Schlickeisen noted dramatic cuts in the overall budgets for all natural resource and environment programs. The president’s budget would slash the natural resources and environment budget function by 7.3 percent compared to last year, and a full 11 percent below the level needed to keep up with inflation. Within those programs, Schlickeisen zeroed in on two major areas where the President’s budget fell well short of his campaign rhetoric: the proposed budget’s "bait and switch" on the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the evisceration of scientific monitoring within the within the Department of Interior.

"Instead of the solid commitment to land and water conservation he promised in the campaign, the president has delivered a cynical budget sleight of hand," said Schlickeisen. "The gap between rhetoric and reality is even bigger on funding for biology and environmental science in this budget. Instead of supporting the ‘sound science’ that the president and Secretary Norton claim will be at the heart of their environmental policy, this budget guts science programs and amounts to a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy on environmental science. Of course, they manage to find money for survey work to run full speed ahead on opening our public lands to all-out energy and mineral exploitation."

Budget analysis by Defenders of Wildlife, a summary of which follows this release, also pointed to significant shortfalls between this budget proposal and support for private land owner environmental initiatives within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The analysis highlights significant shortfalls in funding for work the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as language that would effectively prevent citizens and the courts from holding the Department accountable under the Act.

###
Defenders of Wildlife is a leading non-profit conservation organization recognized as one of the nation's most progressive advocates for wildlife and its habitat. With more than 425,000 members and supporters, Defenders of Wildlife is an effective leader on endangered species issues. To stay current on hot topics in wildlife conservation, please visit www.defenders.org

###
COMMENTS ON BUSH FY 2002 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT Defenders of Wildlife April 10, 2001

1. Slashing Natural Resources and Environment Programs FY01(enacted): $28.8B FY02 (request): $26.7 B

The Bush Budget request slashes the overall amount for all natural resources and environment programs by $2.1 B or 7.3% for FY 2002. This is actually $2.3 B or an 11% cut below the amount needed to maintain the current services level for FY 2002. For the five year period from FY 2002 to FY 2006, the cut totals $22 B or a crippling 13.8% cut below the current services level. For appropriated programs under this category, the cut for FY 2002 is $2.3 B below FY 2001, an 8% cut or 11.2% below current services. Over the five year period the cut totals $19.6 B or 12.5% below current services. With the greatest budget surplus in the history of this country, the Bush Budget is proposing severe reductions for programs that protect our precious natural heritage and public health. These cuts would likely be far worse in the future than projected at this point if the proposed tax cut passes.

2. Under Funding Department of the Interior FY01(enacted): $10.2 B FY02 (request): $9.8 Billion

The Department of the Interior, which houses most of the natural resources management agencies the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Geological Survey is being hit with a $400 M cut or 4% for appropriated programs for FY 2002. This amounts to a 7% cut below the level needed to maintain current services.

3. Broken Promise on Land and Water Conservation Fund FY01(enacted): $1.6 B FY02 (request): $ 1.51 B FY02 dedicated level: $1.76 B

President Bush’s budget gives a one-two punch here. He breaks the historic conservation deal enacted last year and violates his campaign promise to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In fact, the budget only requests $390 M for traditional LWCF activities. While the President appears to be giving with one hand, he is taking away with the other.

One of the great bipartisan achievements of the 106th Congress was establishment of a new dedicated land conservation trust fund, called the Land, Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement (LCPII) fund, in last year’s Interior appropriations bill. The Interior bill set up this new fund as a separate conservation budget category to be provided with separate dedicated funding of $12 billion in dedicated funding over six years, starting at $1.6 B for 2001 and increasing by $160 M per year to reach $2.4 B in 2006. This funding is for popular "but very poorly funded" programs that address loss of open space, wildlife habitat, wildlands, cultural treasures, and recreational opportunities to uncontrolled urban sprawl and development. LCPII also provides badly needed support for critical coastal and marine protection programs. Under last year’s deal, the fund is slated to receive $1.76 B for FY 2002. President Bush’s budget request cuts the fund by $250 M below its dedicated level of $1.76 B for FY 2002. Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK) realized the President’s budget falls short in the LCPII fund; he added funding to reach the full FY 2002 dedicated $1.76 B level to the Senate Budget Resolution which had reflected the President’s levels.

The Bush budget also plays a shell game by diverting funding from most of the programs under the LCPII agreement to make up the total for his increase to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). To make up the total of $450 M for the state portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, money is siphoned from programs included in last year’s bipartisan package that provide funding to states for: conservation of wildlife, endangered species, and wetlands; rehabilitation of urban parks; preservation of historic treasures; and aid to states to assist in smart-growth planning. States instead are given flexibility to use their state LWCF funding for these needs. President Bush’s request also diverts $60 M in funding from the federal LWCF program to establish two new grant programs to provide incentives to private landowners for habitat conservation. While we support the concept of these two new programs they ought not be funded at the expense of federal LWCF when there is an estimated backlog of $10 billion in acquisition needs in our national wildlife refuges, parks, forests and BLM lands.

If President Bush were really keeping his promise to fully fund LWCF, he would be requesting an additional $300 M instead of siphoning resources from other programs. If President Bush were really keeping his promise to fully fund LWCF and honoring the commitment made in the LCPII last year, he would be requesting a total increase of $550 M for these programs. There is no guarantee that any more than $390 M would be used for traditional LWCF activities.

4. Boosting Resource Exploitation FY01 BLM Energy and Minerals -- (enacted):$76.7 M
FY02 BLM Energy and Minerals -- (request): $91.5 M

FY01 BLM Land Use Plan -- (enacted):$25.84 M
FY02 BLM Land Use Plans -- (request): $33.03 M

FY01 MMS OCS Lands -- (enacted):$117.9 M
FY02 MMS OCS Lands (request): $125.9 M

While the Bush budget slashes funding for important conservation programs, it would dramatically increase funds for energy and mineral development on our public lands and off the Outer Continental Shelf of the U.S. An increase of $15 M is included for BLM to expand energy and mineral activities, including surveys of oil and gas reserves on federal lands, funding for further development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, and to initiate planning for energy development in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Despite the fact that both the House and Senate budget resolutions have repudiated assumptions of receipts for drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the Bush budget assumes a lease sale in the Arctic Refuge for FY 2004 that will generate $2.4 B. The Budget also includes an increase of $7.1 M for revision of BLM land use plans. According to the Department of the Interior Budget Blueprint, seventeen of the new plan revisions are related to energy and minerals development, including seven in Wyoming. Finally, for the Minerals Management Service, a $14.7 M increase for OCS lands would go to support increased oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico, off the Outer Continental Shelf of the U.S.

5. Cutting Endangered Species Funding FY01(enacted): $ 225.64 M FY02 (request): $ 166.49

Despite Secretary Gale Norton’s repeated assurances that this administration will enforce the Endangered Species Act (ESA), this budget would slash endangered species work by approximately $59 million, or more than 25% compared to this year. Because the ESA is already severely underfunded, this cut would have drastic impacts on many of our nation’s critically imperiled species. The nearly $6 million cut in the recovery program would mean that species already listed under the ESA, like the Rio Grande silvery minnow and Attwater’s greater prairie chicken, would not recover and potentially even go extinct. The proposed increase of about $2 M in the listing program is welcome but not nearly enough to address the substantial backlog of almost 300 species awaiting listing and hundreds more awaiting critical habitat. Species awaiting listing include ones like the Mississippi Gopher frog, once abundant in the bayous of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, now found in only one breeding pond in Harrison County, Mississippi and threatened by a proposed housing development just 200 meters away. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated a $120 million need to address the listing and critical habitat backlog, yet the Bush Administration has only requested $8 million.

To make matters worse, the Bush Adminstration is also requesting a rider that would waive the statutory deadlines for listing species and designating critical habitat under section 4 of the ESA. For example, within 90 days of receiving a petition to list a species as endangered or threatened, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) must determine whether the petitioned action is warranted. Moreover, within 12 months of receiving the petition, FWS must decide whether it will propose the species for listing. If any of these deadlines are missed, the ESA authorizes citizens to enforce them in court, which is how most species are now listed. The Bush Administration listing rider would effectively eliminate the threat of citizen suits by waiving the ESA's deadlines, and give the Administration absolute discretion to decide whether and when a species is ever listed.

6. Starving Environmental Science FY01(enacted): $883.4 M FY02 (request): $813.9 B The budget cuts demanded for science programs within the US Geological Survey shows the president’s and Secretary Norton’s talk of environmental enforcement based on sound science to be nothing more than hollow, cynical rhetoric. Under the FY2002 budget, the Bush Administration proposes to cut the FY2001 funding levels for USGS by 7.9%. The budget not only reverses budget gains last year, but would actually cut funding for some programs below FY2000. Scientists at USGS provide critical information about fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats, and they detect trends in our environment over time. This research is vital to detecting and responding to environmental problems - Bush’s proposed budget for USGS amounts to a "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy on the environment.

The Biological Resources Division of USGS, which is essentially the research arm for many federal land management agencies, would be crippled by these cuts. For example, FY2001 was the first year since 1994 that the Cooperative Research Units were fully funded for all positions, and the FY2002 budget would fall short of full funding again. The cuts largely eliminate the National Biological Information Infrastructure, a program designed to allow researchers to find ecological information easily through a centralized system. Finally, the cuts will freeze progress for the Gap Analysis Program, which has mapped the biological resources of 79% of the states in the U.S.

Outside of the Biological Resources Division, other programs at USGS would suffer huge losses, including a $44 million decrease in Water Resources Investigations. These cuts will eliminate the National Water Quality Assessment Program and the Toxic Substances Hydrology Research. Given the recent decision to reverse the arsenic rule, eliminating Toxic Substances Hydrology Research, which provides information on the behavior of toxic substances in surface and groundwater, is particularly cynical.

7. Ducking Promise on Landowner Incentives FY01(enacted): $218 M FY02 (request): $0

While the proposed budget does provide funding for the Conservation Reserve Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, it provides absolutely no funding for several popular and effective USDA private landowner conservation incentive programs. The funding levels above reflect those important landowner incentive programs that have been zeroed out and are discussed below. As a presidential candidate, George W. Bush recognized that almost two-thirds of all land in the United States is privately owned and that roughly 75 percent of endangered species reside on private land. He spoke of the importance of the federal governmentworking with state and local governments and with private citizens to protect our natural resources. That awareness, however, is not reflected in the USDA budget President Bush unveiled yesterday.

The budget provides absolutely no funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. Farmers participating in WHIP receive some financial assistance for restoring and managing wildlife habitat on their land. This program benefits threatened and endangered species, as well as other species.

The budget also cuts all funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), a program that improves water quality and protects wildlife. This program is so popular that roughly three-fourths of farmers and ranchers who apply to participate are turned away for lack of funding.

The Bush budget plan also eliminates FY 2002 funding for other popular and effective voluntary conservation programs for agricultural producers. These include the Farmland Protection Program, Soil and Water Conservation Assistance, and the Forestry Incentives Program.

For more information, contact Mary Beth Beetham, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 682-9400.