0

Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeituresa

Miscellaneous Trust Funds and Permanent

Operating Funds

20.1

7.1

—Current Appropriations

20.1

-13.0

1,007.9

999.1

1,038.6

305.0

1,343.6

—Naval Oil Shale Reserves, Mineral Leasing Receipts

Total Appropriationsb

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

The figures do not reflect funds for DOI wildland fire management. For FY2008, $1.19 billion was

appropriated to the BLM for DOI wildland fire management. For FY2009, the Bush Administration sought

to fund wildland fire management as a department-wide program, with a request for $850.1 million. The

FY2009 omnibus law contained $859.5 million for DOI Wildland Fire Management, and the FY2009 stimulus

law included $15.0 for the BLM for Wildland Fire Management.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

The omnibus law specified $28.2 million from this account for the national monuments and

conservation areas of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), an increase of $6.4

million over the Administration’s request of $21.8 million. This system consists of approximately

27 million acres of BLM’s protected areas. Overall, the FY2009 omnibus law contained $60.8

million for the NLCS, from multiple accounts, an increase over both the FY2008 appropriation of

$54.2 million and the FY2009 Administration request of $49.9 million.

The FY2009 omnibus law provided less funding than FY2008 for some activities that are

funded by this account. For instance, it contained $45.9 million for recreation resources

management, a decrease from the FY2008 level of $50.5 million. However, in general the

FY2009 omnibus law contained increased funds for activities over the FY2008 level.

Among the increases were those for the following:

•

Soil, water, and air management: $6.3 million, from $34.3 million to $40.6

million. Included within the appropriation was an increase of $7.5 million for

abandoned mine remediation and inventory in the West;

•

Wild horse and burro management: $4.4 million, from $36.2 million to $40.6

million;

•

Wildlife management: $4.4 million, from $30.7 million to $35.1 million.

Included within the appropriation was an additional $4.6 million for the native

plant materials development program, which was moved from the DOI Wildland

Fire Management account; and

•

Resource protection and law enforcement: $4.9 million, from $22.6 million to

$27.5 million. Included in the appropriation was an increase of $5.1 million for

drug enforcement on BLM lands.

The FY2009 omnibus law included $99.4 million for energy and minerals management, a $10.5

million reduction from the FY2008 level of $109.9 million and a $32.6 million decrease from the

FY2009 Bush Administration request of $132.0 million. The lower appropriation for FY2009 was

primarily the result of $36.4 million in offsetting fees, as compared with $25.5 million for

FY2008 and none in the Administration’s request. These revenues are derived through a program

requiring payment of $4,000 for each application for a permit to drill oil and gas wells. Including

these revenues, the amount available for FY2008 was $135.4 million and the amount available for

FY2009 would be $135.8 million.

The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009, removed the prohibition on using funds to

prepare final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale or to conduct a

commercial oil shale lease sale. The funding prohibition had been included in the FY2008

appropriations law. According to the Department of the Interior and the oil industry, final

regulations were important for giving the industry greater certainty, regarding access to federal

lands. Final regulations were subsequently issued.

For the healthy lands initiative for FY2009, the omnibus law contained $7.8 million. These funds

would be derived from the appropriations for different activities, and would constitute an increase

of $2.9 million over the $4.9 million appropriated for FY2008. The Bush Administration had

sought a higher funding level—$14.9 million. The Administration anticipated using another $8.2

million in existing funds for the initiative for both FY2009 and FY2008, while raising $10.0

million in contributions from partners in FY2009 and $3.4 million in FY2008. The initiative

consists of vegetation resources enhancements to restore and improve the health and productivity

of western public lands across large areas of land. It currently focuses on six areas located in

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Utah, New Mexico, southwest Wyoming, southeast Oregon-southwest Idaho-northern Nevada,

south-central Idaho, and western Colorado. In its FY2009 budget justification, BLM stated that

these areas were selected due to an “urgent” need to maintain, improve, and restore wildlife

habitat to help preclude the need to list species under the Endangered Species Act. With the

additional funds sought in FY2009, the Administration was seeking to expand the Colorado

initiative and to add a seventh area—California. The FY2009 omnibus law did not specify how

the funding would be used.

Construction

For FY2009, the omnibus law contained $6.6 million for BLM construction, an increase of $0.2

million over FY2008 and $2.1 million over the Bush Administration’s request for FY2009. The

law included funding for two construction projects requested by the Administration as well as two

additional ones. The FY2009 stimulus law provided an additional $180.0 million to BLM for

construction, including for energy efficient retrofits of existing facilities and for construction,

reconstruction, decommissioning, and repair of roads, bridges, trails, property, and facilities. This

funding is significantly larger than has been provided for BLM construction in at least a decade.

Funds from FY1999 to the present have ranged from a low of $6.4 million in FY2008 to a high of

$16.8 million in FY2001.

Land Acquisition

For Land Acquisition for FY2009, the omnibus law included $14.8 million for eight specified

acquisitions. This was an increase of $5.8 million over FY2008 and $10.3 million over the Bush

Administration’s FY2009 request. The appropriation for BLM acquisitions had fallen steadily

from $49.9 million in FY2002 to $8.9 million for FY2008. Money for land acquisition is

appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (For more information, see the “Land

and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)

CRS Report R40237, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and

the Forest Service (FS): Issues for the 111th Congress, (name redacted), (name redacted),

(name redacted), and (name redacted).

For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its website at

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm.

Fish and Wildlife Service19

The omnibus appropriations law provided $1.44 billion for Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

accounts. This was $850,000 less than the FY2008 appropriation, which had included $75.0

million in emergency appropriations for construction. However, it was a $138.7 million increase

(11%) over President Bush’s request of $1.30 billion for FY2009.

By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resource Management

account, for which the omnibus law appropriated $1.14 billion. This was an increase of $58.3

million (5%) over FY2008 and of $72.1 million (7%) over the FY2009 Bush Administration’s

For more information on FWS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

request. Among the programs included in Resource Management are the Endangered Species

program, the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement. The stimulus law provided an additional

$280.0 million for FWS, to be spent in two accounts: Resource Management ($165.0 million) and

Construction ($115.0 million).

Table 5. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

FY2008-FY2009

($ in thousands)

FY2008

Approp.

FY2009

Request

FY2009

Omnibus Stimulus

FY2009

Total

Resource Management

1,082,616

1,068,886

1,140,962

165,000

1,305,962

—Ecological Services: Endangered Species

150,508

146,841

157,973

n/a

—Ecological Services: Habitat Conservation and

Environmental Contaminants

112,888

108,739

118,297

n/a

—National Wildlife Refuge System

434,124

462,859

n/a

—Migratory Birds, Law Enforcement & International

Conservation

118,919

120,906

126,717

n/a

—Fisheries

126,499

116,635

131,831

n/a

—General Administration

139,678

141,641

143,285

n/a

Construction

108,162

12,180

35,533

115,000

150,533

Land Acquisition

34,596

10,171

42,455

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund

73,831

75,501

National Wildlife Refuge Fund

13,980

10,811

14,100

North American Wetlands Conservation Fund

41,981

42,647

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

4,430

3,960

4,750

Multinational Species Conservation Fund

7,875

4,256

10,000

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants

73,830

75,000

-497

FWS Appropriations

Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund

(cancel prior-year funds)

Total Appropriations

1,441,301 1,301,745 1,440,451

280,000 1,720,451

Endangered Species Funding

Funding for the Endangered Species program is part of the Resource Management account, and is

one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The FY2009 omnibus

appropriation was $158.0 million, an increase over both the FY2009 request of $146.8 million

and the FY2008 level of $150.5 million. See Table 6.

Certain related programs also have benefitted conservation of species that are listed, or proposed

for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The omnibus law increased the Cooperative

Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to states and territories to conserve threatened

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

and endangered species) from $73.8 million in FY2008 to $75.5 million in FY2009.20 This was

the amount proposed by President Bush. The request included a proposal to cancel $4.5 million in

prior year balances, which Congress also accepted. See Table 6.

In total, the FY2009 appropriation contained $233.5 million for endangered species and related

programs, up 4% from the FY2008 level of $224.3 million and 5% from the FY2009 Bush

Administration request of $222.3 million.

Table 6. Appropriations for the Endangered Species Program and Related Programs,

FY2008-FY2009

($ in thousands)

FY2009

Omnibus Stimulusa

FY2009

Total

FY2008

Approp.

FY2009

Request

—Candidate Conservation

9,731

8,659

10,670

n/a

—Listing

17,978

18,188

19,266

n/a

—Consultation

51,758

51,577

53,462

n/a

—Recovery

71,041

68,417

74,575

n/a

150,508

146,841

157,973

n/a

73,831

75,501b

75,501

224,339

222,342

233,474

n/a

Endangered Species and Related Programs

Endangered Species Program

Subtotal, Endangered Species Program

Related Program:

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund

Total Appropriations

It is unclear what, if any, of the stimulus funding of $165.0 million appropriated to Resource Management

would be allocated to these programs. Because job creation is a major criterion for use of stimulus funds,

the Listing and Consultation Programs appear to be less likely to be eligible than Candidate Conservation

and Recovery, given the nature of their responsibilities.

Reflects a cancellation of $4.5 million in prior year balances.

Changing ESA Rules: Consultation and Polar Bears

In August 2008, FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed changes to the

regulations that address the consultation process under ESA.21 Final regulations were published

December 16, 2008, and took effect on January 15, 2009. The changes were considered

controversial. A provision of the omnibus law authorized the Secretaries of the Interior and

Commerce to withdraw or reissue the regulations within 60 days of enactment "without regard to

any provision of statute or regulation."22 This meant that no rulemaking steps would be required,

such as notice and comment periods. The law allowed the previous regulations to return to

Two other related programs were terminated in FY2008, when President Bush proposed, and Congress approved,

ending the Landowner Incentive Program ($23.7 million in FY2007) as well as Stewardship Grants ($7.3 million in

FY2007), which also benefit listed species. No funding was sought or provided for either program for FY2009.

See CRS Report RL34641, Changes to the Consultation Regulations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), by

(name redacted) and (name redacted).

P.L. 111-8, Div. E, Tit. I, § 429(a)(1).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

effect.23 On April 28, 2009, FWS announced that the new rules were rescinded and the old rules

would be in effect.

This provision of the omnibus appropriations law also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to

withdraw special rules that were issued for the threatened polar bear. The final rules were

published on December 10, 2008, and limited ESA protections to those protections already

available under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. They further limited requirements for

consultation about federal activities that may affect the species.24

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement

The omnibus appropriations law provided $462.9 million for refuge operations and maintenance.

The FY2008 appropriation was $434.1 million, the same level as was proposed by President Bush

for FY2009. The law increased wildlife and habitat management, refuge-based law enforcement,

visitor services, maintenance, and conservation planning. The Bush Administration had proposed

that a portion of the wildlife and habitat management spending be funded by the Land and Water

Conservation Fund, but Congress did not accept the proposal.

Costs of operations have increased on many refuges, partly due to special problems such as

hurricane damage and more aggressive border enforcement, but also due to increased use,

invasive species control, and other demands. Refuge funding was not keeping pace with new

demands, and these demands, combined with the rising costs of rent, salaries, fuel, and utilities,

led to cuts in funding for programs to aid endangered species, reduce infestation by invasive

species, protect water supplies, address habitat restoration, and ensure staffing at the less popular

refuges. While increases were provided to address these problems in recent years, the stimulus

law provided additional funding to address these concerns. However, some observers contend that

the system’s problems are on-going and will be significant after the stimulus funding is

exhausted.

The omnibus appropriations law contained $62.7 million for FY2009 for FWS law enforcement

nationwide, an increase of 5% over the FY2008 level of $59.6 million. The FY2009 Bush

Administration request was $57.4 million. Nationwide, law enforcement includes border

inspections and investigations of violations of endangered species or waterfowl hunting laws.

Refuges: Stimulus Funding

The FY2009 stimulus law provided the FWS with $165.0 million for Resource Management and

$115.0 for Construction, using nearly identical criteria for project selection. For both accounts,

the explanatory statement25 encouraged that “selection of individual projects be based on a

The law provided that if the rule was withdrawn, the Secretary "shall implement the provisions of law under which

the rule was issued in accordance with the regulations in effect under such provisions immediately before the effective

date of such rule, except as otherwise provided by any Act or rule that takes effect after the effective date of the rule

that is withdrawn." P.L. 111-8, Div. E, Tit. I, § 429(b).

For more analysis on the polar bear special rules, see CRS Report RL34573, Does the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Listing Provide More Protection of the Polar Bear?: A Look at the Special Rules, by (name redacted), and CRS

Report RL33941, Polar Bears: Listing Under the Endangered Species Act, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and

(name redacted).

H.Rept. 111-16, p. 439-440.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

prioritization process which weighs the capacity of proposals to create the largest number of jobs

in the shortest period of time and which creates lasting value for the American public. While

maximizing jobs, the Service should consider

priority critical deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects, trail

maintenance, and habitat restoration on National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish

Hatcheries, and other Service properties.” [for the Resource Management account]

priority construction, reconstruction and repair, critical deferred maintenance and

capital improvement projects, road maintenance, energy conservation projects and

habitat restoration on National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries and other

Service properties.” [for the Construction account]

FWS has elaborated that “[t]o complete this work, we plan to hire local laborers, building

contractors, companies and other entities to do the maintenance, repairs, retrofits, and

construction.”26 Refuges are likely to be among the biggest beneficiaries of the stimulus funding,

and the refuge maintenance backlog could be affected substantially. Improvements in energy

conservation at refuge visitor centers also appear likely. Habitat improvement might include

removal of invasive species, and recovery of protected species. To the extent that refuges are

scattered throughout the country, job creation should likewise be distributed.

Construction

The omnibus appropriations law contained $35.5 million for construction, an increase from the

President’s request of $12.2 million, but down 67% from the FY2008 total of $108.2 million. The

FY2008 total included regular appropriations of $33.2 million and $75.0 million in emergency

appropriations. The Construction account received an additional $115.0 million from the stimulus

law. This figure, along with the FY2009 annual appropriation, resulted in a total of $150.5 million

for Construction, up 39% over the total FY2008 appropriation.

Avian Flu

The omnibus law appropriated $4.9 million for avian flu research and monitoring, the level

requested by President Bush, and down 33% from the FY2008 level of $7.3 million. In addition,

Congress transferred the program from General Administration to the Migratory Bird

Management Program, as requested by President Bush. Under the program, FWS cooperates with

other federal and nonfederal agencies in studying the spread of the virus through wild birds.

Attention is on North 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

The omnibus appropriations law increased land acquisition funding for FY2009 to $42.5 million,

up from the FY2008 level of $34.6 million. For FY2009, President Bush’s budget had sought to

Personal communication to (name redacted) from Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, March 24, 2009.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

reduce Land Acquisition to $10.2 million, down 71%. The Administration had proposed that $0.9

million be allocated to Refuge Acquisition, down $19.8 million (96%) from FY2008. The

Administration asserted that the proposed reduction would allow the agency to better focus on

management of lands currently in the refuge system, by not adding to operations and maintenance

costs through additional acquisitions.27 See Table 7. In the past, the bulk of this FWS program

has 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. In recent years, less of the funding has been

reserved for traditional land acquisition. This program is funded with appropriations from LWCF.

(For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” in this report.)

Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS has a source of mandatory

spending for land acquisition. The account is permanently appropriated, with funds derived from

the sale of duck stamps to hunters and import duties on certain arms and ammunition. For

FY2009, President Bush proposed to increase the price of a duck stamp from the current $15 to

$25, with a further increase to $35 beginning in FY2013. No action has been taken on the

proposal. As annual appropriations for acquisitions under LWCF have declined, the MBCA

($43.7 million in FY2007, and an estimated $40.0 million for FY2008 and FY2009) has become

increasingly used to protect habitat for migratory birds, especially waterfowl. Other species in

these habitats benefit incidentally. President Bush’s budget assumed that Congress would enact an

increase in the price of duck stamps, and that as a result MBCA revenues for FY2009 would

increase 35% to $54.0 million.

Table 7. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS):

Land Acquisition Program, FY2008-FY2009

($ in thousands)

FY2008

Approp.

FY2009

Request

FY2009

Omnibus

Acquisitions—Federal Refuge Lands

20,676

900

28,315

Inholdings

2,953

1,500

3,000

1,500

Exchanges

1,477

1,537

1,500

Acquisition Management

8,013

3,240

8,140

Cost Allocation Methodology

1,477

1,494

1,500

34,596

10,171

42,455

FWS Land Acquisition

Emergencies & Hardships

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

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year FY2009: The Interior Budget in Brief, February 2008, p. DO-21.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

additional appropriations to make up the difference. As it often has in the past, Congress has

provided additional appropriations ─ $14.1 million for FY2009. This was a slight increase over

the FY2008 level of $14.0 million, and a 30% increase over the President’s request of $10.8

million. With refuge receipts, the FY2009 omnibus appropriation level would fund about 47% of

the authorized payment level, down from 51% in FY2008.28

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. The omnibus appropriations law contained $10.0

million for MSCF, an increase over President Bush’s request of $4.3 million and the FY2008

level of $7.9 million. The law also appropriated $4.8 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird

Conservation Fund (NMBCF). This was higher than President Bush’s FY2009 request of $4.0

million and the FY2008 level of $4.4 million. See Table 8.

Table 8. Appropriations for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF)

and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, FY2008-FY2009

($ in thousands)

FY2008

Approp.

FY2009

Request

FY2009

Omnibus

African Elephant

1,477

990

2,000

Tiger and Rhinos

1,969

990

2,500

Asian Elephant

1,477

990

2,000

Great Apes

1,969

990

2,000

Marine Turtles

983

296

1,500

Total MSCF Appropriations

7,875

4,256

10,000

Neotropical Migratory Birds

4,430

3,960

4,750

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 laws. (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

matching grants to states. A state’s allocation is determined by formula. The omnibus

appropriations law contained $75.0 million for FY2009. The appropriation for FY2008 was $73.8

million, and the FY2009 request was identical. See Table 9.

The National Wildlife Refuge Fund is distinct from the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program run by DOI, and

for which many types of federal lands are eligible. In 2009, Congress made PILT a mandatory spending program for

FY2008-FY2012, but did not change the Refuge Fund. See “Payments in Lieu of Taxes,” below.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Table 9. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2008-FY2009

($ in thousands)

FY2008

Approp.

FY2009

Request

FY2009

Omnibus

State Grants

62,724

63,000

Competitive Grants for States, Territories,

& Other Jurisdictions

4,922

5,000

Tribal Grants

6,184

7,000

73,830

75,000

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants

Total Appropriations

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 R40185, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 111th Congress: Conflicting

Values and Difficult Choices, by (name redacted), (name redacted), (name redacted), (name r

edacted), and (name redacted).

CRS Report RS21157, Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by (name redacted) and (na

me redacted).

For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at http://www.fws.gov/.

National Park Service29

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 protects,

preserves, interprets, and administers the park system’s diverse natural and historic areas

representing the cultural identity of the American people. The system has roughly 20 types of area

designations, including national parks, monuments, memorials, historic sites, battlefields,

seashores, recreational areas, and other classifications. The NPS mission is to protect park

resources and values, unimpaired, while making them accessible to the public. Park recreational

visits totaled nearly 275 million visits in 2008. 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 omnibus appropriations law included a total of $2.53 billion for the Park Service for FY2009,

with increases of $121.3 million (5%) compared to the Bush Administration’s FY2009 request

and $135.1 million (6%) more than the FY2008 enacted level. The law provided increases for

most NPS accounts. See Table 10. The Bush Administration’s request would have boosted

funding for the major park operations account, but it sought substantial reductions for the

For more information on NPS funding in general, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... For more information on

funding for historic preservation, contact Shannon Loane at 7-.....

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

recreation and preservation, construction, and land acquisition line items. A provision of the

FY2009 omnibus appropriations law extended the authorization for the NPS Advisory Board for

one year, until January 2010.

The condition of the national parks and the adequacy of their care and operating capacity

continues to be a congressional focus. Some advocacy groups claim that the park system has long

experienced chronic budget shortfalls. By one estimate, the national parks operate with two-thirds

of needed funding—a budget shortfall of more than $600 million annually.30

To be ready for the NPS’s 100th anniversary in 2016, the Bush Administration had proposed a

multi-year initiative, to begin in FY2008, to strengthen visitor services and other park programs.

The National Parks Centennial Initiative, announced by President Bush in August 2006, sought to

add up to $3 billion in new funds for the parks over 10 years through a public/private joint effort.

The initiative had 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

request that legislation be enacted to establish a mandatory fund with $100.0 million annually to

match the public donations. 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. (See the “Centennial Challenge” section, below.)

The stimulus law provided additional funding for three NPS budget accounts. In total, it

contained $750.0 million, close to the amount that originally had been supported by the Senate ─

$747.0 million. The House initially had supported a significantly higher level of funding for the

NPS ─ $1.80 billion. The House amount had included $100.0 million for the Centennial

Challenge program, which was not retained in the law. The largest amount of NPS funding in the

stimulus law was for construction, where the $589.0 million provided was more than double the

amount included in regular FY2009 appropriations. The funds for construction cover major

facility construction, road repair, and equipment replacement, among other programs. See Table

10. The $146.0 million in stimulus funds for park operations covered deferred maintenance of

facilities and trails, and other critical repair and rehabilitation projects. Language in the

explanatory statement on the bill for both NPS construction and park operations emphasized

agency flexibility in determining the allocation among activities, but encouraged projects that will

provide the most jobs in the shortest time and create lasting value for the park system. The $15.0

million for historic preservation was exclusively for grants to Historically Black Colleges and

Universities, and the law waived matching requirements for grants.

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

analysis.html.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Table 10. Appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS), FY2008-FY2009

($ in millions)

FY2008

Approp.

FY2009

Requesta

FY2009

Omnibusb

FY2009

Stimulus

FY2009

Total

Operation of the National Park System

1,970.6

2,130.7

2,131.5

146.0

2,277.5

—Park Management

1,744.5

1,889.1

1,894.8

n/a

—Administrative Costs

139.4

148.1

138.2c

n/a

—U.S. Park Police

86.7

93.6

98.6d

n/a

Centennial Challenge (Matching Program)e

24.6

National Recreation and Preservationf

67.4

45.5

59.7

Historic Preservation Fundf

70.4

66.1

69.0

15.0

84.0

Construction

218.5

172.5

232.5

589.0

821.5

Land and Water Conservation Fundg

-30.0

Land Acquisition and State Assistance

69.0

20.8

64.2

—Assistance to States

24.6

-1.0

19.0

—NPS Acquisition

44.4

21.8

45.2

2,390.5

2,404.3

2,525.6

750.0

3,275.6

NPS

Total Appropriations

Includes cancellation of $4.3 million of prior-year funds: $0.8 million for U.S. Park Police, $0.5 million for

Historic Preservation, $0.6 million for Construction, $1.0 million for Assistance to States, and $1.3 million

for Urban Parks and Recreation.

Includes cancellation of $3.5 million of prior-year funds: $0.5 million for Historic Preservation, $0.6 million

for Construction, $1.0 million for Assistance to States, and $1.3 million for Urban Parks and Recreation.

Includes savings of $9.9 million through delayed hiring and contracting.

Includes an additional $2.0 million for inaugural security.

The FY2009 request figure reflects the fact that the Bush Administration did not seek funding for the

matching program through annual appropriations.

Preserve America funding requested for FY2009 ($10.0 million) is included in the Historic Preservation

Fund. For FY2008, funds were included ($7.4 million) in National Recreation and Preservation.

Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.

Operation of the National Park System

The FY2009 omnibus appropriations law provided $2.13 billion to support overall park

operations, the same as requested, except that the request included a cancellation of $0.8 million

in prior-year Park Police funds. The enacted level was $160.9 million (8%) above the FY2008

level. See Table 10. Operations account funds will support 20,923 full-time equivalent (FTE)

positions, an increase of 622 FTEs above FY2008. The law also directed that $99.6 million be

targeted specifically for the maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of constructed park assets and

related purposes. As noted, the stimulus law contained an additional $146.0 million for FY2009

for the Operation of the National Park System.

The park operations line item is the primary source of funding for the national parks, accounting

for nearly 85% of the total NPS budget. The majority of operations funding is provided directly to

park managers. It supports the activities, programs, and services essential to the day-to-day

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

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 incorporated the U.S. Park

Police account into the operations line item.

United States Park Police (USPP)

The FY2009 omnibus law appropriated $98.6 million for the USPP, under the park operations

account, including $2.0 million specifically for security for the Presidential Inauguration. The

total is an increase of $5.0 million (5%) above the request (after the requested cancellation of $0.8

million in prior-year funds) and $11.8 million (14%) above FY2008. The funding is directed to

supporting additional recruits during 2009; as of the end January 2008, the number of sworn

USPP officers had fallen to a 20-year low of 576.

The USPP 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 USPP also assists other law enforcement agencies during

emergencies. The USPP support approximately 1,500 law enforcement trained and commissioned

park rangers and 400 seasonal law enforcement rangers working in park units system-wide.

A report by the DOI Inspector General cited serious deficiencies in USPP leadership, staffing,

training, and equipment.31 The report charged that the force was failing to adequately perform its

expanded security duties for the icon parks and monuments as well as other law enforcement

obligations, including patrol functions, dignitary protection, and special events and crowd

management. Since the release of the OIG report, the USPP Chief was reassigned and the senior

level commanders retired. A former USPP Major was brought out of retirement to serve as Acting

Chief,32 and in December 2008 was appointed permanently.

Centennial Challenge

As discussed above, the Bush Administration proposed a three-part National Parks Centennial

Initiative, with additional discretionary funding for park operations, and a Centennial Challenge

program consisting of public donations and federal funds to match the donations. President

Bush’s FY2009 budget requested $100.0 million in mandatory spending, which has not been

authorized by Congress to date. Neither the FY2009 omnibus law nor the stimulus law provided

funding for the Centennial Challenge.

Congress had provided $24.6 million as seed money for the Centennial Challenge in the FY2008

appropriations law, to be matched by equal private contributions. The FY2008 appropriations law,

and language in the House Appropriations Committee report on the FY2008 Interior

Appropriations bill (H.Rept. 110-187), directed that the Challenge money be used for signature

projects, not for core operations or for projects that commercialize parks, and that the NPS must

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Assessment of the United States Park Police, PI-EV-NPS0001-2007 (Washington, DC: February 2008).

Testimony of James Austin, Fraternal Order of Police, United States Park Police Labor Committee, “Restoring the

Federal Land Management Workforce,” before U.S. Congress, House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on

National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, March 19, 2009.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

control all projects. The Park Service has begun work on a number of projects funded through the

Centennial Challenge.

National Recreation and Preservation

The omnibus appropriations law included $59.7 million for FY2009 for National Recreation and

Preservation (NR&P), $14.2 million (31%) more than the Bush Administration’s request and $7.7

million (11%) less than FY2008. The reduction from FY2008 reflected the inclusion in FY2008,

in the NR&P line item, of $7.4 million for the Preserve America grant program. The program had

been traditionally funded elsewhere ─ in the Historic Preservation Fund. (See below.) NR&P

funds a variety of park system recreation, natural and cultural resource protection programs,

environmental and compliance review, and an international park affairs office, as well as

programs connected with state and local community efforts to preserve natural, historic, and

cultural resources.

The FY2009 omnibus law provided $15.7 million for the heritage partnerships program that

supports the national heritage areas (NHAs). This was an increase of $8.6 million (121%) above

the request and $0.4 million (3%) above FY2008. The increase from FY2008 was for $148,000 in

planning funds for each of the three newly authorized NHAs. In the explanatory statement on the

bill, the Appropriations Committees expressed concerns about the expanding numbers of NHAs,

and favored funding new areas principally by savings when mature programs graduate from

federal support. They directed the NPS to develop new guidelines for financial self-sufficiency

for all NHAs.

The omnibus appropriations law included $5.6 million for statutory and contractual aid and

directed specified allocations among the 10 recipients. This was $1.9 million (25%) less than the

FY2008 enacted. As in recent years, the Bush Administration had proposed discontinuing this

program. Under the program, limited financial assistance is provided through partnerships to

natural, historical, cultural, or recreational areas not managed by the NPS, in support of the NPS

mission to work with other agencies and state and local organizations to promote systems of

parks and open space nationwide.

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 was reauthorized (P.L. 109-453) on December 22, 2006, extending the funding

authority 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, a grant program for preservation and/or conservation work on nationally significant

intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic structures and sites.

The omnibus appropriations law provided $69.0 million for the HPF, compared to a FY2008 level

of $70.4 million, representing a 2% decrease, but a 4% increase over the FY2009 request of $66.1

million. See Table 10. The law increased funding for state and tribal historic preservation grants

by $3.1 million (8%) and $0.6 million (9%) respectively. Funding for Save America’s Treasures

was decreased by $4.6 million, down 19% from the $24.6 million appropriated in FY2008. The

Preserve America grant program—traditionally funded through the HPF but funded through

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

National Recreation and Preservation in FY2008—was not funded in the FY2009 appropriations.

Instead, the explanatory statement on the bill called for an evaluation of the program’s

effectiveness before further funding was committed.

Funding for the National Inventory of Historic Properties, a proposed program to help states and

tribal governments create an integrated inventory of historic properties, was not included in the

FY2009 appropriations. The FY2009 Bush Administration budget request had included $3.0

million for the program, of which $2.0 million would have funded grants through the HPF and the

balance would have been provided through the National Recreation and Preservation account. A

$5.0 million proposal for a similar program was included in the Bush Administration’s FY2008

request, but was not funded.

In the stimulus law, an additional $15.0 million was included for competitive grants to

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) for the preservation of campus buildings

listed in the National Register of Historic Places.33

Construction

The FY2009 omnibus appropriations law provided $232.5 million for the NPS construction

budget, a substantial boost ($60.1 million, 35%) above the request and $14.0 million (6%) above

FY2008. The Construction line item funds new construction projects, as well as improvements,

repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. DOI estimates deferred maintenance for

the NPS for FY2008 at between $8.23 billion and $12.11 billion, with a mid-range figure of

$10.17 billion. The additional $589.0 million for NPS construction provided in the stimulus law,

as well as the additional $146.0 million in the law for the Operation of the National Park System,

was expected to address some of this backlog.

Land Acquisition and State Assistance

The omnibus appropriations law provided $64.2 million under the Land and Water Conservation

Fund (LWCF). Funding was provided for NPS land acquisition and state assistance. For NPS land

acquisition, the FY2009 enacted level was $45.2 million, $23.4 million (107%) above the

Administration’s request and $0.8 million (2%) above the FY2008 appropriations. Land

acquisition funds are used to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for inclusion within the National

Park System. This account also includes money to buy inholdings—the private lands within park

boundaries. For LWCF state assistance, the Bush Administration had, as in past years, requested

no funds for FY2009. The FY2009 enacted level was $19.0 million, $5.6 million (23%) less than

the FY2008 level. State assistance is for recreation-related land acquisition and recreation

planning and development by the states, with the appropriated funds allocated among the states

by formula and the states determining their spending priorities. (For more information, see the

“Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)

CRS Report RL33617, Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by (name redacted).

Funding for the HBCU historic preservation grant program was not included in FY2007 through FY2009

appropriations. In FY2006, $3.0 million was appropriated for the program, which was established under the Omnibus

Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

CRS Report RL33525, Recreation on Federal Lands, by Kori Calvert, (name redacted), and

(name redacted).

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/.

U.S. Geological Survey34

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is a science agency that provides 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 eight

activities: Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing; Geologic Hazards,

Resources, and Processes; Water Resources Investigations; Biological Research; Enterprise

Information; Science Support; Facilities; and Global Climate Change Research. The FY2009

omnibus appropriations law provided $1.04 billion for the USGS, which was $37.3 million (4%)

over the FY2008 enacted level of $1.01 billion and $75.3 million (8%) over the FY2009 request

of $968.5 million. With the exception of Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote

Sensing, funding for all USGS programs remained about the same or increased beyond FY2008

levels. See Table 11.

As detailed below, the FY2009 omnibus appropriations law provided a $33.2 million increase

over FY2008 appropriations for global climate change research, and contained $40.2 million for

satellite operations related to the Landsat Program. It provided $6.5 million for the water

resources research institutes, which the Bush Administration had zeroed out in its FY2009

request. Further, the law included $79.2 million for geologic resource assessments, reversing a

proposed reduction of $24.6 million for the mineral resources assessment portion of this program.

The stimulus law provided an additional $140.0 million to the USGS for a variety of activities

including the repair and construction of facilities, upgrades to streamgages, seismic and volcano

monitoring systems, national map activities, and other critical activities that improve the Nation’s

science capacity.

For more information on USGS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Table 11. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FY2008-FY2009

($ in millions)

U.S. Geological Survey

FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 FY2009 FY2009

Approp. Request Omnibus Stimulus Total

Enterprise Information

110.4

112.1

112.5

n/a

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing

77.7

73.1

72.3

n/a

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes

243.5

208.0

242.1

n/a

Water Resources Investigations

220.5

203.0

221.4

n/a

Biological Research

179.9

180.3

185.3

n/a

Science Support

67.2

67.4

n/a

Facilities

100.0

98.1

102.1

n/a

7.4

26.6

40.6

n/a

1,006.5

968.5

1,043.8

140.0

1,183.8

Global Climate Change Research

Total Appropriations

Enterprise Information

The Enterprise Information Program consolidates funding of all USGS information needs

including information technology, security, services, and resources management, as well as

capital asset planning. The FY2009 omnibus appropriations law provided $112.5 million for this

program, $2.1 million above the FY2008 level.

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 public access to high quality geospatial information. The FY2009

omnibus appropriations law included $72.3 million for this program, $5.4 million below the

FY2008 level.

The omnibus appropriations law provided a total of $40.2 million for the Landsat program,

comprised of $24.2 million for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, also known as Landsat 8,

and $16.0 million to continue the Landsat 5 and 7 program. Landsat 8 is a satellite that is being

developed to take remotely sensed images of the Earth’s land surface and surrounding coastal

areas primarily for environmental monitoring. Landsat 5 and 7 are satellites currently providing

data of the Earth’s natural systems. The explanatory statement on the bill specified that funds for

future satellite development and launch costs associated with Landsat should not be transferred to

the USGS from NASA, until a new plan for future land imaging and remote sensing coordination

and funding is completed.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes

For Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes activities, the FY2009 omnibus law

appropriated $242.1 million, $1.3 million below the FY2008 level. This line item covers

programs in three activities: Hazard Assessments ($90.6 million), Landscape and Coastal

Assessments ($72.4 million), and Resource Assessments ($79.2 million).

The volcano hazards program received $23.9 million for FY2009, an increase of $1.7 million

over FY2008. The explanatory statement on the FY2009 omnibus bill noted that volcano research

and monitoring needs should be evaluated at active areas such as Hawaii, Yellowstone, the

Cascades, and Alaska.

The Bush Administration’s request included an $8.2 million increase over FY2008 levels to

support a water census component of the Water for America Initiative with the Bureau of

Reclamation. In the Landscapes and Coastal Assessments program, funds for the water census

were not provided for FY2009. The explanatory statement directed the Administration to submit a

more integrated program request for the next budget cycle.

The FY2009 omnibus law contained funding for mineral resource assessments, although none

had been recommended by the Bush Administration as in previous years. According to the Bush

Administration, universities or other entities would undertake assessments and research that

support nonfederal needs. In all years Congress retained funding for the program.

Water Resources Investigations

The FY2009 omnibus law appropriated $221.4 million for this program, $0.8 million above the

FY2008 level. Funding for water resources research at universities was included. This countered

a Bush Administration request that sought to discontinue USGS support for water resources

research institutes because, according to the Bush Administration, most institutes have succeeded

in leveraging sufficient funding for program activities from non-USGS sources.

Of the $221.4 million, $65.1 million was included for the National Water Quality Assessment.

This was an increase of $1.1 million over FY2008, and countered a Bush Administration request

to reduce funding by $9.8 million from the FY2008 level. The Groundwater Resources Program

was funded at $9.0 million. While this program did not include funding for the Water for America

Initiative, it will support that Initiative by helping to assess water availability and water quality

and conducting region-specific assessments of ground water. However, the explanatory statement

on the bill noted that a revamped proposal for the Initiative should be presented in the FY2010

budget cycle. Also, there was a $2.0 million increase for the streamgage program over FY2008,

for a total of $22.4 million for the National Streamflow Information Program for FY2009.

Streamgage replacement and upgrades were included as projects for funds in the stimulus law.

Biological Research

The Biological Research Program generates and distributes information related to conserving and

managing the nation’s biological resources. The FY2009 omnibus appropriations law provided

$185.3 million for this program, a $5.5 million increase over FY2008. The program funds work

in focal areas that will support DOI’s science strategies, including research on effects of climate

change on wildfires and ecosystems, large river ecosystem processes and habitat, vertebrate

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

diseases and impacts, gap analysis35 and taxonomic research, and adaptive management. Under

this program, funding was provided for priority ecosystems located in the Greater Everglades,

Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, and Mojave Desert. The omnibus law also moved funding

for priority ecosystem science from other activities to the Biological Research Program.

Science Support and Facilities

Science Support focuses on those costs associated with modernizing the infrastructure for

managing and disseminating scientific information. The omnibus appropriations law provided

$67.4 million for FY2009, similar to the FY2008 enacted level. Facilities focuses on the costs for

maintenance and repair. The FY2009 omnibus law included $102.1 million, $2.2 million above

the FY2008 level. The additional $140.0 million provided to the USGS in the stimulus law was

for repair, construction, and restoration of facilities, among other purposes.

Global Climate Change Research

The FY2009 omnibus law combined most of the climate change activities of the USGS into an

integrated global climate change research program. It provided $40.6 million for this program, an

increase of $33.2 million over FY2008 in part through internal budget transfers. In total, USGS

received $45.5 million for climate change science in FY2009, an increase of $12.0 million over

total funds for FY2008. Work under the climate change research program seeks to provide

science, monitoring, and predictive modeling to generate information on climate changes and its

effect on the resources and landscape of the United States. Specifically, scientists will continue to

track indicators of climate change and link them to effects. Further, work is planned to develop

decision support tools for policy makers and resource managers to develop and implement

adaptation strategies. Some specific projects will concentrate on the effects of climate change on

forest carbon storage, the use of glaciers as indicators of climate change, ecosystem modeling,

and the effects of climate change on the Yukon River Basin.

The FY2009 omnibus law included $10.0 million for a new National Global Warming and

Wildlife Science Center. The explanatory statement expressed that the Center should develop

mechanisms to ensure its responsiveness to the research and management needs of federal and

state agencies regarding impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, plants, and ecosystems. The

Center also was tasked with studying mechanisms for adaptation to climate change and mitigation

of its impacts. The explanatory statement recommended that the Secretary of the Interior, with the

assistance of the Center and a scientific advisory board, develop a national strategy to assist

plants, wildlife, and ecosystems to adapt and become resilient to climate change. It encouraged

collaboration with other federal, state, and private stakeholders in developing this strategy.

Further, the law contained at least $3.0 million for geological and biological carbon sequestration

studies under this heading, according to the explanatory statement.

For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website at http://www.usgs.gov/.

Gap analysis identifies the degree to which native animal species and plant communities are represented in federal

lands.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Minerals Management Service36

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the Offshore Energy and

Minerals Management (OEMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM)

Program. OEMM administers competitive leasing on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands and

oversees production of offshore oil, gas, other minerals, and offshore alternative energy. On April

22, 2009, the Obama Administration announced that regulations for the administration of

alternative energy leases in the OCS had been finalized.37 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.

MMS collected and disbursed about $23.5 billion in revenue in FY2008 from mineral leases on

federal and Indian lands. This amount fluctuates annually based primarily on the prices of oil and

natural gas. For about a decade prior to FY2007, royalties from natural gas production accounted

for 40% to 45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties were not more than 25%. However,

in FY2007, oil royalties accounted for about 39% of MMS receipts. In FY2008, royalties from

natural gas and oil leases contributed about 25% each, while record bonus bids accounted for

about 44% of MMS receipts. Other sources of MMS receipts include rents for all leaseable

minerals and royalties from coal and other minerals.

Budget and Appropriations

The FY2009 funding level for MMS was $310.4 million (gross funding level), composed of:

$116.7 million in appropriations (net funding level); $146.7 million in offsetting collections,

which the MMS has been retaining since 1994; and $47.0 million in state cost sharing deductions.

See Table 12. This was an increase in the gross funding level of $13.6 million (5%) from the

FY2008 level of $296.8 million, but a decrease of $1.4 million (1%) from FY2008 total net

funding of $118.1 million.

For FY2009, the Bush Administration had sought gross funding of $307.1 million FY2009 or a

$160.4 net funding level. The Bush Administration’s net funding request was much higher than

the amount enacted for FY2009 because the $47.0 million deduction for royalty cost-sharing with

the states was not included in the Administration’s request.

Table 12. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service (MMS),

FY2008-FY2009

($ in millions)

Minerals Management Service

FY2008

Approp.

FY2009

Request

FY2009

Omnibus

Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management

For more information on MMS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

For details on the content and status of the regulations, see the MMS website at http://www.mms.gov.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

—OCS Lands (OEMM)

161.3

164.0

166.2

—Royalty Management (MRM)

81.7

86.0

86.7

—General Administration

47.5

51.0

51.2

—Gross, Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management

290.5

301.0

304.1

—Use of Receipts and Cost Recovery Fees

-135.7

-146.7

Subtotal, Royalty and Offshore Minerals

Management Appropriations

154.8

154.3

157.4

6.3

6.1

6.3

—State Royalty Administrative Cost Deduction

-43.0

-47.0

Total Appropriations

118.1

160.4

116.7

Oil Spill Research

Administrative Provisions

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 had been in place since 1982, as a result of public laws and executive orders of

the President. On July 14, 2008, President Bush lifted the executive moratoria, which included

MMS Planning areas along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In the Continuing Appropriations

Resolution, 2009, Congress removed the annual moratoria provisions that included the Atlantic

and Pacific coasts; these coastal areas could now be made available for future oil and gas

development. An OCS moratoria was not reinstated in the omnibus appropriations law for

FY2009.

Whether to reinstate the moratoria remains highly controversial. Their removal was supported in

an attempt to increase domestic oil and gas supply. Others favored continuing the moratoria due

to concerns about adverse economic and environmental impacts of development. Congress

enacted legislation in the 109th Congress (P.L. 109-432) to open part of the Gulf of Mexico (about

5.8 million acres), but the law placed nearly all of the eastern Gulf under a leasing moratorium

until 2022. The law also contained revenue sharing provisions for selected coastal states. While

the current MMS 5-year leasing program is in effect, the Bush Administration initiated a new

leasing program in August 2008. Its draft program proposal published in January 2009, if

finalized, would take effect in 2010. The Obama Administration, however, extended the

comment period from its typical 60 days to 240 days (an additional 180 days). Because of the

uncertainty over resource assessments and environmental concerns, the Secretary of the Interior

announced that the Department would like to examine more closely the current information on

the OCS. Legislation has been introduced in the 111th Congress to permanently prohibit oil and

gas leasing and development in the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Planning Areas of the OCS.

(For more information, see CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and

Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, by (name redacted).)

Royalty relief for OCS oil and gas producers has been debated during consideration of Interior

appropriations bills. The MMS has not been collecting 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

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

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.

In addition, the authority of the Secretary to impose price thresholds has come into question in a

lawsuit filed by Kerr-McGee.38 The U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana issued a

ruling on October 18, 2007, in favor of Kerr-McGee,39 meaning that the Secretary of the Interior

did not have authority to impose price threshold levels in leases issued under the Deep Water

Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA, 1996-2000). The Department of the Interior appealed the District

Court ruling. On January 12, 2009, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in

New Orleans upheld the District Court decision.40 The ruling could apply to potentially $23-$31

billion in future OCS royalties according to the MMS, but may not affect congressional efforts to

impose new fees or establish new lease eligibility criteria.41 The GAO estimates the range of

royalty revenue loss to the federal Treasury at between $21-$53 billion over 25 years. The ranges

of MMS and GAO estimated losses are based on a number of assumptions including future prices

and production rates.

There are discussions underway in the 111th Congress on how to address the royalty relief issue

involving price thresholds and DWRRA leases. In the 110th Congress, the House passed H.R.

6899, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. Under Title I,

this legislation would, among other provisions, have required the Secretary of the Interior to

accept a lessee’s request to modify those leases without price thresholds (“covered leases”) to

include price thresholds. The bill would not have made new oil and gas leases in the Gulf of

Mexico available to lessees holding “covered leases” unless current leases included price

thresholds or the lessee agreed to pay the proposed “conservation of resources fee.”42 The bill also

would have affirmed the Secretary’s authority to impose a price threshold in certain leases. The

royalty relief provisions were not enacted into law.

Another challenge confronting the MMS is to ensure that its audit and compliance program is

consistently effective. Critics contend that less auditing and more focus on compliance review has

led to a less rigorous royalty collection system and thus a loss of revenue to the federal Treasury.

DOI’s Inspector General has made recommendations to strengthen and improve administrative

controls of the Compliance and Asset Management Program. Further, DOI established an

independent panel (the Royalty Policy Committee—RPC) to review the MMS Mineral Leasing

Program. The RPC offered over 100 recommendations to the MMS for improving its leasing

program and auditing function. The review included an examination of the Royalty-in-Kind

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 2007.43 The Government

For more details on this case, see CRS Report RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework, by

(name redacted).

Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. v. Allred.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

See CRS Report RL33974, Legal Issues Raised by Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R. 6) Creating Incentives for

Certain OCS Leaseholders to Accept Price Thresholds, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) and CRS Congressional

Distribution Memorandum: Impact of the Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp. v. Allred Ruling on the Proposed Royalty

Relief for America Consumers Act of 2007, by (name redacted).

The fee would be $9/barrel oil and $1.25/million Btu natural gas on covered producing leases and $3.75/acre annually

on non-producing leases.

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.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Accountability Office issued a report on September 26, 2008, concluding that the Royalty-inKind Program could be improved.44

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).

For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website at

http://www.mms.gov.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement45

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87; 30 U.S.C.

§1201 note) established the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) to

ensure that land mined for coal would be returned to a condition capable of supporting its premining land use. However, coal mining is an old activity in the United States, and at the time

SMCRA was enacted there was a large inventory of abandoned mine sites that no company could

be held accountable to reclaim. To address this problem, SMCRA established an Abandoned Mine

Reclamation Fund,46 with fees levied on coal production, to reclaim abandoned sites that posed

serious health or safety hazards.

The omnibus appropriations law provided a total of $164.7 million for the Office of Surface

Mining for FY2009, an increase of $27.1 million (20%) over the Bush Administration’s request,

and a reduction of $5.7 million from the FY2008 enacted level of $170.4 million. Of the total of

$164.7 million, the omnibus law contained $120.3 million for Regulation and Technology, an

increase over the Bush Administration’s request and the amount enacted for FY2008 ─ $118.5

million. The $1.8 million over FY2008 included an increase of $1.0 million for assistance to state

regulatory programs for environmental protection. Reflecting an $8.5 million rescission of prior

year unobligated balances, the net appropriation for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund was

$44.4 million. This was $25.3 million above the Bush Administration’s request of $19.1 million.

See Table 13.

The Bush Administration’s request also had proposed a rescission. Specifically, on August 1,

2008, President Bush submitted an amendment to his budget request to cancel $11.7 million of

unobligated balances in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.47 The amendment reduced

The report is available at U.S. Government Accountability Office, Oil and Gas Royalties: MMS’s Oversight of Its

Royalty-in-Kind Program Can Be Improved through Additional Use of Production Verification Data and Enhanced

Reporting of Financial Benefits and Costs, GAO-08-942R, September 26, 2008.

For more information on OSM funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

Hereafter this fund is referred to as the AML fund.

In this report, the Administration’s request is reported as $137.6 million, rather than the $149.3 million indicated in

the tables accompanying the joint explanatory statement on the FY2009 omnibus bill. Those tables reflect the

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

President Bush’s request for AML funds to $19.1 million. The Administration asserted that this

level would be sufficient to meet the needs of discretionary reclamation as the discretionary grant

program is phased out, and that these needs would be met from funds in the mandatory

appropriation. The reduction from the AML request was proposed as an offset to an increase for

the Bureau of Land Management to fund the cost of environmental investigation and restoration

at Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 3 in Colorado.

The FY2009 Bush Administration’s request did not include new funding for State Emergency

Grants, and Federal Emergency Projects owing to a sufficient carryover of funds from FY2008.

The Bush Administration asserted that funding for these programs could cease when these funds

were exhausted because the changes to the AML program would be making additional funds

available to states and tribes to manage their own AML emergency programs.48 Congress

disagreed, maintaining a federal appropriation for this purpose in the omnibus appropriations law,

adding $25.3 million to the Administration’s request for the Fund.

Table 13. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, FY2008-FY2009

($ in millions)

FY2008

Approp.

FY2009

Requesta

FY2009

Omnibus

Regulation and Technology

118.5

120.3

—Environmental Protection

87.4

86.9

88.4

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund

52.0

30.8

52.9

—Rescission

-11.7

-8.5

170.4

137.6

164.7

Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement

Total Appropriations

See note 53.

Until FY2008, disbursements from the AML fund were determined strictly by annual

appropriations. SMCRA 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 were divided up and assigned to different accounts, some of which

were designated to a federal share account that partly funded reclamation based upon a state’s

historical coal production. A portion of fee collections also was credited to a state share account.

Application of a complex formula—and other considerations—determined what portion of the

annual appropriation each state with an approved program would receive. Grants from the

appropriation to a state or tribe were drawn on both a state’s federal-share and state-share

accounts.

(...continued)

Administration’s reduction for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund as part of the BLM request, whereas this report

reflects that reduction in the OSM request.

Fifteen states manage their own emergency programs: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Fee 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 $2.1 billion

by the end of FY2007, of which approximately $1.3 billion was 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. As coal

production has shifted westward, western states have paid more into the fund. These states

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.49 Noting, in particular, the

steadily increasing unappropriated balances in their state share accounts, Western states pressed

for increases in the annual AML appropriations to return more of the unappropriated balances to

them. These concerns were addressed by several changes to the program included in P.L. 109432. Beginning in FY2008, state and tribal grants were funded by mandatory appropriations from

general U.S. Treasury funds. But some activities 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.

Annual collections deposited to the AML fund are included in the calculation of total funds to be

distributed to states and tribes during the fiscal year that follows.50 Additionally, under the

restructuring, the balances in the state- and tribal-share accounts of states and tribes that have

completed remediation of the highest priority sites are to be returned to the states or tribes in

seven annual installments paid from general Treasury funds.51 These states and tribes, referred to

as “certified,” also are to receive whatever grants they would be entitled to based upon

application of the distribution formula to both prior year collections and the entitlement based

upon its historic coal production.

Other changes enacted in P.L. 109-432 were designed to make more funds available on an annual

basis to states with significant reclamation work yet to be done. The portion of AML collections

from certified states that, under the old program, would have been deposited to those states’ stateshare accounts are instead credited to the federal-share account, the state balances of which

represented historical coal production. The allocation of a portion of AML fee collections under

the old program to the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP) also was discontinued by P.L.

109-432. The unappropriated balances in the RAMP account also were transferred to the pool of

funds representing state historical coal production. These changes were made with the intention

of increasing the pool of money available for distribution to “uncertified states” (those states that

have not reclaimed the most serious sites). Disbursements to uncertified states are based upon

their proportionate entitlement from the historical coal production account as well as the amount

that otherwise would have been deposited to the state-share account.52

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.

The permanent appropriation has a ceiling of $490 million annually. If demands on that money would exceed the

cap, distributions will be proportional.

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.

Whether or not fee collections are reauthorized beyond FY2021, mandatory distributions will continue as long as

money remains in the AML fund.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Under P.L. 109-432, distributions to uncertified states will be 50% of the designated amount in

FY2009, and 75% in FY2010 and FY2011, before reaching 100% beginning in FY2012. Certified

states will receive 50% of their designated amount in FY2009, 75% beginning in FY2010, and

the full amount beginning in FY2011. Once fully in place, OSM estimates that 83% of annual fee

collections will be distributed to states and tribes outside the appropriation process.53

For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, see its

website at http://www.osmre.gov/.

Bureau of Indian Affairs54

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally recognized

American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and historically has been the lead

agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs provided or funded through the BIA include

government operations, courts, law enforcement, fire protection, social programs, roads,

economic development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian rights protection,

implementation of land and water settlements, and management of trust assets (real estate and

natural resources). Education programs are now provided by the Bureau of Indian Education

(BIE), a sister agency to BIA.55 The BIE appropriations remain within DOI’s Indian Affairs

appropriations.

The FY2009 omnibus appropriations act provided $2.38 billion for BIA and BIE, an increase of

$84.9 million (4%) over FY2008. For FY2009, the Bush Administration had proposed $2.19

billion, a decrease of $99.9 million (4%) below FY2008.

The FY2009 stimulus law added $500.0 million in emergency supplemental appropriations for

the BIA, which, together with the FY2009 omnibus funding, increased Indian Affairs funding by

26% compared to FY2008. The stimulus law targeted $450.0 million toward BIA “priority

critical” construction programs, specifically for road repair and restoration, construction of BIE

replacement schools, and maintenance and repair of BIE schools and BIA detention centers,

according to the explanatory statement. Of the remaining $50.0 million, the stimulus law

specified $40.0 million for BIA’s workforce training and housing improvement programs and

$10.0 million for BIA’s guaranteed loan program. The conferees on the bill encouraged that BIA

spend the construction funds to maximize jobs and to create both the largest number of jobs in the

shortest period of time and lasting value for the American public. The stimulus law excluded BIA

construction projects from its blanket provision requiring payment of prevailing wage rates under

the Davis-Bacon Act, thereby retaining the current prevailing wage rate requirements applicable

to BIA construction activities (under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance

Act56 and other laws). On April 25, 2009, DOI released details on projects which will be funded

with BIA stimulus monies.57

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Budget Justifications and

Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2009, p. 148.

For more information on BIA funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....

In August 2006, the BIA’s administrative office for its education programs was removed from the BIA, made a

parallel agency under DOI’s Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, and renamed the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).

Sec. 7, P.L. 93-638, act of Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, 2205, as amended; 25 U.S.C. 450e.

For further information, see the BIA stimulus page at http://recovery.doi.gov/press/bureaus/bureau-of-indian-affairs/.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Table 14 below presents funding figures for FY2008 and FY2009, including both omnibus and

stimulus appropriations. Key programs for BIE include education management, education

construction, the Johnson-O’Malley program, and tribal technical colleges. Key programs for BIA

include the law enforcement, welfare assistance, housing, and road maintenance programs, and

the Interior Department’s process for acknowledging Indian tribes.

Table 14. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

(including Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)), FY2008-FY2009

($ in thousands)

FY2009 Request

FY2009

Omnibus Stimulusb

FY2008

Approp.

Total

TPAa

399,863

389,703

381,966

402,531

—Johnson-O’Malley Grantsc

7,565

—Welfare Assistanced

7,549

5,000

—Contract Support Costs

147,294

Human Services

139,339

112,426

108,287

137,448

19,000

156,448

—Welfare Assistanced

78,928

64,491

74,915

—Housing Improvement Programe

13,614

19,000

32,614

Trust - Natural Resources Management

147,158

141,822

65,739

147,710

Trust - Real Estate Services

148,370

150,087

63,539

150,087

—Probate

19,573

20,334

12,952

20,334

—Real Estate Services

47,216

48,140

33,828

48,140

—Land Records Improvement

15,814

15,659

Public Safety and Justice

243,656

242,774

13,197

270,785

—Law Enforcement

228,137

229,577

255,077

——Detention/Corrections

64,023

64,648

—Tribal Courts

14,338

12,047

14,508

Community and Economic Development

39,436

27,171

25,385

43,589

19,000

62,589

—Road Maintenancef

25,576

13,028

26,046

26,046f

—Construction workforce on-the-job training

in maintenance

13,300

—Workforce training

5,700

Executive Direction Administrative

Services

240,375

260,327

27,145

260,327

—Office of Federal Acknowledgment

2,593

2,614

—Information Resources Technology

52,866

59,735

Bureau of Indian Education

689,612

663,980

24,935

716,153

—Elementary/ Secondary (Forward-Funded)

479,895

475,594

499,470

Indian Affairs

FY2009

Total

Operation of Indian Programs

Tribal Government

—Housing Improvement Programe

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

FY2009 Request

FY2009

Omnibus Stimulusb

FY2009

Total

FY2008

Approp.

Total

——ISEP Formula Funds

358,341

364,556

375,000

——Education program Enhancements

12,108

5,217

12,108

—Elementary/Secondary—Other

74,621

61,329

75,126

——Johnson-O’Malley Grantsc

13,782

13,797

—Post Secondary Programs

111,749

100,772

24,935

115,272

——Tribal Colleges and Universities (incl.

Supplements)

58,093

60,593

——Tribal Technical Colleges

5,906

6,000

—Education Management

23,347

26,285

2,047,809

1,988,290

710,193

2,128,630

38,000

2,166,630

Education Construction

142,935

115,376

n/a

128,837

277,700

406,537

—Replacement School Construction

46,716

22,405

n/a

22,405

134,600

157,005

—Replacement Facility Construction

9,748

17,013

n/a

17,013

—Education Facilities Improvement and

Repair

84,529

74,363

n/a

84,974

143,100

228,074

Public Safety and Justice Construction

14,393

11,433

n/a

39,399

7,300

46,699

—Facilities Replacement/New Construction

n/a

21,500

—Employee Housing

n/a

3,500

—Law Enforcement Facilities Improvement

and Repair

10,938

7,975

n/a

10,941

7,300

18,241

Resources Management Construction

38,309

37,306

n/a

40,306

General Administration Construction and

Construction Management

8,117

9,146

n/a

9,146

142,500f

Subtotal, Construction

203,754

173,261

n/a

217,688

427,500

645,188

Land and Water Claim Settlements

and Miscellaneous Payments

33,538

21,627

n/a

21,627

Indian Guaranteed Loan Program

6,178

8,186

n/a

8,186

9,500

17,686

Administrative Costs for Stimulusg

25,000

2,291,279

2,191,364

710,193

2,376,131

500,000

2,876,131

Indian Affairs

Subtotal, Operation of Indian

Programs

TPAa

Construction

Road Maintenancef

Total Appropriations

Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) are a subset of funds within OIP. The amounts in the TPA column are

included in the “FY2009 Request—Total” column in the table. “N/A” is shown for accounts where TPA

does not apply. Tribes may apply their own priorities to TPA programs, moving funds among programs

without prior BIA approval and without triggering congressional Appropriation Committees’ requirements

for approval of reprogramming.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

BIA created new categories of funding for stimulus expenditures, which are similar to, but not included in,

regular budget activities and classifications (BIA, telephone conversation, April 28, 2009). For purposes of

comparison only, CRS has included stimulus funding within this table’s usual budget items where possible.

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

Indian Education.

Welfare Assistance is split between two budget activities, Tribal Government and Human Services.

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

Services.

The stimulus appropriations law specified $40.0 million for Operation of Indian Programs (OIP) and $450.0

million for Construction, but directed an unspecified amount of Construction funding to go to Road

Maintenance, which is an OIP program. Stimulus funding for Road Maintenance is reflected here under

Construction. Total FY2009 Road Maintenance funding under OIP and Construction was $168.5 million.

DOI allocated 5% of BIA’s total stimulus funding for administrative costs associated with control and

transparency of stimulus spending, the maximum percentage allowed under the stimulus conference report

(H.Rept. 111-16, p. 447).

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs

BIE funds an elementary-secondary school system and higher education programs. The BIE

school system comprises 184 BIE-funded schools and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000

structures, educating about 44,000 students in 23 states. In school year 2006-2007, tribes and

tribal organizations, under grants for tribally controlled schools and self-determination contracts,

operated 123 of these institutions; BIE operated the remainder. BIE also operates two

postsecondary schools and provides grants to 26 tribally controlled colleges and two tribally

controlled technical colleges. Key problems for the BIE-funded school system are low student

achievement and the high proportion of schools failing to make adequate yearly progress (AYP).

Key appropriations issues include initiatives to meet AYP, the Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) program,

tribal technical colleges, and the large number of inadequate school facilities.

Indian Education Initiative

In school years 2003-2006, 69%-70% of BIE-funded schools failed to make AYP, according to

BIE. In FY2008, under a new “education program enhancements” initiative, BIE’s forwardfunded elementary and secondary budget activity received $12.1 million to improve instructional

resources at BIE schools targeted for restructuring or corrective action to meet AYP goals. Among

the activities funded are teacher development, principal training, intensive reading and math

programs, and tutoring and mentoring for high school students. The same amount ($12.1 million)

was appropriated for education program enhancements for FY2009 under the omnibus

appropriations act. The Bush Administration had proposed $5.2 million for FY2009, a decrease of

$6.9 million (57%) from FY2008.

Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) Program

The JOM program provides supplementary education assistance grants for tribes and public

schools to benefit Indian students who attend public schools (the majority of Indian students).

JOM is funded in two budget activities, Tribal Government and BIE. For FY2009, the omnibus

law appropriated a total of $21.4 million for JOM for FY2009, an increase of $15,000 (less than

1%) from FY2008’s total of $21.3 million, but an increase from the Bush Administration’s

proposal of no funding. JOM funding in the BIE budget activity for FY2009 was $13.80 million,

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

up slightly from $13.78 million in FY2008, and JOM funding in the Tribal Government budget

activity for FY2009 was $7.6 million, the same as FY2008. The Bush Administration had

proposed no funding for the JOM program for several years (including FY2009), contending that

JOM’s funding of public school programs reduces BIE’s commitment to its school system, that

JOM does not address a focused academic achievement goal, and that Department of Education

programs under Title VII (Indian education) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act58

provide funds for the same purposes. JOM proponents assert that JOM serves students in tribally

operated as well as public schools and that Education Department programs cannot replace what

they see as JOM’s culturally relevant programs.

Tribal Technical Colleges

There are two tribal career and technical (or vocational) colleges, one in North Dakota (United

Tribes Technical College, or UTTC) and one on the Navajo Reservation (Navajo Technical

College, formerly Crownpoint Institute of Technology). Both colleges have been statutorily

excluded from the basic BIE assistance program for tribal colleges and universities under the

Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act,59 but are the only colleges receiving

grants under the Education Department’s Carl Perkins Act program for tribally controlled

vocational colleges.60 The Bush Administration had for several years, including FY2009, sought

to end funding for the two technical colleges, asserting that they receive adequate funding from

the Perkins Act and other Education Department higher education programs and that the funds are

needed more at the 26 tribal colleges and universities. Tribal technical college proponents

disagree, asserting that they provide unique culturally appropriate career and technical education

programs and campus services, and that BIE funding provides a very large proportion of their

operating budgets (over half at UTTC, for instance).

The omnibus appropriations law appropriated $6.0 million for the tribal technical colleges for

FY2009, a slight (1.6%) increase from the FY2008 total of $5.9 million, and an increase from the

Bush Administration’s proposal for no funding.

Education Construction

Many BIE school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety deficiencies. BIA

education construction covers replacement of all of a school’s facilities, or replacement of

individual facilities at schools, as well as improvement and repair of existing school facilities and

repair of education employee housing. School facilities are replaced or repaired according to

priority lists. Appropriations for BIA education construction under the omnibus appropriations

law for FY2009 were $128.8 million, a decrease of $14.1 million (10%) from the FY2008 total of

$142.9 million and an increase of $13.5 million (12%) from the Bush Administration’s request.

Under the stimulus law, however, BIA education construction received an additional $277.7

million for education construction projects, for a total of $406.5 million for education

construction in FY2009. Table 14 shows education construction funds for FY2008 and FY2009.

This program is contained in 20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

P.L. 95-471, act of Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1325, as amended; 25 U.S.C., Chap. 20, §1801 et seq. The act limits the

number of eligible tribally controlled colleges to one per tribe (25 U.S.C. 1801(a)(4)). Title 9, part D, §941(j) of the

Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110-315, act of Aug. 14, 2008) added a new Title V to the TCCUAA that

authorized operating grants to the two tribal technical colleges.

The Perkins Act provision for tribally controlled career and technical institutions is codified at 20 U.S.C. 2327.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

Law Enforcement and Courts Program

BIA and Justice Department figures show rising crime rates, methamphetamine use, and juvenile

gang activity on some Indian reservations. The federal government has lead jurisdiction over

major criminal offenses on most Indian reservations, although in some states federal law has

transferred criminal jurisdiction to the state. Tribes share jurisdiction, although under federal law

tribal courts have limited sentencing options. In general, tribes have fewer law enforcement

resources than state and local jurisdictions. BIA funds most law enforcement, jails, and courts in

Indian country, whether operated by tribes or by the BIA. A BIA “gap analysis” conducted in

2006 determined that there were 2,555 law enforcement officers on Indian lands but that 4,409

were needed, for a gap of 1,854 officers (42%).61 FY2008 appropriations for BIA law

enforcement programs totaled $228.1 million. Included was funding for the Bush

Administration’s “Safe Indian Communities Initiative” to provide additional officers, equipment,

and training; increase staffing at detention and corrections facilities (a need identified in a 2004

Interior Inspector General report); and provide specialized drug enforcement training, especially

regarding methamphetamine. The House Appropriations Committee directed BIA to allocate the

FY2008 funding increases for tribal law enforcement outside the usual methodology in order to

serve areas with the greatest need, especially remote reservations (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 6).

The omnibus appropriations law contained a further increase for law enforcement, to $255.1

million for FY2009. This was an increase of $26.9 million (12%) over FY2008 and $25.5 million

(11%) over the Bush Administration’s proposal. Most of the increase over FY2008 ─ $25.9

million ─ was for police services and criminal investigations. Operation of detention and

corrections facilities received a slight increase of $0.625 million (1%) over FY2008.

Tribal courts, whose BIA appropriations are separate from law enforcement, received $14.5

million for FY2009 under the omnibus law, an increase of $170,000 (1%) over FY2008 and $2.5

million (20%) over the request. The Bush Administration had proposed a decrease in tribal courts

funding for FY2009, to align the funding with the amount the Administration had proposed for

FY2008. Proponents of tribal courts had opposed the reduction, asserting that tribal courts are

underfunded and are necessary to law enforcement and justice on reservations.

Housing Improvement Program (HIP)

The major federal Indian housing program is the Indian Housing Block Grant administered by the

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which funds all types of housing. BIA’s

HIP, an older and much smaller program, focuses on urgently needed repairs, renovations, or

modest new houses, on or near reservations, especially for the neediest families. BIA considers

HIP a safety net for needy Indians who cannot meet criteria set by tribes administering the HUD

program. Total HIP funding was $13.7 million in FY2008, most in the Human Services budget

activity ($13.6 million) and a small amount in the Tribal Government activity ($37,000).

The omnibus law appropriated $13.6 million for HIP for FY2009, all in the Human Services

budget activity, the same as the FY2008 appropriation under Human Services. In addition, the

Cited in testimony of Jefferson Keel, National Congress of American Indians, “NCAI Testimony on the

Administration’s Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request for Indian Programs,” in U.S. Congress, Senate Indian Affairs

Committee, Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, hearings, 110th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 15, 2007, S.Hrg. 110-48 (Washington: GPO,

2007), p. 121.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations

FY2009 stimulus law appropriated funds for HIP, and BIA has allocated $19.0 million in stimulus

funding to HIP for construction of new homes. Thus, total HIP funding for FY2009 was $32.6

million (see Table 14). The Bush Administration had proposed eliminating HIP for FY2009 (as it

had in FY2008), contending that HIP is not cost effective and serves a limited number of tribes,

that the HUD program can meet the needs, that tribes administering the HUD program are not

statutorily barred from altering criteria in order to serve HIP recipients, and that other BIA

programs are of higher priority. Indian tribes and supporters had opposed the elimination of HIP,

asserting that HIP meets a significant need for rehabilitation of substandard housing and

questioning whether the HUD program could fill the need for urgent housing repairs.

Road Maintenance

BIA’s Road Maintenance program is the primary source of funds to maintain BIA-owned roads

and bridges, including those constructed under the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program

funded through the Highway Trust Fund in the Department of Transportation. The IRR program

(authorized at $410 million in FY2008 and $450 million in FY2009) is the largest source of

federal funds for design and construction of public roads and bridges within, or providing access

to, Indian reservations and trust lands and Alaska Native villages. IRR funds are jointly managed

by the Transportation Department and BIA, and are allocated both to BIA, for allocation to tribal

projects, and to tribes directly. BIA-owned roads account for about half the total mileage of IRR

roads.

The omnibus law appropriated $26.0 million for Road Maintenance for FY2009, an increase of

$0.5 million (2%) over the FY2008 appropriation of $25.6 million and almost double the level

proposed by the Bush Administration. The FY2009 stimulus law included Road Maintenance in

its funding for BIA Construction activities, and BIA has allocated $142.5 million in stimulus

funds for Road Maintenance. Thus, total Road Maintenance funding for FY2009 was $168.5

million. The Bush Administration had proposed to reduce BIA Road Maintenance appropriations

by 49%, to $13.0 million, asserting that tribes could use up to 25% of their IRR funds for

maintenance activities. Tribes had opposed the reduction, contending that funding for maintaining

roads was inadequate even with 25% of IRR funds.

Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process

Federal recognition brings an Indian tribe unique benefits, including partial sovereignty,

jurisdictional powers, and eligibility for federal Indian programs. Tribes have been acknowledged

in many ways, but it was not until 1978 that the Interior Department established a regulatory

process for acknowledgment decisions (25 CFR 83).62 First located within BIA, the recognition

office is now in the office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, as the Office of Federa

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.