Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: Brief Overview of the President’s FY2014 Appropriations Request

Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for most of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and for agencies within other departments—including the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also provides funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arts and cultural agencies, and numerous other entities.

The President’s FY2014 discretionary appropriations request contained $30.03 billion for approximately 30 agencies and entities typically funded in the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law. For the 10 major DOI agencies in Title I of the bill, the request was $10.83 billion, or 36% of the total. For EPA, funded by Title II of the bill, the request was $8.15 billion, or 27% of the total. For about 20 agencies and other entities typically funded in Title III of the bill, the President requested $11.04 billion, or 37% of the total.

Direct comparisons between FY2014 discretionary appropriations requested by the President and amounts appropriated for FY2013 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies are difficult. This is primarily because complete information on FY2013 budgetary resources affected by the President’s March 1, 2013, sequester order and the effects of a 0.2% across-the-board rescission (under P.L. 113-6) is not readily available. However, the President’s FY2014 request can be compared with FY2012 enacted appropriations. The total request would be an overall increase of $803.1 million (2.7%) above the $29.23 billion appropriated for FY2012. Together, DOI agencies would increase by $534.2 million (5.2%), EPA would decrease by $296.4 million (3.5%), and related agencies would increase by $565.2 million (5.4%).

Other comparisons can be made between the President’s FY2014 request and the FY2013 appropriations excluding the sequester and the across-the-board rescission. The President’s FY2014 request was $145.0 million (0.5%) higher than the pre-sequester/pre-rescission FY2013 appropriation of $29.89 billion prior to the reductions. While it was $376.1 million (3.6%) higher for DOI agencies, it was $189.9 million (2.3%) lower for EPA, and $41.2 million (0.4%) lower for related agencies. Overall, the FY2014 request was $1.30 billion (4.1%) less than the FY2013 pre-sequester/pre-rescission appropriation of $31.33 billion, which included $1.44 billion in supplemental funding for disaster relief (P.L. 113-2). In the absence of complete information on FY2013 appropriations including the sequester and the rescission, CRS is not able to calculate the amount or percent of change under the President’s request from final FY2013 appropriations.

For DOI agencies, it is possible to compare the President’s FY2014 request with FY2013 appropriations reflecting the sequester and the across-the-board rescission. This is because these reductions are reflected in DOI operating plans which are readily available to the public. The FY2014 request of $10.83 billion for DOI agencies would be an increase of $136.9 million (1.3%) above the FY2013 post-sequester/post-rescission level of $10.70 billion (including supplemental funding).


Date of Report: July 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R43142
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43142.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): Issues in Brief

Peter Folger
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy

Under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), four federal agencies have responsibility for long-term earthquake risk reduction: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). These agencies assess U.S. earthquake hazards, deliver notifications of seismic events, develop measures to reduce earthquake hazards, and conduct research to help reduce overall U.S. vulnerability to earthquakes. Congressional oversight of the NEHRP program encompasses how well the four agencies coordinate their activities to address the earthquake hazard. Better coordination was a concern that led to changes to the program in legislation enacted in 2004 (P.L. 108-360).

P.L. 108-360 authorized appropriations for NEHRP through FY2009. Total funding enacted from reauthorization through FY2009 was $613.2 million, approximately 68% of the total amount of $902.4 million authorized by P.L. 108-360. Although authorization for appropriations expired in 2009, Congress has continued to appropriate funds for NEHRP activities. NEHRP agencies spent $125.5 million for program activities in FY2012, slightly less than FY2011 spending of $126.6 million. Also, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) provided some additional funding for earthquake activities under NEHRP.

What effect funding at the levels enacted through FY2013 under NEHRP has had on the U.S. capability to detect earthquakes and minimize losses after an earthquake occurs is difficult to assess. The effectiveness of the NEHRP program is a perennial issue for Congress: it is inherently difficult to capture precisely, in terms of dollars saved or fatalities prevented, the effectiveness of mitigation measures taken before an earthquake occurs. A major earthquake in a populated urban area within the United States would cause damage, and in question is how much damage would be prevented by mitigation strategies underpinned by the NEHRP program.

Legislation introduced during the 113th Congress, Title 1 of H.R. 2132, would make changes to the program and would authorize appropriations totaling $906 million over five years through FY2017 for NEHRP. Ninety percent of the funding would be designated for the USGS and NSF, and the remainder for FEMA and NIST. H.R. 2132 awaits further action in the House.


Date of Report: July 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: R43141
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43141.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Department of the Interior Ocean Energy Bureaus: Status of 2010 Structural Reforms and Issues for Congress

Curry L. Hagerty
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy

Federal law divides areas over which the federal government exercises energy and mineral management authority into three classes: federal onshore lands, Indian lands, and federal ocean areas, referred to as the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). OCS areas comprise roughly 1.7 billion acres located beyond state waters and extending seaward, encompassing the 200 nautical miles of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The Department of the Interior (DOI) reports that the federally regulated ocean energy sector currently accounts for 26% of domestic oil production and about 16% of domestic natural gas production. In addition to generating these domestic energy supplies, offshore energy projects overseen by DOI account for significant public receipts, approximately $6.9 billion in 2012.

This report describes the evolution and current status of DOI agencies responsible for managing OCS energy and mineral resources:

(1) Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE, pronounced “Bessy”), tasked with oversight and enforcement for field operations, inspections, workforce safety, and decommissioning;

(2) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM, rhymes with “Rome”), tasked with offshore leasing administration, including developing maps, completing scientific and economic analyses, and issuing leases;

(3) Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR, pronounced “Honor”), tasked with managing revenue owed to the government for the use of the public domain for energy and mineral development.

As a direct result of the April 20, 2010, explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, a revised regulatory framework within DOI was established by Secretarial Order No. 3299 on May 19, 2010. Because BSEE, BOEM, and ONRR were not created by statute, statutory changes were not part of this DOI reorganization. Among other legislative and regulatory activities in the aftermath of investigations of the Deepwater Horizon events, this DOI restructuring was intended to clarify and strengthen federal policies aimed at drilling safety. Legislative action during the 111th and 112th Congresses consisted of oversight activities in both chambers and enactment of funding measures to create each agency. Many in the Administration and in Congress have expressed support for the reorganization.

During the 113th Congress, on June 6 and 11, 2013, the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, held hearings focused on DOI restructuring, among other issues. Following those hearings, a full committee markup session was held on June 12, 2013, that included H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, a bill addressing the structure of DOI subdivisions. On June 24, 2013, this bill was reported (as amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources (H.Rept. 113-125). On June 28, 2013, the House passed this legislation. No similar action is scheduled in the Senate.

In addition to pending legislation in the House, DOI restructuring remains part of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study referred to as the 2013 High Risk Series (GAO-13-283). GAO is studying implications of DOI restructuring for the stated purpose of evaluating agency performance in certain areas, including revenue management. The following report, in a question and answer format, addresses frequent inquiries about the status of legislative and administrative events surrounding DOI restructuring. It will be updated as warranted

Date of Report: July 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R43137
Price: $29.95


To Order:

R43137.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

 

Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress

Katie Hoover
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

Sandra L. Johnson
Information Research Specialist

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System and directed that only Congress can designate federal lands as part of the system. Free-standing bills to designate wilderness areas are typically introduced and considered in each Congress; such bills are not amendments to the Wilderness Act, but typically refer to the act for management guidance and sometimes include special provisions. Numerous wilderness bills were introduced in the 112th Congress, but it was the first Congress since 1966 that did not add to the wilderness system. The 112th Congress was the first in decades not to designate additional wilderness; the only wilderness law that was enacted reduced the size of a wilderness area. Many bills to add to the wilderness system have been introduced in the 113th Congress.

Wilderness designation can be controversial. The designation generally prohibits commercial activities, motorized access, and human infrastructure from wilderness areas; however, there are several exceptions to this general rule. Advocates propose wilderness designations to preserve the generally undeveloped conditions of the areas. Opponents see such designations as preventing certain uses and potential economic development in rural areas where such opportunities are relatively limited.

Most bills direct management of designated wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act. However, proposed legislation also often seeks a compromise among interests by allowing other activities in the area. Pre-existing uses or conditions are often allowed to continue, sometimes temporarily, with nonconforming uses to be halted and/or nonconforming conditions to be rectified. More commonly, the authority is permanent, with limited access permitted for specific areas, uses, and times, or with the authority to operate and maintain pre-existing infrastructure. Wilderness bills often contain additional provisions, such as providing special access for particular purposes, for example, border security. Water rights associated with wilderness designations have also proved controversial; many statutes have addressed wilderness water rights.

Controversies regarding management of existing wilderness areas also have been the subject of legislation. Bills have been introduced to expand access to wilderness areas for border security; to guarantee access for hunting, fishing, and shooting; to release wilderness study areas from wilderness-like protection; and to limit agency review of the wilderness potential of their lands. The latter two issues have been contentious for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands for two reasons. First, BLM is required by law to protect the wilderness characteristics of its wilderness study areas (WSAs) until Congress determines otherwise. Second, a December 2010 secretarial order directed BLM to maintain a wilderness inventory, to consider wilderness potential in planning, and to protect wilderness characteristics of those “Wild Lands” unless alternative management was deemed appropriate. The FY2012 Interior Appropriations Act (Division E of P.L. 112-74) prohibited using funds to implement the secretarial order, and bills were introduced to terminate the order. In June 2011, Secretary Salazar withdrew the order, but stated that BLM would maintain a wilderness inventory and continue to consider wilderness characteristics as required by law. Legislation in the 113th Congress proposes to eliminate several WSAs.


Date of Report: June 28, 2013
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R41610
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41610.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.