[Senate Hearing 108-203]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-203
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2691/S. 1391
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Agriculture
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
85-929 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRY REID, Nevada
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
Professional Staff
Bruce Evans
Ginny James
Leif Fonnesbeck
Ryan Thomas
Peter Kiefhaber (Minority)
Brooke Livingston (Minority)
Administrative Support
Larissa Sommer
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, March 20, 2003
Page
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................ 1
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary.............. 57
Thursday, May 22, 2003
Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary.................... 107
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 163
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, Domenici, Bennett,
Campbell, Dorgan, and Feinstein.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH, CHIEF
ACCOMPANIED BY HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM AND BUDGET ANALYSIS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. We will call the committee to order. Senator
Dorgan is on his way. I will make my opening statement and he
can make his opening statement when he gets here. It is 10 a.m.
and we are going to run on time as close as we can, and get you
out of here. We know you have a lot of work to do, Chief, but
we welcome you here this morning and we appreciate you coming.
We are operating on North Dakota time here, see--Byron, thank
you for coming this morning.
The Chief was the regional forester in Missoula, MT, and we
had an opportunity to work together on some of the issues that
always seem to follow the Forest Service around. It was a
pleasure working with him then, and it is a pleasure to work
with him now.
The President's budget for the Forest Service is $4.058
billion in discretionary appropriations this time. It
represents a modest overall increase of 2.7 percent, compared
to the 2003 level at $3.95 billion. Most of the agency's
programs are funded at levels similar to last year. However, I
want to point out some that are not, and some areas that I find
disappointing.
There are some significant increases, however, the forest
stewardship program at $35.5 million and the forest legacy
program at $22.4 million, and wildfire suppression is $186
million. I believe the increase in the wildfire suppression is
particularly important, given the experience you have had for
the fire seasons of the past few years.
Last year, the Agency spent $1.3 billion putting out fires,
and the position of the Forest Service and how they handle
themselves should be commended. The American people are now
aware of what we can do to manage our forests in the areas of
prevention, and to keep small fires small fires, instead of
having these big ones that we have experienced over the last 10
years.
DROUGHT
Last year, and of course starting back in 1988, pointed up
that we cannot stand drought in our country and prevent these
fires or keep them under control. The agency was forced to
borrow $1 billion from nonfire programs, which caused
significant disruption in many projects, and some had to be
cancelled altogether. If the Forest Service spends as much
money in fiscal year 2004 as they did last year, it will still
need to borrow several million dollars from other accounts
under the proposed budget. I hope we can work with you, Chief,
and figure out some long-term solutions to this funding of
fireighting costs so these disruptions can be minimized in the
future.
FIRE PREPAREDNESS
There is also a significant decrease in the proposed 2004
budget which I find troubling. The levels proposed for fire
preparedness, for example. This would cause a loss of over half
of our firefighters and engines we had on the ground last year.
Reducing our readiness capability to this degree will only lead
to more small fires escaping, and turning into the devastating
fires that we have seen in the past on the evening news.
BURNED AREA EMERGENCY REHABILITATION
I am also concerned about the elimination of funding for
rehabilitation and restoring burned-over lands. Two years ago
this program was funded at the level of $142 million. We have
had two severe fires since then, which has burned millions of
additional acres. There are many areas in my State that burned
in 2000 that have yet to be treated or dealt with. If these
acres are not restored soon, they may be permanently lost to
invasive weeds and erosion.
Funding for backlog maintenance has also been decreased by
$46 million, compared to the current level. This is unwise.
However, on the financial management side I want to
congratulate you. I am very pleased to see the agency finally
obtained a clean audit. That is a credit to your office and
your work. I can remember when you came in 2 years ago, looked
at the books, and said, this is one area we really have to work
on, otherwise we will always have a credibility problem. So I
congratulate you on that. That is the first time that has been
done in a long time.
The monies--to work with you, though, not only in fire
suppression, but prevention, stewardship, forest legacy, and
forest health--all of these programs are necessary, and I
believe the American people are supportive of what you are
doing. The fires that were seen on television every evening
were devastating fires, and hot fires. These fires took
everything right out of the soil. Management adjustments have
to be made for future years, if we are to see healthy forests.
We also need to do some management work in the areas of
disease and bark beetle infestation. I would like to work with
you on those areas. We have some forests that need attention,
not only in Montana, but nationwide. Those areas are being
identified and need special emphasis.
I thank you for coming this morning. We look forward to
your testimony and again, congratulations on your audit. This
is our first year at this and I look forward to working with
Senator Dorgan of North Dakota. He is my new ranking member,
and Peter, it is good to see you back as we start down the
Interior appropriations. We look forward to working with our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle as this appropriations
process moves on.
Senator Dorgan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I, too,
look forward to working with you. Montana and North Dakota have
a rather lengthy common border, and I know that you know a lot
about----
Senator Burns. Thank God for the Little Missouri, right?
Senator Dorgan. That is right. You know a fair amount about
North Dakota and I know a lot about Montana, so I think we will
get along just fine.
Chief, thank you for being here. You run a big agency,
34,000 people and $4 billion, a big responsibility. You and I
met yesterday and talked a bit.
Mr. Chairman, I just got notice a few moments ago that
Senator Daschle has called a meeting of the Democratic
leadership at 10:30, so I am going to have to leave earlier
than I expected today, and I regret that is the case, but let
me begin my opening statement, then, make a couple of points
with Mr. Bosworth. I am going to submit some questions for the
record, but I want to make a couple of points.
FIREFIGHTERS
One, the chairman mentioned the issue of the firefighting
budget. You and I talked about that yesterday, but firefighters
have gone from 10,480 in fiscal year 2002 to 4,898 in fiscal
year 2004, fire engines, 995 to 465 during the same period. I
mean, it is wrong. This is not good planning. It is not good
management. It is not an appropriate approach to these issues.
You and I have talked about that.
I recognize that this comes from deep in the bowels of the
Office of Management and Budget, where they know the cost of
everything and the value of nothing, and I understand you
probably cannot say much about that because you are a public
servant who is going to have to support whatever is submitted
to us as a budget, but I think deep in your heart you know that
this does not make sense. We have got to adequately fund
firefighting and fire suppression and preparedness, and this is
not the case in these budgets. It was not last year.
We raised the point last year during the hearings and it
was sort of just dismissed, but the fact is that this has to be
dealt with, and doing the little tip-toe dance that Mitch
Daniels is doing on this does not do anybody any favors. That
is not the way to address these issues. I hope if I do not get
a chance to tell him, you will tell him that for me.
LEAFY SPURGE
Let me just--I want to show you--Mr. Bosworth, this is
leafy spurge.
Let me tell you something about leafy spurge. We have lands
that you are in charge of, the Forest Service is in charge of,
that do not deal with their weeds appropriately. The Forest
Service is not a good neighbor, and when you have got an
infestation of 30,000 or 40,000 acres of leafy spurge and you
do not control them, what happens is, everyone else who is on
the periphery of the Forest Service land is affected by it.
The reason I brought this plant today is, I wrote an
earmark of $200,000 in to have some additional chemicals put on
the ground and to control leafy spurge on specific grasslands
in North Dakota, and the fact is, I saw no evidence that that
was put in the ground to control leafy spurge. Although the
Forest Service did a little tap dance for me to say, well, here
is how it happened, the fact is, I think it was subsumed into
payment for the bureaucracy, and I did not see any evidence
that there was additional control on the ground of leafy
spurge, despite the fact that that is what we put the money in
for, and we have got ranchers out there that are trying to deal
with this, and leafy spurge is one noxious weed, but in our
part of the territory it is one that is pretty devastating, and
we have to control these noxious weeds on our land. This is
Forest Service land. We have a responsibility. If regular folks
do not control it, we are after them all the time, and the
Federal Government has to meet its responsibility, Mr.
Bosworth. You and I have talked about that. I know you are
looking into this.
At any rate, Mr. Bosworth, this is serious business for a
lot of folks in North Dakota, and I want to work with you on
that, and I mentioned the fire suppression. As a matter of
fact, on forest issues we rank 50th among the 50 States in
native forestlands in North Dakota, so I am a lot less familiar
with forest issues than many of my colleagues, who have great
familiarity with them, but I am anxious to work with you on
many of these issues.
GRAZING PERMITS
If I might mention one additional point we have got with
respect to our grasslands in the Cheyenne Valley, we need a new
10-year grazing agreement, and I think on March 23 the current
one expires, so there is great concern that we would have a
circumstance were cattle to be taken off of those lands. You
told me yesterday that would not be the case, and that you
would do extensions until we reach a new agreement. For that I
am very appreciative, and I hope we can reach an agreement.
But Mr. Chairman, thanks for indulging me to be able to do
this now so that I can go to that leadership meeting later.
Senator Burns. Yes, and do not let it go to seed. That is
all I ask.
He brings up a good point, I also want to bring it up, and
there is not a better place. He brought up grazing permits. We
not only have spurge, but we have spotted knap. And now we are
going to have a little lesson in weeds. I do not know what it
is in Washington, D.C. Just go to one of these glitzy Grey
Poupon and white wine receptions, and when they come around and
they ask what your main interest is in Washington, and you say
weeds, see how fast you are left standing there by yourself.
It is not a big thing here. It is like yesterday morning, I
offered to go down and help the guy get his John Deere tractor
out of that puddle, because it is just too wet to plow there.
NOXIOUS WEEDS
The grazing permit--because what he is trying to do, and
this problem of noxious weeds go hand in hand, Dale. The only
way you get this weed and spotted knap is sheep. Sheep will do
it. You can put chemicals out there, you can fight them with
hoses----
Senator Dorgan. To explain, sheep eat it.
Senator Burns. That is right. Sheep will get rid of noxious
weeds. And it is a problem in Montana, so I appreciate--we are
going to get along just fine. I found another weed guy. There
are not very many of us here, Byron.
Senator Dorgan. That is right.
Senator Burns. But this is something that has to be dealt
with. The grazing permits, and the control of noxious weeds go
hand in hand in our forest management.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, we could do a caucus of leafy
spurge, spotted knap, and creeping Jenny.
Senator Burns. And Russian thistle.
Senator Dorgan. And Russian thistle.
Senator Burns. You bet. We could get them all.
Senator Campbell.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I sure do like this
hearing.
It sure is a lesson. What we really need in your budget is
something for more sheep, apparently. We probably will not have
that, but I do know that you recognize the real danger. All of
us come from western States that are on the committee today,
and the fire season out there, they tell us, even though we
have gotten a lot of snow in Colorado in the last few days,
they say is going to be every bit as bad as it was last year,
and as I look at the President's budget there is obviously a
slight increase from $4.7 billion to $4.8 billion. I do not
think that is nearly enough, and I have to associate my
comments with Senator Dorgan. I think that maybe the best thing
we can do is, the next time we have a big fire out there is
press OMB into service to come out there and help fight the
thing. Maybe they would recognize the real dangers that we
face.
But you know, as I travel around, like my colleagues from
the West, we are seeing more and more indicators that because
of insect infestation there is just mile after mile of dead
timber, which always is going to become worse fuel this summer.
I was down by Cortez, Colorado about 2 weeks ago, and I was
just amazed. All the pine in that area, it is almost all dead,
and you can just pick them out from the junipers and the other
trees. Whatever that insect is is just attacking pines, and by
next year there is just going to be a whole dead forest there.
Well, in any event, you know the devastating fires we had
in Colorado--last year between the Hayman fire and the
Missionary Ridge fire, the cost of property. Fortunately we did
not have many lives lost--I think only one or two, frankly, but
it is getting worse.
GROUNDED FIRE AIR TANKER FLEET
But there is something else, too, that is really beginning
to bother me, and hopefully you will address it, or I will ask
it maybe in a question, but it is my understanding that one-
half of the whole tanker fleet is grounded now and out West,
boy, we really rely on those planes, and I do not know how we
are going to replace the planes or the money for the planes,
because I imagine they are pretty darned expensive.
A lot of those old World War II planes, the airframes are
getting fatigued and they just cannot fly them anymore, and
after those two tragic accidents last year I certainly
recognize they have got to be grounded if there is a chance of
killing some of the pilots, but out where we are, those things
are the first responders in many cases, and I have been to a
couple of fires where I have seen them start, seen the planes
take off, seen them put out, all within a 1-hour period of time
before people could even get out there, so I would like you to
address that if you could and just let me tell you that I would
like you to maybe also give us your prognosis about some of the
litigation.
ANALYSIS PARALYSIS
I think all the attacks from the environmental community
every time you want to do a prescribed burn or do a clearing is
probably on the downside a little bit this year, because they
are clearly recognizing they are on the wrong side of public
opinion and most Americans, particularly out West, are saying
we have got to do a better job of managing the forest, and I
remember, perhaps it was last year or a year before, we were
told that about 41 percent of the money that was used in the
Forest Service program was either--it was called analysis
paralysis, I think was the word they used. It was used for
doing studies and preparing to defend yourself and, in fact, in
defending in the actual lawsuits, and I would like to know a
little bit more about what you see in that area, too, this
year.
But thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Senator Feinstein. Turn your button on,
Dianne.
Senator Feinstein. I have only been here for 10 years. I am
a slow learner.
Senator Burns. Auctioneers know how to use these things
pretty rapid.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Chief. Thank you.
Mr. Bosworth, in California I do not think we have the
leafy spurge or the Russian thistle, but we do have the
Yosemite toad and the fairy shrimp, and I want to talk to you a
little bit about the Sierra Nevada Framework Agreement.
I very much appreciate what you have done with respect to
the framework, particularly because it actually prevented a
listing of the California spotted owl as threatened and
endangered, but this past week the Forest Service announced
that it is planning to proceed with a plan to undo some key
elements of the framework, and I am very concerned about it,
because I think it is going to cause a huge problem of conflict
in the State, and I would like to give you a March 19 letter
from Mary Nichols, the Director of the Resources Agency, who
expresses concerns that you have not worked with the State in
determining this, and she says the outcome is unacceptable to
the State.
COLLABORATIVE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
They have proposed an alternative plan offering to bring
the resources of the State to a collaborative adaptive
management program in the 2\1/2\ million acres of wildland-
urban interface, where you have got Class 3 forest problems,
and my hope would be that you would work with the State. The
State--and I have had a conversation with Secretary Nichols,
and they understand, and they are prepared to be supportive of
the need to clean out the forest for a forest fire. She says
they want to work more aggressively than you want to work to do
it, so that is the first issue.
YOSEMITE TOAD
The second issue is, there is something called the Yosemite
toad. You know, the fairy shrimp are microscopic little shrimp
that grow in vernal pools, so if a puddle lasts more than 90
days, a shrimp can pop up and it can stop whatever is going on
around it, whether it is a new vineyard or anything else. Well,
the Yosemite toad apparently comes out of pools at higher
levels where there are ranchers grazing on public land, and it
is my understanding that a number of these ranchers are
essentially going to have to be put out of business, and I
would like to ask you personally to take a look at that and see
if there is not any way ranchers can be allowed to graze in
other areas, rather than be put out of business.
I think there are anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen
ranchers who are going to be put out of business, and one of
the things that I really believe is also important as we do
these things is to protect the heritage of the State, and
ranching has been a heritage of the California frontier. I
would like to see it protected wherever I can, and I think
there is a way of moving around some of these pools without
putting the ranchers out of business, so I would be hopeful
that you would be willing to work with them.
BARK BEETLE
The third problem is the bark beetle. I think all of us
have a big problem with the bark beetle. I know I talked to
Senator Kyl yesterday about Arizona. There is a big infestation
there, and we have 150,000 acres of forest that are infested,
particularly in the Lake Arrowhead area, the Idlewild area of
California.
The Governor has declared a state of emergency, and we need
to find a way to quickly respond to these forest epidemics to
reduce this spread, so I wrote you a letter on February 18,
which is a month ago, asking you to address the situation and
hoping for a response. I have not gotten that response as of
yet, so I hope today you might address what you are going to do
about the bark beetle as well.
LAKE TAHOE RESTORATION ACT
Additionally, 3 years ago Congress passed the Lake Tahoe
Restoration Act. As you know, the Tahoe National Forest
surrounds Lake Tahoe, and we authorized $300 million over 10
years, the Federal Government to contribute a third. There
really is good news. First, there is a huge consensus in the
population. Second, Lake Tahoe's clarity has been increasing.
It is now 73 feet, which is good news, but the disappointment
is that there is only I think $6 million in this budget to
continue that plan, and so I hope to be able to add to that a
little bit.
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP
The final thing is the Quincy Library Group. As you know, I
was a Senate sponsor of that legislation. I am very supportive
of it. The project has had a number of delays, had a number of
bumps. The President proposes $26 million to implement it this
year the same as last year, and I am very hopeful that it will
be able to serve as a model in other areas, and so I would like
any comments you would care to make on that as well.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, Mr. Bosworth.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Bennett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most everything I
was going to cover has been covered.
Senator Burns. Turn your mike on.
Senator Bennett. Oh, I have to do that, too. All right.
PRAIRIE DOG
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most everything I had intended to
say has been covered. Senator Campbell, because our States
adjoin each other, has exactly all the same concerns I have. I
have to say to Senator Dorgan, he says you get a prairie dog
and as soon as you get one you get a whole bunch. There are
parts of my State where they are endangered species, and you
have got a whole bunch, but nobody can do anything about them.
Senator Dorgan. But they are not really endangered. They
are just on the list, right?
Senator Bennett. Well, they are endangered because the
attitude in the local community is the three-S solution: shoot,
shovel, and shut up. Whether that really solves the problem, I
do not know.
BARK BEETLE
Then Senator Feinstein talks about the bark beetle, the
combination of Senator Feinstein and Senator Campbell. In our
State the problem with the bark beetle are all of the lawsuits
that get filed, and the Forest Service is absolutely handcuffed
in dealing with it because every time they want to go into the
Dixie Forest to deal with the bark beetle, which is an enormous
problem, somebody files a lawsuit and says oh no, no, you
cannot do this because somehow this will invade the pristine
nature of the forest, and by the time they get through with the
lawsuit, then the bark beetle has expanded another few thousand
acres and the Forest Service says, okay, we are going to do it
now.
EVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION COSTS
Well, they file a new lawsuit because it is a new set of
acreage, and there is great concern that we may, in fact, lose
the entire Dixie National Forest over this, so I just echo the
concern about the bark beetle that Senator Feinstein has and
hope, along with Senator Campbell, that we can find a way to
deal with the litigation. I would be interested, if you have
not got the number ready for us here, if you would supply what
percentage of your budget is taken up in fighting litigation.
We have asked that question of the BLM director and the
numbers are between 40 and 50 percent, depending on which area
you are talking about, and that is a huge, huge drain on the
land management capabilities. We try to give you the resources
you need in order to do the job properly, but if all of those
resources are eaten up in lawsuits--which interestingly enough,
the BLM always wins.
It is not a case that the BLM is doing a bad job of
stewardship. It is the fact that they are constantly being
diverted with lawsuits, and they have to prove over and over
and over again that their stewardship is fine in court, and one
begins to believe that the basic strategy is not to file a
legitimate lawsuit, but to hamstring the agency through this
device, and I would appreciate any statistics you could give us
about what percentage of your budget goes to lawsuits, or
defending legal activities, and whether or not it is rising.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Senator Domenici.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Well, by the time we get to me, I have
all the same problems. I would say that we did submit to Deputy
Under Secretary Dave Tenny questions with respect to the bark
beetle in New Mexico. I would appreciate it if you would look
at the question and get it answered.
We have a very old, long-infested piece of BLM forest up in
Northern New Mexico. It is already beginning to rot, it is old,
and it is growing. We submitted some questions about treating
and the like to which we would like to have some answers.
You know, about now in my life in the Senate, I kind of get
tired of coming to meetings and complaining that litigation is
taking all our time. We cannot get anything done. I really wish
that people like you would tell us what we ought to do so that
we do not have that situation. I am not interested in having
another long list of how much time it is taking. We are not
doing anything to change the situation, and most of you all say
that we cannot change it. It is the law.
I think we ought to give it a try, even if it is some very
significant surgery that we have to do on these statutes.
Something is amiss when we cannot take care of the problems
that are so patent that anybody with an ounce of common sense,
a few dollars, and a little bit of expertise would at least get
started on some of these things, but we cannot.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Let me suggest, if you look at this year's budget, in all
deference to the President, you will not get much done this
year, either. By the time we run out of money, when we cannot
put out the fires and we start borrowing again, the good plans
you have got going will get stopped. There is not enough money
for the programs to clean the forest and thin them either, from
what I can tell. I hope I am wrong, but that is what it looks
like to me.
I have one ray of hope, and I hope it does not get bogged
down in court so it takes forever. I do have a strong sense
that if you all will apply the stewardship contract approach in
the right way, and we do not get ourselves in lawsuits where we
have acted improperly, I believe there is a real chance you can
have companies that will go in and contract to clean and manage
and thin out in exchange for what they can take off the forest.
You might get a lot of work done for not too many dollars that
can quite properly be managed. I think it can be used for
cleaning out infestations and anything.
Right now, however, it is deemed by the environmentalists
to be a subterfuge for logging. To the extent I read it, I see
all the ways we could use it that would not be logging, would
not be any subterfuge to get around the logging laws. I hope
you can find ways to use stewardship contracting, and I hope
you all think it is a good approach. I see no other way, based
on personnel, management capacity, and money to get the forests
of America managed and back where they are a credit.
So with that, if you can comment on that later, fine. I
have some questions about my State that I will ask or submit
later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Domenici. I read your
statement, Mr. Bosworth, and I just want to point out a couple
of things that you have highlighted in your statement. I am
glad we are finally taking a look to see where we want our
forests to be in 100 years, and the management it will take to
get there within the next 100 years. That is foresight, and
hazardous fuels.
You may summarize your statement if you like. Your entire
statement will be made a part of the record. As with all of the
Senators who are here today, your full statement will be made a
part of the record.
Chief Bosworth, we welcome you and we look forward to your
testimony.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you. Is this on? It is on, good. After
all these problems we had with that I was not sure.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do appreciate
the opportunity to talk about the President's fiscal year 2004
budget for the Forest Service. I have Hank Kashdan with me
today. Hank is the Director of Program and Budget Analysis for
the Forest Service. He will help me answer some of the
specifics in terms of dollar questions that you might have.
It is really good to have you back in the chair, Senator
Burns. I really appreciate the working relationship that we
have had in the past so it is good to have you there. It is
also good to have Senator Dorgan in the ranking minority member
position. It does make me feel a little bit like I am back home
in the Northern Region. I worked with both North Dakota and
Montana. Of course, we had lots of opportunities to work
together. It does make me feel like I am back home until I look
out of the window and see that I am still in the city. It is a
little bit different here.
I would like to acknowledge completion of the fiscal year
2003 budget process. It was important to us, the completion of
that. There are some thanks that you deserve for supporting
some things like: Fire reimbursement--$636 million I believe is
what we were reimbursed for the Forest Service--stewardship
contracting, which was mentioned by Senator Domenici; an
achievement of balance between fire suppression and fire
preparedness. Those were some of the things that came up in
some of the opening remarks.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
I wanted to take this opportunity to say right now that I
am strongly supportive, almost to the point of obnoxiousness,
of stewardship contracting. I mean, it can be our future. It
can make a huge opportunity for us to be able to treat,
particularly, some of the fuels kinds of problems that we have.
There are other kinds of opportunities beyond fuels management.
We have been experimenting with it now for about 4 or 5 years,
thanks in good part to the chairman, and we have learned a lot.
This is an expanded authority which, I think, if we are smart
in the way that we implement it, we will have people from all
different viewpoints feeling like this is a good tool to help
us do the right things on the national forests. So I really
appreciate having the opportunity to expand the use of that.
FIRE PREPAREDNESS AND SUPPRESSION
The other thing, the balance between fire suppression and
preparedness: In the 2003 budget we have the opportunity to
move the dollars back and forth between suppression and
preparedness, depending upon what the fire season looks like.
That can be very, very helpful to us because we are looking
at--we are talking about the 2004 fire season in this budget.
We do not really know what that is going to look like in 2004.
As we get closer and closer, then, you want to maybe move money
from one side to the other, depending on what the conditions
are like. So the way the 2003 budget is set up, that gives us
that flexibility to be able to make some of those adjustments,
which I appreciate very much.
AUDIT OPINION
I am going to talk mostly about healthy forests, the
national fire plan, and the Agency priorities. I do want to
mention our financial accountability first. I appreciate your
comments, Mr. Chairman, about our accomplishment in finally
achieving a clean audit opinion. It is very important for us to
have done that. I am very proud of the folks who worked really
hard to accomplish that. It is almost unheard of to, really, go
from no opinion to an unqualified audit opinion in just 1 year.
We feel very good about that.
But I also have to say that that is the very, very, very
minimum that taxpayers ought to expect of us. At the least, we
ought to be able to do that. We have a long ways to go yet in
our organization to be able to sustain that clean audit
opinion. We still have other changes we have to make in terms
of how we are organized, in terms of how we manage our
financial dollars. I believe that, while it is our job in the
Forest Service to be good stewards of the public lands, it is
also our job to be good stewards of the public funds. We intend
to do that.
A little bit, just sort of an overview, I guess, of the
fiscal year 2004 President's program: For me, the reality is
that it is a flat budget, the very, very best that we can
expect, given the international and domestic issues that we are
faced with. Having a flat budget is the most that we can
expect. That is what we have.
HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE
We have legislative and regulatory initiatives, though,
that I believe will help stretch those dollars a lot further to
get more money on the ground. That would accomplish some of
those things like the President's Healthy Forests Initiative.
To me, the key solution here is to be able to do more with the
dollars that we have. That is what some of these initiatives
tie into.
We have the Healthy Forests Initiative--many of you are
very, very familiar--and everybody from the West is very, very
familiar--with some of the fires that we have had--the problems
that the lack of good forest health has brought to us. Many of
these large fires happened because of the lack of forest
health.
Senator Feinstein mentioned the San Bernadino National
Forest. One of the problems is that we are in a drought
situation. There are way, way too many trees there for what the
conditions, the natural conditions, would have been because we
have been suppressing fires for years and years and years.
So now we are faced with the problem of trying to clean up
a place that is messed up because of insects and diseases--
particularly insects, bark beetles in this case, with a whole
lot of dead trees--rather than having treated it 10 years ago,
or 15 years ago--to have a healthy forest condition so that we
do not have to deal with the clean-up and then potential
devastating fire problems.
I think that is a good example. There are many other
examples that we have seen around the country that are facing
us that, if we can be proactive and get the work done on the
ground, we maybe hopefully can avoid some of those
circumstances.
I think there are lots of opportunities--the same thing in
Idaho again, or in Montana again--with stewardship
contracting--to try to achieve some of the same things there,
and that can apply to places--we have the same opportunities in
New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado. Those are some great
opportunities that I am really anxious to continue the work
with this committee on.
We have had good support from this subcommittee in the
whole notion of forest health and long-term fuels reduction.
That is going to be the challenge for us over the next 10 to 15
years. I hope we can continue with that.
RESEARCH
There are some other increases in the budget that I think
are important that I want to point out. There is an increase in
research that is targeted at sudden oak death and other
invasive species--an additional increase for fire-related
research, and that is going to be really important. We need to
do a good job of research. We need to be building our research
capacity back. When we get some of these events, like sudden
oak death, we have to have the capability to try to learn as
much about that as quickly as we can or we can end up with some
really difficult situations.
RANGE MANAGEMENT
We have an increase in range management to help improve the
health of rangelands--an increase for forest legacy, I think
that you had mentioned, better enable acquisition of
conservation easements on some important tracts.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
There is an array of legislative proposals that will do
things like: update the appeals process; streamline the
execution of the highest-priority hazardous fuels reduction
areas; expand partnership authorities; improve the ability of
partners to cooperate with the Agency--because right now it is
very difficult for people to be partners with us and so there
is a legislative initiative that would help that--and also to
make existing watershed enhancement authority permanent, known
as the Wyden authority.
It is also important to note that there is a proposal to
make the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program permanent. I do
believe that a large majority of recreation users support that
program.
A lot of comments were made in the opening remarks that I
would be happy to respond to. I could respond, I think, more to
direct questions regarding these things. The one I would like
to just--several people talked about ``analysis paralysis'' or
``process gridlock.''
PROCESS PREDICAMENT
We submitted--developed a report in the Forest Service
about a year ago in which we referred to a ``process
predicament.'' The purpose of that report was to identify
problems. It did not offer solutions but identified problems.
We used that as a means to try to get some kind of
understanding and agreement as to whether there was really a
problem. We believed there was.
My belief is that it was useful for that. People recognized
that we have problems and are willing to work with us.
Consequently, we have submitted a number of things. We proposed
some changes in our planning regulations. That, hopefully,
would reduce the time to do a forest plan from something like--
8 to 10 years is what it has been taking us--down to maybe 2
years. I mean, they are out for public comment right now. That
is what I would like to do: To be able to get them and shorten
that period of time.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS
We are proposing some ``categorical exclusions'' which
would mean that we would exclude certain kinds of projects from
documentation in an environmental impact statement. We would
still do analysis, still do public involvement. We just would
not document it in an environmental impact statement for those
projects that we have done over and over and over and over
again. We know, after having done it so many times, that we are
not going to have adverse effects on the environment.
So we are proposing a number of categorical exclusions that
we believe will help speed up the process for things like some
small-debris removal, for fuels treatment, and for restoration
and rehabilitation. Those are out for public comment right now.
They are not all favorable, the comments we get on those but,
again, I believe that if we get the opportunity to implement
some of those things, we can show people what we can do on the
ground. They will like what they see. We are trying to move
forward and deal with that issue.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So I am going to wrap it up now. I will answer questions. I
am happy to be in this job right now. It is an exciting time.
It is an honor to be here. I look forward to working with you.
I will be happy to answer your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dale N. Bosworth
Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year
2004 Budget for the Forest Service. I am accompanied by Hank Kashdan,
Director of Program and Budget Analysis for the Forest Service. It is a
great privilege to be here today.
Before discussing my testimony in detail, let me first thank you
Mr. Chairman for your support of the Forest Service and your focus on
management of the nation's natural resources. The Committee's support
of expanded authority for stewardship contracting as contained in the
fiscal year 2003 Appropriation's Act, exemplifies this focus. And
Senator Dorgan, let me start by congratulating you on assuming the
ranking member position on the Subcommittee. I look forward to working
with you in this important role.
OVERVIEW
Teddy Roosevelt's rich legacy includes the Forest Service, and he
once observed that people should make few promises and then keep them.
Our agency, which will celebrate its 99th anniversary during the 2004
budget year, has made more than a few promises. I am often asked about
my vision for the Forest Service. The Forest Service must be viewed as
the world's leader in natural resource management by living up to
commitments, efficiently using and accounting for the taxpayer funds
that are entrusted to us, and treating people with respect. My vision
as we approach the centennial is to heed TR's advice. We are an agency
that keeps its promises.
The fiscal year 2004 President's budget request for the Forest
Service is $4.8 billion, $119 million greater than the fiscal year 2003
Enacted Budget. The fiscal year 2004 Budget provides funding to reduce
the risk of wild land fire to communities and the environment by
implementing the President's Healthy Forests Initiative. In addition,
it provides funds to enhance the ability of the Forest Service to meet
multiple demands. The major departure from fiscal year 2003 is an
increase of $187 million for wild land fire suppression and additional
increases in funds for forest and rangeland research, forest
stewardship, forest legacy, range management, and hazardous fuels
reduction.
This past August the President announced the Healthy Forests
Initiative in order to help reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires
to communities and the environment. The fiscal year 2004 budget
proposal contains a combination of legislative and funding priorities
the President feels are necessary to address this need, as signaled in
his State of the Union message. The Healthy Forests Initiative builds
on the fundamentals of multiple use management principles that have
guided the Forest Service since its formation. These principles embody
a balance of conservation and balanced approach to the use of natural
resources that are valid today in working with local communities,
States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies.
ACCOUNTABILITY
In my testimony today I want to discuss in detail how the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget and accompanying legislative
initiatives will improve the health of our forests and rangelands, but
first let me focus on the agency's effort to improve its financial
accountability.
When I began my career, the Forest Service was viewed as a model
federal agency, accomplishing our mission for the American people. I am
pleased to share with you today a stride that takes us closer to the
reputation of a generation ago. Through the extraordinary efforts of
our employees across the nation, we and our USDA counterparts have
achieved an unqualified audit opinion for 2002. This is an important
step in a continuing effort to fulfill promises previous Chiefs and I
have made to get the Forest Service financial house in order. To
progress from no opinion to a clean opinion in just one year is
unprecedented. This unqualified audit opinion sets the basis for our
next steps, which include additional financial reforms to efficiently
consolidate financial management personnel; improve the effectiveness
of the financial management system as part of the funds control and
budget execution process; and improve the quality of account
reconciliation. It will take as much work to keep that clean financial
opinion as it did to earn it. But, this important accomplishment of a
clean audit opinion demonstrates the progress we are making in keeping
our word.
PROCESS PREDICAMENT
When I met with you a year ago, gridlock and analysis paralysis
directly affected our ability to deliver on many promises: to protect
communities from catastrophic wildfire, to provide a sustainable flow
of forest and grassland products, and to sustain the landscapes used
and enjoyed by the American people. These problems still exist, but the
Forest Service has taken the initiative to deal with this process
predicament within its authority by proposing regulations and policies.
I believe we are on the road to success. We proposed a revised planning
rule to provide a more readily understood planning process--one that
the agency can implement within anticipated budgets. We proposed new
processes to simplify documentation under NEPA for management
activities that do not significantly affect the environment--small,
routine projects that are supported by local communities, such as
salvaging dead and dying trees or removing insect infested or diseased
trees. We propose to work with you and the American people to keep our
promise that these measures are about sustainable land stewardship.
PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA
The Forest Service has developed and is implementing a
comprehensive strategy to achieve the objectives of the President's
Management Agenda. Today I'll highlight a few of the significant
efforts we're making to improve Forest Service management and
performance. In the competitive sourcing arena, we will conduct public/
private competitions on 3,000 full-time equivalent positions during
fiscal year 2004, identifying the most efficient, effective way to
accomplish work for the American people, as identified in the Agency's
Efficiency Plan which has been submitted to the Administration. Our e-
government energies will move beyond web information delivery into four
important areas: incident planning and management, recreation services
and information, electronic planning record, and the federal and non-
federal assistance process. We are instituting critical oversight
controls to keep wildfire suppression costs as low as possible while
protecting communities and resources and improve our methods of
reporting wild land fire suppression expenses. Several streamlining
efforts are underway to reduce indirect costs and better examine the
role and structure of various Forest Service organizational levels.
An element of the President's Management Agenda concerning budget
and performance initiative, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
analysis provides a standardized set of performance management criteria
that provides a consistent evaluation process to identify areas of
performance and budget integration they should improve. In fiscal year
2004, the Wildland Fire Management and Capital Improvement and
Maintenance programs of the Forest Service were selected to participate
in the first round of assessments using the PART. The PART analyses for
these programs indicated that funds need to be better targeted within
the Wildland Fire Management program while the annual performance
measures of Capital Improvement and Maintenance program inadequately
linked to ongoing management initiatives aimed at addressing the
maintenance backlog.
RANGELAND MANAGEMENT
The President's budget provides a $2.6 million increase that
supports a significant Forest Service promise--to make progress on
completing environmental analysis on national forest rangelands. The
funding increase will enhance our capability to manage livestock and
support communities where rangelands are an integral part of the
economy and way of life.
FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH
Productive forests and rangelands provide wood and forage, clean
water, wildlife habitat, recreation, and many other values. Key to
sustained and enhanced productivity is developing and deploying
integrated resource management systems based on the best science
available. A $2.1 million increase in forest and rangeland research is
a valuable addition to our program. Some of the increase will support
research and development tools essential to prevent, detect, control,
and monitor invasive species and restore impacted ecosystems. Other
emphasis includes a pine bark beetle program that looks at new
management strategies, better utilization of bark beetle trees, and
developing additional treatment options for managers and landowners.
Programs to identify new biological control agents and treatment
methodology and to develop integrated pest management technology for
land managers will also be accelerated. The President's Budget
recognizes the need for research to support the full range of
challenges faced by land and resource managers because challenges don't
stop at National Forest System boundaries. Addressing the issues
associated with America's forests and grasslands--including hazardous
fuels, protection of communities from catastrophic wildfire, invasive
species, and pathogens--doesn't depend upon who owns the ground.
Keeping this promise goes beyond the basic and applied science
functions of research. We also need to bridge the gap between research
findings and results on the ground. The request reflects the importance
of technology transfer, internally in the Forest Service and externally
through our university and State and Private Forestry program partners.
STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
Through close cooperation with State Foresters and other partners,
our State and Private Forestry Program provides assistance to
landowners and resource managers to help sustain the Nation's forests
and protect communities and the environment from wildland fire. The
President's budget contains an increase of over $31 million for these
programs. While most of the forest health management, cooperative fire
protection, and cooperative forestry programs continue at fiscal year
2003 levels, forest stewardship and the forest legacy program reflect
an increase. A $34 million increase for forest stewardship supports the
objectives of the National Fire Plan, the Healthy Forest Initiative,
and the Forestry Title of the 2002 Farm Bill. The increase will
strengthen our partnerships through a competitive cost-share program,
leveraging the effectiveness of federal funds to reduce hazardous
fuels, improve invasive species management, and enhance forest
production from state and private lands. This increase will support
increased private landowners' investment in the management of small
diameter and underutilized forest products. In the forest legacy
program, the President's budget proposes a $22 million increase to
conserve environmentally important private forests through partnerships
with States and willing landowners. The budget will support
partnerships with up to ten additional States that have not previously
participated in the program. We expect total conservation of more than
200,000 acres, benefiting wildlife habitat, water quality, and
recreation.
THE NEXT 100 YEARS FOR AMERICA'S NATIONAL FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS
Some people and organizations still argue that timber harvest
levels represent the greatest threat to the National Forests. However
loudly voiced or strongly held these views may be, they are not
accurate for the reality of management of the National Forests in the
next 100 years. This year's budget request supports a program to offer
two billion board feet including salvage sales.
The request addresses two key long-term challenges to America's
National Forests and Grasslands: the build up of hazardous fuels and
the spread of invasive species that seriously impair ecosystems. In
August of last year, the President announced the Healthy Forests
Initiative (HFI). Its objectives include streamlining the decision-
making process and continuing our long-term commitment of working with
communities to achieve a meaningful level of public involvement.
We are committed to our continued partnership with those that use
and enjoy America's National Forests as well as those that value them
as part of our nation, no matter where they live. Although we have made
progress, we must do more. Last year, the Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior proposed new legislation to authorize permanent
stewardship contracting authority, expedited review, hazardous fuels
reduction projects, and address a burdensome administrative appeal
process. President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to Healthy Forests
during the State of the Union Address. We are committed to working with
you as you consider the proposals of the Secretaries.
Hazardous Fuels
The presence of large amounts of hazardous fuels poses a tremendous
threat to people and to public and private natural resources. The
Budget increases emphasis on protecting communities and property from
the effects of these combustible fuels--catastrophic wildfire. The
budget supports the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation
Plan, developed in close collaboration with governors, communities, and
the Department of the Interior. Through performance goals contained in
the implementation plan, we will implement hazardous fuels reduction
projects, improve fire suppression planning, expand forest product
utilization, protect lands from fire related spreads of invasive
species, and undertake key fire research.
The budget contains an increase of nearly $187 million for fire
suppression. Wild land fire suppression costs are increasing and are
having significant impact upon a wide number of Forest Service
programs. The cost increases are due a number of reasons, including
costs associated with national mobilization, wild land fire suppression
in areas of high hazardous fuel loads, large aircraft and helicopter
operations, and the increasing complexity of suppression in the wild
land-urban interface. To address these increasing costs, the Budget
proposes that the Forest Service and the Department of Interior (DOI):
review the cost-effectiveness of large fire aviation resources;
establish a review team to evaluate and develop cost containment
strategies; and revise procedures to improve reporting of fire
suppression spending. Together with other actions, this should enable
the Forest Service to significantly improve our ability to fight
wildfires without the major impacts to other programs we experienced
during last year's fire fund transfers. Last year we kept our promise
by aggressively fighting wildfire--long after funds appropriated
specifically for fire suppression were gone--and catching more than 99
percent of fires the way they all start, small. The request includes a
renewed emphasis on up-to-date fire management plans and wild land fire
use fires.
Accomplishing performance objectives under the National Fire Plan
is also consistent with the President's Management Agenda. Reducing
hazardous fuels, protecting against fire-related invasive species, and
targeting adequate resources to suppress wildfire promotes improved
health of Federal, State, Tribal, and local lands as well as enhancing
the economies of natural resource based communities. I again urge all
of us--cooperators and skeptics--to keep a focus on what we leave on
the land, not what we take from it. Effective, integrated hazardous
fuels reduction can leave us with clean, healthy water, improved
wildlife habitat, and more satisfying recreation experiences.
Invasives
Invasive species, especially weeds, pose a tremendous threat to
forests and grasslands. Whether kudzu or leafy spurge or knapweed or
oriental bittersweet vine, these unwanted invasives take hold and out
compete native species, changing the look and structure of entire
ecosystems. Our response to these threats needs to embrace an
integrated approach. In the coming year we will improve integration of
efforts among the National Forest System, Research, and State and
Private Forestry, and other USDA agencies.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
The fiscal year 2004 Budget contains several legislative proposals
that significantly advance common sense forest health efforts that
prevent the damage caused by catastrophic wildfires and move past
``process gridlock'' to improve agency land management efficiency. Four
proposals, in particular, promote the President's Healthy Forests
Initiative by reducing hazardous fuels; permanently authorizing
stewardship end results contracting; repealing the Appeals Reform Act;
and revising standards of judicial review in decisions that relate to
activities necessary to restore fire-adapted forest and rangeland
ecosystems.
Hazardous Fuels
As mentioned earlier, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior proposed legislation that authorizes emergency fuels reduction
projects in priority areas of federal forests outside wilderness areas.
This will allow timely treatment of forests at risk of catastrophic
fire and those that pose the greatest risk to people, communities, and
the environment. Our top priorities will include the wild land-urban
interface, municipal watersheds, areas affected by disease, insect
activity, wind throw, and areas subject to catastrophic reburn. We
would select projects through collaborative processes, consistent with
the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan.
Fundamental to better implementation of core components of the
National Fire Plan's 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy is the outstanding
cooperation that exists between the Forest Service, Department of the
Interior, State governments, counties, and communities in the
collaborative targeting of hazardous fuels projects to assure the
highest priority areas with the greatest concentration of fuels are
treated.
Stewardship End Result Contracting
Section 323 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003,
authorizes the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to
undertake, for a period of 10 years ``stewardship end results
contracting projects.'' The Administration had requested this extended
authority last year in the President's Healthy Forest Initiative. I
appreciate the action of the Congress in responding to the President's
request. We expect this tool, which had been available only to the
Forest Service on a limited pilot basis, to be used to implement
projects that have been developed in collaboration with local
communities and which will primarily improve forest or rangeland
health, restore and rehabilitate fish and wildlife habitat, and reduce
hazardous fuel. Projects will have appropriate NEPA analysis and comply
with agency wilderness and roadless policies, the relevant forest plans
and appeals regulations.
Repeal the Appeals Reform Act
The Forest Service is subject to procedural requirements that are
not required of any other Federal agency. To address this issue, the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior will propose legislation to
repeal Section 322 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993 (commonly known as the ``Appeals
Reform Act''), that imposed these requirements that I believe limit our
ability to work collaboratively with the public.
Standards of Judicial Review
To ensure that courts consider the public interest in avoiding
irreparable harm to ecosystems and that the public interest in avoiding
the short-term effects of such action is outweighed by the public
interest in avoiding long-term harm to such ecosystems, the Secretaries
of Agriculture and the Interior will propose legislation to establish
revised rules for courts in decisions that relate to activities
necessary to restore fire-adapted forest and rangeland ecosystems.
The President's Budget also includes legislative proposals to:
--Expand or clarify existing partnership authorities,
--Permanently authorize the Recreation Fee Demonstration program,
--Allow for the transfer of Forest Legacy titles to willing State
governments,
--Promote watershed restoration and enhancement agreements,
--Authorize a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund,
--Restore eligibility for State and Private Forestry Programs of the
three Pacific island entities in ``Compacts of Free
Association,'' and
--Eliminate requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 that duplicate the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993.
CONCLUSION
We are fulfilling key promises in re-establishing sound management
throughout the Forest Service. I want the Forest Service to be an
organization people trust and once again point to as an example of good
government. Earning this trust means becoming good stewards of not only
public land and natural resources, but of public dollars, of public
trust. We know the work is not complete--there are still many
opportunities like large fire cost management, integrating information
systems, and making organizational changes in administrative support
operations--but we're making good progress.
Traditional functional and program boundaries do not serve us
well--they get in the way of our ability to keep our word. I am
committed to putting more effort into integrating our programs and
becoming better partners with people interested in leveraging our work.
The President's Healthy Forest Initiative exemplifies an integrated
approach to problems that affect not just national forests or national
grasslands, but America's forests and America's rangelands. It is an
opportunity for our private land neighbors, for research, for partner
agencies, for everyone concerned about America's forests and
grasslands.
Let me reiterate the deep honor I feel in being Chief of the Forest
Service in this challenging time and the equally deep sense of
obligation I feel to keep our promises to the American people. I enlist
your continued support and look forward to working with you toward that
end.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Chief. I have a couple
of questions, and then I want to move to my colleagues, because
everyone is on a tight schedule. I have just a couple of
questions.
RESEARCH
In your R&D, I noticed in your monies to do research--the
continual research of what we can do--how do we better manage
our forests? I was going to ask you: Do you ever commission or
grant out to land grant colleges for work to be done with
regard to soil or water management, or watershed, or any of
those things? Do any of the colleges across the country--I
mean--New Mexico State University, I know, has a forestry
school that is very good. Do you ever outsource any of that
research to these colleges and land grant schools?
Mr. Bosworth. We do a lot of work in terms of research with
colleges and universities. Yes, we do outsource research to
colleges and universities. It depends upon the circumstances.
In some cases, they are doing it in combination with our
research organization. In other cases, it is just strictly
outsourced to a college or university.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Senator Burns. You might bring this up. I know some folks
believe that stewardship contracting is somewhat controversial.
I think you emphasized in your statement that stewardship
contracting is going to be sort of the centerpiece of getting
some things done on our forests that we need to be done. What
are the other main objectives that could be accomplished
through those stewardship contracts? How many contracts do you
plan to let this year?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, the first part, the other kinds of
objectives: The whole notion behind stewardship contracting is,
first, to collaborate with the public up front, to figure out
what condition you want the land to be left in. You work
together to figure out what that may be. Then, under one
request for proposal, you end up with a contract that will
accomplish all the things that you want to accomplish on that
piece of land. In other words, you are bundling all the
activities together.
So it may be things like reducing fuels. You may be able to
do some work like habitat improvement for a threatened or
endangered species, or for other species, some restoration work
for a watershed, rehabilitation or restoration work. I think
there are great opportunities to do some of the noxious weed
kind of work that needs to be done as part of that.
So you do all those jobs together. Then there is some
value, there may be some value from some of the materials, some
of the trees that are there. The value that is there would help
offset the cost of doing that work. The contractor then would
be able to utilize that material. So it makes a lot of sense
because you work together and reduce the amount of dollars.
Senator Domenici. Would the Senator yield?
Senator Burns. Sure.
Senator Domenici. Have you not done that, experimented four
or five times in pilot projects?
Mr. Bosworth. We have--let us see--we had 28 projects each
year authorized for the last 4 years. It is a total--I do not
have a calculator. I cannot multiply that out in my mind right
now. Anyway, that is how many we are authorized to do.
We have not completed a lot of those but we gained a lot of
experience in working with the public in setting those up. We
have done multi-party monitoring where we had people from the
public to help monitor those experiments or those pilot
projects. They were working very well.
Again, we did not have final results in a lot of cases. We
have the final results in some and a certain amount of progress
in lots of cases. To me, the thing that was important--to
monitor and see how it was working--is public acceptance:
Whether or not we were actually getting people to look for
common ground and find common ground. That was the important
part.
In terms of the number of projects or number of contracts
that we have this year, it is difficult for me to answer that
specifically. You know, we have delegated the authority, or
will delegate the authority, to the regional foresters to use
that tool wherever they can use it. There will be some
sideboards. There are going to be more projects. We need to
train people. There is some work that we are going to have to
do now. We are expanding the use of that. I am anxious to get
moving. I am anxious to have more opportunity to show people
how it will work. I am certain it is going to be successful.
Senator Burns. Well, thank you very much. I am going to
move on. I was going to ask you about your--I see you brought
all your boxes of appeals to make some points. I will let
somebody else handle that end of it.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I very
much appreciate what you are trying to do to correct the long-
standing, I think, failed policy of fire suppression. I want
you to at least know that this Senator wants to work with you
in that regard. I am very concerned about the Class 3 areas in
the Sierra Nevada, which are about a third of the Class 3 areas
in those strategic areas of Class 3.
SAN BERNADINO NATIONAL FOREST
The San Bernadino National Forest supervisor, Gene
Zimmerman, told my staff that he believes solving the bark
beetle problem will require at least $300 million--at least--
just for that forest, including $5 to $6 million which is
needed immediately simply to ensure that: Evacuation routes are
maintained; critical fire breaks are established; and the
necessary manpower and equipment are on hand.
The Omnibus Appropriations bill provided about $3.3 million
for this problem but it is not enough. How do you intend to
address this issue financially?
Mr. Bosworth. The total amount that Forest Supervisor
Zimmerman is talking about--I have not scrubbed those numbers
myself or had my staff take a hard look at those numbers--but
there is no question that the problem there is going to be
extensive to deal with.
The regional forester, Jack Blackwell, has already
committed to shifting some dollars within the region to get
down to, shift them down to the San Bernadino NF because that
is an urgent problem. There is a will to deal with it. The
public down there is interested in dealing with it. So he is
going to be shifting some of those dollars.
They have already implemented some projects--I can get you
some exact acreages, if you would like, and some more specific
kinds of plans for what we can do--but we are not going to be
able to put $300 million into that in the short term. That is
just too much money.
We also need to be very strategic in where we locate the
kinds of treatments that we are going to do so that we can get
the most out of every treatment to protect the communities, to
protect the homes, and to protect the forest as well.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
I recognize that $300 million is probably out of the can. As
has been said by others here, it is a really serious problem.
Anything you can do would be appreciated.
LAKE TAHOE
I wanted to ask you about the Lake Tahoe situation. As you
know, both California and Nevada are putting up their share of
money. They have had enormous success at raising money in the
private sector for that part of it. I am disappointed that so
little is in the budget for the Lake this year. I have another
question, too.
There was $21 million transferred from the 2003 budget for
Lake Tahoe to meet emergency wildfire suppression needs in that
area. The regional forester, the one and only Jack Blackwell,
has committed to use reimbursement monies in the Omnibus bill
to restore those funds to Lake Tahoe. Chief, will you commit as
well to use reimbursement monies in the Omnibus bill to
reinstate the funds?
Mr. Bosworth. Actually, the dollars that were--the way that
the payback--or the dollars to restore--the $636 million that I
talked about earlier--some of that would have been
automatically restored, about a third of it would not, of
National Forest System dollars. About a third of it would not
have been restored for Lake Tahoe. Regional Forester Blackwell
has agreed to move the dollars to make sure that Lake Tahoe
and, I believe, the Quincy Library Group as well--100 percent
of those dollars will be restored. He is doing that within his
own region. I appreciate the fact that he is taking that on and
doing that within the flexibility that he has. Those dollars
will be there. They will all be back in Lake Tahoe.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
LAKE ARROWHEAD
Can you quickly tell us what you are going to do in the
Lake Arrowhead area--now, this is for residence protection--in
those areas that are in the greatest danger of catastrophic
fire due to the tree mortality surrounding their property?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, I am going to need some time to be
really specific. I can tell you that our folks are working very
closely right now with the county, with local law enforcement,
as well as fire departments. Together we can take what we have
to offer in the Forest Service, along with what the State,
counties, and local jurisdictions have to offer, to work
together to be able to provide that safety net that people
need, but I cannot be specific about----
Senator Feinstein. Maybe somebody could brief me on what
you are doing in those areas, the bark beetle infestation
areas----
Mr. Bosworth. We would be happy to do that.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. With some specificity. I
would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, I
recognize, as I am sure you do--we all do--we have got a huge
deficit this year. Demands are up. States all have deficits. I
have to tell you, I think when I look at your budget we are
being penny-wise and dollar-foolish.
WESTERN FOREST FIRES
Those fires are so intense out there. I do not know if you
have visited some this last year--like the one in Arizona in
the national forest down there, and on the Indian reservation,
or the Hayman fire in Colorado, or the Missionary Ridge fire--
but they are not like fires years ago. These things are--I
mean--they are hotter, move faster, are more unpredictable--
they are worse.
I visited the Missionary Ridge fire near Durango while the
firefighters were there. I talked to a couple of firefighters.
They told me that the flames were moving at about 50 miles an
hour sometimes. They actually saw birds being burned out of the
sky. They could not even out-fly the flames. That is a hot
fire.
I think that, you know, we are going to pay the bill no
matter what. Durango is a good example. After that particular
fire, there was a lot of sediment washing down from the burn
area. They came back and asked me to get them one-half million
dollars in the appropriations process to upgrade their water
filtration system plant to be able to handle that increased
sediment, which I did. They got the money. I would have rather
put that money into your budget, very frankly.
It seems to me that when we do not plan ahead, do not have
adequate precautions, we are going to pay the bill. We are
going to pay the bill anyway at a later date. This all comes
out of the same taxpayer's pocket one way or the other. I just
think that if we had more money through the administration's
request, it would not cost us on the other end. It is going to
cost, as I understand it, about $3 million to stabilize some of
the areas around Denver where sediment is already washing
down--and will even more after this last huge snow begins to
melt--and washes into the filtration system. I just wanted to
pass that on and maybe ask you a couple of questions.
RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
By the way, all the calls we are getting in our offices out
West are absolutely against that fee demo, making that Fee
Demonstration Program permanent. I think most people think, as
I do out there, that if you are using the land--like you are
taking firewood or cutting Christmas trees or something of that
nature--when you take something from it--or filming for profit
or something--then it is fair to ask them to pay some kind of a
fee. But most of the people I talk to out there are absolutely
opposed to paying just to go out and look at what they think
they own as an American citizen in a forest. I thought I would
pass that on to you.
WESTERN WATER RIGHTS
Let me ask you just two questions. One deals with water.
Out West, we are very, very protective of our water, as you
might know. It goes back to years and years ago. Mark Twain
once said that whiskey was for drinking, water was for
fighting. They still think that way out there, as you know. We
have this constant struggle between those people who believe
there is an implied Federal reserved water right and those
people who think that all water within a State ought to be
adjudicated through the State water courts.
I would like to know your view on that, because in some
cases--and I know it depends a lot on which administration is
in power, too--but in some cases the Forest Service has tried
to impose bypass flows in our national forest and circumvent
working with State instream flow programs. I am sure you are
aware of that. I would like you to give me your view on where
you think that is going, particularly as we possibly face
another drought in the West.
Mr. Bosworth. Well, the first thing is that States
adjudicate water rights. My belief is that people who have
water rights, that is their water. The State is the
organization that determines who has those rights.
I also think that, in the end, the way to work with this is
in a collaborative way to find common ground. The land is not
worth much if you do not have water on it whether it is private
land or whether it is public land. So it is important, in my
view, that: We work together with those folks that hold the
water rights; do what we can to try to make sure that we are
still able to keep the functioning of the streams intact and
also meet their needs; but do it in a working-together way
rather than in a going-to-court or a regulatory way.
I may be a little bit naive, but I believe that in most
cases if you really sit down and try to work toward each
other's interests, you can find solutions to those problems.
Senator Campbell. Well, I would like to think so, too. But,
as I said, sometimes it depends on the administration. It seems
to me the past administration was hell-bent on usurping State
water rights in all of our rivers that come through our Western
States. We had those constant fights. I wanted you to be aware
of that.
FIRE IMPACTS ON WATERSHEDS
Let me just ask maybe one more, and that is: When I think
in terms of how watersheds are affected by these murderous
fires we have out now, it would seem to me the Forest Service
would get ahead of the curve and try to work with
municipalities in offering some suggestions or recommendations
or something before the fires start on what precautions they
ought to be taking. Do you have anything like that in place in
the Forest Service? I see Hank is nodding his head so you must
have something.
FIREWISE
Mr. Bosworth. We have a program called FIREWISE where we
work with, usually through the State Foresters, the local
community in making sure that people have the information to
know what things they can do on their own property and around
their own homes.
WATER FILTRATION PLANTS
Senator Campbell. Yes, I knew of those because I have sat
in some of those meetings. I meant particularly dealing with
water filtration plants and precautions that can be taken by
towns to protect their water after a fire.
Mr. Bosworth. I guess I am not aware specifically in terms
of water filtration. We would certainly have some expertise
that could work with that. We also have some programs, like our
Forest Stewardship program under State and Private Forestry,
that helps in terms of how you manage on private land, how the
vegetation is managed to help private landowners do things that
will keep the land in better condition in the event that you
have a fire. You would not need to deal with the problem in
terms of filtration through plants. I would be very happy to
explore some of our State and Private Forestry programs to see
whether there are some things that can get at that more
directly.
Senator Campbell. Well, I might compliment you on one
thing. I know in our State--and I think it is probably pretty
much like this in other Western States, too--that Federal and
State Foresters really work well together. I have done a number
of town meetings--the things that we all do--and invited them
to come answer some questions about it. They really have a very
close working relationship and good communication between
States and the Federal level.
They are all strapped with the same problem--that is, not
having enough resources--but they do have tremendous lines of
communication.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DROUGHT
Again, most of the questions that I am concerned about have
been asked. You are aware of the fact that we are in the fifth
year of a drought. It seems hard to realize here in
Washington--where we have just dug out from under huge amounts
of snow and now we have rain coming down--but in Utah the
conditions are very bad. I would hope you would do everything
you can. I know you are doing everything you can.
I simply want to underscore that. We are reaching a point
where we need, not just good stewardship, but we need heroic
kinds of statements to deal with the challenges of drought.
Aside from doing a rain dance and making it rain--we will
assign that to Senator Campbell--I am not quite sure what you
can do.
Senator Burns. He said it is a matter of timing.
Senator Bennett. I see, okay.
I want to compliment you on the people you have on the
ground in Utah. We have a good relationship in our office with
Forest Service personnel in Utah. We very much appreciate their
cooperation. Other than that, as I say, all the issues relating
to the bark beetles and litigation, et cetera, probably have
already been covered.
Senator Campbell. Would the chairman yield?
Senator Burns. I would.
GROUNDED AIR TANKER FLEET
Senator Campbell. I had asked you earlier if you would
comment on the tanker fleet, too, that many of us are worried
about so much, if you could do that.
Mr. Bosworth. Yes. As you know, we had two accidents last
year where the fatal crashes were air tankers: one was a C-130A
and the other was a PB4Y. Subsequently, the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management, Kathleen Clarke, and I commissioned
a blue ribbon panel. It was a very high-level group of people
from outside the Forest Service to evaluate our aerial
firefighting program. They came back with some recommendations.
We are looking through those and implementing some of those
recommendations.
But one of the things we have done is, we have grounded the
C-130As and the PB4Ys. We are taking the rest of the large
aircraft and, working with FAA, have developed an inspection
and maintenance program. We are in the process of inspecting
those before we are going to put them back in service. Once the
inspections are completed, and we find out what kind of
maintenance has to be done, then we will be able to move
forward.
It is my expectation that we will have retardant aircraft
available this year. It may not be at the full level that we
had last year. We are supplementing the numbers with what we
call SEEDS--it is a single-engine aircraft as opposed to the
larger ones. Then we also have--we are looking at more heavy-
lift helicopters.
Senator Campbell. Those will be leases, I guess. You do not
own any of those.
Mr. Bosworth. That is right. The other part of it is, we
need to make sure that we are putting those retardant aircraft
in the right places. What I mean by that is, I think that the
best place for using those is in the initial attack and
extended attack. When you get these huge fires--like the Hayman
fire, the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, and the Missionary Ridge fire--
in a lot of cases, heavy-lift helicopters are much more
effective in terms of trying to protect private homes. You have
seen how big those fires are. You know, dropping retardant in a
lot of cases is just dropping dollar bills out of the aircraft
and not doing much more than that.
We will be prepared this year--maybe not at the full level,
as we were, but we will be functioning very well.
Senator Campbell. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
First let me compliment you on your enthusiasm. I think it
could be a good year for you and for the Forest Service. I was
going to ask about your airplanes. You have answered that to my
satisfaction.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
I noted from my staff that a couple of weeks ago, in the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, you testified there
that you expected to be able to put out 98 percent of the fires
in 2004. I am wondering how you are going to do that. It is our
understanding you are going to have about half the firefighters
you had in 2002.
Mr. Bosworth. What I would like to do first is put a chart
up here for you to take a look at. I believe you have a copy of
it in front of you there. It is the chart that shows--if you
will notice there on the left, the blue circle: That is the
total number of fires that we had between 1996 and 2001. That
is that circle. The little pink pie shape in there is 1.8
percent of those fires. That 1.8 percent are those fires that
exceed 300 acres.
So then if you go to the right and you look at the top
circle, that is our suppression costs. What that shows is that
86 percent of those suppression costs came from that little
pink wedge on the left-hand side. In other words, the 1.8
percent of the fires caused 86 percent of the costs and 95
percent of the acres burned. The idea, then, is to keep that
little pink wedge as small as you can keep it. If you could
keep all fires less than 300 acres, then, of course, we could
significantly reduce the dollars.
Now, we are never going to be able to do that, not with
drought and not with the situation we have with fuels. Our best
hope to ever do that is by treating fuels. In the long term,
there is hope that we could even significantly reduce the cost
even more.
So, then, our challenge is to look at that balance between
suppression costs and preparedness costs to make sure that we
have enough firefighters to do the initial attack, to keep
those fires small, but still make sure that we have enough
money to fight those large fires that we are going to have a
certain amount of.
There are differences of opinion about how much that ought
to be. For me, the important thing is to have some flexibility
to move funds back and forth between suppression and
preparedness because, again, it depends so much on what the
fire season looks like when you actually get closer to it. The
fiscal year 2003 authority provided us that opportunity for
2003. We will see how well that works this year. My expectation
is that that will help us get the right level of preparedness
and then still be able to do the job that we need in
suppression.
Senator Domenici. Well, you are saying that you want to try
to have fewer big fires.
Mr. Bosworth. That is right. We want fewer big fires
because that is where the cost and that is where the acres are.
Senator Domenici. Well, if you can do that, wonderful. We
will give you some kind of medal if you can do that.
PROCESS PREDICAMENT
Let me talk just a couple of minutes about the report on
process predicament. I thank you for reminding me of it. I will
review it. I am at fault for not having reviewed it if there
are things in there that we ought to be doing. You have stated
that you are going to be working to get at some of the
predicaments in the process that that study revealed. We ought
to be doing some of them if they are legislative. I hope we
will look at them collectively and see what we can do.
If there are any legislative changes in that that stand out
to you, I would hope you would call it to our attention. We,
too, have a responsibility to help you as you try to do that.
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you. I would just like to respond very
quickly if I could. The process predicament write-up does not
give answers. It just kind of defines a problem. We are trying
to work together to develop the answers.
I would like to point out one thing that I have here since
we are talking about process predicament. The Lolo National
Forest had fires along with a lot of others in the year 2000.
They attempted then to do some work, to do some restoration and
rehabilitation. I would like to point out over here: This is an
environmental impact statement. This stack here, which is a
pretty good size stack of stuff--in order for them to do work
on 752 acres of soil stabilization, 224 miles of road
decommissioning--closing roads--2,172 acres of timber salvage,
2,377 acres of commercial thinning, and 12,900 acres of
reforestation--in order to do that work, it took this
environmental impact statement.
When we got the appeals, if you take this--we have the
appeal record. That box--12 of those boxes is what it took to
transfer the appeal record to the regional office from the
forest--12 of those boxes to do the work on one forest after
just one of the many, many fires that we had--to do some of the
work of restoration and rehabilitation. That is why I am so
focused on trying to deal with this process predicament. That
is just a huge problem for us.
Senator Domenici. Well, you know, we can just continue on
and complain, or we can try to do something like you are doing
and find some of the actual problems.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
I have a personal commitment to myself to try to establish
a presentable case for the use of the stewardship contracts. I
have a certain entity that I would like to convince in my State
that they are a good thing. To that end, I have the language of
the law. I wonder if you could have one of your staff just take
a couple of projects that have worked, even if they are small--
they do not have to be in my State, obviously--and just narrate
how they start, who gets involved, how it proceeds beyond that,
and how it ends up--being able to accomplish something
collectively that is contemplated by this new statute. Could
you do a couple of those for me, please?
Mr. Bosworth. I would be very happy to do that. I could
also make some people available to go through the whole process
of what they used. We have some people in my office now who
have actually done those, as forest supervisors, and who have
now transferred into my office. They would be happy to sit
down. They have done some projects that are very successful.
They had a huge amount of public support for them. We would be
happy to go through some of those examples.
Senator Domenici. If you could get me one in writing. If I
may--in New Mexico--want to ask you to send a couple of your
people with me to show some constituents how it is done. If I
could start with a written explanation, it would be extremely
helpful to me.
Mr. Bosworth. I will do that.
COUNTY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Senator Domenici. I have about 8 or 10 questions I am going
to submit. One of which has to do with asking you whether you
will continue to handle the so-called county partnership
restoration program. Will you continue to work with the
counties? There are a number of those going. Some of them are
working. We do not want you to let up on that kind of
relationship. Could you just take a minute or so and talk about
that?
Mr. Bosworth. The way that we are going to get these jobs
done is through those kinds of partnerships. There are a number
of projects that I know of that folks are working on, where
county partnerships are working together, I think, in New
Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado.
Senator Domenici. Right. Lincoln is one, Apache----
Mr. Bosworth. Apache-Sitgraves is one, and then the San
Juan, I believe, is one.
Senator Domenici. Right.
Mr. Bosworth. Those folks are working together in that
partnership to move forward.
Now, we have not taken dollars off the top in my office and
sent funds to those places specifically. We are looking at what
kind of things we might be able to do in addition to help to
make it easier for them to do that.
Senator Domenici. The only thing we expect you to do is to
continue to push those and give your blessings to them so that
the people know they are for real and that you support them.
Mr. Bosworth. I am more than willing to put emphasis, to
talk it up, and to encourage the regions and the forests to
take the dollars that we are giving them, and to work them into
those partnership areas.
The only thing I am reluctant to do--I am trying not to do
very much of--is take dollars off the top here. I want to get
as much money out as I can without me taking it off the top.
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Mr. Bosworth. So we have reduced that significantly, but
boy--I am willing to do all the rest of that.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Yes, sir.
WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
Would you put the last chart that you had up there, sir,
please? I have a question regarding it. That is a very, very
compelling chart that you have up there. I would just like to
know--up there in the big blue circle where you do your circle
irrigation up there--that is what it looks like, does it not?
Mr. Bosworth. It does.
Senator Burns. How many of those big fires started--or had
their origination--started in your wildland-urban interface
areas? Would you have any idea? Have you ever looked at that?
Mr. Bosworth. We can get some information on that. I could
not tell you just offhand. I am sitting here trying to decide--
what I was pausing about was whether or not, in my view, most
of those would be in sort of roaded areas versus the
backcountry kind of areas. I just do not know. I would have to
do some work, particularly--and we can do that. I mean, I think
you can get the information. We will see what we can find and
at least figure out whether they are in the wildland-urban
interface or whether they are in roaded versus unroaded areas.
Senator Burns. And along with what Senator Domenici had to
say, it would be good if we could do some kind of a white
paper. He wants some concrete information that he can take to
his communities in New Mexico as far as stewardship is
concerned and how those are working.
We also should take a look and see what changes we would
have to make in the law to facilitate both what we are trying
to do on the forest, and also take a look and see where the
objections are--how we address those objections or those
questions by people who would file these appeals--because, no
doubt, some of those appeals have a legitimate basis. How do we
address those in certain circumstances in order to deal with an
isolated case? That would help us up here.
Mr. Bosworth. That is part of--that is what the Healthy
Forests Initiative wants to do in large part as well.
Senator Burns. That is right.
Mr. Bosworth. So that is why that proposal is out there.
Senator Burns. Okay. Well, we sure appreciate your work on
that.
Senator Stevens, welcome to the committee this morning, the
chairman of the full committee. We look forward to your--if you
have a statement you may put it in the record.
TONGASS TIMBER REFORM ACT
Senator Stevens. No, I do not have a statement, Mr.
Chairman. We have four subcommittee meetings this morning. I am
trying to go to each one. I am sorry to be late here, Mr.
Bosworth. I have great interest in the Forest Service, as you
know. We recently had to put a provision in the law to assure
that the Tongass Timber Reform Act concept was finally approved
in the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP). I hope that you
will have no difficulty with that.
Mr. Bosworth. Not at all.
Senator Stevens. Are you all going to be able to observe
that provision of the law?
Mr. Bosworth. We are going to make every effort to do that,
yes, I believe so.
Senator Stevens. I have lived now through too many
agreements with people over what happens in Alaska. One of them
was in the Tongass Timber Reform Act. It was the third in a
series of agreements we had to reach in order to continue
Forest Service operations in Alaska, and harvesting timber. It
has now been held up, as you know, for about 12 years or more.
I hope that we will go ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I am thinking about offering a provision that
says anyone who challenges those plans must pay the loss of
income to the people who have suffered by the delay--if they
suffered--if they prevent going ahead now with the contracts
that have been in place for so long, as far as harvesting
Alaska timber.
These people, who are just professional protesters in the
legal profession, do nothing but file lawsuits in order to
raise more money. The contributions go to a foundation they
form themselves. They pay themselves and they have no downside
when they lose. I think we have got to find some way to prevent
people from holding up the harvesting of timber under a plan
such as--I do not know if you know it--I opposed TLMP when it
first came out. By the time it has gone through 12 years, I
have no alternative but to support it.
I do hope we can find some way to make certain it goes--I
notice from your resume you never served in Alaska, Mr.
Bosworth.
Mr. Bosworth. I have never served in Alaska. I have been in
a number of regions. I have been to Alaska a number of times. I
spent a week there last year trying to gain a better
understanding of the issues. There are some real challenges
there. There are also some very good--we have some very good
employees there. They are working hard.
Senator Stevens. Well, we would invite you to come up,
because, you know, some things that may work elsewhere, such as
backfires and other things, can really cause holocausts in our
State. I think it takes someone with firm professional
experience to oversee operations on a day-to-day basis up
there.
BEETLE KILL ON THE KENAI PENINSULA
I went with Senator Domenici when they had those terrible
fires out in his area. I could hardly believe them. We have
now--I am told we have over 3 million acres of beetle kill on
Federal lands that are in the vicinity of our major city of
Anchorage, and coming up--that is the Kenai Peninsula, up
towards the Matanuska Valley in Alaska. The beetle kill is
substantial.
I hope that under the President's new program that we can
take some steps to try to thin out some of those dead trees so
they do not provide the fuel for fires such as we have had
before in that area. Beetle kill--I have flown over the forests
when they are burning. The sinuosity of the fire follows the
dead trees in our area. They just end up by consuming an
enormous acreage of forest because the trees that are dead,
because of the infestation, have not been removed.
I hope you will look at a plan to try and remove some of
those dead trees.
Mr. Bosworth. Actually, when I was up visiting there last
summer, I did get up in the Kenai. I did look at some of the
area where the spruce is dead. It is a huge problem. I
certainly agree with you. A lot of that is private land. Some
of that is national forest. We are working through our State
and Private Forestry program with private landowners. We are
then trying to do as much as we can on the national forest as
well.
One of the successful programs I think also is the FIREWISE
program there on the Kenai. We are working with those folks,
the actual homeowners, helping them find ways that they can
make their homes safer from fire. I appreciate your support and
your attention on that.
ALASKA JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS
Senator Stevens. You are right, it is a checkerboard of
Federal ownership. Part of it is a wildlife refuge, for
instance, and the forest surrounds that. The wildlife refuge
was actually carved out of national forest lands in the past.
There are enormous problems jurisdictionally between the two
Federal agencies in determining how to deal with fires in the
peninsula. In the final analysis, you know, we have less than 2
percent of our land in private ownership. It is all surrounded
by Federal or State land. If Federal and State people do not
fight their fires, the people who suffer the most are the
people who have the inholdings, so to speak, that are involved
in those areas of heavy forestation.
Southeastern Alaska, I am sure you saw, because of its
rainfall, does not have as much difficulty. But it has been
drier this year, too. We are going to have enormous fires if we
do not get prepared for them.
Mr. Bosworth. Again, my belief is that the solution is both
fuels treatment and working together between State, Federal,
local jurisdictions, and working with homeowners. We can do
that by working together to make a big difference. That is an
important part of the National Fire Plan.
ALASKA FOREST TRIP BY AIR
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, once in the past I got the
cooperation of the Department of Defense. We took one of the
enormous passenger planes from the military. We went through
the forested area of our State. We had helicopters and National
Guard standing by to take people, Senators and staff, out to
look at these areas of really great risk to everybody. That is
15 years ago now. I am not sure there are many people around
here that made that trip.
I would like to suggest to you that we try to organize a
trip to go up there. It only takes a weekend, really. I think
we should go up. We should ask Mr. Bosworth and some of his
staff to go along. You just have to view it in totality. These
are the two largest forests in the United States. Beyond that
are millions of acres of forestland that is owned by the
Federal Government. There is just not proper stewardship of
handling the problem of infestation of the timber in
particular.
I do not want to belabor it. I urge you to think about it.
I think that is a fantastic legacy for the future. I think the
day will come when we will be compelled to resume harvesting
that timber. We could have harvested that timber on a 103-,
104-year cutting cycle, using only 10 percent of the forest,
and supplied better than 450 million board feet forever. That
has been challenged and cut back. As you know, we are down now
last year to 34 million board feet.
The year that I came to the Senate, the harvest was 1.5
billion board feet. We still only cut--in the history of man,
we have cut 3 percent of the forest. It does not make any sense
what happened. I think more people in the Senate, and more of
your people, need to be exposed to the whole of the totality of
forest areas in Alaska in order to make sure we have a sound
policy.
I appreciate what you are doing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, thank you for coming by. I
noted, Senator, that he said he had spent 1 week up there last
year in your forest. I spent 1 night up there that turned into
1 week.
You know how that is. He raises a very legitimate question,
though, I will tell you that.
NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING
There are a couple of things I want to ask you about, and
then--forest plans, money to--we understand that they are
incredibly costly, to do forest plans. Are you on schedule to
do, redo forest plans--we have some coming up, I understand--
especially when it has taken us 5 to 6 years to prepare one of
those things. How are we on that schedule of redoing some of
the forest plans?
Mr. Bosworth. We are behind in terms of--you know--we are
supposed to have our plans done--they are supposed to be
revised every 10 to 15 years, 15 being the outside. We have a
number of forest plans that are 15 years and beyond.
The important thing, I think, is our attempt to update the
planning rule and, frankly, to modernize the planning rule. The
way it has been--the last time it was done was back in the
early 1980s and then, of course, in 2000. The problem with the
2000 planning rule is that it would cost us an estimated $12
million per forest plan to do a revision. It would take several
years--I mean, probably more than what it has taken under the
old rule. It is my strong desire to get the timeframe down to
just a couple of years.
I also have a belief that the only people that can be
involved in forest planning, when it takes you 8 or 9 years,
are those who are being paid to be involved. But the person who
just cares--the person who likes to go hunting or fishing, or
the person who wants to go camping--they cannot stay with it
for 8 years and work with us for 8 years along with everybody
else. So if we really want to work with the public in a
collaborative way on how their forests are going to be managed,
we have to get that timeframe down to just 2 years or 3 at the
max.
That is what our proposed planning rule would do, I am
hoping and expecting. If it does, then I think we can make a
huge difference, reduce costs, and get caught up.
Senator Burns. The same thing on grazing permits?
RANGE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Bosworth. In the 2004 President's budget we are
increasing the amount for Range that would--I will have Hank
give you the dollars--that would increase the number of
allotments that we could get under NEPA by about 30 percent, I
believe. Can you give him the figures specifically, Hank?
Mr. Kashdan. Yes.
Senator Burns. Turn your microphone around there, Henry.
Mr. Kashdan. Mr. Chairman, the grazing increase of $7.3
million, compared to the President's budget, would enable us to
do 33 percent more allotments and get them under decision
notices than we had been able to do in 2002. You would still
continue to have the backlog issues.
Senator Burns. You still would, okay. That goes hand in
hand, I think, with the forest plans and the grazing permits.
All this is linked together, the invasive weeds, these forest
plans, grazing permits.
NOXIOUS WEEDS MANAGEMENT
Now, if you think just getting rid of weeds, that helps,
especially in sheep. Now, cattle not so much. The cows will not
eat that stuff. Sheep will. Doing these grazing permits is
very, very important not only from a weed standpoint, but also
in our fire management.
Where we had grazing, we do not have those really hot
fires. That excess grass and undergrowth is--and sheep browse--
that is all taken away. It is part of fuels reduction. It does
not hurt the land. We can do that--not using tax dollars--to
remove some of those undesirable things that we think that are
on our forests--such as weed management--and that costs--and
also fuels reduction.
There are some natural harvesters out here that will help
us manage our forests. I do not know why we are not using those
tools. Any other person who is in charge of managing--just like
I said: The old equation of sun, water, and soil--and using
those resources--and knowing how to use those resources.
Now, does it work on every forest? No, it does not. That is
why we cannot write a law that one size fits everything. It
just does not. There are circumstances. There are growing
seasons. There are variables in moisture, a lot of variables,
that we have to take into account. It takes a really
experienced person to understand what forest I am managing and
what practices work, and what practices do not work. That is
why it just has to happen that way.
You can take every ranch in the State of Montana--and Dale,
you know this as well as anybody else--and no two ranches are
alike. They may lie right next to one another. How you manage
it; how you take care of it; how you make it produce--but I
will tell you, I bet the guy that has lived there for a
generation-and-a-half or two generations--they know how to
manage it. The next guy comes by and he buys it--he changes
everything--he learns pretty quick--some things work and some
things do not work.
By the way, I called the Park Service up. I had a way to
get that guy on that John Deere tractor out of that puddle but
they did not take my advice down there.
Just comment on that, then. I think those issues really
link together. I would help us to complete as much of this as
we can. That really enables us to deal with some of the
problems we have, this management problem.
LEAFY SPURGE
Mr. Bosworth. I would like to say something, first, about
leafy spurge up there. I did not respond to it when Senator
Dorgan was here. I know what leafy spurge is. It is a huge
problem. Springtime, as you know--it will have yellow flowers
on it. Most leafy spurge that has been there for a while will
have a root system that is 20 and 30 feet deep.
Senator Burns. That is right.
Mr. Bosworth. You cannot pull it out when it is 20 or 30
feet deep. You can pull it and break it but it just pops right
back up again. You can do some things with grazing. Both goats
and sheep will eat it. We have even tried in some places to
contract with goats to pay, in other words, to graze, to try to
eradicate leafy spurge.
We are also making some progress on leafy spurge with
wasps, the bugs that are natural enemies to it.
Senator Burns. Doing work at Sidney, Montana.
Mr. Bosworth. Yes, that is correct, and at a couple of
other places along the Smith River we are working with it, too.
INVASIVE SPECIES
I will tell you, I am so convinced that invasive species--
which would be insects, diseases, and weeds--are probably one
of the biggest threats to our national forests and grasslands
that there is, and not just to the national forests but the
Nation's forests and grasslands. I mean, it is a huge problem.
Our country spends a lot of money every year trying to deal
with invasive species--either insects, diseases, or weeds--and
I will be very happy to work with you to try to improve our
program and to do it better. But it has to be integrated, like
you say.
Senator Burns. Right.
Mr. Bosworth. When we have fires, when we have wildfires,
we end up with a spread of--knapweed, for example, in the
Bitterroot Valley. After those fires, we just had bumper crops
of----
Senator Burns. Knap.
Mr. Bosworth [continuing]. Of knapweed, yes. That is one of
the problems that you have in many places in the West now. When
we have fire, whether it is a prescribed burn or whether it is
a natural fire, we have got to be doing something about weeds
right after the fire because there are so many of them.
But again, to me it is essential that this be integrated
between the fire, between the insects, between the diseases,
between the weeds, and that our management work on all parts of
those together. It is critical.
Senator Burns. I do not know whether you have had the
opportunity to visit with Packy Burns yet--no relation--no
relation. She lives at Big Timber. They run sheep in the Big
Timber area. She contracts out to private lands and also
permittees. She takes her bands of sheep wherever she is
contracted. They pay her to come in and do it.
Mr. Bosworth. No, I have not met her.
Senator Burns. Well, you ought to meet her. She is a very
interesting woman and, of course, I knew her old father-in-law
many years ago. He had sheep and cattle in the big sheep and
timber area. We used to do a lot of business in Sweet Grass
County.
We thank you for your testimony today. I just want to say
publicly, I remember that when you came to this office I had
the feeling that we made the right choice, that the President
made the right choice to put you in charge of the Forest
Service. You sure have not been a disappointment. I just want
to congratulate you on the work that you are doing.
We are not going to agree on everything. No people do.
Differences of opinion are what make the country go. Generally,
though, when I talk to your people who are on the ground,
morale is very good. You are to be complimented on putting some
people around the forests. I think that are doing as good a job
as they can possibly do under the conditions they have to do
them.
So thank you for coming this morning. We are willing to
work with you on funding those areas--that white paper on what
we can do on stewardship, how we make it work, and how we make
it work for everybody in America. Thank you for coming this
morning.
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you, and thank you for those comments.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Burns. There will be some additional questions
which will be submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted by Senator Pete Domenici
COUNTY PARTNERSHIP RESTORATION
Question. Chief Bosworth, I know that last year you made efforts to
ensure the Lincoln, Apache-Sitgreaves, and GMUG National Forest
received funding to work with County Partner Restoration Projects to
help reduce hazardous fuels loads in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.
I am told that last year, before you had to pull back funding to
pay for fiscal year 2002 fire fighting, that about $1 million was
slated to be expended on these three forests for this type of work. How
much funding should we anticipate will be slated for these three
forests this year?
Answer. The following table displays Hazardous Fuels, Forest
Health, and Vegetation/Watershed funds committed to the County Partner
Restoration projects for the three forests in fiscal year 2003:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache-
Lincoln NF Seagraves GMUG NF's Total by
NF BLI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Fuels............................................. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) $90,000 $90,000
Forest Health............................................... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 33,000 33,000
Veg/Watershed............................................... $330,000 $305,000 ( \1\ ) 635,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total by Forest....................................... 330,000 305,000 123,000 758,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ None.
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
Question. Chief Bosworth, I note Deferred Maintenance/
Infrastructure Improvements is down $50.9 Million from the fiscal year
2003 request of $50.9 Million. In fiscal year 2002 we funded this line
Item at $61 Million.
With your current budget, are you able to fully manage and maintain
the ecosystem health of the lands that are already entrusted to the
Forest Service? Please provide a yes or no answer?
Answer. No. However, the Agency's efforts will be to focus on the
critical high priority work. Limited resources and combined with a
multitude of resource management issues at the ecosystem level on the
191 million acre National Forest System requires the careful balancing
of funding priorities reflected in the fiscal year 2004 Budget. Within
the Capital Improvement and Maintenance budget line items, the focus is
on addressing the critical deferred maintenance health & safety items
deferred maintenance backlog.
Question. Specifically, which programs will not be funded at
amounts called for in the Forest Plans, as a result of the fiscal year
2004 budget request?
Answer. Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (or Forest Plans)
do not identify specific funding needs for an individual program in a
given year. Forest Plans are the result of completing the middle-level
of the agency's 3-tiered planning process. They are programmatic
documents that tier from the agency's strategic plan and establish a
framework for identifying, planning and implementing projects designed
to achieve Forest and agency objectives.
Program funding needs for a fiscal year are determined based on a
combination of factors, including the results of project level planning
within each program. The agency identifies various combinations of
programmatic needs in its budget submission that are designed to
address different sets of goals, objectives, and budget constraints.
Reduced funding in any program will result in less work being
accomplished on the ground and potentially lengthen the time it takes
Forests to achieve their Plan objectives and the agency to achieve its
strategic objectives.
Question. I also note that there are a significant number of insect
and disease outbreaks that are not being sanitized or salvaged. Would
you provide me an explanation of the relative priority given to
treating these outbreaks as compared to completing deferred
maintenance?
Answer. The President's Budget provides a balanced program to meet
forest health protection and deferred maintenance/infrastructure
improvement needs.
VIBRANT FOREST AND RANGE BASED ECONOMY
Question. Give me a list of the legislative changes that you need
to ensure you can implement the National Fire Plan, not only in a safe
and effective manner but also in a manner that is environmentally
acceptable?
Answer. If Healthy Forest legislation is enacted, we don't
anticipate a need for other legislative action. We are in the process
of establishing and implementing several Healthy Forest related
administrative actions that will enable the Forest Service to safely
and more effectively implement the National Fire Plan. We will keep you
informed of any change in circumstances.
FIRE PREPAREDNESS
Question. Chief, a couple of weeks ago you testified to the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee that you expect to be able to put out
98 percent of the fires that start in fiscal year 2004. I am wondering
how you will accomplish this with half as many fire fighters as you had
in 2002?
Answer. Preparedness funding was at an all-time high in 2001, the
first year of the National Fire Plan. This included significant funds
for one-time purchases of heavy equipment including engines and dozers
to reach a maximal readiness level. While of that equipment will have
to be replaced someday, annual investments needs not be maintained at
the 2001 level.
In 2002, fire readiness proved to be as good as or better than
ever. Ninety-nine percent of wildfires on Forest Service-managed lands
were controlled on initial attack. Preparedness funding in the fiscal
year 2004 is $9 million higher than fiscal year 2003 request.
Preparedness funding will be targeted in 2003 and 2004 to maintain the
agency preparedness at the highest level possible, with resources being
positioned in the area of extreme fire danger. In addition, resources
will be moved throughout the fire season to areas in need. If 2004 is
another severe fire season, the fire program has the flexibility to
augment Preparedness funding with ``severity'' funds from the
suppression account to fund the placement of additional resources in
the areas most at risk from catastrophic wildfires in order to maintain
sufficient readiness and initial attack capability.
Unfortunately, no amount of preparedness can prevent all fires from
escaping to levels requiring extended fire suppression. When fires
become large, the costs to contain them become large as well. The rise
in the 10-year average recognizes the long-term trend in fire frequency
and severity. Even so, even that increase falls below the costs of the
past three years. We consider it prudent to maintain a funding level
based on the 10-year average. Anything less would seem shortsighted
given what we know today.
I have directed the Regional Foresters to use funds for the purpose
of attaining preparedness levels that are similar to fiscal year 2002.
The following table displays a comparison of what we plan to provide in
fiscal year 2003 versus 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Resource type -------------------------- 2003
2002 actual 2003 base planned
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firefighters..................... 10,480 6,008 10,480
Prevention Techs................. 403 296 332
Engines.......................... 995 700 1,072
Forest Helicopters............... 75 57 87
National Helicopters............. 7 8 8
Smokejumpers..................... 277 277 277
Type I Crews..................... 65 65 65
Airtankers....................... 41 33 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. I also see that you have grounded 11 heavy slurry bombers
and 11 of 19 of your Beech Craft lead planes. Half as many fire
fighters, half your lead planes gone, and quarter of your slurry
bombers out of commission. Please provide specific steps that you have
taken to make up the 50 percent reduction in fire fighters and the
grounding of these aircraft?
Answer. We have some concern about the loss of 11 large airtankers
but feel we have several alternatives available to us that will
mitigate the effect of losing this capability. In our 2003 Fire
Operations planning we are instructing Incident Commanders to shift the
emphasis of the airtanker fleet to initial attack rather than large
fire support. We will shift suppression tactics from those that require
close air support to those that do not require such close support
(direct fireline construction versus more indirect). This may cause a
marginal increase in total burned acres but not enough to be
significant. We will add contract helicopters with aerial suppressant
capability to help offset the loss of the airtankers. Finally, we will
add as many as 11 Single Engine Airtankers (SEATS) to help with local
initial attack. In a normal year, these alternatives will allow us to
effectively suppress wildland fire without compromising safety, burned
acres, and program costs.
stewardship contracting
Question. Chief, you advocated for stewardship contracting while
you were in Region One. Can you tell us how that worked in Region One
and how you see using Stewardship Contracting in New Mexico?
Specifically, what type of projects are you thinking about implementing
in New Mexico under this program?
Answer. The demonstration pilot authority for stewardship
contracting in the Northern Region (Region 1) has shown that some
projects are better able to get needed work done in an area than what
could be accomplished using a timber sale.
In the Southwestern Region (Region 3), the Cibola National Forest
is currently working on an existing stewardship contract on the Mt.
Taylor Ranger District, and has also started to work on a new one using
the new authorities on the Mountainair Ranger District. The Mt. Taylor
Ranger District is also working on a new environmental impact statement
that is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2004 and is currently
planned to be implemented through a stewardship contract. In addition,
the Lincoln National Forest and the Santa Fe National Forest have
stewardship contracts that will be completed by the end of the current
calendar year. All the National Forests in New Mexico are looking at
stewardship contracting opportunities and are interested in completing
projects with this new authority.
insects and disease
Question. As you know we have a large area of forest that is being
devastated by bark beetles in Northern New Mexico. This has been on
going for several years and is likely to continue and spread due to the
drought.
Can you tell me the specific steps the National Forests in New
Mexico are taking to combat these insects and stop the spread of the
outbreaks?
Answer. Severe drought conditions and overcrowding have weakened
many trees in New Mexico, including those on the National Forests.
These weakened trees are now being attacked and killed by native bark
beetles. Pinon and ponderosa pines are most severely affected. Large
scale control measures to stop the beetle outbreaks are not feasible.
However, spraying of 55 high-value trees to protect them from attack
was completed in two campgrounds on the Santa Fe National Forest in
March 2003. Thinning to enhance tree vigor is planned for those and
several additional developed recreation sites on the Santa Fe National
Forest. The thinning is scheduled to begin in the fall, when cutting
activities are less likely to attract bark beetles. Thinning currently
underway on the Santa Fe Watershed includes mastication, or shredding,
of woody debris, rendering it unsuitable for bark beetle breeding. A
pine bark beetle strategic communication plan is being utilized to
provide the public with information about bark beetle activity,
management, and impacts. A bark beetle website has been developed to
provide information online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health/
index.shtml
Information has been provided in the form of presentations to
adults and children, in articles, responses to phone and internet
questions, and dissemination of literature. An informal interagency
bark beetle meeting was held at the FS Southwestern Regional Office on
June 24, 2003 to discuss bark beetle impacts and explore opportunities
for information-sharing and coordination. In attendance were
representatives from the Forest Service, the BLM, the BIA, and the NM
State Forestry Division. A follow-up meeting is planned. The
Southwestern Region is participating in a Forest Service interregional
pinon mortality assessment which includes supplemental aerial surveys
of pinon-juniper woodlands over about 2 million acres in NM. Ground
crews will also be collecting field data. Surveyed lands will be across
all ownerships and will cover about 22 percent of the pinon-juniper
woodlands which exist in New Mexico. The Forest Service solicited input
from State and federal agencies to delineate priority areas of private
and public lands to be surveyed. Traps to monitor the pinon ips spring
emergence, number of generations produced per year, and onset of
hibernation have been placed in six locations across New Mexico to aid
in our understanding of this insect's behavior.
Question. Also specifically, what steps you are taking on each
forest to remove this dead timber before it provides the fuel for
another catastrophic fire?
Answer. The mortality in northern New Mexico is primarily occurring
in pinyon pine in the pinyon-juniper woodlands. This mortality is at
the higher elevations, and is quite scattered. Because most of the
mortality is pinyon pine, very little salvage is occurring, aside from
firewood gathering. Most Forests do treat areas where personal use
firewood gathering occurs, but they are not planning on doing any
large-scale salvage to combat bark beetle outbreaks. All Forests are
continuing to encourage salvage removal where trees are accessible.
Some thinning is occurring around Las Alamos using FEMA fuels reduction
dollars. The state also has a fuels reduction program on private lands,
where most of the pinyon pine mortality has occurred. However, pinyon
pine infected by the ips beetle decomposes rapidly, and after one
season is no longer useful as fuelwood.
As long as the dead needles remain on the trees, there is an
increased risk of fire ignition. However, once the needles fall, the
fire hazard for defoliated standing dead trees is less than for
standing green trees. Needle fall can take as little as 6 months in
pinyon pine or as much as 2 years in ponderosa pine. The only way a
fire in a pinyon-juniper stand will advance is with a sustained stiff
wind, because many of the high mortality sites have almost no
understory vegetation and are quite rocky.
Forests have begun using the new timber salvage categorical
exclusion authority so that our removal efforts can be focused in a
timely manner to remove the material that is still useful. This
authority allows Ranger Districts to treat larger areas and create
effective barriers at key points on the Forest.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Question. Last year's fires were not helped by the fact that
Colorado and much of the West was and still is experiencing the worst
drought on record. As you know, catastrophic wildfires can have
catastrophic effects on watersheds where communities located below the
National Forest boundary get their water. Many communities are
concerned about the threat of ash and sediment from wildfires clogging
their ditches, reservoirs, and drinking water intakes in the middle of
this drought.
I would be interested to learn a little more about how the Forest
Service is working with local communities to guard against future water
contamination due to fires, as well as what they are doing now to
rehabilitate those affected watersheds. I'm sure that the Forest
Service really appreciates the effects fire has on existing municipal
water supplies and is willing to work with the state.
Answer. Prevention.--The agency's first efforts are directed
towards reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire occurrence. The
National Fire Plan and the President's Healthy Forests Initiative
provide the agency with strategic guidance for implementing this goal.
In close cooperation with the Department of Interior, states, local
governments, and communities, the Forest Service is working to reduce
hazardous fuels accumulation, and to manage wildland/urban interface
forests to be more resistant to catastrophic wildfires. In spite of a
very challenging fire suppression season, the Forest Service reduced
hazardous fuels on 1.3 million acres in fiscal year 2002.
Stabilization.--Before a catastrophic wildfire has been
extinguished, the agency quickly mobilizes Burned Area Emergency
Response (BAER) teams to assess environmental degradation. Water
quality and flood potential are prime considerations. The team
establishes objectives for protecting water resources and prescribes
needed actions. Treatments may continue up to a year after the fire,
and monitoring of affected watersheds continue for up to three years.
In 2002, the Forest Service conducted 130 BAER assessments,
authorizing $70 million of emergency stabilization work. $47.7 million
was obligated in fiscal year 2002. These projects will treat 136,000
acres of severely burned land, of which about 90,000 acres were treated
before the winter snows. Typical emergency actions include stabilizing
slopes with log structures, straw wattles, and straw mulch, installing
larger culverts to handle increased water flows, and seeding burned
areas. Communities are protected from flood by installation of flood
warning systems and construction of impoundments to reduce peak flows.
The Hayman Fire stabilization work illustrates the types of
accomplishments achieved through BAER team efforts. Hayman Fire BAER
treatments cost $24 million of the $70 million authorized in fiscal
year 2002, resulting in the following accomplishments:
ASSESSMENT OF THREAT
Sedimentation of a major water supply reservoir: Post fire erosion
into Cheesman Reservoir may exceed 1 million tons in the first year if
storms of 1 inch per day occur.
ESTABLISHMENT OF EMERGENCY TREATMENT OBJECTIVE
Reduce impacts to the Denver water supply reservoirs and the water
quality-listed streams.
Reduce erosion by establishing ground cover and increasing
infiltration by scarifying the soil surface.
Hayman BAER treatments in this emergency phase have been aimed at
re-establishing the vegetative cover lost in the fire. Ground cover
holds the soil in place, allows absorption of water into the ground,
minimizes runoff, reproduces wildlife habitat and generally rejuvenates
the area. Often, soils in fire areas where high intensity burn occurs
become water repellent, and the hardened surface must be broken up by
scarification, or raking, as part of the treatment.
AERIAL OPERATIONS
Application of hydro-mulch (recycled wood fiber, grass seed, water
and a binding agent) has been applied via helicopter on 1,569 acres of
heavily burned slope. This work was completed in September 2002.
Aerial seeding is complete on over 19,835 acres. The seed mix is an
annual cereal rye mixture, which will germinate readily and persist for
two to three years to provide ground cover until the native grasses and
forbs come back.
Approximately 6,000 acres have been treated as part of an aerial
dry mulching project (applying straw to burned slopes via helicopter)
during September 2002. Straw is applied over previously seeded areas.
The straw helps to minimize erosion during rains, and provides
necessary moisture and shade for quicker seed germination.
GROUND OPERATIONS
Seeding and scarification (raking the soil) has been completed on
13,800 acres.
Hydro-mulch is being applied by truck to 1,500 acres along Forest
Roads and highways, 300 feet on either side of 25 miles of designated
roads. Work was completed in October 2002.
Many private landowners in the burn area have been contacted to
assess risks from adjacent National Forest lands. BAER is working with
Natural Resource Conservation Service to formulate and implement
rehabilitation plans with landowners.
Culverts and stream crossings within the burn area are being
cleaned and reinforced to prevent washout along roads. Grading and
reconditioning of the roads within the fire area is ongoing.
The Lake George Community Park has been demobilized, and the
grounds within and around the camp are being rehabilitated. The roads
at the Lake George Community Park have been graded and reconditioned.
The area used for the fire camp is being seeded and straw mulch is
being applied. The park has been reopened for public use.
Treatment of noxious weeds is complete on 340 acres within and
adjacent to the fire area.
An archaeological assessment and clearance of all areas where BAER
treatment will create ground disturbance has been achieved. Two sites
within the fire area were identified as needing protection using straw-
bale check-dams, which have been completed.
Remote Area Weather Stations (RAWS) have been installed in and
around the fire area. This will facilitate early detection of rainfall
for public evacuation and emergency warnings when needed.
Additional details on accomplishments at the Hayman fire are
available at www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/hayres/baer/index.htm.
Rehabilitation.--Efforts to repair damage caused by the fire begins
as soon as the fire is out, and focus on lands unlikely to quickly
recover from fire damage through natural processes. In fiscal year
2002, the Forest Service implemented 518 projects costing $35.8
million. These projects treated 435,000 acres of severely burned land
through invasive plant control, seeding, planting, and watershed
improvements on federal lands. Additional work was accomplished on
trail reconstruction, roadwork, riparian enhancement, fencing and
boundary line location.
Communities are included in rehabilitation efforts. In June 2002,
the Hayman Recovery Assistance Center (HayRAC) was established in
Castle Rock, to aid victims of the Hayman Fire. This recovery
assistance center provided representatives from state, federal and non-
profit agencies who provided information on financial, logistical,
human services, and fire rehabilitation techniques to citizens and
businesses directly impacted by the Hayman Fire. The center served as a
central source of information during and after the fire, providing a
mechanism to coordinate interagency restoration and recovery efforts
with the community, collaborating on short and long-term restoration
needs, and coordination and facilitating volunteer programs to support
community and forest restoration efforts. In 2002, HayRAC coordinated
55 volunteer projects, with more than 3,000 volunteers, for about
22,000 volunteer hours, and responded to about 1,600 phone calls for
fire recovery assistance.
Question. Recognizing the drought conditions that the West, in
particular, is facing, I think that it is more important than ever for
the Forest Service to commit to work with the states in good faith on
water issues. Unfortunately, some in the Forest Service have tried to
impose bypass flows in our national forests, and circumvent working
through state instream flow programs. You are aware that bypass flows
are estimated to cause a reduction in the dry-year water supplies
available from water facilities on National Forest lands by 50 to 80
percent?
Answer. There are numerous permitted water storage and transmission
facilities on National Forest lands in the west. Some of these
authorizations have clauses that allow for temporary changes to
authorization conditions during times of drought or emergency. Prior to
last year these drought clauses had generally not been invoked, and
many were undefined. In 2002, we worked actively with Denver Water, and
others to modify authorization terms and conditions to allow for needed
flexibility in operation during the drought. We will continue to work
with facility managers and water providers in 2003 to meet changing
storage and operation needs that have resulted from the drought.
Question. Isn't the Forest Service's official policy to work with
the states, pursuant to state law in administering water? Can I tell
city officials in Colorado, as well as farmers and ranchers, that you,
and the Forest Service in general, are committed to working through the
state instream flow program and eliminating the perception of threats
to existing water supplies by imposing bypass flows?
Answer. The Forest Service has, and will continue, to work with
states, tribal governments, water users, and any interested parties in
resolving water issues on National Forest System lands in accordance
with both federal and state laws. The State of Colorado's instream flow
program falls short of meeting the needs of the United States in the
matter of in-stream flow protection for federal purposes, such as, but
not limited to, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and habitat
for aquatic species listed under the Endangered Species Act. In other
western states, the Forest Service does participate in state in-stream
flow programs where its water needs can be met with reasonable legal
certainty. The Forest Service has been very judicious about requiring
instream flow conditions in its land use occupancy permits and
easements, and will continue to unilaterally require bypass flows as a
last resort when other options to sustain aquatic resource values have
failed.
Question. Colorado experienced its worst fire season on record last
summer. My compliments go to the brave men and women who risked their
lives to fight these fires. We also learned some lessons last summer
and maybe you can tell me what adjustments we are making in
anticipation of this year's fire season.
Particularly, how do we use our local resources in suppression
operations?
Answer. We use predictive services and monitor local conditions to
adjust resource locations so that new starts can be suppressed quickly.
If we can respond to these new starts and suppress them within 24
hours, we can minimize their cost. Wildland fires that resist
suppression efforts typically transition from a small, inexpensive
event to something larger and more expensive within the first 24-48
hours of the event start. We emphasize and concentrate on aggressive
initial attack to minimize large fire occurrence. It's not a question
of what we can do better during the first 72 hours of an event. Our
firefighters are very successful in initial attack. During the fiscal
year 2002 fire season, they caught more than 99 percent of all
unplanned and unwanted wildland fires during initial attack. What we
need to do is continue to support the initial attack force by
maintaining training curriculums, providing quality equipment, develop
the lessons learned program, and maintaining coordination and
intelligence systems.
Question. How do we follow up with our communities to make sure we
are reducing the risk?
Answer. Local project managers carry out project monitoring.
Project plans for treatments on National Forest lands adjacent to
communities typically include specific objectives for addressing risk
to the community. Appropriate project follow up includes assessment of
how well project objectives have been met. Such project monitoring is
the responsibility of the District Ranger. Federal financial and
technical assistance, provided in conjunction with the efforts of State
Foresters and other state, local, or tribal governments, will be
increasingly focused upon the optimal reduction of the risk posed by
catastrophic wildfires, particularly in the wildland-urban interface.
In these efforts, communities, non-government organizations, and
private landowners also have a key responsibility. In most cases such
projects are developed using project planning standards similar to
those used by the Federal agencies. Project plans establish risk
reduction objectives. Federal agency grant administration includes spot
reviews of projects to establish effectiveness of projects delivered by
State Foresters or other grant recipients. Success may be judged by a
measured change in the vegetation condition class or by simply a
reduction from a high risk ranking to a moderate or low risk based on
the rating system applied for the area.
Question. One other thing, with the drought and the forest
conditions what can we do better during the first 72 hours of a fire?
Answer. After the 2002 fire season, the Forest Service reviewed
lessons learned, after action assessments, and formal program reviews
to develop new direction, clarify existing direction, and communicate
expectations of line officers and Incident Commanders. These
considerations manifested themselves in a Fire and Aviation Operations
Action Plan for the 2003 fire season. This plan emphasizes four areas
(Preparedness, cost containment, hazardous fuel treatment, and safety)
of the Fire and Aviation Management program where I expect improved
performance from the line officers, Incident Commanders, and other
personnel involved in the conduct of operations in these areas. The
plan seeks to improve fiscal integrity and reflects important
performance measures.
Specific to your question, initial attack and extended attack are
the number one mobilization priority. We will continue to use
predictive services, anticipate threats, and pre-position protection
resources to those local areas that may need additional resources. Our
first priority will be to maintain sufficient local initial attack
resources to maximize our ability to staff new fire starts. Our second
priority will be large fire support. These actions will continue to
allow us to minimize the number of fires that grow large and require a
larger response.
Question. I wanted to mention to you the National Forest County
Partnership Restoration program. This pilot program is an example of
how restoration programs can be led by communities as Congress had
requested.
As I understand it from the restoration program that serves the
area I live in down in southwestern Colorado, funding for the three
partnerships that were created has not reached those who need it.
Could you give me your views on this program and what is being done
to fund it?
Answer. The Forest Service supports the collaborative approach in
the development of restoration programs. Funding for restoration
programs should be developed through the normal budget process.
This program involves a total of three forests, two forests in R-3,
the Apache-Sitgreaves NF in AZ and the Lincoln NF in NM, and one forest
in R-2, the Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison (GMUG) NF in CO. The
program is a multi-year collaborative partnership between the Forest
Service and County governments for large-scale landscape restoration
utilizing an adaptive management process. It will test streamlined
processes in administration, contracting, planning and inter-agency
cooperation with an idea toward national application of the model
In fiscal year 2002 each forest was allocated between $305,000 and
$330,000 in start up funding. Given the severity of the 2002 fire
season, not all of the funds were obligated, consistent with the
Chief's direction on deferring funds as a result of fire suppression
needs. The GMUG Forest received some of this funding in fiscal year
2003 as carryover, and the R-3 Forests received a 2nd year allocation
in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Fiscal year 2004 allocations for the CPR
program have not been finalized.
The three Forests and three Lead Counties have completed a Master
MOU for the CPR Program. The following table displays Hazardous Fuels,
Forest Health, and Vegetation/Watershed funds committed to the County
Partner Restoration projects for the three forests in fiscal year 2003:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache-
Lincoln NF Seagraves GMUG NF's Total by
NF BLI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Fuels............................................. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) $90,000 $90,000
Forest Health............................................... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 33,000 33,000
Veg/Watershed............................................... $330,000 $305,000 ( \1\ ) 635,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total by Forest....................................... 330,000 305,000 123,000 758,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ None.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
FIREFIGHTERS
Question. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, much
of the West is expected to experience an above normal fire season. If
that turns out to be true, I'm concerned that the Forest Service would
be unable to handle 7 million acres of fire with the resources being
requested in this budget. Your Preparedness request of $610 million
would provide for 4,900 firefighters, which is 53 percent fewer than
the 10,480 you employed in fiscal year 2002; 465 fire engines, which is
53 percent fewer than the 995 you had in fiscal year 2002; and 48
helicopters, which is 49 percent fewer than the 94 that were available
in fiscal year 2002. It seems to me that the administration is
proposing to cut its firefighting capability in half, while at the same
time the fire experts are predicting an above normal fire season. How
does the administration square that incongruity? And what was the
dollar amount requested for Preparedness; both the request to the
Agriculture Department, and the department's request to the Office of
Management and Budget?
Answer. Preparedness funding was at an all-time high in 2001, the
first year of the National Fire Plan. This included significant funds
for one-time purchases of heavy equipment including engines and dozers
to reach a maximal readiness level. While some of that equipment will
have to be replaced someday, annual investments needs not be maintained
at the 2001 level.
In 2002, fire readiness proved to be as good as or better than
ever. Ninety-nine percent of wildfires on Forest Service-managed lands
were controlled on initial attack. Preparedness funding in the fiscal
year 2004 is $9 million higher than fiscal year 2003 request.
Preparedness funding will be targeted in 2003 and 2004 to maintain the
agency preparedness at the highest level possible, with resources being
positioned in the area of extreme fire danger. In addition, resources
will be moved throughout the fire season to areas in need. If 2004 is
another severe fire season, the fire program has the flexibility to
augment Preparedness funding with ``severity'' funds from the
suppression account to fund the placement of additional resources in
the areas most at risk from catastrophic wildfires in order to maintain
sufficient readiness and initial attack capability.
Unfortunately, no amount of preparedness can prevent all fires from
escaping to levels requiring extended fire suppression. When fires
become large, the costs to contain them become large as well. The rise
in the 10-year average recognizes the long-term trend in fire frequency
and severity. Even so, even that increase falls below the costs of the
past three years. We consider it prudent to maintain a funding level
based on the 10-year average. Anything less would seem shortsighted
given what we know today.
I have directed the Regional Foresters to use funds for the purpose
of attaining preparedness levels that are similar to fiscal year 2002.
The following table displays a comparison of what we plan to provide in
fiscal year 2003 versus 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Resource type -------------------------- 2003
2002 actual 2003 base planned
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firefighters..................... 10,480 6,008 10,480
Prevention Techs................. 403 296 332
Engines.......................... 995 700 1,072
Forest Helicopters............... 75 57 87
National Helicopters............. 7 8 8
Smokejumpers..................... 277 277 277
Type I Crews..................... 65 65 65
Airtankers....................... 41 33 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have some concern about the loss of 11 large airtankers but feel
we have several alternatives available to us that will mitigate the
effect of losing this capability. In our 2003 Fire Operations planning
we are instructing Incident Commanders to shift the emphasis of the
airtanker fleet to initial attack rather than large fire support. We
will shift suppression tactics from those that require close air
support to those that do not require such close support (direct
fireline construction versus more indirect). This may cause a marginal
increase in total burned acres but not enough to be significant. We
will add contract helicopters with aerial suppressant capability to
help offset the loss of the airtankers. Finally, we will add as many as
11 Single Engine Airtankers (SEATS) to help with local initial attack.
In a normal year, these alternatives will allow us to effectively
suppress wildland fire without compromising safety, burned acres, and
program costs.
FIRE FUNDING
Question. In the past, there has been a fairly large gap between
what the administration requests each year for firefighting activities
and what the Congress eventually ends up having to appropriate. In the
mean time, the Forest Service is frequently forced to borrow money
until Congress and the President can agree to reimburse the agency for
its actual costs. That is not the best way to operate. In fact, the
Chief has been as suggesting the current system is ``absolutely
crazy,'' and that what's needed is a long-term solution. I know the
administration's request includes an additional $187 million for fire
suppression, but even with that money, you could easily be $600 million
short of what's actually needed. Nevertheless, as I read your prepared
statement, and as I look at the administration's budget, I don't see a
long-term fix proposed anywhere. Has the Forest Service actually
proposed a solution to the Agriculture Department, or to the Office of
Management and Budget? And if you have, would you please tell us what
you proposed, and why that proposal hasn't been sent to the Congress
for consideration?
Answer. While the fiscal year 2004 proposed budget line item
structure for suppression is the same as previous years, the methods
used to calculate the suppression proposal is different from previous
years. The fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes the 10-year average of
total suppression costs adjusted for inflation, $604 million. As noted,
this is $187 million more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
is also $129 million greater than what would have been required if the
same method was used as in fiscal year 2003. The method used for fiscal
year 2004 provides a more realistic amount that decreases the
likelihood of having to transfer funds and should it be necessary to
transfer funds, the amount would be substantially less.
The Chief of the Forest Service has finalized direction for the
fiscal year 2003 fire season. The USDA Forest Service Fire & Aviation
Operations Action Plan (04/01/03) responds to lessons learned following
the 2002 fire season, and focuses attention on four critical areas:
preparedness, cost containment, hazardous fuels treatments, and
safety--for both ground and aviation operations. A copy of the Action
Plan is attached.
The best long-term solution to reverse the increase in suppression
costs and eliminate annual transfers is to return the forests to their
natural fire regimes. The fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes the Healthy
Forest Initiative for this very reason. It is a tool to implement
effectively and efficiently core components of the National Fire Plan's
10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan. A century of
well-intentioned but misguided management has interrupted the natural
fire cycle and allowed forests to grow unnaturally dense. In addition,
excessive analysis, ineffective public involvement and management
inefficiencies have further delayed treatments to return our forest to
their natural fire regime. The Healthy Forest Initiative includes
legislative and administrative actions that provide the necessary tools
to efficiently implement actions to return our forests back to their
historic densities and natural fire cycles. Together with updated fire
management plans and greater application of wildland fire use,
implementation of the Healthy Forest Initiative is the solution to
increase the health of our forest and the pro-active solution to
decrease the likelihood of extraordinarily expensive fire seasons and
funding transfers.
In the interim, we must respectfully defer any discussion of pre-
decisional issues.
MAINTENANCE
Question. The administration's request for the Capital Improvement
and Maintenance account includes an increase of $14 million for Roads
and $9 million for Trails, but completely eliminates the $46 million
provided for Deferred Maintenance. Overall, the request cuts
maintenance activities by 4.4 percent. I'm puzzled by these cuts
because your budget documents clearly state that the deferred
maintenance backlog is over $7.8 billion. Now, I understand the Forest
Service has management problems with its maintenance program, but I
don't understand, when you have such an obvious need, why you've chosen
to cut back on deferred maintenance?
Answer. Deferred maintenance is an important concern to the agency
and we will continue to focus on addressing the deferred maintenance
backlog through use of our existing appropriations. The authority to
expend funds on deferred maintenance already exists within Capital
Improvement and Maintenance budget line items, Facilities, Roads, and
Trails, the Roads and Trails for States--10 Percent fund (Expenditure
from Receipts Act of 1913), Operation and Maintenance of Quarters
funds, and the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program funds.
The Department has a number of facilities and appurtenant
administrative land excess to agency needs. The fiscal year 2004 Budget
contains a proposal for the establishment of a Facilities Acquisition
and Enhancement Fund that would enable the Secretary to sell such units
excess to need and to utilize proceeds from those sales for the
acquisition or development of land and improvements for administrative
purposes. Funds collected under this authority would address backlogs
and administrative consolidations while improving efficiencies through
the reconstruction of functionally obsolete facilities or construction
of new facilities. To this end, the Department will submit proposed
legislation concerning this Fund in the upcoming weeks.
LEAFY SPURGE--NOXIOUS WEEDS
Question. I'm very concerned with the noxious weed problem in North
Dakota. My constituents who live near the Sheyenne National Grasslands
in the southeastern part of my state and those who live near the
Missouri National Grasslands in the western part have complained
bitterly to me that the Forest Service has not been a good steward of
the land. In particular, I'm talking about the spread of Leafy Spurge,
which, by your own agency's account, has infested somewhere between
30,000 and 35,000 acres of the Missouri Grasslands. That's more than a
quarter of that land. For the past two years, I've had funds earmarked
for leafy spurge management on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands; $200,000
in fiscal year 2002 and $300,000 in fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately,
because I've received conflicting reports, I don't have a great deal of
confidence that the $200,000 provided in fiscal year 2002 was used as
Congress intended; that is, as an addition to what was otherwise
provided, not $200,000 total. I want to make sure that that does not
happen again, Chief, and so my question to you is what assurances can
you give me and the people of North Dakota that the fiscal year 2003
funding will be used for additional weed control programs?
Answer. Interagency and interdepartmental efforts have attempted to
address the leafy spurge, one of the most insidious invasive noxious
weed species, using a host of integrated management approaches that
rely on strong partnerships between local, state, tribal, and national
groups. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) is an important leader in
addressing the leafy spurge infestations in North Dakota, particularly
with respect to infestations on the National Grasslands. The DPG has
undertaken a comprehensive and collaborative program to fight leafy
spurge infestations. This program relies on partnerships with local
landowners, state and county governments, grazing associations, and
other federal agencies. These partnerships are proving to be the most
effective in fighting leafy spurge on public and private lands. The DPG
has met often with local congressional staffs and county weed boards,
other federal and state agencies and grazing association officers to
plan a landscape-scale approach to the problem, and has developed
cooperative agreements with the North Dakota Agriculture Department and
several grazing associations for on-the-ground leafy spurge management
operations.
The Forest Service appropriations in fiscal year 2003 contained an
unrequested $300,000 Congressional earmark for leafy spurge control.
Our efforts will focus upon slowing infestations across the Dakota
Prairie Grasslands and adjacent state and private property. A component
of the approach provides about $100,000 directly to the North Dakota
Agriculture Department to assist the County Weed Boards, in counties
where National Grasslands are located, for leafy spurge control
operations on those National Grasslands and other nearby critical
locations that threaten to spread to Forest Service lands. This program
is augmented by roughly a 20 percent voluntary contribution from the
non-federal partners to the projects. This non-federal contribution
allows for the implementation of the Wyden Amendment for cooperative
treatment of noxious weeds on both public and adjacent private property
in Weed Management Areas. The cost share amount is based on the
percentage of land ownership within these Weed Management Areas
(private vs. federal or 20 percent and 80 percent).
The DPG is also leading cooperative treatment efforts with the
grazing associations, including McKenzie County Grazing Association,
Little Missouri Grazing Association, Horse Creek Grazing Association,
and Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association, in leafy spurge management
activities on National Grasslands. This effort will have the added
benefit of 20 percent supplemental funding from the non-federal
partners. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands will utilize about $180,000 of
the fiscal year 2003 appropriations to support these partnerships.
With the balance ($20,000) of the fiscal year 2003 leafy spurge
earmark, the DPG will hire a four-person seasonal management crew for
treatment of leafy spurge in critical locations on the Dakota Prairie
Grasslands with emphasis on biological control (Flea beetles). None of
the earmark will fund permanent employees, overhead expenses, or other
Forest Service operational costs. Many of the seasonal workers are from
local colleges and high schools and work for the Forest Service during
the summer.
All participating partners will record treatment and inventory
activities utilizing global positioning system (GPS) equipment. Field
data reporting, at minimum, will follow protocol required by North
Dakota Department of Agriculture. The consolidation of field data will
be coordinated between the USDA FS and ND Department of Agriculture for
official records, mapping, and future planning and management.
GRASSLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN
Question. What is the status of the Scientific Review Team that is
reviewing and analyzing the 64 Allotment management Plans per the
Record of Decision on the Grasslands Management Plan?
Answer. Regional Forester Brad Powell selected the Scientific
Review Team (SRT) after consultation with North Dakota Governor John
Hoeven. The SRT is comprised of Dr. Rod Heitschmidt, UDSA--Agricultural
Research Service; Dr. Kevin Sedivec, NDSU Animal and Range Science
Department; Jeff Printz, USDA--Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Dr. Douglas Johnson, USGS--Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center;
Karen Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services; Kent Luttswagger, North
Dakota Game and Fish Department; Dr. Harvey Peterson, Golden Valley
County Extension Agent; and Dr. Don Kirby, NDSU Animal and Range
Science Department.
The first meeting of the SRT, held on February 10, 2003, was
designed to provide team members with information that they would need
to perform their role as defined in the Record of Decision for the
Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) Plan. Their delineated role is ``. . .
to determine if the grazing portion of the plan can be implemented and
to verify that grazing levels are similar to those projected in the
Revised Grasslands Plan FEIS . . .'' (Record of Decision DPG Plan page
5). The information presented to the SRT included Record of Decision,
Dakota Prairie Grasslands Plan, Northern Great Plains Final
Environmental Impact Statement, SRT Handbook and SRT Draft Charter.
The second SRT meeting was on April 15, 2003. At this meeting, the
Dakota Prairie Grasslands staff presented information to the SRT for
the Little Missouri National Grasslands Assessment and the first set of
eight allotment management plans (AMPs). The information provided
included background information for these allotments. Public notice for
these meetings resulted in well attended sessions by those interested
in the process. The next meeting, scheduled for June 16-18, will
include a field trip to those allotments where plan development is
occurring.
LEWIS & CLARK BICENTENNIAL ACTIVITIES
Question. I'm a big supporter of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
and I'm looking forward to helping the various bicentennial
celebrations. I know the Forest Service is an important federal partner
in this endeavor, and I'm interested in knowing how your budget
supports the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. I know, for example, that
there were plans to build an overlook and trail at Tobacco Gardens, in
North Dakota, where Cruzat shot Merewether Lewis on August 11, 1806. It
is my understanding that construction was scheduled to begin in 2003.
Is that project still on schedule? And could you also tell us what the
Forest Service is doing nationally to commemorate the bicentennial?
Answer. Forest Service field units, especially those in close
proximity to the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (LCNHT),
continue to dedicate funding to accomplish the critical work to meet
the agency's commitment to the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Commemoration. Where possible, the Forest Service provides funding,
technical assistance, or other in-kind assistance to mutually agreed to
interagency projects. Four Regions have specific funding allocated for
National Scenic and Historic Trails, with portions of the LCNHT, have
an estimated $66,000 available for trail management. Since 1999, the
Forest Service has granted over a $1.5 million to 27 state and
community Lewis and Clark Bicentennial projects. Over the past few
couple year, under the agency's constrained budget, about $3 million
has been allocated annually to Bicentennial activities, including the
grants to state and community projects. The Dakota Prairies National
Grassland has also worked in partnership with the Three Affiliated
Tribes to provide interpretive programs to school children and as well
as contributed funding to the North Dakota State Historic Museum for
the development of a L&C Trail Travel Kit for North Dakota.
The overlook and interpretive signs for Tobacco Gardens are
currently under construction. Construction for the connecting trail
will be accomplished in 2004.
Nationally, the Forest Service has been working in partnership with
the National Bicentennial Council, the Trail Heritage Foundation,
federal interagency Memorandum of Understanding working group, and
Tribes to ensure protection and interpretation of the historic trail,
and to provide a coordinated effort for the Bicentennial.
The Forest Service created a national exhibit that was displayed at
the first signature event, at Monticello in January 2003. The Forest
Service is currently planning participation in the Signature Events at
the Falls of the Ohio, Louisville, KY and Clarksville, IN and in the
Big Sky Festival in Great Falls Montana. Plans to participate in other
Signature Events, such as in North Dakota, are evolving. The Forest
Service is committed to our partnership with the National Park Service
for Corps II, a traveling educational exhibit, and has designated an
agency employee to be the liaison to the Corp II effort. Several Forest
Service employees participated in giving presentations in the Tent of
Many Voices at Monticello and on the National Mall.
Question. The bicentennial will also offer the Forest Service the
opportunity to highlight recreational opportunities that are a bit off
the Lewis and Clark Trail. The Forest Service has developed the Maah
Daah Hey Trail, which allows for hiking and biking through the Dakota
Badlands. With increased tourism expected during the upcoming Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial, what is the Forest Service doing to promote the
Maah Daah Hey Trail and other recreational activities it offers in
North Dakota?
Answer. The Maah Daah Hey Trail has recently been designated a
National Recreation Trail and will be formally dedicated on National
Trails Day, June 7, 2003. The Maah Daah Hey Trail has also been an
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) Epic Ride and
remains listed on the IMBA website (http://www.imba.com). The Dakota
Prairie Grasslands has developed brochures and maps about the Maah Daah
Hey Trail as part of its public outreach effort. The Dakota Prairie
National Grassland also has plans to develop and protect additional
interpretive sites that commemorate other historical events that took
place in North Dakota, in particular Custer's Initial Rock and other
military history of that era.
There are several other venues for the public to receive
information on recreation opportunities on the Dakota Prairie
Grasslands. Medora is the focus of a major advertising campaign by
North Dakota Tourism, which is being marketed nationally and
internationally in major magazines and other tourism literature. The
campaign includes information about the 96-mile long Maah Daah Hey
Trail. Locally, informational kiosks display information on
recreational opportunities and special events are publicized in the
newspaper. Dakota Prairie Grasslands staff also provide information to
the public both in person and over the phone. North Dakota recreational
activities in the national grasslands are also available via the
internet, and is maintained at the Forest Service website (http://
www.fs.fed.us/r1/dakotaprairie/) and through the interagency recreation
website (http://www.recreation.gov).
GRASS BANKS
Question. Federal rangeland management is often made difficult
during times of drought or other hardship. Already stressed ranchers
experience shrinking resources. The Forest Service has the ability to
work with local ranchers to establish alternative grazing ``grass
banks'' and swing pastures to help during these hard times. What has
the Forest Service done to promote the development of such tools?
Answer. The Forest Service actively seeks alternatives to provide
for rest and rehabilitation of specifically identified rangelands. The
term ``grassbanks'' is a registered trademark of the Malpais
Borderlands Group, therefore the Agency prefers to use the term
``forage reserves'' when referring to this concept in a generic sense.
One way the Forest Service is looking at establishing forage reserves
is through acquisition of private land within the grasslands where the
landowners want to sell to the federal government. If the Forest
Service acquires these lands, both the acquired private land and the
associated federal allotments could be included in a forage reserves
allotment.
The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) is also a cooperating agency
with the National Park Service on their environmental analysis to
acquire the Ebert land located in the vicinity of the Elkhorn Ranch
within the Little Missouri National Grassland. Much of the work with
the Park Service has entailed looking at how this project can achieve
the best land ownership pattern for the National Park Service, the
Dakota Prairie Grasslands, and the involved private landowners. If the
Park Service acquires the Ebert Ranch, the DPG would be interested in
establishing a forage reserve on the associated allotment in
cooperation with the Medora Grazing Association.
Under the current grazing agreements, the grazing associations have
the authority to work with the district rangers to establish pastures
which can serve as forage reserves or swing pastures, although at this
point no action has taken place. Members of the grazing associations
have often applied for and received approval for voluntary nonuse.
However, rather than promoting the establishment of forage reserves or
swing pastures in these areas, the associations have allowed others to
use these nonuse pastures with their livestock on an annual basis.
Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) Supervisor is currently working
with the Partners for Grasslands Stewardship to develop forage reserve
allotments or pastures within existing allotments. The DPG program has
explored opportunities such as land exchanges, land purchase (willing
seller) and grazing system changes, to provide some of the flexibility
needed by the ranching industry and to improve resource conditions. The
Partners for Grasslands Stewardship includes several ranchers and local
community leaders. One of their efforts has been to develop a better
understanding and acceptance of forage reserves concepts and
opportunities.
SHEYENNE VALLEY GRAZING ASSOCIATION
Question. The Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association's 10-year Grazing
Agreement expires on March 23. Unless a new agreement is signed, or an
extension granted, grazing will stop on these lands. The Forest Service
is negotiating a new 10-year agreement with the Association, but the
Association has raised several concerns. I've sent a letter to Mark
Rey, the Natural Resources Under Secretary, spelling out these
concerns, and asking for his cooperation in ensuring that the Forest
Service continues to negotiate in good faith. In the meantime, I am
concerned that, after March 23, grazing could come to a halt without a
new agreement. That would be disastrous. Chief, I understand that you
have the authority to extend the agreement for 2 or 3 months at a time
as long as negotiations are continuing. I believe that would be in the
best interests of all concerned. Can I have your assurance that that
will happen?
Answer. Grasslands Supervisor Dave Pieper sent a letter to Senator
Dorgan's office on March 10, 2003 detailing the actions that have taken
place and discussions with your Legislative Assistant LaDeene Freimuth.
The Dakota Prairie Grassland is continuing to work with the Sheyenne
Valley Grazing Association (SVGA) to renew this Grazing Agreement. In
the letter, Supervisor Pieper said he was ``hopeful that a new grazing
agreement will be developed and signed by the expiration date.'' He
also included the following paragraph of assurance:
``In the event a new agreement is not signed by the expiration
date, I will roll over the existing agreement for periods of three or
more months until a new agreement is signed. This will allow permitted
livestock grazing to continue unimpeded. I want to assure you that
development of the new SVGA grazing agreement will be a cooperative
effort between the Association and the Dakota Prairie Grasslands.''
Supervisor Piper has tracked this process and has recently issued a
letter officially extending the existing Grazing Agreement until July
1, 2003, while development of a new formal grazing agreement is
continued.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
Question. The Forest Service is requiring states to identify
potential tracts of land for acquisition up to two years in advance. It
has also indicated a preference for identifying individual tracts
instead of focusing on a strategy that emphasizes corridor area
protection, a strategy that has proved very effective in South
Carolina. The ACE Basin river corridor in South Carolina is a great
example of success regarding this type of approach to land acquisition.
Why has the Forest Service pushed for such early identification of
potential land acquisitions? Why has the Forest Service chosen to push
the identification of individual tracts of land as opposed to
concentrating on corridor areas, specifically river corridor areas?
Answer. The federal acquisition process, as defined by laws, rules,
regulations, and policy, and being subject to the annual appropriations
process, makes purchasing a tract of land by the Forest Service much
more complex and time consuming than occurs between two private
individuals. In addition, much lead-time is required in order to get a
project in the President's annual budget request to Congress.
Some of these requirements involve the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public
Law 91-646) and the appraisal process, which can take from 6 to 8
months to contract for, produce an approvable report, and then complete
agency review. Title issues, clearing of liens, surveys, hazmat
investigation requirements, laws dealing with relocation assistance,
negotiations, the phasing of projects, Congressional oversight, and
specific requirements found in various appropriate authorizing
legislation can all add to the time factor in processing a case.
The annual appropriations process begins with the individual
forests submitting their priority projects to the regions and then to
the Washington Office during the summer before the President's next
year's budget is submitted to Congress. Forests cannot know what lands
are available for purchase until much of the preliminary work mentioned
above is completed.
The Forest Service is aware of and frequently uses the approach of
``focusing on a strategy that emphasizes corridor area protection'',
which the Senator suggests in his letter. That approach has been used
successfully over the past 11 years on the Chattooga Wild and Scenic
River Corridor, which involves Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina. Emphasis has been placed on acquiring high priority tracts
located within those river corridor boundaries. We are currently
working with The Conservation Fund for the definition of a corridor for
the new Broad River acquisition program in South Carolina in order that
our acquisition program there will be the most effective. We have
frequently used defined corridor planning to focus our acquisition
efforts in various wilderness areas, other congressionally authorized
areas such as National Recreation Areas including the Sawtooth; the
Columbia River Gorge; the Florida National Scenic Trail; and since 1978
on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
Question. Can you outline for me the guidelines the Forest Service
follows in identifying and ranking projects selected in the Forest
Legacy program? Why do different regions follow different guidelines?
Why does the Forest Service insert itself so heavily into the selection
process? Why have lead agencies in our states not been intensively
involved in drafting new guidelines or been involved more heavily in
the selection process?
Answer. The Forest Legacy Program operates under program
implementation guidelines adopted in 1996. These guidelines are
currently under review and are in the process of revision. The final
revision will be released this year and is being amended to respond to
program growth since 1996, findings expressed in the House of
Representatives Committee on Appropriations investigation report
released in June 2002 and to meet fiscal year 2003 congressional
direction on specific items to be included in the revision.
In keeping with the direction described in the above answer, the
Forest Service engages in a project selection process that is
articulated as direction to Forest Service Regional Foresters, Area and
International Institute for Tropical Forestry Directors and State and
Private Forestry Directors and Program Managers that includes a
calendar of milestones and due dates. This is a five-step process that
begins with submissions of project priorities from each participating
State; receives Forest Service Regional input; undergoes a national
review team process in which projects are scored using national
criteria and selected for recommendation in a prioritized list; and are
then submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for inclusion in
the President's Budget.
The Forest Service conducts this project selection process to
comply with Congressional and Administration direction and to perform
its oversight responsibilities to deliver this national program. Forest
Service regions are allowed flexibility to develop mechanisms to assess
and to recommend projects for selection. They must utilize the national
criteria and provide information and input on individual projects to
inform that process. The foundation for the entire project selection
process is the process that participating State Lead Agencies perform
with their State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committees to review,
approve and rank projects in their State. Only projects that are
determined by the State-based process as priorities are considered for
funding and recommended by the Forest Service.
The Forest Legacy Program Implementation Guidelines revision has
been conducted through a State lead agency--Forest Service Team. The
revision began in 2000 and has undergone numerous drafting rounds and
open comment periods with input received from hundreds of groups and
agency personnel from across the country. The Guidelines Revision Team
is composed of nine members from State lead agencies and the Forest
Service. Drafts of the guidelines have been presented at national
meetings and for review with State program managers from all
participating States.
Question. The regulations employed by the Forest Service for land
appraisal in the states is overburdening. The process is inconsistent,
especially with respect to projects in the Forest Legacy program. In a
time of tight budgets and huge deficits, it is unwise to require 2 or 3
appraisals by certified appraisers at a high cost to the taxpayer.
There has been more emphasis placed on the method of appraisals as
opposed to the value of the land. What has the Forest Service done to
improve and streamline this process? Why is it taking multiple
appraisals in order to get Forest Service approval for new land
acquisitions? Do I need to ask for a GAO review of the appraisal
process to determine where the problem is?
Answer. The House Appropriations Committee reviewed the Forest
Service Legacy Program and issued a report in June 2002. Among the
findings of that investigation report were several related to appraisal
and appraisal review. The report cited the requirement that Federal
payments to landowners not exceed the market value of the property and
that appraisals prepared to determine market value must be prepared in
conformance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions. Many appraisals approved by States were later found not
to comply with Federal appraisal standards and, in many cases, the
value estimates were not supported.
There are several reasons for a large number of unapproved
appraisal reports. Federal oversight of the program was found to be
inconsistent and States have hired appraisers and review appraisers not
qualified to perform the appraisal and review assignments. States have
been reluctant to impose uniform qualifications requirements for
appraisers and review appraisers. Federal reviews of those appraisals
in compliance with Forest Service oversight requirements have too often
discovered these deficiencies after the fact. It often requires
multiple appraisals to effect an acquisition when appraisers or
reviewers are hired that are not qualified or who cannot support their
value estimates.
In an effort to streamline the appraisal process and help ensure
more effective use of public funds, the Forest Service is working with
the States to involve the assigned review appraiser early in the
acquisition process to help obviate later unpleasant surprises. The
Forest Service is also working with the States to adopt standard
implementation guidelines for appraisal and appraisal review. There are
both industry and Federal appraisal standards that must be applied when
public funds are expended. Appraisal reports failing to comply with
those standards cannot be approved.
The Forest Service valuation function has been investigated and
reviewed by GAO, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the
Inspector General (OIG), The Appraisal Foundation (TAF), and the
aforementioned House Appropriations Committee. The Forest Service has
made substantial changes in policy the past few years to comply with
recommendations of those investigations and reviews.
In the Federal appraisal community, the Forest Service is now
regarded as a yardstick by which other agencies measure their valuation
function. For example, TAF also reviewed the Bureau of Land Management,
Department of Interior, and issued a report in October 2002. That
report recommended massive changes to the way BLM does its appraisal
business and how it is organized. The Forest Service has been requested
to assist the BLM in implementing some recommendations of TAF report,
as well as OIG and GAO reviews and audits dating back to 1987. The
Appraisal Work Group chartered by BLM has relied upon ``the Forest
Service model'' for several appraisal organization recommendations. The
Chief Appraiser, Department of Justice, recently reported that he has
fewer litigation and standards compliance problems with Forest Service
than any other agency with which he routinely works.
______
USDA Forest Service--Fire & Aviation Operations Action Plan 2003
[Finalized 04/01/03]
INTRODUCTION
This plan establishes Chief's direction for the 2003 fire season.
It responds to lessons learned, after-action assessments, and formal
reviews following the 2002 fire season. It incorporates recommendations
from the Line Officer's Team and Chief's taskings dealing with cost
containment (Troyer-Mann Report and Cost Accountability Report). The
plan is consistent with the 30-Mile Mitigation Plan, the 10-Year
Comprehensive Plan and the National Fire Plan. This direction
introduces operational expectations and clarifies existing policies and
procedures. It reinforces performance expectations for Forest Service
Line Officers and Fire & Aviation Management personnel.
The plan focuses attention on four areas:
--Preparedness
--Cost containment
--Hazardous fuel treatments
--Safety--ground and aviation operations
This plan is responsive to Administration goals of fiscal integrity
and the Chief's goals to deliver a safe, effective Fire & Aviation
Management program. It recognizes that large air tanker capacity is
down from previous years and several cooperator programs are also below
last year's levels.
The direction established in this plan reflect important
performance measures for Line Officers, Incident--Area Command Teams,
and fire management personnel in the conduct of operations.
Finally, this plan recognizes that, because of Forest Service
capability and experience with emergency response, the agency will
continue to be asked to respond to incidents beyond the normal scope of
business. The Forest Service is prepared to support missions that
assist others in need, with focus on assisting others to build their
capacity to respond. Management options for handling future all-risk
workloads must be defined. In this context, the following priorities
will guide the commitment of resources:
1. National security
2. Protection of life
3. Protection of property
4. Protection of natural resources
BACKGROUND
During the fire season of 2002, initial attack forces displayed
remarkable success under extreme burning conditions by containing over
98 percent of all starts before they could become large fires. The
fires that escaped initial or extended attack actions resulted in
extraordinary costs, losses, and damages. Fires that grew above 300
acres accounted for over 95 percent of the total acres burned and
nearly 85 percent of all suppression expenditures. Wildfires on
National Forest System lands burned over 1.4 million acres or over
twice the 10-year average. Suppression expenditures were $1.2 billion;
again twice the 10-year average.
Fireline operations were relatively safe, given the level of
exposure. Vehicle accidents and aircraft accidents, however, exceeded
past levels and accounted for 69 percent of all wildland fire-related
fatalities in 2002.
SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENT
Wildland Fire Outlook--March through August 2003. National and
Geographic Predictive Service groups, climatologists, fuels specialists
and fire behavior analysts convened for a seasonal assessment workshop
in Mesa, Arizona during the week of February 24-28, 2003. Based on the
analysis shared and assessments completed, it was determined that
nationally, the 2003 fire season will not be as severe as 2002
(seasonal assessment http://www.nifc.gov). However, much of the
interior West, south/central Alaska, western Great Lakes and northern
Maine is expected to experience an above normal fire season for the
following reasons:
--Long-term drought persists over much of the interior West with
mountain snowpack and winter precipitation remaining below
average to date.
--Drought stressed and/or insect damaged vegetation is becoming more
prevalent across the western states and will increase the
potential for large, destructive wildfires at mid to high
elevations.
--Drought conditions are emerging in the Great Lake States leaving
herbaceous fuels standing, uncompressed, and receptive to
ignition. An early fire season is anticipated with peat fires
in these areas being problematic due to dry conditions.
--Early snow melt is anticipated for Alaska, Pacific Northwest, Great
Basin and Northeastern California which will cause large dead/
downed fuel moistures to drop below critical values earlier
than normal in the higher elevation areas, resulting in an
early and extended fire season.
--The Southern Area is expecting a below normal spring fire season
overall, however forecasts call for a very active tropical
storm season which could result in an above average number of
hurricanes that impact the area and diminish fire risk through
the summer months.
--An early spring prescribed fire season is expected across many
western states.
--State budget reductions are likely to result in reduced
firefighting capacity from our State and local cooperators.
Unless weather patterns provide relief, 2003 has the potential for
an above normal fire season with several areas experiencing significant
wildfire activity simultaneously. In some parts of the country, fire
season potential will likely be higher, as the result of several years
of drought. Of particular significance is the potential for long-
duration fires in higher elevation timber types in much of the interior
West. Fires occurring in these types often prove to be difficult to
suppress and very labor intensive. Historically, in the Northern
Rockies and higher elevation sites elsewhere in the interior West,
exponential acreage growth typically occurs very late in the season, as
high velocity winds blow out unsecured perimeters.
PREPAREDNESS
Policy.--``Agencies will ensure their capability to provide safe,
cost effective fire management programs in support of land and resource
management plans through appropriate planning, staffing, training,
equipment, and management oversight.''
Principle.--Where hazardous fuels dominate the landscape,
establishing a strong, decisive initial attack capability is a key
component in minimizing large fire suppression costs. As fire danger
levels increase and suppression resources become scarce, initial attack
capacity must be maintained as the most certain means of preventing new
costly wildfires.
Chief's Intent.--Extended attack and initial attack operations will
be the number one mobilization priority. All efforts will be made to
utilize predictive services, anticipate threats, and pre-position
protection resources.
At National Planning Levels Four and Five, national shared
resources (airtankers, hotshot crews, smokejumpers, etc.) will be
allocated and re-allocated by National Multi-agency Coordination Group
(NMAC), based on observed and predicted fire danger intelligence.
All units will be trained, staffed and ready to meet operational
demands. Staffing levels will be adjusted, based on observed and
predicted fire danger in order to maintain protection capabilities.
Staffing levels will be coordinated with adjacent cooperators.
Personnel will be trained, qualified, and red-carded for the
positions that they are assigned. Forest Service employees will be
available to support fire emergencies to the best of their ability and
capability.
Objective.--All level units will be staffed at the identical 2002
level. We are currently working with OMB to achieve this goal. (95
percent of planned NFMAS capability). A 98 percent initial/extended
attack success rate remains our goal in 2003.
Chief's Direction
--Fire Management Plans will be updated utilizing the new interagency
template (All plans must meet this new requirement no later
than December, 2004).
--Effective organizational capability will be sustained by
maintaining management, supervisory, and crew staffing skills.
Coaches or mentors will be pre-identified for support, where
they may be needed.
--Managers will assure personnel assigned to full duty will be
appropriately trained and physically fit prior to their
deployment.
--Staffing levels and drawdown plans will be adjusted, based on
observed and predicted fire danger. Severity funding requests
will be submitted and approved prior to the pay period for
which they are planned. Severity requests will be coordinated
with cooperators to most effectively maintain management
oversight, supervisory controls, and crew capabilities in the
critical area.
--Units will be prepared to hire and train AD employees and local/
volunteer fire department personnel to meet local and, as
appropriate, national needs. Training and availability of State
and local fire departments, including volunteers, will be
coordinated.
--Preparedness Plans, Mutual Threat Plans, Memorandums of
Understanding, Cost Share Agreements, and other plans will be
reviewed and updated prior to fire season.
--Multi-agency Coordinating Group (MAC) members will be pre-
identified and Predictive Services support will be ready prior
to the start of fire season. MAC Groups should include
individuals with coordination and command experience. Prior to
fire season, MAC Groups will establish prioritization criteria
for incident allocation and re-allocation of resources. Line
Officers will provide a formal Delegation of Authority to MAC
Groups that include agency objectives and agency expectations.
Prioritization criteria will be included in the Delegation of
Authority.
--Service and Supply Plans will be completed and associated Emergency
Equipment Rental Agreements (EERA) will be in place prior to
fire season.
--Pre-season simulations, including Wildland Fire Situation Analysis
(WFSA) development, will be conducted on units.
COST CONTAINMENT
Policy.--``Fires are suppressed at minimum cost, considering
firefighter and public safety, benefits, and values to be protected,
consistent with resource objectives.''
Principle.--Line Officer oversight and involvement during the
decision-making process is critical for containing suppression costs.
Chief's Intent.--In terms of implementation, this means that the
primary criteria for choosing suppression strategies are to minimize
costs without compromising safety. Planned and actual suppression costs
must also be commensurate with the values to be protected. They must be
included and displayed in the Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA).
Under no circumstances are suppression strategies to be tailored to
achieve resource benefit. Even though resource benefits may result in
some areas of the fires, it is inappropriate to expend suppression
dollars with the explicit objective of achieving resource benefits.
Indirect suppression strategies (containing to natural barriers,
etc.) are appropriate only if they are the safest or least cost option.
When fire danger trends are rising, the selection of these strategies
must be carefully scrutinized because escape potentials are greater.
Long-duration, ``siege-like'' wildfires where high numbers of
firefighting resources are being committed, need to be closely
evaluated by standing cost containment teams to ensure that operations
are not occurring beyond the point of diminishing returns.
Objective.--Expend only those funds required for the safe, cost-
effective suppression of the incident.
Chief's Direction
--Line Officers are responsible for financial oversight. This
responsibility cannot be delegated.
--Formulate two inter-agency Standing Suppression Cost Review Teams.
Teams will be established by April 15.
--When fire danger trends are rising, the long-term consequences of
indirect containment strategies, including final fire cost,
will be considered in the initial action decision.
--The WFSA will include the least-suppression cost option. This
option will serve as a way to describe the values to be
protected and the context surrounding a suppression decision.
If the least-suppression cost option is not chosen, the WFSA
will include written rationale for not choosing it.
--A suppression cost objective will be included as an incident
objective and included in the Delegation of Authority to the
Incident Commander. These cost objectives must maintain safety
considerations and be commensurate with the values to be
protected Revision of the WFSA is required if incident cost
objectives are exceeded.
--Incident suppression cost objectives will be included as a
performance measure in Incident Management Team evaluations.
--Suppression costs over $2 million will require approval of the
Forest Supervisor.
--Suppression costs over $10 million require Regional Forester
approval and costs exceeding $50 million will require Chief's
Office approval. It is understood that, in approving
suppression costs, decision-makers at the higher organizational
levels share the risks associated with outcomes.
--All incidents projected to exceed $5 million will require assigning
an Incident Business Advisor. The Incident Business Advisor
reports directly to the responsible Line Officer/Agency
Administrator.
--Wildfires involving multiple jurisdictions should require mutually
agreed-upon Unified Commands. Commands should be unified as
early in the incident as possible. The rapid exchange of
information and coordinated tactics are a safety precaution,
first, and a cost containment protocol, second. Cost
apportionments will be based on mutually agreed upon criteria
and reflected in the Delegation of Authority from Agency
Administrators.
HAZARDOUS FUEL TREATMENTS
Policy.--Hazardous fuels are treated, using appropriate tools, to
reduce the risk of unplanned and unwanted wildland fire to communities
and the environment.
Principle.--The most effective means of reducing large fire
suppression costs, protecting community values, restoring forest and
grassland health, and improving firefighter safety, is an aggressive
fuel treatment program. Treatments are particularly important in fire-
dependent ecosystems, where prolonged fire exclusion has resulted in
over-accumulated fuels. The Forest Service will continue to emphasize
fuel treatments in high priority areas where communities, watersheds,
and critical resources are at risk.
Chief's Intent.--The President's Healthy Forest Initiative, the 10-
Year Comprehensive Strategy and the National Fire plan establish goals
for reducing hazardous fuels. Reducing risk to our firefighters,
communities, municipal watersheds and restoring the health of our
forests and rangelands are the central themes of these initiatives.
The safest, most effective wildfire protection strategy is
predicated on an aggressive fuels reduction program. In fire-dependent
ecosystems, the use of prescribed fire, at ecologically appropriate
intensities is an essential means of restoring forest health
conditions. In Fire Regime I, Condition Class 3 forests, hazard
mitigation treatments may often be required before prescribed fire
projects can go forward within acceptable limits of social, economic,
and ecological risk.
Prescribed fires and wildland fires that aim to achieve resource
benefits must be accompanied by supporting NEPA compliant plans.
Objective.--Treat 1.6 million acres of hazardous fuels, service-
wide.
Chief's Direction
--A high priority will be given to achieving fuels treatment projects
through the fire season.
--Re-distribution of targets and funds between Regions may occur in
order to maximize project accomplishments, service-wide.
--Identification on fiscal year 2004 hazardous fuels projects will be
completed by May 1, 2003 (reference FSM 5100 letter, dated
January 14, 2003, ``fiscal year 2004 Fuel Treatment Program
Priorities'').
safety--ground and aviation operations
Policy.--``Firefighter safety is the first priority.'' Fight fire
aggressively, but provide for safety first!
Principles
--Firefighter safety comes first on every fire every time.
--The 10-Standard Firefighting Orders are firm; we don't break them,
we don't bend them.
--Every firefighter has the right to a safe assignment.
--Every Line Officer, every Fire Manager, every fireline supervisor,
and every firefighter is responsible to ensure that established
safe practices are known and observed.
Chief's Intent.--Safety will not be compromised in the conduct of
ground or air operations. However, safety decisions must be made in the
context of probabilities, exposure, and consequence over the long-term,
particularly as fire danger trends are rising. The selection of
indirect containment strategies must be weighed against longer-term
safety concerns that may result if the fire exceeds expected or planned
perimeters. Likewise, nighttime operations that mitigate snags and
other hazards may be the safer tactic when weighed against fire
behavior dangers that often exist during active burning periods. When
seasonal fire danger trends are rising, the small wildland fire kept
small is generally the safer fire.
Proactive suppression tactics that can mitigate hazards and provide
an operational advantage are favored over reactive or passive tactics
that increase exposure to the firefighters over time. We all have a
role in safety. In pre-season preparedness meetings, take the time to
discuss the responsibilities and expectations that surround
firefighting safety.
Objective.--Observe established safe practices on every fire this
year.
Chief's Direction
--Continue the implementation of the Thirty mile Hazard Abatement
Plan on all units.
--Unit preparedness--at management oversight, supervisory control,
and crew levels--will be commensurate with observed and
predicted fire danger.
--Managers and supervisors will be in compliance with the National
Wildland Coordinating Group (NWCG) work rest guidelines (2003
National Interagency Mobilization Guide).
--Appropriate span of control will be maintained for managers,
supervisors, and firefighters at a ratio commensurate to the
complexities presented by the fireline operations at hand.
--Define control objectives (e.g. road, river, fuel type break, or
other perimeter objective) on every initial attack incident.
When control objectives are exceeded, immediately delay,
modify, or abandon any firefighting action. Fireline
Supervisors will assess the new situation, brief the
firefighters on strategy/tactical change, and then implement
appropriate actions.
--Airtankers airworthiness and maintenance status will be monitored
as the fire season progresses. At appropriate intervals,
required inspections and maintenance will be conducted.
--Airtankers will be pre-positioned, based on projected fire danger
levels, in the context of values to be protected.
--Airtankers will be utilized primarily for initial and extended
attack. Large fire airtanker use will be determined on a case-
by-case basis, or when lives or communities are at risk.
Communicate.--Safety is a responsibility we all share.
See it--Say it--Fix it.--You owe it to yourself, your crew, and
those around you.
SUMMARY
Dynamic tensions define today's Fire and Aviation Management
Program. These tensions can only be managed successfully with adherence
to established safe practices procedures, attention to critical fire
behavior risk thresholds, and sound judgment.
At the highest levels of activity, when suppression demands are
high and resources are scarce, Line Officers and Fire Managers must
maintain a high level of situational awareness, anticipate needs, and
proactively lead.
Paying attention to relationships and maintaining open lines of
communication pay big dividends when people and organizations are under
stress. We are stronger when we work together and more effective when
we share information.
Early projections indicate that this fire season may be another
difficult year for us. The steps outlined in this action plan are
intended to increase margins of safety and preparedness with the aim of
reducing the costs, losses, and damages that have become more common as
fuels have built up in drought areas where people live.
However, over the long-term, an aggressive fuel treatment program
is the surest means of ensuring firefighter and public safety,
reversing wildfire costs, and restoring healthy, resilient forests and
grasslands (Wildfire Suppression: Strategies for Containing Costs, NAPA
Report, 09/02).
We will continue to pursue an accelerated fuel treatment program.
Programs that focus on restoration of fire-dependent ecosystems and
better integrate fuel management, forest health, wildlife, range,
watershed, and other available dollars will be more aggressively
explored.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Burns. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
will stand in recess to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April
10, in room SD-124. At that time we will hear testimony from
the Honorable Gale A. Norton, Secretay of the Interior.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., Thursday, March 20, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
April 10.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. We will call the committee to order.
Depending on if you are running on daylight savings time,
or just standard time, which one of the clocks do you want to
go by?
We like to serve everybody with 10 o'clock according to one
and another one.
Madame Secretary, thank you for coming today as we look at
the budget for the Interior Department and the appropriations
for 2004. While I suspect we will get to a number of topics
today, there is one aspect of the Department's budget request
that really jumps off the page. One does not have to be an
accountant to see that we have real problems. I am talking, of
course, about the Indian trust reform.
It looks like right now, compared to the 2003 enacted
level, the Department's request for programs under this
subcommittee's jurisdiction represents an increase of about
$370 million. Of that total increase, at least $180 million is
for trust reform activities of the Office of Special Trustee in
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bulk of that increase is to
implement the Department's plan for historical accounting. This
is a remarkable concentration of resources for a single task. I
think you would have to agree with that.
Madame Secretary, we applaud the commitment you have made
to the trust reform; both in dollars, and in terms of your
personal attention. I know it has occupied far more time than
you would have imagined, or you would care to even talk about.
But the litigation has taken its toll on the morale and funds
of the Department.
I think all of us here are struggling with the fact that
increasing resources being devoted to trust reform are
resources that might otherwise be spent in improving Indian
schools, maintaining our national parks and public lands, or
working with landowners to eliminate noxious weeds, and
conserve the critical wildlife habitat. We know that it will
take money to fix the trust problem.
Madame Secretary, I think you would agree that over the
years this committee has been very responsive to the
Department's budget request for trust reform. But this year's
request, particularly in respect to the historical accounting,
really forces this committee to ask some tough questions.
On one hand, I do not think any of us want to simply give
up on historical accounting. I hate to condemn the Federal
Government to paying billions of dollars of damages that may or
may not have occurred. On the other hand, can we justify
spending hundreds of millions of dollars to perform a
historical accounting that will, undoubtedly, be disputed in
Indian country?
What will such an accounting ultimately tell us? And what
needs in Indian country will go unfulfilled while we go through
this very expensive process? These are really difficult issues.
And, Madame Secretary, I suspect the line of questioning this
morning will go down that trail.
We also have a problem that I want to raise with you as far
as increased funding in Indian schools, and the community
colleges that are located around our many reservations. We
increased the monies going into that particular program, and to
higher education in Indian country. As it turns out, by some
quirk of the pen, I get a decrease in my monies going for
students in Montana. Rather than being an accross the board
increase for all Indian schools, all of the funding gets
distributed elsewhere.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We will look into this. But I will tell you that you can
look forward to seeing this Senator in that office. I am going
to find out how they do those figures, because I will not allow
this to happen. I do not fight for my State, and I do not fight
for funds for higher education in Indian country, to see it
become concentrated in one place under some quirk of a rule of
titles. We are going to look into that and be very critical of
it. Again, I thank you for coming this morning.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Welcome Madam Secretary. We appreciate your making the time today
to appear before the committee in support of your fiscal year 2004
budget request.
While I suspect we will get into a number of topics today, there is
one aspect of the Department's budget request that really jumps off the
page. I am talking, of course, about Indian trust reform.
Compared to the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, the Department's
request for programs under this subcommittee's jurisdiction represents
an increase of about $370 million. Of that total increase, at least
$180 million is for trust reform activities in the Office of Special
Trustee and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bulk of that increase is
to implement the Department's plan for historical accounting. This is a
remarkable concentration of resources on a single task.
Madam Secretary, we applaud the commitment you have made to trust
reform, both in dollars and in terms of your personal attention. I know
it has occupied far more of your time than you ever imagined, and that
the litigation has taken a toll on morale within the Department.
But I think all of us are struggling with the fact that the
increasing resources being devoted to trust reform are resources that
might otherwise be spent improving Indian schools, maintaining our
national parks and public lands, or working with landowners to
eliminate noxious weeds and conserve critical wildlife habitat.
We know that it will take money to fix the trust problem. Madam
Secretary, I think you would agree that over the years this Committee
has been very responsive to the Department's budget requests for trust
reform. But this year's request--particularly with respect to
historical accounting--really forces this committee to ask some tough
questions.
On the one hand, I don't think any of us want simply to give up on
historical accounting. I'd hate to condemn the Federal Government to
paying billions of dollars in damages that may or may not have
occurred. On the other hand, can we justify spending hundreds of
millions of dollars to perform an historical accounting that will
undoubtedly be disputed in Indian country? What will such an accounting
ultimately tell us? And what needs in Indian Country will go
unfulfilled while we go through this very expensive process?
These are difficult issues, Madam Secretary, and we're anxious to
hear your thoughts on them today. Certainly we'll have a lot else to
talk about as well, so I'll conclude my remarks at this time and ask
Senator Dorgan if he has an opening statement.
Senator Burns. It is good this morning to recognize my co-
partner on this committee, Senator Dorgan. It is your turn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. No, no. Mr. Chairman, I am just trying to
digest all that you have just said.
I agree with much of what the chairman has said. And,
Madame Secretary, let me say, first of all, that I welcome you
and look forward to working with you on these issues. You know,
perhaps, that today I will ask you about the United Tribes
Technical College and the proposal to de-fund that. I will ask
you about some issues that are not necessarily the purview of
this subcommittee dealing with NAWS funding and some things,
some commitments we have made that the President's budget does
not keep.
I note some things in the budget that I think give us some
heart, taking care of parks. The proposal to increase the
maintenance backlog in national parks, I think, makes a lot of
sense. I mean, we just cannot keep pushing that off. And a
number of administrations have done that. I think there are
some solid recommendations that we will agree on.
The Senator from Montana described the funding issue with
respect to Indian schools. And it is not right and not fair, in
my judgment, to decide we are going to actually decrease the
money that is available to Indian schools. I know that you
probably will argue, ``Well, the funding for last year included
$2 million that was added by the Congress.'' But even at that,
we are dramatically below the per-student support that we
provide to other colleges in this country.
So on that I think you will find that this subcommittee
feels very strongly about Indian education. And the tribal
colleges have been a remarkably effective way to allow people
to escape from poverty, to get educated and move to a payroll,
get a good job as a result of the training and the education
they get at tribal colleges.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So we have a number of things to talk about. You run a very
big agency. It does a lot of different things. Some I think it
does exceptionally well. Some perhaps can well use some
improvement. So I look forward to visiting with you about all
of those issues, Madame Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Madame Secretary, thank you for being here this morning to present
the department's fiscal year 2004 budget request. We understand that
you have many responsibilities and many demands placed on your time,
and so we appreciate your willingness to come before this subcommittee
to answer our questions.
As you know, the services provided by the Department of the
Interior are vitally important to our constituents and reach well
beyond the traditional notion of parks and wildlife refuges. Many North
Dakotans, for example, rely on the programs of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. From education, to community. development, to law enforcement,
to environmental and resource management, the BIA is critical to the
Native American population in my state, and I think in the Chairman's
state, too. Yet, as I look at the administration's budget, I am deeply
concerned with the way the administration has prioritized its scarce
resources. While some agencies and programs have received 3 or 4 or 5
percent increases, total funding for tribal allocations goes up by less
than I percent and funding for tribal colleges is cut by nearly 9
percent. These are serious flaws, Madame Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, despite my reservations, I look forward to hearing
the Secretary's testimony, and I have no doubt that she will put the
best face on a rather dismal situation. Nevertheless, as this process
proceeds, I hope to work with you to rectify what I think are
fundamental mistakes in the way this budget has been arranged.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Senator Stevens.
We are blessed with the chairman of the full committee this
morning.
Senator Stevens. Not for long.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Madame Secretary, I want to invite you--I heard you are
interested in going out to the end of the Aleutian chain. I
would encourage you to do that and tell you that if you do
that, we will get a plane and take a few other people along
with us. It is the forgotten place of World War II. More people
were killed in the Aleutian battle than were killed in the
Battle of the Coral Sea.
The battles took place at approximately the same time. Very
interesting place. We would go to Kiska and Attu and Shemya and
Dutch Harbor. I think it is a wonderful thing if you show some
interest there, because there are many people who would like to
go there, but there are no facilities to do so. We have
prohibited that because of the withdrawals made by your
predecessors.
So I think it would be wonderful if you would just look at
it. I think the World War II veterans, their families, would be
very interested to see some means of access to those areas.
I have a long statement here to make, but let me do this
for the convenience of the committee and for the time factor
that you have. My colleague, Lisa Murkowski, Senator Murkowski,
and I would like to talk to you about the delay in terms of
land conveyances to both the Alaska natives and the State of
Alaska. We would like to set a deadline for getting all that
done, which includes accelerating the surveying.
We would like to talk to you about the proposed regulations
of the Park Service concerning commercial use that put
commercialization within the national parks, as far as those
people who are recognized to have rights to conduct their
business activities within the parks. As you know, we have, I
think, more than 70 percent of the total areas with the
national parks that are in our State. There are two categories,
those that were national park areas before 1980 and those after
1980. The 1980 Act preserved a considerable number of rights
for Alaska native people and other Alaskans with the additions
to the national park system that was created by the 1980 Act.
Those regulations, in our opinion, do not recognize the rights
that were preserved by the 1980 Act. And I would encourage you
to review that. My statement, full statement, deals with some
of those.
Of basic concern, really, is the restriction of access
across the parklands. We accept the fact that the pre-1980
parks and their acreage are not subject to the rights created,
or really preserved in the 1980 Act for the enormous additions.
That Act withdrew over 100 million acres of our State. And
without the rights for access across those lands that were
preserved, the native lands and the State lands that are beyond
them become absolutely inaccessible, unless we build some
really crazy roads that would go north, south, east, and then
west and back north again. It would be impossible to get money
for Federal roads of that type. But I would urge you to take a
look at it with regard to that.
We have also raised the issue of fires on Federal lands. It
is an interesting thing. We burned over 7.1 million acres
nationwide. And there was little attention paid to fires in
Alaska. When a few hundred thousand acres burned around Montana
or Colorado around national parks, they flew Alaska
firefighters down there to fight it.
We think there has to be some standard made in terms of the
regions of Alaska that are going to be given fire protection
because in many instances, those fires rushed across State
lands and Federal lands. And by the time they reached our
lands, they were just out of control. I can show you that right
in Kenai just south of where I live.
Also, we have a problem with--the spruce bark beetles have
killed millions of acres of land. And we know that when fire
starts, the fire goes through the beetle kill area, the dead
timber first. And that, too, with the dry winter we have had,
we feel this 2 million acres in the south-central area alone
have been killed by the birch beetles, most of them on Federal
land. But there is no action being taken. And I understand, in
fact, the people I call extreme environmentalists oppose taking
action on Federal land to remove that dead timber. That dead
timber jeopardizes half of our population. We are not very big
in population, but half of the population of Alaska is still
important. And we are surrounded by that beetle kill.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, Mr. Chairman, let me put the whole statement in the
record.
I will send you a copy, Madame Secretary, and save the rest
of the time. Let me take the time to congratulate you on what
you are doing. I think you are a breath of fresh air in being
willing to listen. I am not sure I always agree with you, but
you will listen. And we look forward to working with you. And I
am particularly proud to be a member of this committee so I can
listen to you.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
Good morning Madam Secretary. An issue of concern to myself and to
Senator Lisa Murkowski is the pace of the Bureau of Land Management's
Alaska Land Conveyance Program.
As you know, the BLM was tasked with completing work on Native
allotments and land selections mandated by both the Alaska Statehood
Act of 1959 and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.
That task has not been completed.
This delay has severely impacted the ability of the State of Alaska
and our Native groups from developing their resources and furthering
the economic development of the State.
Language included in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations
bill directs the Bureau to develop a plan to ensure that allotments and
conveyances are completed by 2009.
I would like to get your commitment that the BLM will abide by its
obligations and complete the land conveyance program by 2009.
I know that Senator Murkowski is committed to assisting you and the
BLM in this effort through her membership on the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee.
And I commit to providing the BLM the resources it needs to develop
this plan.
Another issue is the National Park Service's proposed regulations
concerning the issuance and administration of commercial use
authorizations in National Parks.
As expressed to you in a February 6, 2003 letter from Senator
Murkowski, Congressman Don Young and myself, these proposed regulations
fail to comply with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
of 1980. The 1980 law is the controlling authority on public lands in
Alaska and any Park Service regulations must conform with this law.
I would like your assurance that the Department and the Park
Service are committed to working with the State of Alaska, interested
parties and Alaska Native groups in developing regulations which are
consistent with the 1980 law.
Additionally, Denali National Park recently issued its draft
backcountry management plan.
I am concerned that some of the alternatives, if implemented, would
restrict public access to our Parks.
Access to public lands is an issue that I have struggled to protect
first as a solicitor your Department, in the Alaska State House, and in
my 34 years in the Senate.
I will oppose any plan which imposes unnecessary limits on the
public's right to visit their Parks.
I understand that Denali's superintendent and his staff have held
public hearings and meetings on this management plan.
I encourage these efforts in order to ensure that the final plan
balances the protection of our natural resources with the public's
right to access for recreational, economic and social purposes.
I am pleased with the proactive stance the administration has taken
in the area of wildfire prevention and suppression through the healthy
forests initiative.
In recent years we have witnessed catastrophic fires which burned
over 7.1 million acres, affecting several regions in the United States
including Alaska.
In Alaska, we have a particular problem with Spruce Bark beetles
which have decimated spruce forests in the Kenai Peninsula area along
the Kachemak Bay watershed and the Copper River basin near Wrangell-St.
Elias National Park and preserve.
The Spruce Bark beetle problem along with an extremely dry winter
season in Alaska raises serious concerns for this coming fire season.
I hope that your efforts in fire prevention and suppression will
include funding to address Alaska's Spruce Bark beetle problem.
As you know, we have begun the fiscal year 2004 appropriations
process. It has come to my attention that the committee does not have
the most current data for public lands being administered by the
Department of Interior.
In order to appropriately allocate scarce resources towards the
management of our public lands, I request that the Department provide
the committee with statistics on federally owned land by agency in each
State and Territory by acreage and percentage of total State area.
These statistics should also include the total wilderness areas
within each State.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate that,
and appreciate you dropping by this morning.
Madame Secretary, again, welcome to the committee. We look
forward to your statement. Your full statement will be made
part of the record, if you want to summarize and hit the high
points of what you would like to tell the committee. Thank you,
and your guests, for coming this morning.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON
Secretary Norton. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to once again address this committee and talk
with you about our budget for fiscal year 2004. I appreciate
the opportunity to highlight a number of our initiatives.
I am accompanied today by Lynn Scarlett, who is our
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, and John
Trezise, who is the Department's Budget Director.
Interior takes pride in its mission to protect and manage
the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage, provide
scientific information about those resources, and honor our
special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives,
and affiliated island communities. Our programs touch the lives
of individuals across the Nation. How well we fulfill our
mission influences whether farmers will have water and people
can turn on the tap, whether our children will enjoy America's
vistas, places in history, and whether we can hike, bird watch,
canoe, or hunt and fish in the great American outdoors.
Our 2004 budget request lays the foundation for us to build
a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities. Our request
for programs under the purview of this subcommittee is $9.8
billion. This is the largest Presidential request in the
Department's history. It is a 28 percent increase over the 2000
budget.
The Department of the Interior is not quite self-
supporting. We bring in $3 for every $4 in expenditures. The
Department anticipates that it will collect $7.8 billion in
revenue in 2004.
TRUST REFORM INITIATIVES
As the chairman noted, our largest increase is in the area
of trust reform initiatives. Fulfilling our trust
responsibilities presents a major challenge. The challenge is
both retrospective and prospective. We inherited a history of
inadequate management of trust accounts. Our budget lays the
groundwork for a better future.
Our budget for Indian trust programs includes $554 million
for trust operations and reform. Our budget proposal reflects
new management concepts that grew out of consultation efforts,
including a reorganization of Interior trust offices to improve
delivery of services. The budget provides an increase of $183.8
million for trust programs, which is an increase of nearly 50
percent over 2003.
We also have a substantial increase for the Office of the
Special Trustee, bringing it to $275 million. Within the Office
of the Special Trustee request is $130 million for the Office
of Historical Trust Accounting, an increase of $114 million
over the 2003 level. These funds will provide a major down
payment toward our plan to complete a historical accounting for
individual Indian money accounts. We submitted a plan to the
district court in the Cobell litigation on January 6 that
outlines the details of how we would do that historical
accounting.
Once this accounting is completed, we should be able to
resolve the disputes about whether the books are off by
billions of dollars or the much smaller amounts that we expect.
We hope to improve our management of our Indian trust program
by consolidating our portfolio. Today we manage interests in
land that are very tiny, as small as .00002 of an 80-acre tract
of land. These areas often provide less than $1 a year in
income to the owners.
Fractionated interests in individual Indian-allotted land
continue to expand exponentially as these small fractions pass
through the generations. The 2004 budget proposes $21 million
for Indian land consolidation, which is an increase of $13
million. These funds will enable us to expand our pilot efforts
to reduce the fractionation of individual land ownership
interest in a nationwide program. This is only a very small
part of what will be needed to accomplish a nationwide
consolidation of these lands. But it gives us an opportunity to
begin tackling this problem seriously.
Our budget also lays the foundations for leaving a legacy
of healthy lands. Our request presents a blueprint for
fulfilling the President's vision of a new environmentalism of
citizen stewards and cooperative conservation. Building
partnerships lies at the heart of this effort. Enduring
conservation needs many helping hands on the landscape. It
requires a nation of citizen stewards.
COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
Last year we proposed a cooperative conservation
initiative. This year we are restructuring that program around
our bureau challenge cost-share programs and cooperative
conservation grant programs. It will tap into the tremendous
potential that resides in conservation partnerships. It will
better enable our land managers to join with Americans across
the nation in caring for the land. Thousands of landowners and
organizations remain on waiting lists to participate in our
cooperative conservation grant programs.
The 2004 budget includes $113 million for this initiative,
including an increase of $9 million for the Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program. This will allow us to partner with 2,500
landowners and restore wetlands, uplands, and riparian habitats
through voluntary conservation agreements.
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
As Senator Dorgan described, the maintenance backlog in the
national parks has been a continuing problem. We need to take
care of these lands. We need to take care of the buildings and
infrastructure through which we serve the millions of visitors
to our parks, refuges, and BLM recreation sites. We are
continuing our commitment to fulfill the President's pledge of
addressing the maintenance backlog, proposing nearly $706
million for national park backlogs.
To date, the National Park Service accomplishments have
been impressive. But we still have more work to do. A key focus
will be to improve park roads. Here, too, we are reaching out
to partners. The Federal Highway Administration has helped us
review our roads program to see how we can operate it more
efficiently. And the budget request for maintenance of park
roads is in the Department of Transportation budget as part of
the Federal Lands Highway bill.
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Lands managed by Interior include working landscapes where
ranchers, energy partners, and other entrepreneurs help ensure
that Americans have food, can warm their homes, and have
shelter for their families. Federally managed lands in onshore
areas supply about a third of the Nation's oil, natural gas,
and coal. Our 2004 budget provides $2 million to support the
development of geothermal energy on public lands, as well as
increased wind and solar energy opportunities. Our renewable
energy program budget is more than five times the 2002 amount.
Our budget also includes increased funding to facilitate
the development of coal bed natural gas reserves, an abundant
clean source of energy.
INDIAN EDUCATION
No task is more important to all of our communities than
educating our children. As we seek to educate our children, the
President has committed to leave no child behind. At Interior,
this commitment centers on the children educated at BIA schools
and educated with Bureau assistance. The 2004 school operations
request is over $529 million. The children also need safe,
functional places to learn. Our budget includes a request to
invest $293 million, including funds to replace at least seven
decaying and dilapidated school facilities.
RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
Perhaps the closest connection that Americans have with the
Department is through recreation opportunities. With almost 500
million visits to our public lands, Interior provides a wide
array of recreational opportunities. We are seeing a dramatic
increase in visitation to our Bureau of Land Management lands
where we are requesting increased funding to enable BLM to
continue to provide high quality recreational opportunities.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Our Everglades restoration efforts also affirm the power of
partnerships. As stewards of about one-half of the remaining
Everglades ecosystem, the Department works with a broad team of
Federal, State, and local partners. In 2004, the President's
budget included $112 million for Everglades activities, an
increase of almost $28 million over the 2003 enacted level.
Near these Everglades restoration efforts is Pelican
Island, the Nation's first national wildlife refuge established
100 years ago. We just celebrated the anniversary of the
wildlife refuge system with large events there at Pelican
Island. And our budget builds on last year's historic increases
for refuges with an increase of nearly $34 million for refuge
operations and maintenance, bringing the total to $402 million.
Together, our increases for last year and this year set forth
an additional $82 million increase in our national wildlife
refuges.
OTHER PROGRAM INITIATIVES
The fisheries program is also an important Fish and
Wildlife Service activity. The budget recognizes this and
includes a $7 million increase for the national fish hatchery
system.
The National Resource Challenge is an important component
of the President's commitment to improving natural resource
management in our parks. It strengthens the scientific basis of
knowledge about our national parks. Our budget includes nearly
$9 million to increase this program.
The Land and Water Conservation State Grant program is a
cornerstone of our commitment to involve State governments in
conservation planning. Our budget requests $160 million for the
traditional State grant program, which is a $63 million
increase over the 2003 level enacted by Congress.
The President's budget includes full funding for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million through a medley of
programs that emphasize achieving LWCF goals through
partnerships. We have two central resource protection goals.
First is to leave a legacy of healthy lands by targeting our
budget toward caring for the vast lands under our stewardship.
Second is to extend our conservation and recreation
achievements through partnerships.
Through a mix of grant programs, we propose to leverage
Federal LWCF dollars. These programs engage States, tribes, and
other partners allowing us to achieve conservation and outdoor
recreation goals across many lands and with many landowners.
Through leveraging using conservation easements and other
agreements, we are able to achieve more conservation than we
would through fee acquisition alone.
WILDLAND FIRE
There are two problems that we need to address in an
ongoing way. And one of those that has attracted a lot of
attention from this committee is the problem of wildland fire.
Last year over 7 million acres of Federal lands went up in
flames during catastrophic wildfires. The President's healthy
forest initiative will help us reduce decades-long buildups of
underbrush and unnaturally dense forests.
The budget continues a high level of funding, $186 million,
to reduce the buildup of brush, dead vegetation, and fire-prone
invasive species. This will allow us to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire. The best approach for the long run is in
building public-private partnerships. Stewardship contracting
allows us to do that. Thanks to the subcommittee's efforts, we
now have stewardship contracting authority. We are moving
forward with getting that in place, working with the Forest
Service on some joint standards for those programs, and
beginning to get our contracting going.
SECURITY
We are also investing in greater security for our monuments
and for public lands that border Mexico and Canada. The 2004
budget includes $46.8 million for increases in improved
security to protect our visitors, employees, and resources.
Over $10 million of this increase will be targeted to public
lands located along the borders.
An additional $34 million is slated for site security
improvements at the Jefferson National Expansion Area in St.
Louis, Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia, and
the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument here in
Washington.
SCIENCE
At the foundation of all Interior's efforts is scientific
information, and it is the cornerstone of our research
management activities, providing a basis for decisions about
resource protection, use, recreation, and community-based
programs. The 2004 budget proposes a $17 million increase for
USGS to enhance science support to Interior's bureaus to meet
their high-priority needs and address other high-priority
research needs, including invasive species control.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss our
budget. We are working to better manage through partnerships.
Our ability to leave a legacy of healthy lands and thriving
communities depends on how well we can build those
partnerships. Our budget sets forth the tools through which we
can accomplish those goals.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gale A. Norton
I am pleased to be here today before the Subcommittee on Interior
and Related Agencies to discuss with you the fiscal year 2004 budget
for the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to
highlight a number of important initiatives and to answer questions
that you might have.
As an introduction to our 2004 budget request, I'd like to offer
some observations about the Department's mission. We take a great deal
of pride in our mission to:
--Protect and manage the Nation's natural resources and cultural
heritage;
--Provide scientific information about those resources; and
--Honor our special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska
Natives and affiliated Island Communities.
Our responsibilities touch the lives of each individual across the
Nation. How well we fulfill our mission influences:
--Whether farmers will have water and people can turn on the tap;
--Whether our children will enjoy America's grand vistas, places, and
history;
--Whether we can hike, bird watch, canoe, or hunt and fish in the
great American outdoors; and
--Whether our landscapes are healthy and our communities are
thriving.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
Our 2004 $9.8 billion budget request provides the single clearest
statement of how we plan to honor these commitments in the upcoming
year. It lays the foundation for us to build a legacy of healthy lands
and thriving communities, including:
--Resource Protection--Reflecting the Department's multiple missions,
the budget proposes $2.5 billion to fund programs that improve
the health of landscapes, sustain biological communities, and
protect cultural resources.
--Serving Communities--The budget proposal includes $5.0 billion to
serve communities through fire protection, generation of
scientific information, education investments for American
Indians, and through activities to fulfill responsibilities
toward American Indians, Alaskan natives, and the Nation's
affiliated island communities.
--Resource Use--Interior lands include many working landscapes where
ranchers, energy partners, and other entrepreneurs help
maintain thriving American communities and a dynamic economy.
The budget includes $728 million to provide access for these
important uses.
--Recreation--$1.4 billion in fiscal year 2004 budget investments
will ensure recreational opportunities for all Americans in the
network of public lands, parks and refuges that the Department
administers.
In total, the 2004 budget is the largest presidential request in
the Department's history. The 2004 request includes $9.8 billion for
programs funded in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, an increase of $369.8 million or 3.9 percent over the 2003 enacted
level. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of existing
legislation without further action by the Congress will provide an
additional $3.0 billion, for a total 2004 Interior budget of $12.8
billion. The Department anticipates that it will collect $7.8 billion
in receipts in 2004, equivalent to 73 percent of Interior's current
appropriations request.
TRUST PROGRAMS
Over one-half of our $369.8 million increase for 2004 will fund
trust reform initiatives. While the overall budget request is
approximately 3.9 percent over the fiscal year 2003 request, our fiscal
year 2004 Indian trust budget request is almost 50 percent higher than
what was included in the 2003 appropriations act.
Fulfilling our Trust responsibilities remains one of the
Department's greatest challenges. The Department has responsibility for
the management of 100,000 leases for individual Indians and Tribes on a
land trust that encompasses approximately 56 million acres. Leasing,
use permits, sale revenues, and interest of approximately $226 million
per year are collected for approximately 230,000 individual Indian
money accounts, and about $530 million per year are collected for
approximately 1,400 tribal accounts per year. In addition, the trust
manages approximately $2.8 billion in tribal funds and $400 million in
individual Indian funds.
Interior faces many challenges in reforming the management of its
Indian trust responsibilities. First, the Department has not been well
structured to focus on its trust duties. Second, fractionated interests
in individual Indian allotted land continue to expand exponentially
with each new generation. Today, there are approximately four million
owner interests in the 10 million acres of individually owned trust
lands. These four million interests could expand to 10 million
interests by 2030 unless an aggressive approach to fractionation is
taken. There are now single pieces of property with ownership interests
that are less than 0.000002 of the whole interest.
Third, there are 230,000 open individual Indian money accounts, the
majority of which have balances under $100 and annual transactions of
less than $1,000. Interior maintains thousands of accounts that contain
less than one dollar, and has a responsibility to provide an accounting
to all account holders. Unlike most private trusts, the Federal
Government bears the entire cost of administering the Indian trust. As
a result, the usual incentives found in the commercial sector for
reducing the number of accounts do not apply to the Indian trust.
An increase of $114.1 million for the Office of Historical Trust
accounting will support the Department's plan to conduct a historical
accounting for individual Indian money accounts and to account for
funds in Tribal accounts. On January 6, 2003, the Department presented
a plan to the District Court in Cobell v. Norton for the historical
accounting for about 260,000 IIM accounts. The work described in that
Plan is expected to take five years to complete and is preliminarily
estimated to cost approximately $335 million. The budget includes
$130.0 million for these historical accounting activities. Funds also
will be used to provide for historical accounting activities related to
tribal accounts.
The 2004 budget proposes $21.0 million for Indian land
consolidation, an increase of $13.0 million, to expand pilot efforts to
reduce the fractionation of individual land ownership interests into a
nation-wide program. During 2003, we will establish a national program
office, standardize business practices, and develop a strategic plan to
guide expansion to more tribal reservations.
Interior is reorganizing trust functions in BIA and OST. The new
organization was developed after detailed analysis of the prior
organization and a year-long consultation process with tribal leaders.
In one of the most extensive consultation efforts ever undertaken by
the senior management level at the Department on any issue relating to
Indian Country, over 45 meetings with tribal leaders provided detailed
findings and recommendations. The new organization reflects a synthesis
of the views heard during the consultation process. It will meet
fiduciary trust responsibilities, be more accountable at every level,
and operate with people trained in the principles of trust management.
The 2004 budget provides an increase of $15.0 million to support the
new organization, which together with base funding available in BIA and
OST will provide resources needed for the new organization in 2004.
The proposed $183.8 million increase for trust management reforms
includes funding to help rebuild Bureau of Indian Affairs information
technology infrastructure to support trust and non-trust programs. The
BIA's information infrastructure and security use outmoded hardware and
software that do not meet lifecycle management and systems architecture
principles, and do not comply with the security requirements of OMB
Circular A-130 and the Government Information Security Results Act. The
Department requests IT funding for the significant new investments
needed to address these challenges. The 2004 budget includes increases
of $29.6 million for a ground-up rebuilding of the BIA IT
infrastructure to support trust, as well as non-trust programs, and
$2.5 million for Interior-wide IT security. The proposed rebuilding
will fit within the enterprise architecture and includes full business
cases for proposed investments.
The 2004 budget also proposes an increase of $4.5 million to
accelerate a new strategy to administer, manage, search, retrieve, and
store trust records. Reform efforts to date have improved records
collection and security. However, recent Interior reviews have resulted
in a reassessment of the resource requirements needed to establish
proper records retention schedules, establish and implement record
keeping requirements, safeguard records, implement and maintain
training programs, and meet records-retrieval needs in an effective and
cost-efficient way.
COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
The 2004 budget lays the foundation for a legacy of healthy lands,
presenting a blueprint for fulfilling the President's vision of a new
environmentalism of citizen stewards and cooperative conservation.
Building partnerships lies at the heart of this effort. Last year's
budget proposed a Cooperative Conservation Initiative. This year, our
budget again includes a Cooperative Conservation Initiative, structured
around bureau Challenge Cost Share programs and other existing
cooperative conservation grant programs.
The Cooperative Conservation Initiative, funded at $113.2 million,
will empower citizen stewards to conserve and protect natural
resources, while also achieving important community and economic goals.
The Initiative builds on existing conservation partnership programs and
will provide new and expanded opportunities for landowners, land
managers, and others to participate in projects that foster innovation
and create incentives for stewardship. Our budget also provides funds
for a public lands volunteers program.
The 2004 CCI request builds upon Interior's long history of working
collaboratively with others. It builds on existing conservation
partnership programs, including the challenge cost share programs of
the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National
Park Service, as well as FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program,
Coastal program and Migratory Bird Joint Venture program. This
initiative also funds a program of volunteers to increase public
awareness of, and appreciation for, natural and cultural resource
protection.
The CCI request includes a $9.1 million increase for the Partners
for Fish and Wildlife program, the largest increase ever provided to
this program. The Fish and Wildlife Service will partner with 2,500
additional landowners on the program's waiting list. These new
partnerships will restore an additional 19,298 acres of wetlands;
83,601 acres of native grasslands, forest and other uplands; and 241
miles of riparian and in-stream habitat over 2003 levels.
CONSERVATION GRANTS
The Private Stewardship grants and the Landowner Incentive Program
recognize continuing opportunities for conservation of endangered and
threatened species through partnerships with private landowners. The
budget request includes $50.0 million for Private Stewardship grants
and the Landowner Incentive program. Interest in the State portion of
the program is high, with over 80 grant requests totaling $61.0 million
for the program's first year.
The 2004 budget request includes a comprehensive, partnership
approach to meeting the President's commitment for fully funding the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. The 2004 LWCF program includes $662.4
million for the Department. It emphasizes conservation partnerships
with States, Tribes, local communities, and private citizens, including
a strong State grant program, and reduced Federal land acquisition.
This proposal recognizes the costs of adding to the significant land
holdings that are already managed by the Department and our commitment
to take better care of these lands. It also recognizes the value and
cost-effectiveness of partnerships. We can accomplish our conservation
goals by conserving endangered and at risk species through conservation
easements, working with private landowners to enhance habitat for
endangered and at risk species, and other innovative partnership
approaches.
CONSERVING WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
March 14, 2003 marks a milestone in the history of wildlife
conservation in America-the centennial anniversary of the national
wildlife refuge system. Reflecting the importance of this event and the
record of conservation established through this unique system of lands
and resources, the 2004 budget builds on last year's historic $48.4
million budget increase for the national wildlife refuge system by
requesting a total of $402.0 million for refuge operations and
maintenance, an increase of $33.6 million over 2003 appropriation
levels. The total budget request for the Fish and Wildlife Service is
$1.3 billion.
The Fish and Wildlife Service fisheries program has played a vital
role in conserving and managing fish and other aquatic resources. The
2004 budget enhances the Federal contribution to aquatic resource
conservation partnerships, by providing $103.6 million for the FWS
fisheries program. The request includes an $3.9 million increase for
operation and maintenance of the national fish hatchery system's
hatcheries, fish health centers, and fish technology centers. Also
included is a $1.0 million increase to combat aquatic nuisance species,
part of the larger, coordinated interdepartmental effort discussed
below.
OTHER PARTNERSHIPS
As stated earlier, the 2004 budget is based on a vision of
partnerships and leaving a legacy of healthy lands and thriving
communities resulting from efforts to work together across landscapes
and across communities. The 2004 budget sets forth the tools through
which these partnerships can flourish and leave a legacy of healthy
lands and thriving communities
The Department's parks, refuges, and public lands host nearly 500
million visitors a year and provide access for economic uses,
activities that fuel the economic engines for communities adjacent to
our Federal lands. Recognizing that the Department's decisions can
greatly impact these gateway communities, the Department is working in
partnership with the people who live on the private lands that border
these areas and developing collaborative approaches to address local
issues.
Everglades.--The Everglades restoration effort also affirms the
power of partnerships. As stewards of about one-half of the remaining
Everglades ecosystem, the Interior Department works with a broad team
of Federal, State and local partners. In 2004, the President's budget
includes $112.3 million for Interior Everglades activities, an increase
of $27.8 million above 2003 enacted appropriations. The request
includes $40.0 million to protect the Big Cypress National Preserve by
acquiring the Collier family's mineral right holdings.
Exemplifying the partnership approach to this restoration effort,
the Department is building stronger coalitions to implement the
restoration program, including:
--Forming an advisory committee for public input to land managers in
South Florida on a wide range of issues;
--Providing scientific expertise to the State and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to meet the objectives of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan; and
--Taking steps to ensure that appropriate quantities of water are
distributed at the right times and in the right places to
restore the unique Everglades ecosystem.
Invasive Species.--The Department is participating in an
interagency performance budget to promote invasive species management
that is being coordinated by the National Invasive Species Council. The
2004 budget proposes $57.5 million for the Department's portion of this
interagency effort.
At this funding level, Interior will participate in the control and
management of tamarisk and giant salvinia in the southwest; conduct
ballast water research; control and eradicate nutria in the Chesapeake
Bay and in Louisiana; plan early detection and rapid response to
eradicate outbreaks of sudden oak death in eastern hardwood forests of
the central Appalachian Mountains; and develop a marine invasive
species early detection warning system.
Abandoned Mine Reclamation and Clean Streams.--Through partnerships
the Office of Surface Mining is restoring streams impacted by coal
mining. Its Clean Streams program involves State and local groups to
enhance miles of riparian areas. The President's budget request
includes $281.2 million for State and Federal programs to protect the
environment during coal mining, assure prompt reclamation after mining,
and clean up abandoned mine lands. The request will enable OSM to
continue directly administering Federal regulatory and reclamation
programs in States that do not operate their own surface mining
programs as well as on Federal and Indian lands, and to reclaim 6,900
acres of disturbed land and other hazards that threaten human health
and welfare and environmental quality.
Payment of Lieu of Taxes.--The President's proposal calls for
$200.0 million for Payments in Lieu of Taxes, to compensate States for
Federal lands that cannot be taxed by local governments. The 2004
budget proposes to move the program from the Bureau of Land Management
to the Departmental Management account to reflect the breadth of this
program. The lands on which the payments are made are administered by
the NPS, FWS, and USDA Forest Service, as well as by the Bureau of Land
Management.
WILDLAND FIRE AND HEALTHY FORESTS
Building a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities means
applying a healing hand to the landscape. The Department is advancing
the President's Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce decades-long
build-ups of underbrush and unnaturally dense forests.
The budget proposes $698.7 million for wildfire prevention and
suppression and Healthy Forest initiatives in fiscal year 2004. This is
a $48.5 million, or 7.5 percent increase over last year's budget
proposal. The request includes continued funding for a robust fuels
treatment program at $186.2 million, 400 percent above spending in
2000. At this funding level, the Department will treat 307,000 high
priority acres in the wildland-urban interface and an additional
768,000 acres that are not in the wildland-urban interface.
The Department is also taking a number of steps to improve the
productivity and performance of the fuels program that will help the
Department's firefighting bureaus take maximum advantage of the
opportunity for fuels treatment projects at the beginning of the fiscal
year when weather and workload conditions for fuels treatments are
optimal. The Department is accelerating project planning and selection,
issuing policy guidance and proposed legislative language designed to
facilitate and expand contracting in the fuels program, and issuing
policy guidance to expedite the budget allocation process for the fuels
program and individual projects.
The fuels treatment program is key to restoring forests and
rangelands to long-term health and preventing damage caused by
catastrophic wildfires. One approach to improving forest health that
holds promise is stewardship contracting. Stewardship contracts allow
the private sector, non-profit organizations, and local communities to
productively use materials generated from forest thinning.
The 2004 budget proposal also calls for $282.7 million for fire
preparedness, including increased funding for aviation contract costs.
The fire suppression request of $195.3 million reflects a $36.0 million
increase to fund suppression operations at the revised 10-year average.
This funding level will provide resources to respond to an ``average''
fire year without having to rely on emergency borrowing that can be
disruptive to other Interior programs. The Department is also working
to develop new and improved current cost control strategies for
suppression. The budget also includes $24.5 million for rehabilitating
burned areas. Timely stabilization and rehabilitation of severely
burned areas are critical to prevent further damage due to erosion,
loss of soil nutrients, and the introduction and spread of invasive
species. The budget also continues funding for Rural Fire Assistance at
$10.0 million. Frequently, local firefighting departments are the first
responders to wildland fires on public lands and play a vital role in
preventing fires from escaping initial attack and becoming
exponentially more expensive to suppress. In 2002, the Department
assisted 5,349 rural and volunteer fire departments through grants,
technical assistance, training, supplies, equipment, and public
education support.
HELPING TO MEET THE NATION'S ENERGY NEEDS
Interior plays a central role in meeting the Nation's energy needs.
Conservation, renewable energy, and traditional energy sources all play
an intertwined role in helping the Nation meet these needs. The budget
supports the President's and the Department's goal for increasing
domestic energy supplies from a variety of sources, in an
environmentally acceptable manner, with a special emphasis on
developing renewable energy sources on Federal lands.
The 2004 budget request includes an increase of $444,000 for
activities on the North Slope, for a total of $8.4 million. Funding
will support planning for sales in the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska, and, if authorized, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Congressional authorization will be required for a lease sale to be
conducted in ANWR.
The budget requests an increase of $2.0 million for BLM to
strengthen inspection and enforcement activities, targeted primarily to
the Powder River and San Juan basins. The budget also proposes a
$500,000 increase to expand resource monitoring to improve assessment
of the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development, especially on
cultural resources and species at risk.
The 2004 budget includes $2.0 million for renewable energy
resources. This includes an increase of $100,000 over 2003 enacted
appropriations to support the development of geothermal, wind, and
solar energy on public land. This is more than five times the 2002
funding level for these programs.
The Outer Continental Shelf is projected to produce over 25 percent
of both the Nation's oil and natural gas in 2003. The Minerals
Management Service is the primary steward of the mineral resources on
the OCS. The MMS appropriations request of $171.3 million includes an
increase of $1.6 million to meet increased workload brought about by
the demand for Outer Continental Shelf program services in the Gulf of
Mexico. The 2004 budget includes a total of $11.6 million, an increase
of $2.9 million over 2003 funding levels for MMS to employ innovative
business processes and advances in electronic technology in the
offshore program. The budget also includes an increase of $300,000 to
investigate the energy resource potential found in methane hydrate
formations. The MMS will also invest an additional $3.0 million to
operate and maintain its minerals revenue management and royalty-in-
kind systems.
The 2004 BIA request includes a $2.0 million increase for grants to
Tribes to evaluate mineral resource potential on tribal trust and
restricted lands. The request also includes $1.0 million to help Tribes
expedite the development of tribal regulations governing mineral
leasing and permitting, and rights-of-way of tribal lands required
under the Energy Policy Act, 2002.
TAKING CARE OF PARKS
Complementing the Department's cooperative conservation commitments
is a continued investment in taking care of National Parks. The
President's budget proposes a $2.4 billion budget for the National Park
Service, an increase of $131.4 million above 2003 appropriations.
This budget continues the Department's commitment to fulfill the
President's pledge of addressing the maintenance backlog in National
Parks, proposing $705.8 million this year toward this effort, an
increase of $54.1 million, nearly an eight percent increase over 2003.
The budget includes an increase of $16.3 million for cyclic
maintenance. This increase will provide additional funds for regular
maintenance activities and will help the NPS keep pace with its
maintenance needs and prevent additional projects from becoming
deferred. It also includes an additional $16.7 million for the repair
and rehabilitation program and a $4.7 million increase for
comprehensive condition assessments at parks. Data collected through
the condition assessments will be used in 2004 to evaluate progress in
eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog, as measured by a facility
condition index.
To date, our accomplishments are impressive. For example, the Many
Glacier Hotel at Glacier National Park was built in 1914. A highly
recognized National Landmark, this facility signifies an important
period in the development of the National Park Service. Due to the
harsh climate and insufficient maintenance in the past, this important
landmark had deteriorated to a stage where emergency stabilization was
necessary. The Department is in the process of stabilizing this
important facility.
But we still have more work to do. A key focus in the 2004 budget
will be to improve park roads. Here, too, the Department is reaching
out to partners. A signed memorandum of agreement with the Federal
Highway Administration will help us achieve our road maintenance goals
efficiently. The Department of Transportation's 2004 budget proposes
$300.0 million in 2004 for Park road repair as part of the
reauthorization of TEA-21, bringing the total park maintenance budget
to over $1 billion.
In the National Park Service, the Natural Resource Challenge helps
Park managers improve resource management by strengthening the
scientific base of knowledge about park resources. Our budget proposes
$76.1 million, an $9.0 million increase over 2003, for the program.
This increase will provide a three-year cumulative total increase of
over $104 million above the 2001 level. The Natural Resource Challenge
is an integral component of President Bush's ongoing commitment to
improving natural resource management in Parks.
INDIAN EDUCATION
No task is more important to the American community than educating
its children. In education, the President has committed to ``leave no
child behind.'' At Interior, this commitment centers on the 48,000
children educated at schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
or by Tribes under BIA grants or contracts.
The budget request for Indian education continues the President's
commitment with a robust $528.5 million school operations budget
request, including funding for teacher pay increases. The budget
includes $3.0 million to establish a separate fund for new
administrative cost grants to encourage more Tribes to exercise their
authority to operate BIA schools by providing full funding for start-up
costs for the first year of tribal operation of bureau-operated
schools.
Children deserve safe, functional places to learn. The 2004 budget
invests $292.6 million in school facilities, including funds to replace
at least seven high priority school facilities and to repair schools
identified in the Indian school maintenance backlog. The President's
goal is to eliminate the backlog by 2006.
RECREATION
With almost 500 million visits each year to the Department's lands,
Interior provides a wide array of recreational opportunities, including
fishing, hiking, hunting, camping, and wildlife viewing. Public lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management provide recreational venues
for a growing population in the West, hosting over 60 million visitors
annually.
The 2004 budget requests $48.7 million to enable the Bureau of Land
Management to continue to provide quality recreational opportunities.
BLM will address transportation and access needs and challenges, expand
interpretive and other visitor services, and support greater outreach
and consultation efforts to help resolve user conflicts in the face of
growing visitation.
In recreation as in conservation, partnering is central to achieve
our recreation goals. The Department depends on the contributions of
200,000 volunteers, almost three times Interior's Federal workforce, to
help address resource protection and public recreation needs. Over
126,000 volunteers work in parks, the rest work in refuges, public
lands, and other Interior sites across the country. In 2004 volunteers
will assist NPS staff with important park projects including the Lewis
and Clark bicentennial, the Powered Flight centennial, and the
Jamestown 400th anniversary. The budget request proposes to increase
funding by $1.5 million for partnership efforts and volunteer
recruitment and training. A $1.0 million increase is aimed at
bolstering volunteer participation and improving park capacity to
supervise, train, and reward volunteers. An increase of $500,000 will
allow NPS to establish full time volunteer coordinators to manage an
expanding program.
The Department's partnerships include working with States. Today,
the LWCF State grant program is a cornerstone of the Secretary's
commitment to involve State governments in conservation and recreation
activities. This program, enacted in 1965, helps States develop and
maintain high quality recreation areas and stimulate non-Federal
investments in the protection and maintenance of recreation resources
across the United States. Reflecting the President's goals, the
Interior LWCF program seeks to promote cooperative alliances, leave
land on State tax roles, and achieve conservation goals by emphasizing
innovative alternatives to fee simple title purchases, such as
conservation easements and land exchanges. This emphasis also enables
Interior land management agencies to focus more funds on caring for
lands already under their management.
The President's budget fully funds the Land and Water Conservation
Fund at $900.7 million. The LWCF proposal calls for $160.0 million in
State grants, an increase of $62.6 million over the 2003 funding level
enacted by the Congress.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY
The budget requests increases for Interior's law enforcement and
security programs. The funding would be used to hire additional law
enforcement officers, for law enforcement agreements with States and
localities, additional training, and physical hardening of key visitor
sites, all of which will improve security operations Department-wide.
The increase of $46.8 million is earmarked for strengthening law
enforcement and security operations at Interior refuges, parks, and
public lands, including along the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada.
Included within this increase is funding for site security improvements
at the Jefferson National Expansion Area in St. Louis, Independence
National Historical Park in Philadelphia, and the Jefferson Memorial
and Washington Monument in Washington, D.C.
SCIENCE
All of the Department's efforts require good information.
Scientific information is the cornerstone for Interior's natural
resource management activities, providing a basis for making decisions
about resource protection, resource use, recreation, and community-
based programs. The USGS has the principle responsibility within
Interior to provide its bureaus the earth and natural science
information and research necessary to manage the Nation's natural
resources.
The President's 2004 budget proposes $895.5 million for the USGS.
The budget includes $17.1 million in new program increases above the
2003 conference level for high priority research needs, including
invasive species control and management and increased capability to
address science needs for Interior bureaus.
CONCLUSION
The Interior Department's responsibilities lie at the confluence of
people, land, and water. The 2004 budget funds programs that support
our broad and multiple missions. Leaving a legacy of healthy lands and
thriving communities requires resources, creativity, and, above all,
collaboration. The 2004 budget supports this vision of forging
partnerships.
This concludes my overview of the 2004 budget proposal for the
Department of the Interior and my written statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
HISTORICAL TRUST ACCOUNTING
Senator Burns. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
We have spent numerous occasions discussing your
inheritance of one of the most frustrating court cases in
recent memory. However, the recently released summary of the
Ernst and Young analysis of the five lead plaintiffs' accounts
raises questions about whether historical accounting is a wise
use of Federal resources. If you could, would you please give
us a quick update on the court's actions over the past few
months, and how those actions impact your 2004 request?
Secretary Norton. We submitted plans to the courts in
January that set forth how we would go about doing an
historical accounting and how we would improve the overall
management of our trust programs to address some specific
deficiencies identified by the court. We are preparing now for
a trial that is set to occur starting in May that will cover
those plans. The court will in essence be looking both at our
plan and the plans that were submitted by the plaintiffs and
evaluating those.
We also have, ongoing, an appeal to the Federal Court of
Appeals from the decision that held myself and the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs, Neil McCaleb, in contempt of
court. The oral argument on that will take place on April 24.
Senator Burns. What message should this committee take from
the Ernst and Young report?
Secretary Norton. I think it helps illustrate the
difficulty that we have in trying to resolve these issues. On
the one hand, we have the plaintiffs' attorneys, who are
estimating the damages that the Department and the Federal
Government would owe to individual Indian account holders at
$137 billion. On the other hand, the Ernst and Young report,
which looks at the accounts of specified individuals, found
that there was, in reviewing approximately 2,900 transactions,
a $60 account error. So we have a wide divergence of opinion
about the accuracy of the books that were handled by the
Department of the Interior over time.
In essence, what we are doing through the historical
accounting is verifying our bank ledgers. We have the account
ledgers that say how much was given to individuals, how much
was deposited, and what was received. The question is trying to
find external documents that verify those account records. The
court has asked us to find that external documentation.
We submitted to you all a plan for doing a complete
historical accounting and finding all of the documents that
would support those transactions. That basically would have
cost about $2.4 billion to do all of that accounting. We then
revised that in the report that we gave to you, and the basis
for our budget is to use statistical sampling on smaller
transactions, as opposed to going through transaction by
transaction.
We will still look at all of the transactions over $5,000
individually and in certain other categories of transactions
and account for those in a detailed way. The others we would
propose to use statistical sampling.
Senator Burns. Do you see an end to this?
Secretary Norton. Our plan would basically have us complete
all of that accounting in 5 years. That would basically be a
$335 million project over that time to complete that
accounting. At that point, we would have what we view as a
definitive answer as to how much those books might be off.
Senator Burns. Looking at it from this perspective, we do
not see an end to it. Either that, or we are not getting the
right signals, or I am not smart enough to figure it out.
Probably a combination of the two. It seems to me that this is
something we do not know how we got into, and we have had very
few answers on how to get out of it, until you came into
office. I congratulate you on your commitment to straighten
this out. I hope you have enough time to see it through to its
completion.
INDIAN SCHOOLS
I want to ask you about the situation with the Indian
schools. I know the President cut some funds out of Indian
education. Then the subcommittee put them back in, especially
this past year, we put $1.7 million back into Indian education.
Can I get an answer to why--the enacted 2003 level was
functionally $1.7 million over the 2002 level after an across-
the-board reduction? That sounds confusing, but I guess up here
people can walk their way through that.
Despite the increase, Title I TTCs are faced with an $8-
per-student reduction. The BIA split the reduction as follows:
Approximately 23 percent of the total increase allocated to the
Dine College due to Dine stance as a Title II, which is a
boarding school; this amounted to an increase of approximately
$60 per student. The Title I schools also sought an enrollment
increase of approximately 300 Indian students. As a result, the
remaining, to be put into the formula for Title I schools,
resulted in a decrease of $8 per student in fiscal year 2003.
I would like to know how we come up with those kinds of
figures. Can anyone respond to that? John, can you enlighten
us?
DIFFERENT FUNDING CATEGORIES
Mr. Trezise. Senator Burns, your figures are correct. This
is a situation that arises from the authorizing legislation
which authorizes two categories of colleges, which are funded
on the basis of different formulas. In addition to the colleges
authorized in the TCC Act, we have two colleges which have
traditionally been funded by the Congress outside of the Act,
which are funded on yet other basis. So we have four different
funding levels on a per-student basis.
This is a situation, I think, that does warrant some
consideration. Specifically with respect to 2003, though, your
figures are correct. But I would point out that of the increase
of $1.7 million over the 2003 enacted level, or $3.6 million
over the President's budget, 77 percent was devoted to the
Title I colleges. This is an increase over the President's
budget of about $2.7 to $2.8 million.
The per-student funding went down, despite that increase,
because the number of students which we were expecting, which
we actually have in school this year, in 2003, is higher than
the student level in 2002.
Senator Burns. It sounds like we are going to have to
change the way we fund our colleges. I do not like the idea of
being discriminatory one against the other. And when we try to
do the overall good for everybody, it seems like we have not
attained that degree of fairness.
Senator Dorgan.
Secretary Norton. Mr. Chairman, anticipating a question
from Senator Dorgan, since this is all on the same topic, we
have had some discussions previously as to the United Tribes
Technical College. I have asked the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs, the acting Assistant Secretary, to work with
you all. It may be appropriate to bring that college into the
same funding category, which it is my understanding would
require a statutory change, as well as the Crown Point
Institute of Technology, which is the other one that has
usually been independently funded.
I am not familiar enough with the rest of the differences
in the funding, but this might make sense as a time to try to
wrap all of that into an examination of the authorizing basis
for those appropriations.
Senator Burns. I think you have a point. I am not versed
enough in exactly how those stages are funded, or in what
categories they fall. So I will have to do a little looking
into this. It seems unfair that funds dedicated to community
colleges found on reservations are increased or restored. And
then what we receive per student decreases.
I have an idea that we might have been remiss in not
identifying where those funds were to go. So it seems that the
``haves'' got, and the ``have nots'' got less. I find that
inherently unfair.
Senator Dorgan.
INDIAN EDUCATION
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Again, Secretary Norton, thank you for being here. Let me
start on the point that the chairman finished with; that is,
Indian education. First of all, I think tribal colleges are
remarkably successful. Let me tell you about--since we take a
lot away from these hearings, I want you to take something away
in terms of an anecdotal story about Indian colleges.
There is a young woman in North Dakota named Loretta that I
have known for a good many years. Loretta Delong is her name.
And she lived in a two-room log house on an Indian reservation.
She stuttered. She was painfully shy, wore hand-me-down
clothes. She was called a savage at school. And she wondered,
you know, what it would take to be noticed. She reached the
seventh grade. She got into all kinds of trouble. She dropped
out of school, had a child, was involved in substance abuse.
And she is now a Ph.D. When I see Loretta, I call her Dr.
Delong.
She got her life turned around and is a remarkable
contributor to the Indian reservation on the Turtle Mountain
Reservation. And it happened because of tribal colleges, the
availability and opportunity for people to go to college and
have their extended family be involved in childcare and all the
things that allow somebody to get up and out and do something
for themselves.
There are many other stories. I simply mention Loretta
because she is happy for me to do that, and I am proud of what
she has done.
TRIBAL COLLEGES FUNDING
It just makes no sense to me to be reducing the funding for
tribal colleges at a time when we are already substantially
short of the support per student that exists in the rest of the
country. The Tribal College Act authorizes funding of $6,000
per full-time Indian student. It has currently funded about
$3,900. That is 45 percent below the $7,180 spent by the non-
Indian community colleges. So these colleges are already
underfunded. And this is just a recommendation that we will
have to change, I believe.
With respect to your point about Crown Point and United
Tribes, it would not make much sense to me to put them into the
rest of the tribal colleges, if the other batch is already
underfunded. For almost a quarter of a century, we have
provided funding for Crown Point and United Tribes, which are
unique tribal technical colleges that serve, in the case of
United Tribes, dozens of States' American Indian populations.
So, I mean, the suggestion that we should put them in with
the rest of the tribal colleges does not make sense. What is
suggested here in the budget is let us de-fund United Tribes
and then let us cut the other tribal colleges. My guess is you
will say: ``Well, this is a matter of choice and priorities.''
But would you not agree that this should be a priority, tribal
college funding should and must be a priority, and cutting them
at this point, when they are so far below the support that is
given to non-Indian community colleges, that that is not a fair
recommendation?
Secretary Norton. Senator, if I can point out a few things.
First of all, the tribal college funding has increased by over
62 percent since 1993, while the enrollment has increased by 11
percent. So there is certainly considerably more funding than
there has been in the past. The funding for tribal colleges was
increased by $3.6 million in the 2003 Appropriations Act, but
our budget was formulated before that final congressional
action. So it does not reflect that 2003 increase.
Senator Dorgan. Would you support that increase? If the
budget were formulated now, do you think that would be
included? And would you support that?
Secretary Norton. We have a couple of different things
going on here. One is the base level of funding for that. We
are certainly interested in working with you all for next year
on improvements needed in our funding structure, to work on
that approach with you.
The other issue has been those items that have been
earmarked from outside any authorization. That causes problems
for us and will continue to cause problems, as I have said. It
is much more difficult for us to fund something that does not
have any standards, does not have a program, is simply an add-
on to our other programs. There is no way of evaluating whether
that is treating fairly those particular colleges in comparison
with other colleges.
Senator Dorgan. Yes, but you----
Secretary Norton. We would certainly like to see something,
and we would be very happy to work with you on something that
would look at those on a more across-the-board kind of basis.
Senator Dorgan. But I do not understand that. These are--
for example, United Tribes Technical College is easily
accredited, identified by all as a remarkable institution,
visited by yourself and by the head of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. I mean, I have never heard anyone suggest this is not
worth funding. So I understand your point about ``Let's make
sure that we are always funding things that work,'' but there
has never been a question that I am aware of that this is not,
both this and Crown Point are not, good educational
institutions. So de-funding them just makes no sense to me.
Secretary Norton. It is a question of trying to prioritize
our funding. And, you know, we have increased funding for
elementary and secondary schools. We have a $16 million
increase enacted over there. These are good programs. We do
continue to support the funding of the tribal college programs.
We have had to make some tough choices this year with, as you
all have mentioned, the increased funding that we needed for
historical accounting for Indian trust programs.
WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM
Senator Dorgan. But you know what? In terms of priorities,
I was just looking here, we have $31 million for the wild horse
and burro management program, including Adopt-a-Horse. So $31
million for that and $39 million for all the tribal colleges in
America? I mean, I am not sure I understand that.
In terms of choices, I want us to make good choices and
right choices. And it is not the right choice to de-fund United
Tribes Technical College. And it is not the right choice to
come in with a funding recommendation that is below what the
tribal colleges received last year. There is bipartisan
support. Senator Domenici is not here, but you know he would be
more aggressive than I am even on these issues. And I know the
chairman feels the same way.
So I understand your point about choices, but it is very
important to make the right choices. And I think Indian
education is very important.
Senator Burns. Do you want to switch that money from the
burros over to schools?
Senator Dorgan. Well, I tell you what I am going to do. I
did not even know about the program until I was reading last
evening. I am trying to go through. This is a big agency, as I
said. You have quite a job, a lot of things. And I was not
aware that the wild horse--I knew we had a wild horse and burro
management. I also knew that we had an Adopt-a-Horse program.
But I did not know we spent $31 million on it. And I do not
know how many horses there are, but I am going to divide the
number of horses into the $31 million to find out how much per
horse we are spending. Because I used to raise horses. My dad
used to raise horses. And, in fact, the program in here talking
about gentling horses, I do not think anybody in Montana has
ever uttered that, nor have we in North Dakota. You do not
gentle horses; you break horses. I would like to know what they
are spending on gentling horses, because we have some young men
and women in North Dakota who will do that pretty cheaply and
do it pretty well. And I suppose in Montana you have some as
well.
But at any rate, my point is not to--I love horses. I have
not been around burros much, so I cannot profess any love for
burros. But I do want to find out how much per animal we are
spending here and how we are spending----
Senator Burns. I saw one on your jacket the other day.
Senator Dorgan. Is that right?
They call it donkey where I come from.
Senator Burns. Oh, yes.
NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
Senator Dorgan. It would not be fair to you if I did not
mention the NAWS funding. That is not the province of this
subcommittee, but it is in your agency. And you will appear
before another subcommittee of mine on this. But as you know,
the folks in Minot, North Dakota, and northwestern North Dakota
are really upset, and that is a mild way of saying it, upset
about the proposal not to fund NAWS.
We have had the groundbreaking. Construction is under way.
And the proposal is to stop that by, I understand, the Office
of Management and Budget with a new program. It is called PART,
I believe it is. Is it PART? And I am not doing this--what does
PART mean?
Secretary Norton. Program Assessment Rating Tool.
Senator Dorgan. Right. I am involved in a formal program
assessment rating of the Office of Management and Budget. And I
have just a preliminary estimate of that. And it really does
not look good for OMB.
But no one has suggested, for example, that the NAWS
program, which is, as I said, under construction, is anything
other than a stellar program and the continuation of a promise
that was made to the people of North Dakota as a result of
being willing to host a half-a-million-acre flood that came and
stayed. And then just out of the blue we discovered this de-
funding because of PART, I believe, from OMB. So tell me again,
how does OMB justify recommending we not fund this program?
Secretary Norton. There are several factors that went into
their rating tool. One of the things that they looked at was
the difference between the number of people served per million
dollars under this program compared to other Federal agency
programs. They found that the Bureau of Reclamation, on
average, serves 363 people per million dollars, whereas the
USDA program serves almost 1,800 people. EPA serves almost
1,700 people. So that was one of their concerns as to why
Interior's program was different than those other programs.
RURAL WATER PROGRAM LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
We are moving forward to address some of the problems that
were identified in terms of lack of goals and consistency in
the program. We do have underway a legislative proposal being
developed that would establish a reclamation rural water
program with adequate controls and clear guidelines for project
development.
It would provide a two-pronged approach that involves
pursuing new general authority for reviewing, planning,
prioritization, and construction of rural water projects,
combined with administrative measures that would improve the
program. It would eliminate the piecemeal approach that we
currently experience. As we have discussed previously, there is
no overarching rural water program that the Bureau of
Reclamation has through which we have standardized funding or
standardized approaches. That was one of OMB's concerns, that
we try to put that in place instead of doing piecemeal
projects.
This legislative proposal would provide that type of
overarching program. It would allow the Department and the
administration to set priorities and control the process and
would thereby limit the problems that were identified by OMB.
It would also involve other interested parties in the planning,
design, and construction of rural water supply projects.
Although this is still in the formative stages, we will be
happy to work with you on further developing that overarching
program.
Senator Dorgan. Well, let me understand this because when a
project is underway or under construction, and the
groundbreaking has taken place and, therefore, we have a
project under construction, it seems to me you stop that
project only if you believe that project is not worthy. Is the
administration suggesting that the NAWS project is not a worthy
project?
Secretary Norton. The evaluation that was done was based on
identification of goals and seeing whether we were meeting the
goals of the project. It is the same kind of evaluation that is
taking place on Federal programs across the board. Based on
that approach, OMB found that this particular program fared
more poorly than other programs. They made the choice to put
the funding into the programs that did better in this kind of
an approach.
Senator Dorgan. But the distinction here is you are using
the word ``program,'' not project. The OMB described this
program as not meeting certain goals. It made no such judgment
about this project. Is that not correct?
Secretary Norton. This was based on, as we said, an overall
assessment of the effectiveness of this rural water project or
several rural water projects. It combines with an evaluation of
those in comparison to other departments' similar programs.
Senator Dorgan. Has Governor Hoven talked to you about this
issue?
Secretary Norton. Yes, he has.
Senator Dorgan. It is interesting to me, if you look at the
map, about where these cuts came. I will talk to you more about
that in the other subcommittee. But I am still not
understanding. I guess you are saying something to me that is
different now than what you said when you testified before the
Energy Committee. I think you are saying----
Secretary Norton. I am saying we have made progress in
getting some of these problems resolved.
Senator Dorgan. At which point would you then recommend
continuing funding of a project that is under construction?
Secretary Norton. Once we get this in place, we would be
focusing on fiscal year 2005 and working with you on getting
legislation put in place and then work on funding things on
that legislation.
Senator Dorgan. So the administration's recommendation is
that even if this project is finally determined to be worthy,
that we should delay it for a year?
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING
Secretary Norton. The findings of the program assessment
rating are that we need to look at those programs that are
working, that are providing what they are supposed to provide,
and to fund the things that are working. And this, by having
come out low on that rating, by not having clearly-defined
goals, means that we are going forward with something that is
not coming out as high on providing value to the taxpayers.
Senator Dorgan. But let me just--Mr. Chairman, I do not
know what your time situation is, but I do want to just finish
this point.
You know, Montana and North Dakota did not rush to
Washington to ask if we could host some floods in reservoirs
and so on. I mean, we did not beg Washington to have a Rhode
Island-sized flood come in North Dakota and stay there forever.
Washington asked us to be the host to a permanent flood of half
a million acres. So they built the dam, and we have a permanent
flood.
They said: ``In exchange for that, we will give you some
benefits.'' And, I mean, we would be crazy to say: ``Well,
bring this flood. And by the way, it will be no cost. We will
just lose half a million acres of land,'' good bottom land, by
the way.
But the Federal Government said: ``No, no. We will give you
some benefits.'' And we said: ``All right. That is a fair
trade,'' except we got the flood but never quite got all the
benefits.
The NAWS program, the Northwest Area Water Supply, program
is part of that. And for anybody to suggest to me that because
there are fewer people in North Dakota that it somehow does not
quite measure up, I mean, I think that is nuts. If that is what
OMB is saying, I am sorry, tell them to go back and read a
little history. We know we do not have as many people as New
York City does, but we know what the promise was. And the
people in North Dakota deserve good quality water.
Here, incidently, is a sample of the water. And some of it
looks like coffee. This is actually a little better looking.
But this is the kind of water we are trying to replace with the
NAWS program. And we do not want to wait another year, and we
are not going to wait another year. And I think what OMB has
done to us is a disaster. I mean, there is no excuse for what
the Office of Management and Budget has done. We want this
funded. We want it funded now. And we do not want to wait a
year. And I do not want somebody telling me they are going to
change the rules after we have already begun construction and
after the promise has been made.
So you and I will have other discussions about it. But you
are probably just required to defend OMB and defend this
budget. But I hope you know that what has happened in this
budget, at least with respect to this project, is fundamentally
wrong. And it is unfair to the people of North Dakota, who have
been told this project is going to help them get a good supply
of quality water.
One additional point--do you want to respond to that?
Secretary Norton. I think we have had a number of
conversations about this. So----
Senator Dorgan. And we will talk again in the other
subcommittee.
OVERHEAD
But one other point: I am very interested in pursuing with
a range of agencies the issue of how much in each agency is
represented by ``overhead.'' And that comes from a 1993
Presidential directive that asks all Federal agencies to
determine what their overhead was. Almost no Federal agencies
have complied with that. And I have been involved with some
others in trying to make sure that we do force Federal agencies
to comply.
The reason is simple. If we have to tighten our belt, and I
believe we do, I believe we are going to have to cut some
Federal spending. If we do that, I would prefer that we begin
to cut where businesses would cut. The first thing they would
cut is some overhead, some travel, some administrative burden.
But the fact is we cannot get at that in any of the Federal
agencies because they do not determine what their overhead is.
I would like, at least in this subcommittee, to ask you to
work with us to try to, for this agency, comply with the
Federal direction of 1993, which has not been complied with.
And I am not blaming your agency, because no agency has
complied with it. But I hope that we can work together to
understand what is the overhead burden, what is the
administrative overhead burden, in these agencies, your agency
and the various component parts of your agency.
I think it is important because, Mr. Chairman, as we begin
taking a look at funding levels, I would much prefer that we
fund critically needed programs such as Indian colleges, rather
than fund overhead that could well be cut in lean or in tough
times.
Secretary Norton. Senator, if I could say, that is a very
good question to ask. And it is something that has, frankly,
been frustrating for us as well. When you come in and say,
``Okay, here is the box of a program. Can't we look within that
box and figure out what is being spent that really does not
need to be spent?'' The way our accounting is currently
operating throughout most of the Department, we really cannot
see how much is actually spent on particular types of things.
ACTIVITY BASED COSTING
We are now moving towards something called activity-based
accounting or activity-based costing that will let us
understand that. And it will require each of the bureaus to say
not just ``We budgeted for this program and we spent it all,''
but ``Here is what we spent on travel. Here is what we spent on
printing. Here is what we spent on litigation,'' all the
different categories of expenditures.
That is something that is currently in place for the Bureau
of Land Management, and we are getting it into place for our
other bureaus. I think that will be very helpful for all of us
in trying to better manage.
We have also just implemented an across-the-board cut in
travel expenditures. So we are addressing some of those things.
Senator Dorgan. All right. Well, Madame Secretary, I am not
perpetually crabby. It is just that I feel very strongly about
tribal colleges, UTTC, about NAWS and some other issues. And I
look forward to working with you on these issues. And can we
work together to find out what we spend per horse and per mule,
just for fun?
Senator Burns. You are not going to like that figure.
Senator Dorgan. Actually more than just for fun. I think we
ought to know that, just as policymakers.
Secretary Norton. We will provide that information for you.
[The information follows:]
Wild Horse and Burro Program
For 2004, the BLM budget proposes $29.4 million to manage a wild
horse and burro population estimated at 57,000. This would represent a
cost-per-animal average of $516 per year. This total population
estimate includes 38,000 on the open range, and 19,000 in what BLM
refers to as the ``National Pipeline'', including 10,155 in
sanctuaries, 4,656 in maintenance facilities, and 4,303 in preparation
facilities. The budget supports such activities as monitoring
populations on the open range, gathers, holding costs, adoption
activities, and compliance checks.
Senator Burns. You are not going to like that horse figure.
I will tell you that. We have been involved in that over in
Montana. As you know, some of those wild horses and burros come
from that part of the country. And I will tell you, it is
something. I have some special projects in Montana.
POWDER RIVER BASIN EIS
We have an 11:15 conference coming up, Madame Secretary.
And I want to make that, I think all of us are involved in this
budget thing. Though, there are a couple of questions I want to
ask. We have been following the multi-year effort by the BLM on
the environmental impact statement in the Powder River Basin.
This has to do with coal bed methane. We want the EIS to be
completed in a comprehensive and responsible way. Could you
update us on the status of that EIS? And when can we expect any
kind of a record of decision?
Secretary Norton. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that
that is expected to be completed later this month.
Senator Burns. I assume you have all the resources that you
need to complete this and to get it off the board?
Secretary Norton. We have requested increases in this 2004
budget proposal for taking care of that, including inspection
and monitoring.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Senator Burns. Let me also ask you about standardizing the
Forest Service and Department of the Interior stewardship
programs. Will you be using the same book in your procedures,
and everything else in the stewardship contracting? Tell me how
that is coming along.
Secretary Norton. We have had a great working relationship
with the Forest Service throughout our fire program. It is my
understanding that that is nearly completed to get the program
that the Forest Service has already been operating tuned so
that it can also accommodate our Department of the Interior
needs.
Senator Burns. Will you be offering some stewardship
contracts this year?
Secretary Norton. We certainly expect to be doing that very
quickly. In fact, can I let Lynn Scarlett respond to that? She
has been involved very directly in our fire management program.
Senator Burns. Please.
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are working with the
Forest Service and all our land management agencies to develop
the operating guidelines and principles for the stewardship
contract. We expect that to be completed this month. That will
give us the basis from which to move forward on contracts right
away. So yes, it is very much in our plans.
Senator Burns. In the areas where you have large
concentrations of forest lands, rather than grazing lands, do
you have any kind of assessment of what kind of fire season you
are looking at? And conditions, how are you looking in that
respect? Give Congress an idea of some of the challenges that
we may have to meet later on this summer.
Ms. Scarlett. Well, I have copies of the recent drought
maps. We get these every week. And I feel very optimistic,
because the drought map in the last couple of weeks has
improved dramatically over where it was in early March.
Unfortunately, in preparation for this hearing, I looked at the
drought map for this year in comparison with the drought map
for last year. We are generally much worse across the western
United States than we were last year. And especially in your
area of Montana, we see a tremendous drought that is now a
multi-year drought. So we are very concerned.
Senator Burns. We are in a different weather pattern up
there. We are hoping that June will bring the normal--where we
have a little more snowpack than we had a year ago, I can tell
you that. Our rains and moisture have been a little bit better
this spring. We just hold our breath and make sure our Junes
turn out the way traditional Junes do, and we will be okay.
ZORTMAN/LANDUSKY MINE RECLAMATION
In another area, I know you are aware of the Zortman/
Landusky Mine reclamation in north-central Montana. The State
of Montana holds approximately $60 million in bond for
reclamation. But the BLM and State DEQ joint SEIS recommends
reclamation exceeding this bond of approximately $33 million
over that bond number. $11 million is still needed to
supplement a trust, ensuring the water treatment facilities. It
can be operated in perpetuity.
It is my understanding that the Montana BLM office
identified this project as a top priority and requested
increased funding in its fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004
budget to address these reclamation needs. Additionally, this
committee directed the Bureau to consider the project in the
formulation of the 2004 and 2005 budget requests. Why did the
Department not include this request in its final proposal in
the 2004 budget? And can you identify funding for your current
budget request to support these activities? In other words, are
you going to put some money into this?
Secretary Norton. Let me defer to John Trezise. But I think
we will have to get the detailed answer for you in writing.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, before he answers, I have to
run off to the Energy Committee markup.
Senator Burns. Okay.
Senator Dorgan. So let me thank the Secretary and the
Secretary's staff for being here.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Appreciate it. You can vote for me.
Senator Dorgan. I will do that. Careful what you ask for.
Senator Burns. All right.
Mr. Trezise. Senator Burns, this is a very difficult
problem and obviously one where a great deal of work is needed
to restore the Zortman/Landusky site and address the water
quality problems associated with the site. Work is currently
ongoing, of course, using the bond that was posted by the
mining company. Unfortunately, the bond is not adequate to
cover all costs, especially the long-term costs. The water
monitoring costs we will face for many decades.
As you say, the Montana office did recommend significant
funding in the 2003 and 2004 budgets for this project. We at
the Department and the Bureau headquarters are working with the
Montana State office to look at all the options about how we
can address this issue, both in the short term and, more
importantly, in the long term, which is where the bond money is
really going to be a problem. I think it would be useful for
the Bureau to come up and talk to you later in the spring about
the progress they have made in looking at options.
Senator Burns. Well, we look forward to that visit. Also, I
was talking to the tribal leaders at Fort Belknap, and they
want to have a meeting with you. They have not been able to
secure one, Madame Secretary. I would suggest you sit down with
the tribal leaders at Fort Belknap, go through some of the
concerns they have. Because they are in that drainage area off
of Zortman, not only on water, but also on land issues. I would
like for you to meet with them, if you possibly could.
Secretary Norton. I will try to make sure that somebody who
is familiar with the issues and can actually perhaps address
them better than I can is able to meet with them.
Senator Burns. I would suggest you sit in on the meeting,
but take your experts with you. That is the way we do things,
just a little hint.
Okay. We have more questions for you, and I am going to put
those in letter form. We would like to have a response.
We are looking at the overall funding. And, of course, we
do not know what is going to finally come out of the budget.
But we hope to have a budget. That is what that conference is
about at 11:15 today. We are going to talk about Going to the
Sun Road in Glacier Park, and also some Forest Service, and
stuff with fuel loads on our forest floors.
There is a reauthorization of the SMCRA activities, Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act. And, of course, surface
mining and State regulatory grants. We will put these in
question form. We will need your response before we finally go
to final markup on the Interior side of this bill.
Secretary Norton. We will be happy to provide you that
information.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Burns. Okay. We appreciate you coming this morning.
And we will leave the record open for questions, from other
committee members.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
SMCRA REAUTHORIZATION
Question. The authority of OSM to collect the abandoned mine
reclamation fee established under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) expires on September 30, 2004. Many states out
West have paid a great deal in these fees which go into the Abandoned
Mine Reclamation fund abut have not received back anywhere near what we
put in. For example, Montana has paid in over $266 million but has only
gotten back about $100 million.
What is the Administration's position with respect to extending the
authority to collect this fee?
Answer. The Administration is seeking to extend fee collections
beyond September 30, 2004. We think that additional funds are necessary
to address the many remaining health and safety problems threatening
our citizens who live and recreate in coal country. OSM hopes to craft
a proposal that will concentrate funding on the highest priority
abandoned mine land problems affecting the largest number of people. We
have been working with our stakeholders (the States and Indian tribes,
as well as environmental groups, industry and members of Congress) to
develop an extension proposal.
Question. If you propose to extend SMCRA, does the Administration
support keeping the fee the same or will you propose increasing it?
Answer. The President's Budget assumed the extension of the fee at
its current rate. However, we continue to refine the proposal.
Question. Will there be anything in the proposal to deal with
states that have paid in a great deal but have not gotten much back?
Answer. The Administration is reviewing several options for paying
out AML funds to the States. States which have certified the completion
of coal mine land reclamation, like Montana, are of particular concern
to us. Our records show that as of September 30, 2002, over $275
million in AML fees has been collected from mining operators for coal
mined in Montana. Under SMCRA, 50 percent of those collections, or over
$137 million, are State Share funds targeted for projects in Montana,
of which $95 million has been distributed to the State of Montana for
grants. The remaining State share balance of $42.5 million is a
concern, and we hope to find ways to provide the payment of such funds
to Montana and to the other certified States.
Question. When will the Administration send its proposal to
Congress?
Answer. We're working diligently to develop recommendations for
Congress. We hope to have something ready by mid-summer.
STATE REGULATORY GRANTS
Question. As you know, the Office of Surface Mining provides grants
to states on a 50/50 cost share basis to regulate mining in their
states. This is a good deal for the Federal government, since if the
states did not regulate surface mining the Federal government would be
required to do it and pay 100 percent of these costs. I see that the
budget request for this activity is $57.6 million but that the states
asked for $64.4 million.
If we don't fund the full amount asked for by the states will it
lead to any serious problems such as legal challenges to state programs
based on their inability to carry out their regulatory requirements?
Answer. The amount requested in the President's Budget is a slight
increase from fiscal year 2003, and OSM believes that the requested
total will be sufficient to assist the States/Tribes. OSM is concerned
about the States and Tribes having adequate funding to meet their
requirements and will work with each individual State and Tribe to
ensure that their program needs are met. OSM will continue to closely
monitor the State programs, and State and Tribal funding requests and
expenditures, to identify and resolve any concerns.
Question. Do you expect that any states will turn the regulatory
program back over to the Federal government due to lack of funding?
Answer. OSM is not currently aware of any specific State or Tribe
seriously considering giving up regulatory primacy due to lack of
funding. We agree that it is possible that if funding were inadequate,
States might pursue this option. As previously mentioned, OSM will
continue to work with each State and Tribe to ensure that their
regulatory program needs are met.
Following the release of the NRC report, the agencies agreed to
form a standing technical team to address issues of mutual concern,
particularly those related to coal slurry impoundments. The group will
focus on NRC report recommendations related to mapping, engineering and
design standards, and monitoring requirements. Additionally, the
agencies have discussed the other recommendations of the NRC committee
and have identified priorities for future work. The standing joint OSM-
MSHA technical committee will begin addressing particular actions
needed to implement the NRC recommendations at its July 2002 meeting.
As these efforts are ongoing, neither OSM nor MSHA have yet developed
any regulatory proposals or guidelines based on the NRC report.
However, as the joint team's work progresses, one or both of the
agencies may develop additional requirements for impoundments.
At the same time, OSM is committed to working with the states and
others on these issues as well. OSM and MSHA plan to host a meeting
between representatives of the two agencies and the states to discuss
their role in developing standards and approaches to implement any new
requirements.
Not only is OSM working with MSHA, the states and other federal
entities, OSM is working on its own to address concerns surrounding the
safety of coal waste impoundments. After the Martin County Coal
Corporation impoundment failure, OSM developed and implemented a
regional plan designed to minimize the potential for future impoundment
breakthroughs into underground mines by:
--evaluating the factors contributing to the Martin County
impoundment breakthrough,
--developing criteria for evaluating existing high-risk impoundments
near underground mines,
--evaluating state program requirements and program implementation
with regard to impoundments, and
--ensuring effective state evaluation of existing high-risk
impoundments through oversight and technical assistance.
As part of its oversight responsibilities, OSM has made
impoundments a priority by initiating ongoing evaluations of state
programs to ensure that they are adequate and that they are effectively
implemented. A part of this effort includes a determination of whether
the states are effectively evaluating existing high-risk impoundments,
identifying problems, and adequately addressing those problems.
In providing technical assistance on this issue, OSM has made
resources available to the states to assist them in their identifying
and evaluating existing impoundments that are of high concern. In
addition, using its impoundment engineering expertise, and with input
from states and MSHA, OSM has developed a technical guidance document
with established criteria that can be used in re-evaluating existing
high-risk impoundments over or adjacent to underground mines. OSMS
provided this document to the states in July 2001.
Finally, OSM has worked to facilitate communication between State
and Federal agencies involved in regulating coal slurry impoundments
and related facilities. Through enhanced communication, coordination
and cooperation, OSM believes that many of the issues related to coal
waste impoundments can be resolved.
MMS ROYALTY-IN-KIND
Question. I see that MMS has greatly expanded its use of the
Royalty-In-Kind authority. Currently, over 80 percent of the oil
production from the Gulf of Mexico is taken ``in kind'' in order to
fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
How long will it take for MMS to fill up the SPR?
Answer. The SPR Fill Initiative is a joint project of the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) to
fill the remaining capacity of the SPR utilizing RIK oil from Federal
leases in the Gulf of Mexico. For the majority of RIK oil committed to
the SPR Initiative, the DOI is responsible for supply side logistics of
taking the oil RIK at offshore leases and accomplishing delivery of the
oil to the account of the DOE at onshore market centers. The DOE is
responsible for taking onshore custody of the RIK oil and, through
exchange contracts, accomplishing the actual delivery and physical fill
at the SPR sites. Approximately 10 percent of RIK production is
directly transported from offshore leases to the DOE at an SPR site.
At current RIK delivery rates, the MMS expects to complete the RIK
oil supply side deliveries to the DOE's account by the end of fiscal
year 2005. However, the completion of supply side deliveries could be
delayed somewhat due to interruptions of production caused by
hurricanes and pipeline operation issues or by declines in physical
production at the leases.
Question. After SPR is filled, does the agency plan to continue to
take the bulk of its Gulf of Mexico royalty production ``in kind''
rather than ``in value?''
Answer. The MMS has adopted an asset management strategy in
administering mineral revenues. A key aspect of this strategy is the
strategic utilization of two asset management options--royalty-in-value
or RIK--for the purpose of increasing benefits to the Government. One
of the important determinants in making the decision on which option to
utilize is the opportunity to increase revenues to the Treasury.
Because the oil markets play an important role in the economics of the
decision making process, it is difficult to forecast how much of the
Gulf of Mexico oil royalties will be taken in kind in fiscal year 2006.
However, the MMS will be well positioned to continue to have a
significant RIK program in the Gulf of Mexico that includes small
refiners and competitive sales.
Question. Since taking the royalty ``in kind'' eliminates, for the
most part, questions over how to value the oil, does the agency believe
that expanding the RIK program makes sense over the long term?
Answer. The results of the current RIK program to fill SPR have
been positive from the standpoint of taking oil in kind. However, we
have not traded this oil for value on the open market. Therefore, we
don't know if we can increase revenues to the Treasury. We continue to
evaluate the RIK efforts; if the results continue to be positive, we
believe there is a good future for the RIK program.
OIA/STATUS OF COMPACT NEGOTIATIONS
Question. The current Compact of Free Association between the
United States and the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of
Micronesia expires at the end of this fiscal year. Negotiations have
been going on for some time regarding a new Compact between the
parties. Once these negotiations are concluded Congress will need to
pass legislation to put the new Compact into effect. I am concerned
that time is running out to get this legislation through the Congress
by the end of the fiscal year.
When will parties reach agreement on a legislative package that
will be sent to the Congress?
Answer. The State Department has generally reached agreement with
the freely associated states and, in fact, a signing ceremony was
concluded with the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The package has
been transmitted to Congress.
Question. Does the Administration have a plan if there is further
delay and the new Compact can't be enacted by Congress before the end
of the fiscal year?
Answer. While it is not considered a good alternative, the
Administration is prepared to deal with such an eventuality. There is
sufficient budget authority in the President's fiscal year 2004
proposal to work with the Congress on various options. In developing
these options, it is extremely important to the Administration that the
essence of the new agreement, including greater accountability and more
targeted use of U.S. assistance, be incorporated. It is also important
to the Administration that options deal with the problem of impacts to
U.S. insular areas and, finally, that any considered options not be
viewed as a disincentive to the quickest possible implementation of the
new agreements.
fws/consultation on fuels reduction projects
Question. A critical part of the National Fire Plan is the effort
to reduce hazardous fuels on our forests and rangelands. Many of these
projects require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service under
the Endangered Species Act before they can be implemented. In order to
ensure adequate resources to accomplish this work, the Committee gave
the Forest Service and other Interior Department agencies the ability
to transfer fire funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service for
consultations on these projects.
How is this effort proceeding?
Answer. The Service developed a cooperative agreement with the
Bureau of Land Management shortly after passage of the fiscal year 2001
appropriations bill to provide reimbursement for any consultation
support provided to DOI bureaus in support of the National Fire Plan. A
similar agreement was executed with the Forest Service shortly after
passage of Public Law 107-13. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the Fish
and Wildlife Service recruited approximately 65 temporary/term
employees to support an anticipated consultation workload increase
associated with the National Fire Plan. The highest priority work for
these new employees is to provide ESA consultation support to the
Forest Service and DOI fire management agencies.
Question. Has the Fish and Wildlife Service put in place adequate
resources to ensure that fuels reduction projects receive their
consultations in a timely manner?
Answer. Yes. The biologists hired in fiscal year 2001 and 2002 to
provide consultation services to the fire management agencies have been
sufficient to respond to the consultation workload generated by
projects supporting the National Fire Plan. We are not aware of any
significant delays to National Fire Plan projects that were caused by
section 7 consultations; however, some non-National Fire Plan projects
may have been delayed as a result of the Service diverting consultation
resources to National Fire Plan projects. On June 5, 2003, we proposed
Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation
Regulations to help streamline the National Fire Plan consultation
process and increase the Service's capability to help focus on these
non-National Fire Plan actions (68 Federal Register 33805).
Question. How much money has been transferred to the agency for
this work?
Answer. To date, the USFS has made $7,500,000 available to the
Service, and the BLM, $8,000,000.
GOING-TO-THE-SUN ROAD
Question. The fiscal year 2003 bill included additional funds for
staff and equipment at Glacier National Park. These funds will
hopefully enable the Park to open the Going-to-the-Sun Road as quickly
and as safely as possible each spring. Can you tell me whether these
additional resources will be in place in time to have an impact on this
year's road opening? Are funds included in the fiscal year 2004 budget
to continue these enhanced operations next year?
Answer. Glacier National Park staff has already begun seven-day-a-
week operations on the west side of the Going-to-the-Sun Road. East
side seven-day-a-week operations began May 10, 2003. In terms of
equipment, Glacier NP has already contracted for an excavator to be
used for snow removal this year. In addition, the park is leasing two
additional pieces of snow removal equipment for this season. As part of
the initiative to assure employee and visitor safety, the park will be
procuring a GIS location system with funds received from Congress this
fiscal year. Finally, this effort at Glacier NP is part of an overall,
ongoing strategy to better manage the opening of the Going-to-the-Sun
Road and the above-stated efforts will continue into fiscal year 2004
and beyond.
Prior to the enactment of the fiscal year 2003 bill, the fiscal
year 2004 request identified a $500,000 operating increase for the
Spring opening of Going-to-the-Sun Road. This recurring funding was
included within the additional park funding provided by Congress for
fiscal year 2003 and continues in fiscal year 2004 and beyond.
Question. I know the Administration's budget request projects an
increase for the park roads program to $300 million in fiscal year 2004
as part of the reauthorization of TEA-21. Is it your understanding that
this amount will be sufficient to complete the Going-to-the-Sun Road
rehabilitation in a timely manner?
Answer. The President's Budget for fiscal year 2004 articulated a
Park Roads and Parkways Program (PRPP) funding level for National Park
Service (NPS) of $300 million in fiscal year 2004, $310 million in
fiscal year 2005, and $320 million annually in fiscal year 2006-2009.
This would nearly double current funding levels of $165 million
annually. Part of President Bush's ``Park Legacy Project'' is to
address the NPS backlog of maintenance needs across the Service. A
significant portion of the backlog is in roads.
The NPS seeks to continue the progress made under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to restore,
build, and reshape its transportation system, by giving priority and
focus to the following categories:
--Category I ($270-$310 million/annually).--Restores the condition of
the existing roads to ``good,'' system wide. Supports President
Bush's commitment to address the NPS deferred maintenance
backlog. Deploys sound asset management strategies to optimize
life cycle cost.
--Category II ($3-$10 million/annually).--Builds the next logical
phase of the Congressionally mandated parkways. Continues
construction of the Foothills Parkway ``missing link'' and
begins the construction of multi-use trails around three urban
areas along the Natchez Trace Parkway.
--Category III ($20 million/annually).--Continues to plan and build
alternative transportation systems. Deploys integrated visitor
transportation systems using a combination of technologies,
facilities, and community transport management strategies.
Historically, these categories are administrative in nature only
and are not legislatively directed to allow maximum flexibility to move
dollars across categories to facilitate high annual obligation rates
and to meet emergency and/or critical Service-wide priorities.
Rebuilding the Going-to-the-Sun Highway is a complex multi-million
and multi year-construction event with an identified need of some $150-
$180 million. Much of this need goes beyond bridge and pavement
condition. Latest studies reflect an ambitious schedule that would take
approximately $18-$25 million annually over some eight years.
Category I funds are distributed by formula based on miles,
condition, average daily traffic and traffic accidents. The logic is to
deploy sound asset management strategies to spend the dollars at the
right time and at the right place to get the best return on available
funds. The Service has many parks with large road maintenance needs.
The Administration's proposed $270-$310 million annually means the
Intermountain Region will receive some $60-$70 million annually, an
increase of $30 to $35 million over the current level. Accordingly, the
NPS is challenged with making headway with such large park needs as the
Going-to-the-Sun Highway rehabilitation while balancing the mix of
projects across the Service and Intermountain Region so as to not
compromise President Bush's commitment to address the deferred
maintenance backlog and ensure the system is in ``good'' condition
system wide.
The President's Budget would provide significant funding for the
Going-to-the-Sun Road at a rate about as fast as could be efficiently
obligated. Even at this accelerated rate, however, such an extensive
project would be in all probability pushed past the end of the next
Highway Trust Fund Reauthorization (fiscal year 2009).
Question. Will the Administration's legislative proposal for TEA-21
reauthorization include language that specifically addresses the needs
of large projects like the Going-to-the-Sun Road?
Answer. Currently, the Administration's legislative proposal for
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) reauthorization
has not been completed and formally submitted to Congress. We
understand the package will be forwarded in the middle of May 2003.
The Administration's legislative proposal does not include specific
language for large projects. The funding for the Park Roads and
Parkways Program (PRPP) has historically not been legislatively
identified for a specific area or category to allow flexibility across
categories to facilitate high annual obligation rates and meet
emergency and/or critical Service-wide priorities. The PRPP has been
guided by program goals such as keeping the system from further
deteriorating, completing four of the six Congressionally mandated
parkways and completing pilot parks to explore and implement
alternative transportation systems. The NPS has proposed to continue to
focus on these three areas with the dollars made available. Given the
large increases proposed, the PRPP will be able to address the needs of
large projects, like the Going-to-the-Sun Road, without requiring
specific language.
FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE
Question. It is my understanding that the Office of Management and
Budget has completed its review of the engineering report for the Ft.
Peck/Dry Prairie water project in Montana.
How soon will the engineering report be transmitted to Congress?
Answer. The Final Engineering Report was transmitted to Congress in
a letter signed by the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science on May
6, 2003.
Question. Will the Department be in a position to obligate funds
this year? If not, why not?
Answer. The likelihood is high that funds can be obligated this
fiscal year. Contracts have been negotiated for obligation of funds and
work plans are being developed by Fort Peck Tribe and by Dry Prairie.
Funds may then be obligated for non-construction activities, a process
that may take about a month to complete. Funds for construction
activities may be obligated in August/September of 2003, which is after
the Final Engineering report sits for a mandatory 90 days from the time
it was transmittal to the Congress (May 6, 2003).
Question. Can you tell me why no funds were requested for this
project in the fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. It has been Reclamation's position, as articulated by the
Commissioner of Reclamation on this and other rural water projects,
that, given limited funding, Reclamation does not support starting
construction of new projects to the detriment of projects already under
construction.
PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA
Question. Pursuant to the President's Management Agenda, the
Department has been studying whether or not it makes sense to outsource
certain Federal jobs.
Can you tell us where you are in the process?
Answer. DOI has completed review/study of 1,079 FTE as of mid-April
2003. We are in the process of conducting seven full A-76 competitive
sourcing cost comparisons. DOI is on track to complete competitive
sourcing studies on 15 percent (3,041) of the FTE listed in their
fiscal year 2000 FAIR Act Inventory by the end of 2003.
Question. How many positions has the Department decided to study?
Answer. DOI has committed to a cumulative ``soft target'' of 25
percent (5,068) by the end of fiscal year 2004.
Question. When will these studies be completed, and when will
decisions be made about whether to outsource?
Answer. The study results of the remaining 1962 for fiscal year
2003 will be completed by December 2003. The decision to remain in-
house or contract with a private sector source will also be made around
December 2003. The studies for fiscal year 2004 (an additional 2,027
for a total of 5,068 FTE) will begin October 2003 and the results will
be announced in first quarter fiscal year 2005 (October/November 2004).
Question. What has been the cost of the studies throughout the
Department?
Answer. As of June, 2003, the Department's estimate on the cost of
studies and other related costs for fiscal year 2003 was $3.3 million.
This estimate includes the following:
BLM--$886,000 in study costs as of June 2003
OSM--zero as all studies were performed in house
NPS--$1.6 million anticipated costs for 2003 as reflected in a July
11, 2003 reprogramming
BIA--$400,000 anticipated costs for 2003 (projected in June 2003)
GS--$160,000 in study costs as of June 2003
MMS--$74,000 in study costs as of June 2003
FWS--$200,000 anticipated costs for 2003 (projected in June 2003)
For internal purposes these amounts were reported to appropriations
staff on June 6, 2003.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT--CBM EIS FOR MONTANA
Question. I have been following the BLM's multi-year effort in the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Powder River
Region of Montana with a great deal of anticipation and interest. We
have worked with the Department to secure additional funding above past
budget request figures to ensure that adequate environmental studies
would be completed and that the EIS would be done in as responsible a
manner as possible.
Could you update us on the status of the EIS, and when can we
expect a record of decision?
Answer. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Statewide Oil
and Gas EIS and Proposed Amendment to the Powder River and Billings
Resource Management Plans was signed on April 30, 2003.
Prior to signing the ROD, the Director of BLM resolved all
protests, including 21 protest letters that addressed issues on the
Montana side, 76 protest letters that addressed issues on the Wyoming
side, and 98 letters that addressed issues in both states.
In order to resolve the protests, the BLM needed to determine the
validity of each protest filed, prepare a written decision, and set
forth the reasons for the decision. The decisions were sent to the
protesting parties by certified mail in April 2003.
In addition, 400 faxes and 18,000 emails were received during the
protest period. Since letters of protest were required to be sent to
the Bureau Director, faxes and emails were not valid protests and did
not require individual responses.
Question. I assume we have completed the need for resource planning
dollars for this specific EIS. Does the current fiscal year 2004 budget
submission include adequate funding in the oil and gas base program to
support development in the Powder River Region of Montana in fiscal
year 2004?
Answer. The proposed funding for fiscal year 2004 will be adequate
based on the number of Applications for Permit to Drill (APD) we have
received so far in 2003 and expect to receive by the end of the fiscal
year. The 2004 budget request also factored in the level of demand for
2004 that was projected at the time the budget was formulated. If
actual demand in 2004 deviates from this projection, BLM will consider
any necessary budgetary adjustments to ensure appropriate support for
development of Coalbed Natural Gas in the Powder River Basin of
Montana.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT--MONTANA GAS PERMITTING
Question. Madam Secretary, in the face of natural gas prices
skyrocketing once again to record levels, and questionable domestic
energy security, I applaud your leadership to increase responsible and
reasonable domestic production.
It is my understanding that the funding increases for energy
permitting that your Department has proposed--and this Committee has
supplemented--are resulting in real results on the ground. I am told
the Department is planning on announcing a substantial number of new
gas leases being permitted in eastern Montana as early as this week.
Could you please update us on the status of this increased
permitting activity and give us a sense of whether other regions of the
country are seeing similar results?
Answer. In Montana, BLM expects to process 24 percent more APDs
than in 2002. BLM has already processed 68 percent of the 279 APDs
expected in 2003. The Miles City field office has in the last month
received 99 APDs for coalbed natural gas.
The following table shows the APDs processed in fiscal year 2002
and so far in fiscal year 2003 relative to the fiscal year 2003 goal.
It also gives an estimate of the number of APDs to be processed in
fiscal year 2004 in Montana and other states with APD activity. This
table reflects total oil and gas APDs, not just those associated with
Coalbed Natural Gas.
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years
---------------------------------------------------
2003 actual
2002 (as of 6/ 2003 2004
actual 30/03) planned estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.................................................. 149 66 245 260
Colorado.................................................... 264 179 240 275
Montana..................................................... 225 189 279 920
New Mexico.................................................. 1,134 912 1,185 1,335
Utah........................................................ 512 294 450 538
Wyoming..................................................... 1,787 1,043 2,750 3,400
Other states................................................ 564 46 351 272
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 4,635 2,729 5,500 7,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. I am told that the Bureau of Land Management is
interested in addressing the concern that some offices are seemingly
much more inefficient than other offices in addressing the backlog of
energy applications.
Can you speak to the Bureau's work to explore methods to increase
efficiency and predictability in the permitting process?
Answer. BLM holds its field managers accountable for annual
workload targets and timeliness of responses to authorization requests
from industry. BLM is using cost management data along with the 2002
customer survey results to pinpoint where APD processing delays are
occurring and to identify how to prevent any further delays. In
addition, the BLM is taking several steps which will improve the APD
processing time frames. On April 14, 2003 the BLM Washington Office
issued 5 Instruction Memorandums (IMs) on APD process improvement.
These IMs cover Conditions of Approval, Cultural Resources, revision of
Onshore Oil and Gas Order No.1 which specify minimum standards of
performance for oil and gas operators, Comprehensive Strategies, and
revision of the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book'', a reference book used by oil
and gas operators to comply with surface use standards for oil and gas
operations.
The IM on Conditions of Approval (IM 2003-146) asked the Field
Offices to supply the Washington Office with copies of conditions of
approval currently being used. The Washington Office will then develop
standard conditions of approval and guidance on how to develop
reasonable and enforceable conditions of approval. This will help oil
and gas operators by eliminating inconsistencies across the Bureau.
The IM on Cultural Resources (IM 2003-147) identifies some ``best
practices'' being used in some Field Offices concerning Cultural
Resources. All Field Offices are instructed to use these ``best
practices'' to help streamline the APD processing time frames.
In July 2003, over 50 percent of pending permit applications were
incomplete. BLM is revising Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 (IM 2003-
151) and the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book'' (IM 2003-153), two references
used by oil and gas operators to comply with standards concerning
surface use for oil and gas operations. Clarifying these two references
will make it easier for oil and gas applicants to submit a complete
application, thus reducing APD delays.
The IM on Comprehensive Strategies (IM 2003-152) outlines some
strategies Field Offices can employ to streamline the APD processing
time. This IM publicizes to all BLM Field Offices some ``best
practices'' for APD processing being used by other BLM Field Offices.
pilt--proposed movement from blm to the department level
Question. Madam Secretary, this year's request includes a proposal
to move funding for PILT out of the BLM account and shift the program
to the Department level.
Setting aside the request's decrease of $18.5 million from the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level, which concerns me greatly, could you
explain the Department's proposal to shift this program to the
Department level?
Answer. PILT payments are principally based on public lands in
local jurisdictions that are Federally-administered by U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and other
Federal agencies, in addition to the BLM. Funding for PILT is not
singularly attributed to one Department agency. The program is being
consolidated at the Department level in recognition of the fact that
PILT payments are made not only for BLM lands, but also for the lands
of these other Federal agencies, and to ensure that appropriate
emphasis can be directed to this program.
Question. The Interior Appropriations Act has historically capped
the administrative costs for the PILT program at $400,000? Will the
Department be able to live within this cap, or hopefully reduce the
administrative costs further?
Answer. Yes, the Department will be able to continue administration
of the PILT program at the $400,000 level.
bureau of land management--energy and minerals
Question. Madam Secretary, I notice your budget for the BLM
essentially asks for level funding for Energy and Minerals production,
rather than including a substantial increase, as has been the case in
the past two requests.
I whole-heartedly applaud your efforts to increase domestic
production, but I am curious if the lack of increase in this year's
request for Energy and Minerals was based upon budget limitations or
the reality that we are doing everything we can to address the current
permitting backlogs and related activity.
Answer. Funding increases in the last two years have brought BLM's
Energy and Minerals program up to $106 million in 2003, an increase of
34 percent over the 2001 level of $79 million. These increases--which
have been generally in line with the Administration's requests and
reflect the high priority the Administration places on energy
development--have been built into the ``base'' for the fiscal year 2004
request. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the BLM's Energy and
Minerals Management program is adequate to reduce the current APD
backlog, based on the estimated number of APDs that the Bureau expects
to receive during 2003 and 2004. The BLM has had indications that some
operators are planning to submit large numbers of APDs in the future,
especially in the Powder River Basin and in other areas with potential
coalbed natural gas development. However, based on past experience, the
BLM cannot count on this increase in activity. It is not uncommon for
an operator to tell the Bureau that plans for the following year
include drilling large numbers of wells, only to have the operator
change his/her priorities the following year, and not drill any of the
wells that were planned. The BLM has planned for a 27 percent increase
in activity over 2003. An increase greater than 27 percent would likely
result in a growing APD backlog, while an increase of less than 27
percent would allow BLM to further reduce the existing backlog beyond
what has been anticipated in 2004. Also, to the extent that some of
BLM's efforts to improve efficiencies are successful, BLM could see
additional reductions in the APD backlog.
Question. Could you detail some of the initiatives that the BLM
will be undertaking in fiscal year 2004 that are designed to increase
domestic energy production while also diversifying our energy
portfolio?
Answer. The National Energy Policy specifically directs BLM to
address several key issues that are vital to the current and future
status of the Nation's energy program. In response, the BLM has
developed a plan that will continue to be implemented in 2004. In
Alaska, BLM will conduct a second biennial lease for oil and gas in the
northeast sector of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). BLM
is also pursuing the expansion of the area offered for lease to include
the northwest and southern section of NPR-A. BLM plans to increase
support for coalbed natural gas development in areas beyond the Powder
River Basin and to continue support for active coal leases to provide
these fuels that are so vital for power generation.
In order to respond to the demand for diverse energy sources, the
BLM plans to process and approve twice the number of geothermal permits
to drill in 2004 that are processed in 2003. Also, the BLM will
concentrate on processing geothermal applications for development on
U.S. Forest Service public lands in California, Oregon, and Washington,
and clear new areas managed by the Bureau for geothermal leasing in
Utah, New Mexico, Idaho, and Arizona. BLM's efforts are expected to
result in a 15 percent increase in geothermal power plants.
In Idaho, Utah, and Nevada, BLM plans to update land use plans and
perform environmental studies needed to respond to applications for
wind energy development. BLM staff will also be responding to demand
for access across BLM lands for transmission lines and pipelines
related to renewable and non-renewable energy development. BLM
recognizes that timely issuance of these right-of-ways is important to
the economic viability of these projects.
BLM is also incorporating in Resource Management Plans the
information contained in a new report titled, ``Opportunities for Near-
Term Geothermal Development on Public Lands in the Western United
States''. This report (released in April 2003) identifies 35 ``top
pick'' sites in six western states for near-term development of
geothermal energy for power generation. Of the 35 sites, ten are in
Nevada, nine are in California, seven are in Oregon, and three each are
located in New Mexico, Utah, and Washington. The report was prepared
for the BLM and the Department of Energy by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory.
Question. In my experience, these initiatives are largely supported
by State and local governments. In your opinion, is the Department
working well with local government entities and are they generally
supportive of these efforts?
Answer. BLM field offices work closely in the development of land
use plans, which provide the framework for managing the exploration and
development of energy. In addition, State governments are often
cooperating agencies in the preparation of major environmental impact
statements (EIS). In the case of the coalbed natural gas development
EISs, both Montana and Wyoming State agencies assisted in the
preparation or review of these important environmental documents. State
agencies with permitting authority, such as Montana's Board of Oil and
Gas Conservation (MBOGC) and Montana's Department of Environmental
Quality, are closely involved in establishing operating requirements
and mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate hazards associated
with coalbed natural gas development. BLM and MBOGC review and approve
Water Management Plans for each project in order to support the goal of
developing coalbed natural gas in an environmentally sound manner.
bureau of land management--fire funding
Question. Your budget request includes a $36 million increase for
fire suppression activities. I support your desire to bolster this
account to avoid the inefficient process of routinely borrowing against
other Department accounts to offset suppression costs.
Can you explain the projections the Department used to support this
increase?
Answer. The budget request for suppression operations assumes that
2004 will be an average year for wildland fire activity. The request is
based on the most recent 10-year average cost for fire suppression
operations, as adjusted for inflation. For the 2004 request, the 10-
year period covers the years 1993 through 2002. The actual cost for
fire suppression for each year was converted into 2002-comparable
dollars, using the approved Gross Domestic Product non-Defense
deflators as the basis for the adjustments. The inflation-adjusted
costs were added together, and the sum was divided by ten to calculate
the annual average of $195.3 million.
Question. We have had numerous discussions within this
Subcommittee, and in both the Energy and Natural Resources and Budget
Committees, to address the problem of borrowing against other accounts
to fight fires. This practice functionally crippled the U.S. Forest
Service last year and caused some problems for Interior as well.
Could you explain how the Department was impacted, and what steps
have been taken to minimize the disruption to core programs?
Answer. The impact of borrowing funds from other accounts to pay
for wildland firefighting has not disrupted Interior operating
programs. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to draw on
construction and land acquisition accounts with significant unobligated
balances. Borrowing from these accounts has enabled Interior to avoid
borrowing from operating accounts that could impede or disrupt on-the-
ground operational activities such as resource protection, park and
refuge operations, and BIA school operations.
The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture are in the process
of developing a large fire cost reduction action plan. The plan will
respond to Congressional direction included with the 2003 appropriation
and will build upon previous reports by the National Academy of Public
Administration and the National Association of State Foresters. It will
address the roles of agency line officers and incident commanders as
well as changes in wildfire situation analyses, financial management,
and operational actions. We expect that the recommendations in the
draft plan will result in operational savings that will result in
savings to the taxpayer and a reduced need to rely on transfers from
other accounts for emergency funding.
TRUST REFORM REORGANIZATION
Question. Last year the Department proposed an organizational
restructuring to handle the Department's Indian Trust responsibilities.
This proposal met with concern by some in the tribal community and a
robust consultation process was the result.
Could you update the subcommittee on your current actions to
organize the Department's trust reform responsibilities and give us a
roadmap of what you feel are the next logical steps to be pursued by
the Department?
Answer. The new organizational structure for the BIA and OST
provides a single executive sponsor for trust reform; enhance
beneficiary services; ensure accountability; and emphasize Economic
Development, Self-Governance and Self-Determination activities.
Both BIA and OST are working aggressively to implement the
reorganization. The Departmental Manual to formalize the reorganization
was issued on April 21, 2003. OST and BIA are determining personnel
selections for key management positions. OST has initiated recruitment
of Trust Officers to be placed in, or in close proximity to, the BIA
agencies with the highest level of trust activities and recurring trust
income. BIA and OST have established a joint implementation
coordination team that meets regularly to discuss issues related to
implementing the reorganization as efficiently and effectively as
possible.
The reorganization focuses on the BIA and OST fiduciary
responsibilities to tribal and individual Indian beneficiaries. The BIA
will retain its responsibilities relating to land and natural resource
management because of its demonstrated expertise in this area of the
trust. OST will retain its financial trust asset management and
statutory oversight duties, and expand its role to provide beneficiary
representation in all aspects of fiduciary operations and oversight.
OST's Trust Officers and Regional Trust Administrators will provide
local presence to support beneficiary services and ensure the proper
management of fiduciary trust assets.
The reorganization of trust functions in the BIA and OST was
developed after detailed analysis of the prior organization and a
yearlong consultation process with tribal leaders. This was, perhaps,
the most extensive consultation effort ever undertaken by the senior
management level at the Department on any issue relating to Indian
Country. Over 45 meetings with tribal leaders provided a range of
proposals and recommendations. The new organization reflects a
synthesis of the views heard during the consultation process. It will
meet fiduciary trust responsibilities, be more accountable at every
level, and operate with people trained in the principles of fiduciary
trust management.
The Department recently issued a Comprehensive Trust Management
Plan to address trust reform. In addition to work outlined in the Plan
to move forward on trust improvement initiatives, the Department is
also actively engaged in the historical accounting for individual
Indian account holders. Completion of a yearlong project to document
trust business processes provides the Department with the information
necessary to begin a major re-engineering task of these processes. The
re-engineering or ``To-Be'' process as it is known is an integral part
of the Comprehensive Trust management Plan.
Question. Do you have any recent indication from the Court that
moving forward with the reorganization is timely, or adequate to
address the current problems?
Answer. We have not received any response from the Court regarding
the reorganization.
FISH AND WILDLIFE GRANT PROGRAMS
Question. The Department has proposed two new grant programs over
the last two years called the Landowner Incentive Program and the
Private Stewardship Grants Program. There were some difficulties
establishing eligibility requirements and criteria for allocating these
funds.
What is the status of these two programs now? Are funds getting out
the door?
Answer. The Secretary announced the approval of State Landowner
Incentive Program proposals from 42 States in the amount of $34.8
million on February 25, 2003. Funds will be made available through
grants to these States once they submit their complete package of grant
agreement papers and the Service signs them.
Of the 42 States, 39 have programs approved for Tier 1 grants
(emphasis on building a program infrastructure), and 22 are approved
for Tier 2 grants (on-the-ground conservation work). As of May 28, four
Tier 1 LIP grants were signed and are now active in the States of
Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska. A Tier 2 grant is active in
Minnesota.
The Service has received additional grant documentation from eight
other States for Tier 1 grants (Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, New Jersey,
South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin), and two States for
Tier 2 grants (Nebraska and South Carolina). The Service anticipates
these additional 10 programs will be awarded grants in June. Most of
the remaining States are nearing the end of their State fiscal years
(June 30), and the Service expects most will establish grants for their
approved programs later in the summer.
The grant awards for the Private Stewardship Grants Program were
announced on May 28, 2003. More than $9.4 million will be awarded under
this innovative program to individuals and groups to undertake
conservation projects on private lands for endangered, threatened, and
other at-risk species. The Fish and Wildlife Service spent additional
time working with States and potential grant applicants to help them
understand the new program and its requirements. Project proposals were
originally due to the Service's Regional Offices by December 1, 2002,
but after many applicants requested more time, the due date was
extended to January 15, 2003, providing the public more than 100 days
to develop and submit project proposals. We do not anticipate having
such a long application period this year, and anticipate being able to
award grants at an earlier date in the spring of 2004.
Question. How many projects have been funded thus far?
Answer. Of the 42 States approved for Landowner Incentive Program
grants to fund their programs, the States of Idaho, Minnesota, Montana,
and Nebraska have Tier 1 grants in place; Nebraska and South Carolina
have Tier 2 grants. Tier 1 grants are small (up to $180,000), and
emphasize agency infrastructure and capability building. Most on-the-
ground conservation projects will be conducted in the 22 States
approved for the larger Tier 2 grants. The Service will act to award
grants for these approved programs once it receives the State
documents. We awarded approximately $9.4 million to about 113 projects
in some 42 states ranging from Alaska to New York.
Question. Will the Committee have the track record of
accomplishments that we can evaluate how to fund these programs in
fiscal year 2004?
Answer. While some Landowner Incentive Program projects will be
initiated in the States this summer, the Service will not receive the
first annual performance reports for these grants until the summer or
fall of 2004. These reports will describe accomplishments and are due
after the first year of the project period. As a point of interest,
there are 28 States and 6 Territories that did not receive any Tier 2
conservation project funding in fiscal year 2003. Many of these are
eager to gain initial funding to start projects with private landowners
in their jurisdictions.
The Fish and Wildlife Service will be able to provide the Committee
with a list of projects selected for funding through the Private
Stewardship Grants Program including information on the objectives to
be reached through the funding of each project. At a later date, a full
analysis of the accomplishments of implementing these projects under
the Private Stewardship Grants Program can be provided.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
ALASKA CONVEYANCE PROGRAM
Question. An issue of concern to myself and Senator Lisa Murkowski
is the pace of the Bureau of Land Management's Alaska Conveyance
program. As you know, the BLM was tasked with completing work on Native
allotments and land selections mandated by both the Alaska Statehood
Act of 1959 and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. That
task has not been completed.
This delay has severely impacted the ability of the State of Alaska
and our Native groups from developing their resources and furthering
the economic development of the State. Language included in the fiscal
year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill directs the Bureau to develop a
plan to ensure that allotments and conveyances are completed by 2009. I
would like to get your commitment that the BLM will abide by its
obligations and complete the land conveyance program by 2009.
I know that Senator Murkowski is committed to assisting you and the
BLM in this effort through her membership on the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, and I commit to providing the BLM the resources it
needs to develop this plan.
Answer. BLM is developing the plan required in the 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations bill, and is exploring options for improving the
conveyance process. A Senate hearing on this issue is scheduled to take
place in Anchorage on August 6, 2003.
ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT
Question. Another issue is the National Park Service's proposed
regulations concerning the issuance and administration of commercial
use authorizations in national parks. As expressed to you in a February
6, 2003 letter from Senator Murkowski, Congressman Don Young, and
myself, these proposed regulations fail to comply with the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. The 1980 law is the
controlling authority on public lands in Alaska and any Park Service
regulations must conform with this law. I would like your assurance
that the Department and the Park Service are committed to working with
the State of Alaska, interested parties, and Alaska Native Groups in
developing regulations that are consistent with the 1980 law.
Answer. The draft regulations were published for comment in the
Federal Register (Volume 67, Number 229) on November 27, 2002 as 36 CFR
Part 52. Though the draft regulations do not reference the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), it has
always been our understanding that they must conform to ANILCA as they
are applied in Alaska. The draft regulations implement Section 418 of
the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of
1998 (16 USC 5901 et seq.). Section 415 (c) of the same law states:
``ANILCA.--Nothing in this title amends, supersedes, or otherwise
affects any provision of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) relating to revenue-producing
visitor services.''
Comments were received from organized groups, their members,
individual operators, and from within the NPS. The National Park
Service intends to establish a multi-disciplinary work group under the
umbrella of the Secretary's Concession Management Advisory Board
(Board), covered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to review
the comments and develop a second draft rule. The work group will
consist of interagency personnel, representatives of private sector
interested parties including affected commercial operators in Alaska,
and designated officials of the Board. This approach will allow for
consideration of the business need for a predictable, stable platform
while ensuring consistency with the preservation and conservation of
park resources. Recommendations of the work group will roll-up to the
full Advisory Board in a public meeting and this consultation will
occur prior to drafting the next published rule.
DENALI NATIONAL PARK
Question. Additionally, Denali National Park recently issued its
draft backcountry management plan. I am concerned that some of the
alternatives, if implemented, would restrict public access to our
parks. Access to public lands is an issue I have struggled to protect
first as a Solicitor in your Department, in the Alaska State House, and
in my 34 years in the Senate. I will oppose any plan which imposes
unnecessary limits on the public's right to visit their parks.
I understand that Denali's Superintendent and his staff have held
public hearings and meetings on this management plan. I encourage these
efforts in order to ensure that the final plan balances the protection
of our natural resources with the public's right to access for
recreational, economic, and social purposes.
Answer. Public enjoyment of Denali National Park and Preserve is
extremely important. The National Park Service emphasizes this point in
the first chapter of the park's Draft Backcountry Management Plan. One
of the primary objectives of the new plan is to: ``provide for the
public's maximum freedom of use and enjoyment of the park's backcountry
and wilderness in a manner that is consistent with park purposes and
the protection of park resources and values.'' Consistent with this
objective, the National Park Service does not intend to impose
unnecessary limits on the public's right to visit or enjoy their park.
Meeting the Congressional direction to provide for enjoyment while
at the same time protecting Denali National Park and Preserve's
resources and values, requires the National Park Service to manage
access and use. This management is not intended to unnecessarily
restrict the public's right of access. Quite the opposite, careful
implementation of the alternatives in the draft plan will provide for
more visitor access, and will accommodate greater numbers of visitors
than are accommodated today under current management strategies. The
National Park Service will carefully evaluate, and appropriately
incorporate, all of the public comments received on the draft plan to
ensure that the final plan balances the protection of our natural
resources with the public's right to access for recreational, economic,
and social purposes.
The alternatives in the Draft Backcountry Management Plan were
developed in collaboration with the public over the past four years.
The National Park Service first held a series of public scoping
meetings in 1999 in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Talkeetna/Trapper Creek, and
McKinley Village to define issues and impact topics to address in the
plan. Approximately 150 people attended the meetings and the NPS
received 65 written comments. The NPS next sent a preliminary
alternatives newsletter to 2,000 addresses on the park mailing list in
January 2001, outlining ideas for alternatives. This newsletter was
followed up with open house meetings in Anchorage, Fairbanks,
Talkeetna/Trapper Creek, Cantwell, and Healy. After receiving comments
on the newsletter and in the meetings, the NPS continued to meet
frequently and solicit feedback from interest groups representing such
diverse park constituencies as aviation, snow machine users,
mountaineering guides, conservation organizations, and the State of
Alaska. Information from these ongoing contacts shaped the alternatives
in the draft plan printed in February 2003.
After publishing the draft plan, the National Park Service held six
informational workshops in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Wasilla, Talkeetna/
Trapper Creek, Cantwell, and Healy during March 2003 to help the public
understand the draft plan and its implications. These workshops were
followed in April by public hearings in each of those communities and
in Lake Minchumina. In addition, all individuals who had previously
expressed interest were personally notified by mail and telephone of
the draft plan's release.
Opportunities for public comment were available through May 30,
2003 by mail, e-mail, and directly through the park web site as well as
at the public hearings. Park staff will continue contacts with
interested groups and individuals as they produce the final plan.
SPRUCE BARK BEETLES
Question. I am pleased with the proactive stance the administration
has taken in the area of wildfire prevention and suppression through
the Healthy Forests Initiative. In recent years, we have witnessed
catastrophic fires, which burned over 7.1 million acres, affecting
several regions in the United States, including Alaska.
In Alaska, we have a particular problem with spruce bark beetles,
which have decimated spruce forests in the Kenai Peninsula area along
the Kachemak Bay Watershed and the Copper River Basin near Wrangell-St.
Elias National Park and Preserve. The spruce bark beetle problem along
with an extremely dry winter season in Alaska raises serious concerns
for this coming fire season. I hope that your efforts in fire
prevention and suppression will include funding to address Alaska's
spruce bark beetle problem.
Answer. The State of Alaska is currently undergoing one of the
largest spruce bark beetle infestations ever observed. As much as four
million acres of forestlands, across all ownerships, have been affected
during the last 15 years, of which only 100,000 acres are managed by
the BLM. Only 10,000 acres of the infested lands managed by the BLM are
accessible and could be harvested with timber sales. Although some of
this infected timber has been offered for sale by BLM, the sales have
not sold due to poor market conditions. The majority of the timber has
deteriorated to the point where it has no value as a commercial
product.
The Bureau recognizes that the dry winter and the build-up of fuels
resulting from this beetle outbreak creates some formidable challenges
for this fire season and for years to come. The Bureau and its partners
are prepared to meet this challenge and protect the communities and
resources in Alaska. The BLM is currently working with rural
communities in Alaska to reduce the threat of wildfire, including
providing financial and technical support to the communities and their
fire departments, collaboratively identifying conditions and planning
actions to reduce those threats, and reducing hazardous fuels within
the wildland-urban interface. Where spruce bark beetles have killed
timber in these areas, BLM will continue to try to find markets for the
material as it is removed during fuel reduction treatments.
FEDERALLY-OWNED LAND STATISTICS
Question. As you know, we have begun the fiscal year 2004
appropriations process. It has come to my attention that the Committee
does not have the most current data for public lands being administered
by the Department of the Interior. In order to appropriately allocate
scarce resources toward the management of the public lands, I request
that the Department provide the Committee with statistics on Federally-
owned land by agency in each State and territory by acreage and
percentage of State total area. These statistics should also include
the total wilderness areas within each State.
Answer. The Department will compile this information and transmit
it to the Subcommittee under separate cover.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
CROWNPOINT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Question. The Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT) is one of
only two tribal vocational-technical schools in the country. CIT plays
a critical role in training Native American students for employment.
The school has a successful program in which an average of 87 percent
of its students is placed in jobs upon graduation. A successful post-
secondary vocational-technical school such as CIT is a tremendous
resource for Native Americans.
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request does
not include specific funding for CIT.
Given the important and specific roles the two vocational/technical
schools play on educating young Native Americans, why has specific
funding for CIT been deleted?
Answer. One of the Department's strategic goals is to support
development of quality communities for tribes by improving education.
An important component of this goal is supporting higher education to
provide students with the knowledge and skills they need to become
successfully employed. The Bureau currently operates two fully
accredited post-secondary schools, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute (SIPI) and Haskell Indian Nations University, and provides
funding for 25 Tribally controlled colleges and universities.
CIT is not bureau operated nor is it eligible for funding under the
authority of the Tribally Controlled Community College or Universities
Assistance Act, as amended. CIT is eligible for funding under the Carl
D. Perkins Act, as amended, and receives funding under authority of the
Act through a grant program administered by the Department of
Education. The Department of Education provided $6.955 million under
this authority to post-secondary schools in fiscal year 2003, of which
CIT received $3.8 million.
Question. What considerations would you take into account when
determining funding allocations for schools like CIT?
Answer. The Bureau takes into consideration education funding
priorities for the existing K-12 programs, eligible TCCCs, and Bureau
post-secondary schools. While CIT is meeting an important and unique
need for those students who attend it, the Bureau takes into
consideration authorizing legislation. Currently, there is no statutory
authorization for the Bureau to fund schools like CIT, which is neither
Bureau operated nor eligible for funding under the authority of the
Tribally Controlled Community College or Universities Assistance Act,
as amended (Public Law 95-471.). Public Law 95-471 permits each Tribe
to apply for operating grants for a single TCCC. CIT is a Navajo
school. CIT is ineligible for TCCC funding because another Navajo
school, Dine College, currently receives funding under authority of
Public Law 95-471.
CIT is eligible for funding under the Carl D. Perkins Act, as
amended, and receives funding under authority of the Act through a
grant program administered by the Department of Education. The
Department of Education provided $6.955 million under this authority to
post-secondary schools in fiscal year 2003, of which CIT received $3.8
million.
INDIAN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
Question. Secure, modern, and pleasant school facilities are
critical to the education of all students. To that end, I am pleased to
see that President Bush sustains the current level of commitment to
replace deteriorated BIA schools through new construction with his
request of $292.6 million. These funds are critically needed to
continue to address the backlog for repairs, renovation, and
replacement for all federally owned and operated BIA elementary and
secondary schools.
While I am pleased with the overall request, I am concerned that
the $131.4 million proposed for the replacement of schools does not
specify the dollar amount going to each project. New Mexico has five
schools on the replacement list for fiscal year 2004--Isleta Elementary
School; Mescalero Apache Elementary School; Pueblo Pintado Community
School; Navajo Prep School, Phase II; and Wingate High School, Phase
II.
Specifically, could you address my concerns that the failure to
delineate specific funds for the listed schools may lead to unnecessary
confusion, delay, and at worst, failure to provide adequate funding for
the projects?
Answer. During formulation of the 2004 Budget, the Administration
began using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to identify
strengths and weaknesses of programs and to inform budget, management,
and policy activities regarding recommendations. The process generated
extensive information on program effectiveness and accountability
including the need for additional performance measures. One of the
principal PART findings for Indian School Construction program was that
it had limited flexibility to adjust funds appropriated to a specific
project when there are delays or changes due to planning or design
which impact the original cost estimate for the project. The fiscal
year 2004 President's Budget reflects a policy change to no longer
provide cost estimates for individual projects for replacement schools
or facilities improvement and repair until the planning documents and
design for the projects are developed to the point where adequate
information is available to make a reasonably accurate cost estimate.
This will greatly improve accountability for program funding.
Question. Generally, would you please describe the efforts of the
Department of the Interior to replace aging structures that pose a
health and safety threat and make learning difficult?
Answer. The Bureau has undertaken an intense effort on the
President's commitment to reduce the maintenance backlog and has
developed a five-year Maintenance and Construction Plan to address
aging structures. Each fiscal year plan includes the projects of
greatest need in priority order with special focus first on critical
health and safety. The Bureau has also developed a Facilities
Management Information System (FMIS) to improve the management of
deferred maintenance, major facilities improvement and repair, and
replacement school construction projects. The system effectively tracks
improvements and facility conditions associated with health, safety,
disability access, classroom size, computer, and communications
technology space. The data in FMIS is used to determine funding for the
highest priority items in the maintenance backlog of health and safety
deficiencies.
SANTA FE INDIAN SCHOOL RECONSTRUCTION FUNDING
Question. The President requested, and the Congress approved, $23.2
million for Santa Fe Indian School in fiscal year 2002, and another
$15.3 million in fiscal year 2003. In addition, the Santa Fe Indian
School requires $9.2 million to complete its replacement project. There
was to be a phase 3 to the project that included a gym and health
facility, an administrative building, and site modifications. The Santa
Fe Indian School was notified that phase 3 would not be funded and that
no funding would be in the fiscal year 2004 budget as anticipated.
Considering the stated goals of the President's Indian Education
Initiative and No Child Left Behind programs, could you explain why the
budget request did not include funding to complete the Santa Fe Indian
School replacement project as planned?
Answer. Schools compete for ranking on the BIA priority list for
replacement school construction. Higher rankings are given to schools
with critical health and safety needs and for which current facility
program space is insufficient for current approved education program
offerings.
When evaluating the Santa Fe Indian School Phase 3 construction
project proposal, it was determined that Santa Fe Indian School is
located within walking distance of a U.S. Indian Public Health Service
hospital, an administrative building exists on site, the status of the
current gym does not warrant complete replacement, and the needed site
work was for sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements. Based on this
assessment, other schools more effectively competed for school
replacement construction funds.
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE (SIPI)
Question. The Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in
Albuquerque, New Mexico is a national vocational-technical school that
enrolls approximately 750 students representing 100 Indian tribes from
across the nation. SIPI provides Indian students with post-secondary
educational opportunities and technical job skills.
The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request of $5.593
million for the post-secondary schools of SIPI and the Haskell Indian
Nations University in Kansas does not reflect the funding needed to
implement the new funding formula that would bring parity in funding to
the two institutions. SIPI and Haskell collaborated on the new formula,
which was enacted in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year
2000. The formula language was again included in the 2001
Appropriations Act to direct the allocation of increased operating
funds for the unmet needs identified for both SIPI and Haskell.
The BIA has now adopted the SIPI/Haskell funding formula as its
model for all post-secondary school funding proposals, yet it has never
been implemented. SIPI would require a total of $10.641 million in
fiscal year 2004 to implement the new funding formula. There are
concerns that without this funding the SIPI will be unable to fill key
faculty positions, update its library, maintain the college's
information infrastructure system, meet new educational demands, and
strengthen student support services.
Why has the BIA-adopted funding formula not been fully funded?
Answer. To meet the needs of each of the post-secondary
institutions, BIA has allocated funds proportional to their enrollment.
The formula that was developed by SIPI and Haskell was to be applied to
any increases in funding levels.
Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior is faced with making
difficult choices in setting priorities for funding for the post-
secondary institutions. Funding has been relatively flat for the past
several years. One of the Department's strategic goals is to support
development of quality communities for tribes by improving education.
In the 2004 budget, funding increases were targeted to the primary and
secondary education levels--areas of higher priority to the Tribes on a
nationwide basis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
OIL AND GAS PERMITTING ON FEDERAL LANDS
Question. A recent report by the Independent Petroleum Association
of Mountain States shows that companies looking for oil and gas on
Federal leases contend with increasing uncertainties and, in many
cases, extreme delays in trying to acquire the necessary permits to
conduct activities. Using BLM's own data, the average APD now takes on
average 137 days to be approved and in some cases have taken over 365
days to approve.
If the statute states that a typical APD should be approved within
30 days, and the average approval time is 107 days beyond that, please
identify the primary obstacles that exist in approving an APD in a
timely manner.
Answer. There is no statutory requirement that BLM approve an APD
within 30 days. APD processing times are prescribed in BLM's own
regulations (43CFR 3162 and Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 issued under
43CFR 3164). The BLM has promulgated regulations that state:
``III D. Processing Time Frames. The following table summarizes the
major time frames involved in processing most APD's:
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DRILL OPTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action item Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onsite inspection................ Within 15 days after receipt of the
APD.
Requirements to be imposed when Developed onsite, or within 5 working
APD is approved. days thereafter.
Complete processing of APD....... Within 30 days of the APD's receipt,
provided that it is technically and
administratively complete at the end
of the 30-day period (includes the
above 15-day and 5-day periods).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF STAKING OPTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action items Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onsite inspection................ Within 15 days after receipt of the
NOS.
Requirements for inclusion in APD Furnished onsite or within 5 working
days thereafter.
Complete processing of APD....... Within 10 days of the APD's receipt,
provided that it is technically and
administratively complete at the end
of the 10-day period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above time frames, together, comprise the total period during
which the BLM anticipates it will be able to process approximately 90
percent of all APD's. However, the 30 days may not run consecutively .
. . .''
BLM has self imposed a 30 day time frame for the processing of most
APDs. As stated in BLM's Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1, these 30 days may
not be consecutive. If an incomplete APD is received, the Bureau must
wait to complete the processing of the permit until the operator
submits all required information. The BLM does not include the days
between the initial receipt of the application and the day when all
required information is submitted in the 30 day processing time frame,
according to Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1. Since fiscal year 2000, the
Bureau has approved 38 percent of the APDs within the 30 day time
frame. Although the BLM is not currently meeting its objective of 90
percent, it continues to explore alternatives for increasing this
percentage.
The BLM is revising Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 to clarify the
requirements of a complete application. This clarification should
reduce the number of incomplete APDs submitted and decrease overall
processing times.
Other factors that may extend the processing times beyond the 30
days include the need to: (1) complete any supplemental NEPA analysis,
(2) consult with other surface managing agencies (primarily Forest
Service), (3) obtain any necessary cultural clearances, and (4)
maintain staffing support for ADP processing.
Applications for oil and gas development that are proposed over
large acreages may require the development of an Environmental Impact
Statement to fulfill National Environmental Policy Act requirements.
For example, the Bureau spent two years completing the EIS that
examines the impacts of coalbed natural gas development in the Powder
River Basin. Some BLM Field Offices had not been accepting any new APDs
for coalbed natural gas, due to the existing large backlog of APDs. Now
that the Powder River Basin EIS is completed, Field Offices will be
able to begin processing the backlogged APDs and accept new
applications. The processing of APDs will be extended any time a major
field development EIS is required.
In situations where BLM is required to approve surface disturbance
for another surface-management agency, such as the Forest Service,
additional time may be needed to allow BLM to coordinate with the other
agency. BLM is working with other surface-management agencies to
improve coordination and consistency and reduce the time it takes to
complete the APD process on non-BLM lands.
Cultural clearances can also extend time frame for APD processing.
If a cultural clearance is required, and a cultural clearance report
has not been completed prior to submission of the APD, delays can be
expected. It typically takes a minimum of 30 days from submission of a
cultural clearance report to the State Historic Preservation Officer to
get concurrence that historic and cultural resources are being
protected. Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 encourages operators to check
with the BLM at least 15 days before submitting an APD or NOS to
determine if a cultural clearance will be required.
The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 requires
BLM to post all APDs for at least 30 days prior to approval. The
process could be extended as a result of this requirement.
Due to unanticipated changes in demand in the last few years,
staffing has not kept pace with workload in some BLM Field Offices.
Additional funding provided in 2002 and 2003 budgets and continued in
the President's Budget for fiscal year 2004 funds increased staffing.
Question. What steps can be taken administratively to improve this
process? What realistic legislative remedies might exist that would
provide additional resources to improving the permitting process?
Answer. The BLM is taking several steps to improve the APD
processing time frames. On April 14, 2003, the BLM Washington Office
issued five Instruction Memorandums (IMs) on APD process improvements.
These IMs cover Conditions of Approval, Cultural Resources, revision of
Onshore Oil and Gas Order No.1, Comprehensive Strategies, and revision
of the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book''.
The IM on Conditions of Approval (IM 2003-146) directed BLM field
offices to supply the Washington Office with copies of conditions of
approval currently being used. The Washington Office is developing
standard conditions of approval and guidance on how to develop
reasonable and enforceable conditions of approval.
The IM on Cultural Resources (IM 2003-147) identifies some ``best
practices'' being used in some BLM field offices concerning cultural
resources. All field offices are instructed to use these ``best
practices'' to help streamline the APD processing time frames.
The IM on Revision of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 (IM 2003-151)
and the IM on Revision of the Oil and Gas ``Gold Book'' (IM 2003-153)
initiates the rewriting of two references used by oil and gas operators
on standards concerning surface use for oil and gas operations. These
revisions will provide oil and gas applicants with improved direction
on application requirements.
The IM on Comprehensive Strategies (IM 2003-152) outlines ``best
practices'' strategies that field offices can implement to streamline
the APD processing time.
Currently, the BLM does not require any legislative remedies to
improve APD processing. As the BLM progresses with APD streamlining
efforts, Congress will be notified if new legislation is determined to
be necessary.
Question. Finally, please provide the Committee with a recommended
funding level that would be expected in order to bring the fiscal
resources in line with the demands in the field.
Answer. The 2004 President's Budget request includes an increase of
$350,000 to bring the fiscal resources in line with current APD demands
and $2.5 million for inspections, enforcement, and monitoring
associated with this level of energy development.
FEDERAL PERMIT STREAMLINING PILOT PROJECT
Question. A pilot project has been suggested as a means of helping
to streamline the Federal permit process for energy related projects.
While it does not specifically address APD backlogs, it is my
understanding that a pilot project has been included in the Senate
Energy Committee's proposed energy bill.
Please comment on the proposed pilot program to streamline federal
permit processing currently under consideration before Congress.
Answer. The proposed program in Section 122 of the Senate Energy
Bill would establish a Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project. This
proposal has also been known as the ``Tiger Team Proposal''. Section
122 calls for Federal agencies to assign on a non-reimbursable basis
employees to serve under BLM Field Managers in six offices. These six
teams would work on proposed energy projects, planning and
environmental analyses. We have several comments on this section.
Governors should be encouraged to support pilot projects in their
respective States by signing the Memorandum of Understanding that
defines the arrangement in the pilot States.
Currently, the Energy Bill proposes that six offices participate in
the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project. The Bureau recommends
that the pilot project be implemented in only one office, Buffalo,
Wyoming. This team would work on reducing the backlog in the Powder
River Basin. Once the team has completed that task, it would then work
in other offices to reduce the APD backlog.
Interagency teams should include personnel from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or other agencies
within the Department of Interior, and the USDA Forest Service, that
the BLM is required to contact as part of the NEPA process for oil and
gas operations.
Question. What impact, if any, might this pilot program have upon
addressing the issue of the APD backlog?
Answer. Initially this pilot program will have little effect on
handling the existing APD backlog, because most of the backlog of
permit processing was caused by issues that are currently being
addressed (e.g. Powder River Basin EIS), or are due to the submission
of incomplete applications by operators. In the future, the pilot
program could resolve or prevent backlogs from occurring.
Question. Please comment on the feasibility of developing a similar
pilot program specifically for Federal oil and gas permitting within
BLM to address APD permit backlogs.
Answer. The BLM has been looking into the idea of a pilot program
where a team of specialists within the BLM would be available to Field
Offices to assist with processing oil and gas operations backlogs
related to Federal permitting. The team could be centrally located, or
could be dispersed in several field offices, but when a Field Office
requires assistance, the team would be temporarily relocated to that
office. It is believed that this approach would enable the BLM to
accelerate the processing time of APDs and other related oil and gas
applications.
Question. Would such a program be effective in reducing the
backlog, and providing greater predictability in the permitting
process? Is it feasible that such a program might be put together in a
timely manner and begin to take effect within weeks of being funded by
Congress?
Answer. Yes, it is believed that such an approach could reduce or
eliminate the present backlog of APDs within two years, though the
effects of new demand during that two-year period cannot be estimated.
Question. Has BLM taken steps to develop a ``best practices''
program for BLM Field Offices to share information, processes, and
expertise in the permitting process? If so, what is the status of the
program?
Answer. BLM has been using ``best practices'' of Field Offices to
improve BLM management of the public lands nationwide. In the past, the
BLM did not effectively highlight ``best practices'' to other Field
Offices. The BLM is working to improve the dissemination of information
concerning ``best practices''.
MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE
Question. The recent GAO report regarding the efforts to recover
the Mojave desert tortoise stated that at least $100 million has been
spent since its first listing. However, the GAO was unable to identify
any Fish and Wildlife Service documentation regarding its population
trends or whether any of that money has been effective in recovering
the species.
What is the Department's response to the report and what is being
done to provide some direction to this extraordinary amount that is
being spent on the species' recovery?
Anwer. The Department concurs with the recommendations in GAO's
final report, Research Strategy and Long-term Monitoring Needed for the
Mojave Desert Tortoise Recovery Program. Expenditures for the desert
tortoise include those for habitat acquisition, research, surveys, plan
development, habitat enhancement, and agency staff time. Habitat
acquisition, the largest expenditure category, has contributed
significantly to the protection of biologically important areas
necessary to achieve recovery objectives. Although recovery actions
have been implemented, tortoise habitat and populations may not respond
in a measurable way for several to many years afterward. We acknowledge
that information on the status of tortoise populations and habitats
affected by land management actions is limited; however, collection of
population trend data is in progress under the direction and oversight
of the Service. We have been working with many partners and
stakeholders to establish a collaborative process for implementing
recovery actions through a science-based adaptive management approach
that all interested parties can embrace. The Desert Management
Oversight Group provides a structure for the implementation of recovery
and research priorities, and the Service has completed a more effective
expenditures reporting system for the next fiscal year.
Question. Many restrictions have arisen as a result of the desert
tortoise, including grazing reductions and development restrictions.
This is a burden that falls heavily upon the local communities.
Answer. The Service and other federal agencies have employed
several tools to implement the Endangered Species Act while
accommodating existing land use practices as much as possible. Regional
habitat conservation plans have been implemented in Nevada and Utah to
allow development and facilitate recovery of the species with active
community involvement. Federal agencies have purchased cattle grazing
allotments from willing sellers and worked with local groups to reduce
the impacts of activities on lands with tortoise habitat. We are
assessing further options to conserve the desert tortoise while
minimizing economic impacts. In January 2003, the Service appointed the
Recovery Plan Assessment Committee and initiated reassessment of the
1994 Recovery Plan. During the reassessment process, we will evaluate
new information on the status and conservation needs of the tortoise,
and ensure that research is applied towards management needs as
recommended by the GAO.
Question. What is being done on the federal end by the Service to
set goals and track the population trends and recovery of the species
so that at some point in the future the species might recover and be
[de]listed?
Answer. The Service recently met with stakeholder groups and
federal, state, and local partners to discuss development of a recovery
strategy and direction for the revised desert tortoise recovery plan.
Workshops are being held to address issues such as disease, predation,
and population monitoring. The Recovery Plan Assessment Committee will
evaluate the delisting criteria and consider the appropriateness of
designating the existing recovery units as distinct population
segments. If designated as such, any given distinct population segments
may be delisted independently by achieving its stated recovery
objectives. Development of a statistically valid monitoring program for
a wide-ranging species that occurs underground most of the year has
proved to be challenging. However, we are pursuing implementation of a
line distance sampling technique to obtain statistically valid
population data and track population trends across the range of the
species.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Question. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for
the Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes program (PILT) is $200 million. This
amount is $18.5 million below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, a cut
of 8.5 percent. Why has the administration sought to cut this program?
What was the Department's request for the PILT program to the Office of
Management and Budget? How much will North Dakota receive under the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $218.5 million? How much would North
Dakota receive under the President's budget request of $200 million?
Answer. Although the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget request
for PILT of $200 million is $18.5 million below the fiscal year 2003
enacted level, it is $35 million more than the fiscal year 2003 request
of $165 million. The Department's request to OMB is part of the
Administration's pre-decisional budget process and is therefore not
subject to release. Under the fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $218.5
million, North Dakota will receive an estimated $1 million in PILT
payments. Under the President's budget request of $200 million, North
Dakota would receive an estimated $800,000.
Question. The Department of the Interior has indicated that an
additional $2 million is needed in fiscal year 2003 to pay for court-
ordered endangered species listing actions. While the Department has
provided the Committee with documentation of the shortfall in listing
funding, no formal request has been made to bridge this gap. Does the
Department have a solution to this problem?
Answer. The White House formally requested that the Congress adopt
a technical amendment to raise the cap for listing from $9 million to
$11 million and the sub-cap for critical habitat from $6 million to $8
million. If this is approved, the Department intends to ask the
Committee's approval for a reprogramming of $2 million in funds from
other endangered species program elements to listing. This will fund
our fiscal year 2003 listing shortfall. In addition, the President's
budget contains an increase in the listing budget of about $3.3
million--which includes an increase of $3.8 million for critical
habitat for already listed species and a decrease for other listing
activities of $600,000.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Burns. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
will stand in recess to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May
22, in room SD-124. At that time we will hear testimony from
the Honorable Spencer Abraham, Secretary, Department of Energy.
[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., Thursday, April 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
May 22.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Domenici, Dorgan, and Byrd.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM, SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. We're going to call the committee to order
this morning, Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming. I've got a
brief statement on my opening and then the ranking member,
Senator Dorgan, will be along soon and we will take his
statement and if he has questions, we will allow him to do
that. He's running on a tight tether today, and I understand
you are too. And I think we are going to have a stack of votes
this morning, and with the President being in HC-5, once you
get into the bowels of that building, it takes a while to free
yourself.
First of all, we're glad to see you here to discuss the
budget this morning for the Department of Energy. I know we
struggled a bit to get this hearing on your schedule and I know
you made some changes to accommodate us, we appreciate that.
The Department's request for activities under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction represents an effective cut of
around $120 million. That is a considerable reduction for
energy activity. Of course the reason it falls under this
committee is because of the vast amount of our energy found on
public lands under our jurisdiction. We can quibble over
transfers and deferrals, but I think it's fair that we discuss
some of these reductions as that is the reason we hold these
hearings.
Within the total you have requested, there are some very
healthy increases in some selected programs. The budget
increases weatherization by $65 million, in keeping with the
President's intention to double the program. The budget
includes $40 million for the National Climate Change Technology
Initiative for climate change-related research, $23 million of
which is under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. And the budget
increases fuel cell research within the Office of Energy
Efficiency by $22 million, and includes the increases to
support the President's Freedom Car Initiative.
We are anxious to hear more about these proposals, Mr.
Secretary, and I expect you will find at least conceptual
support for many of them from this subcommittee. The problem is
that the budget also includes fairly severe cuts in other
important programs. The oil and gas programs within the Office
of Fossil Energy have been cut in half. The fuels program
within the Office of Fossil Energy has been completely
eliminated, and the Industries of the Future program has been
reduced about two-thirds.
We recognize, Mr. Secretary, that you are compelled to
operate under some fairly restrictive budget constraints and we
are certainly not opposed to reducing some programs in favor of
others as national priorities change, and as successes and
failures in your research programs become known.
But I think what you will find concerns us most is the
severity of some of these reductions, and the fact that some of
them may result in us failing to capitalize on important
research that has been supported by this committee for many,
many years, and the research done in those areas has been
fairly sizable. It is important, Mr. Secretary, to maintain a
robust and balanced R&D program in the Department, one that
enhances our Nation's energy security and enables our economy
to grow without sacrificing environmental quality, and I think
the focus today will be whether your budget request is adequate
to sustain such a program.
Your testimony will help us as we begin to draft this
appropriations bill under some very tight constraints and
again, we appreciate you being here this morning. I think it
will also help our deliberations on the energy bill, which I
hope the Senate will return to after the Memorial Day recess.
I now turn to our ranking member, my good friend from North
Dakota, Senator Dorgan. Good morning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Senator Burns, thank you very much, and
thank you for holding this hearing.
Senator Burns. You didn't bring any more weed this morning?
Senator Dorgan. Since we're dealing with the Energy
Department, I should have brought a gallon of gas perhaps, but
the chairman is referring to a noxious weed that I brought to
the last hearing, but I am not going to do that in the future.
I didn't know it was very effective.
Let me thank the Secretary for being here. The Secretary
and I had a chance to visit yesterday, and I know that you are
under certain restraints, that there really isn't any way that
you could tell us or the audience, or for that matter the press
what you really think of the Office of Management and Budget.
So, I will not ask you about that, but let me raise a couple
issues, some of the same issues that Senator Burns raised.
You know I'm concerned about the decrease for energy
conservation research, I talked to you about that yesterday. I
think cutting energy conservation research is moving in exactly
the wrong direction. I appreciate that the funding for the
larger energy efficiency and renewable office funded in the
energy and water bill is up slightly less than 1 percent, but
renewable energy research, while important in its own right, is
not a substitute for efforts focused on conserving the amount
of energy we use. We use a prodigious amount of energy in this
country as I've stated, and it is exactly the same calculation,
and we consume 25 percent of the world's energy, which points
to our need to focus on research and development efforts in
reducing the amount of energy consumption, so I'm concerned
about that.
My colleague Senator Burns said that the budget severely
undercuts fossil energy R&D, which accounts for 85 percent of
the energy resources in this country. Over half of our
electricity comes from coal, and oil and natural gas account
for almost 100 percent of our transportation energy needs.
Because of this, environmentally sound approaches to the
management of fossil energy certainly is essential to our
national energy security.
Now, we need money for new initiatives, but money for new
initiatives should not come from other initiatives that are
also very important. We talk about a hydrogen economy and fuel
cells, and I am very appreciative of the present research in
that area and this is a direction we ought to head, I don't
think you can overstate the importance of that. It is very
important. I have said that we need an Apollo-type program, a
program that is bold and aggressive, and I suggested around
$6.5 billion over a period of years. But having said all that,
I'm very impressed that the administration put itself on record
saying let's move in this regard. So the question isn't the
direction so much as it is velocity, and I hope that we can
wrap this up into an Apollo-type program. But we should not be
believing that even as we move in that direction we are going
to somehow diminish the use of coal, oil and natural gas long
into the future, and the ability to do that in a thoughtful way
requires that we have adequate research.
As Senator Burns knows, we have a Commerce Committee
hearing ongoing at the moment and I have another appropriations
subcommittee as well, so I will not be able to stay for
questions, Mr. Secretary, but you and I covered most of our
concerns yesterday in the meeting in my office. And again, I
was pleased to serve with you in the Congress, here in the
Senate, and I am really pleased you are where you are.
Secretary Abraham. Me as well, thank you, Senator.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, we
look forward to your statement.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM
Secretary Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you and the
ranking member, we obviously served together for a number of
years and have come to these projects we work on together from
a background of previous successful collaboration, and I look
forward to continuing that again this year.
Mr. Chairman, what I propose is that I submit most of the
testimony I have here for the record rather than in an oral
presentation, give a very brief overview so that we can move
ahead with the hearing.
Our fiscal year budget for the Department of Energy, both
the component within this subcommittee as well as the component
within the Subcommittee on Energy and Water is a request for
$23.4 billion, and we believe it will allow the Department to
help address a number of issues that relate to America's safety
and security. This amount is $1.3 billion above the fiscal year
2003 budget request, which is a 5.9 percent increase overall.
We do recognize, Mr. Chairman, the critical contribution of
energy on national defense, that the environment and science
and technology make to a prosperous as well as a peaceful
future, and I think this budget continues that work. With
regard to our energy work, the energy sector, this budget
submission is collectively between both subcommittees $2.5
billion. We think it will allow us to continue our wide-ranging
efforts that will lead to the eventual transformation of our
energy economy.
I think the most exciting work and promising areas of long-
term research and technology expansion either fall wholly or in
large part within the province of this subcommittee, so I think
not just this year but in the years ahead, we are going to see
a great deal of activity going on in programs that this
subcommittee has appropriations responsibility for.
Our fossil energy promotes this administration's belief
that coal must be a critical part of our long-term energy
future. We recognize coal is abundant, it is comparatively
inexpensive and is going to be used here and around the world.
Our administration appreciates environmental concerns regarding
coal and will devote technology to answer those concerns and to
guarantee the future widespread use of coal. That's the
rationale between the President's Clean Coal Power Initiative,
which seeks $2 billion over 10 years to companies that work on
and test technologies that improve power plant generation and
emission of coal.
In addition, we recognize carbon management requires
special attention and that's why our budget this year features
a 60 percent increase for research into carbon sequestration,
which in my view and I think in our judgment will be a key to
finding methods and technologies to reduce, avoid or capture
greenhouse gas emissions. More importantly, it is that interest
as much as any which was behind our recently announced coal-
powered generation project of the future, we call it Future-
Gen, which will lead us to operate the world's first coal-
fired, emission-free power plant. Future-Gen will take on the
challenge of cutting electricity emissions and sequestration of
greenhouse gasses and promote the increased use of hydrogen in
meeting future energy needs. It is one of, I think, the most
bold steps we can take towards a pollution-free energy future.
In addition to the game-changing research in the clean coal
area, we are likewise engaged in another initiative that in my
judgment will lead us to a transformation in the energy world
with the development of hydrogen fuel cells, as Senator Dorgan
referred to earlier, as a power source. Hydrogen is the most
abundant element in the universe, with nearly a limitless
supply, and the use of hydrogen eliminates many of the
consequences currently associated with fossil fuels. Our
administration is very optimistic about the use of hydrogen as
the transportation fuel of the future. As the President noted
in his State of the Union address, we are similarly exploring
the use of hydrogen to generate electricity to heat our homes
and power our businesses, proposing to spend about $1.7 billion
dollars on hydrogen fuel cell research and development, and the
development of the transportation applications of hydrogen.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I can think of no other program with the potential payoff
for our Nation's security, our economic security, our foreign
policy and especially for the environment as the work we're
going to be doing on hydrogen. I think some day people may look
back on that initiative as one of the greatest achievements of
this time, and perhaps connect it up to the activities of this
subcommittee. We look forward to working with the committee on
these exciting new ventures as well as our ongoing work related
to weatherizaton assistance programs, natural gas, and a host
of other topics that time doesn't permit me to go into
discussion at this moment of these various other initiatives,
as well as the ones I mention in my written testimony. I look
forward in the Q and A session to having the chance to respond
to any questions that you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Spencer Abraham
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
be here today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget
request for the Department of Energy (DOE).
The total fiscal year 2004 Budget request for the Department of
Energy is $23.4 billion (excluding $123 million advanced appropriated/
deferred from fiscal year 2003). This amount is $1.2 billion above the
fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. This Administration recognizes the
critical contribution our work on defense, energy security, the
environment and world-leading science and technology makes to a
peaceful and prosperous future. Of the total $23.4 billion request,
$1.7 billion is requested for programs funded in the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriation under the jurisdiction of this
Subcommittee. The $1.7 billion Interior Appropriations request is $76.7
million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003.
The total fiscal year 2004 Budget continues the Administration's
commitment to ensure national defense and safeguard the Nation's energy
security through advances in science and technology, as well as fulfill
our obligation as the environmental stewards to our communities. While
DOE's national policy objectives have not changed, this budget reflects
a new approach toward conducting business at the Department of Energy.
Reengineering efforts that we began in fiscal year 2002 have taken
shape: programmatic activities are better focused to achieve primary
mission objectives, budget priorities are set with improved measurable
performance criteria, and corporate management initiatives reflect
aggressive implementation of the President's Management Agenda.
The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget for the Department of
Energy reflects, and addresses, the critical challenges we face today
and will continue to face in the coming decades. I have charted a
course for the Department of Energy that emphasizes DOE's critical
contributions to the Nation's national security and provides forward-
reaching solutions to America's energy problems. My priorities are to
meet our responsibilities to maintain the nuclear stockpile; expand and
make more comprehensive our non-proliferation activities; accelerate
the environmental cleanup program; develop 21st century cutting edge
advanced fuel cell and alternative energy technologies; maintain coal
as a major, low-cost, domestically produced, energy resource through
the Coal Research initiative; build and maintain a stable and effective
national defense program to respond to the guidance in the Nuclear
Posture Review with special emphasis on revitalizing laboratory and
production plant infrastructure; continue our leadership to ensure
nuclear power remains a key energy resource; and maintain a world class
scientific research capability. The fiscal year 2004 Budget is focused
to deliver on these priorities.
As part of the Department's Strategic Planning process these
priorities translate into six overlapping Departmental goals that form
our core mission of National Security. All of the Department's planning
and budgeting for fiscal year 2004 drives toward these six goals:
--Maintain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent
--Control nuclear proliferation
--Reduce dependence on energy imports
--Achieve a cleaner, healthier environment
--Improve our energy infrastructure to ensure the reliable delivery
of energy, and
--Maintain a world-class scientific research capability
Formulation of this year's budget reflects significant management
changes occurring within the Department of Energy. Guided by the
President's Management Agenda and my management reforms started in
fiscal year 2003, this budget implements integrated, long-term program
planning and performance accountability. The Department is implementing
a five-year programmatic and planning framework to provide an
unprecedented opportunity to consider future impacts in determining
this year's funding priorities. This budget was formulated to deliver
measurable results to reach the Department's strategic goals. This
achievement is a significant step toward reaching my key goal to focus
DOE activities to adhere to the primary mission of national security.
By streamlining program activities and management structures, the
Department of Energy will more effectively and efficiently manage and
produce the results expected by American taxpayers.
president's management agenda and national energy policy coordination
Rising to the challenge of the President's Management Agenda, the
Department is beginning to improve how it manages, budgets, and plans
for all programs, projects, and activities. By improving management,
performance, and accountability, the Department is striving for a level
of performance that keeps DOE programs safe, on track, and on budget. A
system of scorecards is being used to evaluate the effectiveness of
various programs and allocate resources to achieve this end.
Performance measures are improving to ensure that they are specific,
quantifiable, concise, comprehensive, and relevant to the American
taxpayer. Also, in accordance with the President's commitment to an
expanded and effective electronic government, DOE is centrally managing
information technology investments to reduce waste, increase
productivity, and provide increased corporate services at lower cost.
Research and Development Investment Criteria.--The President's
Management Agenda calls for consistent and sufficient evaluation of
future research and development (R&D) investments and past performance.
In response, the Department developed internal guidance for programs to
score their R&D activities against the Administration's applied R&D
investment criteria. This approach focuses R&D dollars on long-term,
potentially high-payoff activities that require Federal involvement to
be both successful and achieve public benefit. The Department will
continue to work to develop consistent scoring and benefit estimation
methods, to permit comparison of applied R&D programs across the
Department.
The applied R&D scorecard process is an important way the
Department is integrating performance into the budget. The scorecard
process is in its second year of development. The goal is to develop
highly analytical justifications for applied research portfolios in
future budgets. This will require the development and application of a
uniform cost and benefit evaluation methodology across programs to
allow meaningful program comparisons.
The Department's Science programs also participate in the
government-wide effort to evaluate basic research efforts against the
criteria of quality, relevance, and performance. As part of this first
year effort for basic research programs, the Office of Science has
incorporated the principles of the investment criteria into the
formulation of its Congressional budget narrative.
Program Assessment Rating Tool.--In addition to the use of R&D
investment criteria, the Department implemented a new tool to evaluate
the management effectiveness of selected programs. The Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was developed by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to provide a standardized way to assess the
effectiveness of the Federal Government's portfolio of programs. While
OMB's objective for fiscal year 2004 was to evaluate 20 percent of each
government agency, the Department of Energy reviewed nearly 60 percent
of its activities through the PART process. The Departmental elements
that participated were Environmental Management, Science, Fossil
Energy, Nuclear Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the
Power Marketing Administrations, and the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
The structured framework of the PART provides a means through which
programs can assess their activities differently than through
traditional reviews. While some of the programs received less than
favorable scores, the information exchange between the Department and
OMB proved quite valuable. The current focus is to establish outcome-
and output-oriented goals, the successful completion of which will lead
to benefits to the public, such as increased national security and
energy security, and improved environmental conditions. The Department
will incorporate feedback from OMB into the fiscal year 2005 Budget and
planning process, and will take the necessary steps to continue to
improve performance. The results of the review are reflected in the
Department's fiscal year 2004 Budget. The refocusing of the Fossil
Energy Oil and Gas program was supported by the results of the PART
review.
National Energy Policy Office.--The Department of Energy has
established a National Energy Policy Office to provide strategic
direction within DOE and overall coordination within the Federal
Government with respect to implementing national energy plan
recommendations and activities to assure dependable, affordable, and
environmentally responsible production, delivery, and use of energy.
This Office's mission is to achieve measurable performance results and
consistency in implementing our national energy goals through effective
policy development, planning and management strategies that are
integrated into DOE's budgeting process and that foster interagency and
intergovernmental coordination, generate public-private collaboration,
and enhance international cooperation. Through such coordination and
integrated policy planning and budgeting, the Office will assure
performance results that advance and safeguard our national energy
security objectives by assuring access to reliable and affordable
energy supplies through a balanced and diversified portfolio of energy
sources and modernization of energy infrastructure; securing continuous
improvement in energy efficiency and conservation through technology
research development and deployment to manage effectively and extend
our energy resources, reduce demand and lower costs; assuring
environmental progress and sustainable growth; and assuring that a
robust market guides pricing, technology deployment, energy efficiency,
fuel selection and energy systems.
interior and related agencies appropriation budget request
I would now like to address some of the specifics of our fiscal
year 2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations request.
In total for fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $1.7 billion. This
amount is $76.7 million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003. By
appropriation, we are requesting $519.3 million for Fossil Energy
Research and Development; $16.5 million for Naval Petroleum and Oil
Shale Reserves; $36.0 million for the 6th payment in the Elk Hills
School Lands Fund; $875.8 million for Energy Conservation; $1.0 million
for Economic Regulation; $175.1 million for Strategic Petroleum
Reserve; $5.0 million for the Northeast Home Heating Reserve; and $80.1
million for the Energy Information Administration. In addition, fiscal
year 2003 appropriations action advance appropriated $36.0 million for
the 5th payment in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund and deferred $87.0
million of Clean Coal Technology balances into fiscal year 2004. This
brings the fiscal year 2004 total to $1.8 billion.
I would now like to address some specifics of the Fossil Energy,
Energy Conservation, and Energy Information Administration budget
requests.
FOSSIL ENERGY BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Chairman, when he took over as Assistant Secretary for Fossil
Energy last year, I asked Assistant Secretary Mike Smith to realign the
Fossil Energy program to focus virtually and exclusively on supporting
three of the President's top energy and environmental initiatives:
Clear Skies, Climate Change, and Energy Security.
To be included in the fiscal year 2004 Budget, Fossil Energy
programs must either support the development of lower cost, more
effective pollution control technologies or help diversify the Nation's
future sources of clean-burning natural gas to meet the President's
Clear Skies goals; expand the Nation's technological options for
reducing greenhouse gases either by increasing power plant efficiencies
or by capturing and isolating these gases from the atmosphere; or
measurably add to the Nation's energy security by providing a short-
term emergency response (e.g., Strategic Petroleum Reserve) or a
longer-term alternative to imported oil (e.g., hydrogen and methane
hydrates).
President's Coal Research Initiative.--The fiscal year 2004 Budget
continues to meet the President's commitment to spend $2 billion on
clean coal research over 10 years by providing $320.5 million for the
President's Coal Research Initiative. Since our budget testimony last
year, the Department has made significant progress on a new generation
of environmentally-clean coal technologies.
Our ``first round'' solicitation in the Clean Coal Power
Initiative--the centerpiece of the President's clean coal commitment--
attracted three dozen proposals for projects totaling more than $5
billion. On January 15, 2003, we announced the first winners of this
competition--eight projects with a total value of more than $1.3
billion, more than one billion dollars of which would be provided by
the private sector. Industry has again stepped up to the table,
offering both good ideas and significant private sector cost-sharing.
In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $130.0 million as the next
``installment'' of the Clean Coal Power Initiative. At the present
time, our plans are to issue competitive solicitations every 2 years--
the next one in the fall of 2004. As in the initial solicitation, we
propose to combine 2 years of appropriations (and any available funds
from prior solicitations) because of the size and scope of the
projects.
The President's Clean Coal Power Initiative is especially
significant because it directly supports the President's Clear Skies
initiative. The first projects, for example, included an array of new
cleaner and cheaper concepts for reducing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and mercury--the three air pollutants targeted by the Clear
Skies initiative. To ensure that even more effective pollution control
concepts continue to emerge as candidates for future clean coal
competitions, we are also requesting $22.0 million for research into
even cleaner and more affordable innovations for existing plants.
Several of the recently-selected Clean Coal projects also help
expand the menu of options for meeting the President's climate change
goal of an 18 percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity (carbon
equivalent per GDP) by 2012, primarily by boosting the efficiencies of
power plants (meaning that less fuel is needed to generate electricity
with a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gases). To position even
more advanced, high efficiency power generating concepts for future
development and testing, we are requesting $64.0 million to continue
research into integrated gasification-combined cycle and a companion
effort in high-performance, multi-fuel-capable turbines. A key aspect
of these advanced power concepts--which will make up key modules of our
``Vision 21'' emission-free power plant of the future--is that they
emit carbon dioxide in a way that makes the greenhouse gas easier to
capture.
Carbon management will become an increasingly important element of
our coal research program. Carbon sequestration--the capture and
permanent storage of carbon dioxide--has emerged as one of our highest
priorities in the Fossil Energy research program--a priority reflected
in the proposed budget increase to $62.0 million in fiscal year 2004
from a fiscal year 2003 appropriated level of $39.9 million.
Carbon sequestration, if it can be proven practical, safe, and
affordable, can dramatically enhance our long-term response to climate
change concerns. It could offer the United States and other nations one
approach for reducing greenhouse gases that would not necessitate
changes in the way we produce, deliver, or use energy.
Beginning in fiscal year 2004, one of the cornerstones of our
carbon sequestration program will be a national network of regional
partnerships. This Secretarial initiative, which I announced in
November, will bring together the Federal Government, state agencies,
universities, and private industry to begin determining which options
for capturing and storing greenhouse gases are most practicable for
specific areas of the country. We hope to start at least five of these
partnerships in fiscal year 2004.
Our sequestration budget also includes support for the President's
National Climate Change Technology Initiative Competitive Solicitation
program. Funding from the Fossil Energy program will be combined with
funding from the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology and
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to competitively
fund technology R&D with the greatest potential to reduce, avoid, or
sequester gas emissions.
Another aspect of the President's Coal Research Initiative is the
production of clean fuels from coal. Hydrogen has emerged as a major
priority within the Administration and the Department of Energy as a
clean fuel for tomorrow's advanced power technologies (such as fuel
cells) and for future transportation systems. Within the Fossil Energy
program, we have allocated $5.0 million for research into new methods
for making hydrogen from coal.
To provide fundamental scientific knowledge that benefits all of
our coal technology efforts, our fiscal year 2004 Budget also includes
$37.5 million for advanced research in such areas as materials, coal
utilization science, analytical efforts, and support for coal research
at universities (including historically black and other minority
institutions).
Other Power Systems Research and Development.--We are also
proposing $47.0 million for continued development of fuel cells with an
emphasis on lower-cost technologies that can contribute to both Clear
Skies emission reductions, particularly in distributed generation
applications, and Climate Change goals by providing an ultra-high
efficiency electricity-generating component for tomorrow's power
plants. Distributed power systems, such as fuel cells, also can
contribute to the overall reliability of electricity supplies in the
United States and help strengthen the security of our energy
infrastructure.
Natural Gas Research.--The President's Clear Skies Initiative also
provides the rationale for much of the Department's $26.6 million
budget request for natural gas research. Clear Skies legislation is
likely to further increase demand for this clean-burning fuel; even in
the absence of new environmental requirements, natural gas use in the
United States is likely to increase by 50 percent by 2020.
Our natural gas research program, therefore, is directed primarily
at providing new tools and technologies that producers can use to
diversify future supplies of gas. Emphasis will be increased on
research that can improve access to onshore public lands, especially in
the Rocky Mountain region where much of our undiscovered gas resource
is located. A particularly important aspect of this research will be to
develop innovative ways to recover this resource while continuing to
protect the environmental quality of these areas.
We also plan to establish a new industry-led, university consortia-
based program to develop breakthrough technologies that can help assure
a continued supply of affordable natural gas beyond 2015. The focus of
this program will be on projects that could revolutionize the way
natural gas is supplied in the United States--a focus that is well
beyond the type of research industry is now doing.
Natural gas storage will also assume increasing significance in the
United States as more and more power plants require consistent, year-
round supplies of natural gas. Toward this end, we will initiate a
nationwide, industry-led consortium that will examine ways to improve
the reliability and efficiency of our Nation's gas storage system and
explore opportunities for LNG facility sitting.
The most significant change in our Natural Gas Research program is
the new work we are proposing in hydrogen. In keeping with our energy
security goal of finding alternatives to traditional transportation
fuels, we are proposing to spend $6.6 million to study innovative
methods to produce hydrogen from natural gas. We will ask industry,
academia, and our national laboratories to submit new ideas on hydrogen
production and related research. Since the byproduct of gas-to-hydrogen
processes will likely be carbon dioxide, this effort will also include
research on ways to capture this greenhouse gas. This work will be
closely coordinated with other efforts in the Office of Fossil Energy
to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.
Over the long-term, the production of natural gas from hydrates
could have major energy security implications. Hydrates--gas-bearing,
ice-like formations in Alaska and offshore--contain more energy than
all other fossil energy resources. Hydrate production, if it can be
proved technically and economically feasible, has the potential to
shift the world energy balance away from insecure sources of supply.
Understanding hydrates can also improve our knowledge of the science of
greenhouse gases and possibly offer future mechanisms for sequestering
carbon dioxide. For these reasons, we are continuing a research program
to study gas hydrates with a proposed funding level of $3.5 million.
Oil Technology Development.--The President's National Energy Plan
calls attention to the continued need to strengthen our Nation's energy
security by promoting enhanced oil (and gas) recovery and improving oil
(and gas) exploration technology through continued partnerships with
public and private entities.
At the same time, however, we recognize that if the Federal oil
technology R&D program is to produce beneficial results, it must be
more tightly focused than in prior years. Consequently, our fiscal year
2004 Budget request of $15.0 million reflects a reorientation of the
program toward those areas where there is clearly a national benefit
rather than solely a corporate benefit.
One example is the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) injection
to enhance the recovery of oil from existing fields. CO2
injection is a proven enhanced oil recovery practice that prolongs the
life of some mature fields, but the private sector has not applied this
technique to its fullest potential due to insufficient supplies of
economical CO2. A key Federal role to be carried out in our
proposed fiscal year 2004 program will be to facilitate the greater use
of this oil recovery process by integrating it with CO2
captured and delivered from fossil fuel power plants.
We will also refocus much of our Oil Technology program on a new
Domestic Resource Conservation effort that will target partnerships
with industry and universities to sustain access to marginal wells and
reservoirs. These aging fields account for 40 percent of our domestic
production, yet contain billions of barrels of oil that might still be
recovered with ever-improving technology. A high priority effort in
fiscal year 2004 will be to develop ``micro-hole'' technology. Rather
than developing just another new drilling tool, the Federal program
will integrate ``smart'' drilling systems, advanced imaging, and
enhanced recovery technologies into a complete exploration and
production system. Micro-hole systems may offer one of our best
opportunities for keeping marginal fields active because the smaller-
diameter wells can significantly reduce exploration costs and make new
drilling between existing wells (``infill'' drilling) more affordable.
Using breakthrough technology like this to keep marginal fields in
production preserves the opportunity to eventually apply even more
advanced innovations that could recover even larger quantities of
domestic crude that traditional oil recovery methods currently leave
behind.
Other Fossil Energy R&D.--Our budget also includes $124.3 million
for other activities in our Fossil Energy program, including $92.8
million for headquarters and field office salaries, $3.0 million for
plant and capital improvements, $9.7 million for environmental
restoration, $6.0 million for Federal matching funds for cooperative
research and development projects at the University of North Dakota and
the Western Research Institute, $2.8 million for electricity and
natural gas import/export responsibilities, and $10.0 million for
advanced metallurgical research at our Albany Research Center. The
increase in funding at the Albany Center (up from $6.0 million in
fiscal year 2003) reflects the Center's growing role in developing
better materials for fuel cells and in studying new mineral carbonation
concepts for carbon sequestration.
PETROLEUM RESERVES
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve are key elements of our Nation's energy security. Both serve as
response tools for the President to use to protect U.S. citizens from
disruptions in commercial energy supplies.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.--The President has directed us to fill
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its full 700 million barrel
capacity. The mechanism for doing this--a cooperative effort with the
Minerals Management Service to exchange royalty oil from Federal leases
in the Gulf of Mexico--is working well. We have been able to accelerate
fill from an average of 60,000 barrels per day at the start of the
President's initiative to a planned rate of 130,000 barrels per day for
deliveries beginning this month.
Because of the President's ``royalty in kind'' initiative, we have
achieved the Reserve's highest inventory level ever, now at 600 million
barrels. Our goal remains to have a full inventory of 700 million
barrels by the end of calendar year 2005.
Our fiscal year 2004 Budget for the SPR is $175.1 million, all of
which is now in our facilities development and operations account. We
do not require additional funds in the oil acquisition account because
charges for transporting ``royalty in kind'' oil to the SPR are now the
responsibility of the oil supplier. Also, because we have the authority
to ``borrow'' funds from other Departmental accounts to support an
emergency SPR drawdown, we no longer require the same amount of standby
funding in this account. This has allowed us to use $5.0 million in
funds previously appropriated for this purpose to support a portion of
our fiscal year 2004 Fossil Energy R&D budget request.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.--We are requesting $5.0 million
for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, a decrease of $1.0 million
from the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. The decrease reflects
cost savings realized from recompeting our commercial storage
contracts. The 2-million-barrel reserve remains ready to respond to a
Presidential order should there be a severe fuel oil supply disruption
in the Northeast. A key element of this readiness is a new online
computerized ``auction'' system that we implemented during the last
year to expedite the bidding process. Installing and testing the
electronic system (including tests with prospective commercial bidders)
has been a major element of the Office of Fossil Energy's role in
implementing the ``e-government'' initiatives in the President's
management agenda.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.--The fiscal year 2004
Budget request of $16.5 million is a decrease of $1.2 million from the
fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. The Rocky Mountain Oilfield
Testing Center (RMOTC), established at the Naval Petroleum Reserve No.
3 in Wyoming, will be closed, resulting in a $3 million per year cost
savings. RMOTC is more appropriately a private sector activity. We also
intend to transfer the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 2 in California to
the Department of the Interior by the end of fiscal year 2003, although
the transition and certain environmental compliance activities will
continue into fiscal year 2004. We further expect to be able to reduce
our funding requirements for equity redetermination studies for the
Government's portion of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1,
which was divested in 1998. Of the four producing zones for which final
equity shares had to be finalized, three have been completed; the
fourth (the Shallow Oil Zone) is expected to be finished in fiscal year
2005.
ENERGY CONSERVATION BUDGET REQUEST
For our Interior appropriation funded programs in fiscal year 2004,
we are requesting $875.8 million, $16.0 million less than appropriated
in fiscal year 2003. The decrease reflects a shift in priorities among
activities supported by the different appropriations, consistent with
the Administration's R&D investment criteria and PART results, as I
will describe through my testimony.
Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2004 Budget reflects the new
organization within EERE. Two years ago, EERE was divided into 31
programs, in 17 offices, stovepiped into 5 market sectors. There were
multiple overlapping layers of management and duplicative and
inconsistent business systems that generated significant inefficiencies
and made it difficult to ensure accountability.
In response to the President's Management Agenda, we launched a
dramatic restructuring of the EERE program in April 2002. This
restructuring eliminated the 5 market sectors and 17 offices,
streamlined 31 programs into 11, eliminated up to four management
levels, and centralized administration functions into a single support
organization with a focus on developing consistent, uniform, and
efficient business practices. This is the most dramatic restructuring
of EERE in at least 12 years and arguably in its history.
The restructuring combined all the hydrogen and fuel cell
activities, formerly scattered across 2 market sectors and 3 programs,
into a single program for greater efficiency and synergy. It also
combined all the bioenergy-related activities, formerly scattered
across 3 market sectors and 3 programs, into a single program focused
on advanced biorefineries.
The fiscal year 2004 Budget is fully aligned with EERE's new
management structure and strategic goals and together they will provide
greater synergy and increased efficiency and productivity in the R&D
and deployment activities lead by EERE.
EERE's R&D and technology deployment efforts supported by the
fiscal year 2004 Budget will provide Americans with greater freedom of
choice of technology, while providing increased energy security, and
reducing financial costs and impacts on the environment.
Mr. Chairman, the Energy Conservation budget request has been
developed with these challenges and opportunities in mind.
FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies.--The FreedomCAR and Vehicle
Technologies (FCVT) Program is developing more energy efficient and
environmentally friendly highway transportation technologies to help
reduce United States petroleum consumption. The long-term aim of the
program is to develop ``leap frog'' technologies such as hydrogen-
fueled vehicles to provide Americans with freedom of mobility along
with energy security, lower costs, and lower environmental impacts.
Program activities include research, development, demonstration,
testing, technology validation, technology transfer, and education that
could achieve significant improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and
displacement of oil by other fuels which ultimately can be domestically
produced in a clean and cost-competitive manner.
In fiscal year 2004, the Department is requesting $157.6 million, a
decrease of $19.7 million below the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level
for the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies program. The FreedomCAR
portion of the budget is $91.1 million, an increase of $5.5 million
above the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. All funding for
transportation fuel cell and hydrogen infrastructure activities is
included in the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies
program to accelerate RD&D activities to support both the FreedomCAR
partnership and President's new Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.
Fuel Cell Technologies.--In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting
$77.5 million, an increase of $22.4 million above the fiscal year 2003
appropriated level for Fuel Cell Technologies from Interior
Appropriations. The fiscal year 2004 Budget supports fuel cell cost
reduction and initiation of a fuel cell vehicle test and evaluation
program.
Americans currently depend on foreign sources for 55 percent of our
oil-a dependence that is projected to rise to 68 percent by 2025. Since
two thirds of the oil we consume is used for transportation, we must
focus on alternative means of fueling transportation from domestic
resources if we ever expect to reverse this trend.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles require no petroleum-based fuels and
emit no pollutants or carbon dioxide. Their development and commercial
success would remove personal transportation as an environmental issue
and substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil
The hydrogen needed to fuel these vehicles is domestically
available in abundant quantities as a component of natural gas, coal,
biomass, and even water through electrolysis using renewable or nuclear
power. The challenge is to economically produce, deliver, store, and
distribute hydrogen for use as a consumer fuel, and to engage the
broader oil, energy, and power companies in this effort. To meet this
challenge, the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes a new
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, a $1.2 billion effort over five years, which
will accelerate research and development activities to solve technical
challenges in hydrogen production, delivery, storage, and distribution.
When the vision of the President's Fuel Initiative is achieved,
hydrogen will power the fuel cells that provide energy for our cars,
trucks, homes, schools, and businesses.
To support FreedomCAR and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, we need to
make significant research and development investments to develop
vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells and the infrastructure to
support them. The government will be to help fund and coordinate the
high-risk R&D work of numerous private sector partners and our National
network of science laboratories. Government coordination of this
undertaking will help resolve one of the difficulties associated with
development of a commercially viable hydrogen fuel cell vehicle: the
``chicken and egg'' question. Which comes first, the fuel cell vehicle
or the hydrogen production and delivery-refueling infrastructure to
support it? The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, in conjunction
with the FreedomCAR partnership, answers the question by proposing to
develop both in parallel; that is, to augment the already significant
investments in vehicle technologies with new investments in hydrogen
and fuel cell technologies. By so doing, Federal investments can help
advance commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and
infrastructure by 15 years, from 2030 to 2015.
These efforts will enable the development of hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles for the showroom floor by 2020. Success of these programs will
begin to eliminate the need for imported oil, while simultaneously
reducing emissions and greenhouse gases from America's transportation
fleet without affecting the freedom of personal mobility we demand.
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.--In fiscal year
2004, we are requesting $357.0 million for Weatherization &
Intergovernmental Activities, $42.5 million more than appropriated in
fiscal year 2003.
The Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program activities support
the President's National Energy Policy recommendations for rapid
deployment of clean energy technologies and energy efficient products.
The program's funding request also supports the President's commitment
to increase funding by $1.4 billion over 10 years for the
Weatherization Assistance Program, which improves the energy efficiency
of dwellings occupied by low-income Americans.
Our Weatherization Assistance Program request ($288.2 million,
$64.7 million above the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level), supports
weatherization of approximately 126,000 low-income homes. Based on
historical data, the program anticipates that low-income families will
save $1.80 in energy costs for every dollar invested over the life of
the efficiency improvements. The Weatherization Assistance Program was
assessed using the Administration's PART and was rated Moderately
Effective.
Our fiscal year 2004 request for other subprogram activities within
the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program are as follows: State
Energy Program Grants ($38.8 million, $5.9 million less than
appropriated in fiscal year 2003), State Energy Activities ($2.4
million, $3.0 million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003), and
Gateway Deployment ($27.6 million, $13.3 million less than appropriated
in fiscal year 2003). Within Gateway Development, there are several
program shifts. For example, to avoid duplication of efforts, funding
for International Market Development activities is now requested within
the International Renewable Energy Program in the Energy and Water
appropriation. The National Industrial Competitiveness through Energy,
Environment, and Economics (NICE3) activity is terminated because the
activities are within industry's capability and do not match up well
against the Administration's R&D investment criteria. Other activities
are being refocused to ensure program performance can be meaningfully
evaluated.
Building Technologies.--EERE's buildings technology R&D programs
address technologies, techniques and tools to make residential and
commercial buildings, both in existing structures and new construction,
more energy efficient, productive and affordable. Strategies include
system R&D to reduce overall residential and commercial building energy
use, R&D focused on energy end uses such as water heating, food
refrigeration, and clothes washing, and the development of building
energy efficiency codes and national equipment energy efficiency
standards. The Buildings program was assessed using the PART and was
rated Adequate. Recommendations included refocusing R&D funding on
long-term, high-risk, potentially high-payoff activities; evaluating
potential duplication of Building program activities funded via the
Energy and Water appropriation; and developing better performance
measures. The request begins to address these recommendations.
Our fiscal year 2004 Budget for the Interior-funded portion of the
Building Technologies program is $52.6 million, $6.8 million less than
appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The funding supports a portfolio of
activities that includes solid-state lighting, energy efficiency
improvement of other building components and equipment, and their
effective integration using whole-building-system-design techniques, as
well as the development of codes and standards.
Emerging Technologies R&D.--In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting
$21.8 million to conduct building components and equipment R&D. This
amount is $9.4 million below the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level.
The request reflects a redirection of near-term, low risk R&D in space
conditioning and appliances to longer-term, higher-risk activities with
a greater potential public benefits. For example, we are proposing a $5
million investment to expand our Solid State Lighting research
activities. Solid State Lighting represents a promising, new approach
to efficient lighting systems. Our Solid State Lighting research will
create the technical foundation to revolutionize the energy efficiency,
appearance, visual comfort, and quality of lighting products by
achieving efficiencies upwards of 70 percent (source efficiency).
Residential Buildings and Zero Energy Buildings R&D.--The fiscal
year 2004 Budget is $15.2 million, an increase of $2.9 million from the
fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. The Department will pursue systems
research on five promising technology areas, enhance activities to
apply practices and approaches developed through Building America to
existing residential buildings.
Equipment Standards and Analysis Program.--We are requesting $9.0
million, compared with $9.6 million in our fiscal year 2003
appropriated level. The Department will continue the development of
equipment test procedures and standards. We will be completing analyses
that will add new products to the lighting and appliance standards
program.
Industrial Technologies.--The Industrial Technologies program
partners with energy-intensive industries to develop and apply advanced
technologies and practices that reduce industry's energy consumption
and improve environmental performance. In fiscal year 2004, we are
requesting $24.0 million, compared with the $62.1 million appropriated
in fiscal year 2003, for the Industries of the Future (IOF) (Specific)
programmatic area. The request reflects a determination that the
program supports some activities for which the private sector has
sufficient incentive to pursue without Federal support. The Department
has re-focused its R&D efforts to higher priority technologies within
the EERE portfolio, including hydrogen and advanced fuel cell
technologies. The activities that continue in the IOF (Specific)
programmatic area will focus on bringing existing projects to
successful commercialization and pursuing longer-term, higher-risk
activities with significant potential public benefits that industry
would not undertake alone. We are also requesting $34.4 million, $2.1
less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003, for the IOF (Crosscutting)
programmatic area, which includes Industrial Materials of the Future
($13.6 million); High Efficiency Combustion Systems ($2.0 million);
Sensors and Control Technology ($3.8 million); and Industrial Technical
Assistance ($14.8 million).
Biomass.--For the first time we have brought a diverse industry
together and produced a vision and R&D roadmap that has increased the
level of industry investment. This roadmap has allowed us to begin the
process of rebuilding the program and focusing on the most promising
long-term opportunities for these technologies. We have improved our
collaboration with other Federal agencies, especially the Department of
Agriculture (USDA). In addition, the Farm Bill provided direction and
mandatory funding to USDA to work with DOE in advancing biomass
technologies. Our fiscal year 2004 request for Interior-funded portion
of the biomass program is $8.8 million, compared with $24.6 million
appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The request supports continuing R&D
on the thermochemical and bioconversion process, and evaluating
opportunities for the production of fuels and chemicals from
intermediates (``platforms'') such as sugars from biomass and starch
crops, synthesis gas from biomass gasification, and biomass oils. The
request terminates black liquor gasification activities, which do not
align well with the R&D investment criteria, as sufficient incentive
exists for industry to pursue these activities alone.
EERE bioenergy activities were integrated into one office to help
focus resources on a limited and more coherent set of goals and
objectives, increasing collaboration with industry, reducing overhead
expenses, and exploiting synergies among similar activities in support
of a future biorefinery industry. This focus on a clear set of goals,
substantial leveraging of research funding with industry, and the
transfer to industry of a number of demonstration activities that
industry should continue to pursue without federal support is reflected
in our request.
Power.--Our Distributed Energy Resources Program leads a national
effort to develop a flexible, smart, and secure energy system by
integrating clean and efficient distributed energy technologies
complementing the existing grid infrastructure. The program is
supporting regional and state strategies to ensure electricity and
reliability. By producing electricity where it is used, distributed
energy technologies can increase grid asset utilization and reduce the
need for upgrading some transmission and distribution lines. Also,
because distributed generators are located near the point of use, they
allow for the capture of the waste heat produced by fuel combustion
through combined heat and power (CHP) systems. In fiscal year 2004, we
are requesting $51.8 million, compared with $61.1 million appropriated
in fiscal year 2003. The program is following an RD&D model, similar to
Advanced Turbine Systems subprogram, completed in fiscal year 1999, in
pursuing activities in microturbines, reciprocating engines, thermally
activated devices and other areas. The program expects to meet the
performance milestones for efficiency, environmental emissions and cost
effectiveness for microturbines and reciprocating engines through cost-
shared RD&D and down selecting among several different approaches.
Federal Sector.--The Federal Government is the Nation's single
largest energy consumer. It uses almost one quadrillion British thermal
units (Btu) of energy annually, or about 1 percent of the Nation's
energy use. In fiscal year 2000, the Federal Government spent about $4
billion in energy to heat, cool, light, and conduct operations in
500,000 buildings. Simply by using existing energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies and techniques, the Federal Government
can begin to lead the Nation toward becoming a cleaner, more efficient
energy consumer. In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $20.0 million
for the Federal Energy Management Program to continue meeting the goals
of reducing Federal energy consumption.
Program Management.--The Energy Conservation Program Management
budget component provides executive and technical direction,
information, analysis, and oversight required for efficient and
productive implementation of those programs funded by Energy
Conservation appropriations in EERE. In addition, Program Management
supports all Headquarters staff, six Regional Offices, the Golden Field
Office in Colorado and several DOE employees at three Operations
Offices to plan and implement EERE activities as well as facilitate
delivery of applied R&D and grant programs to federal, regional, State,
and local customers. In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $76.7
million for these activities, which is fairly level with the fiscal
year 2003 appropriated level.
energy information administration budget request
For the Energy Information Administration (EIA), we are requesting
$80.1 million, the same level as appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The
requested funding will be used for ongoing data and analysis activities
and critical data quality enhancements, so EIA can continue to
disseminate accurate and reliable energy information and analyses to
inform energy policy-makers. EIA's base program includes the
maintenance of a comprehensive energy database, the dissemination of
energy data and analyses to a wide variety of customers in the public
and private sectors through the National Energy Information Center, and
the maintenance of modeling systems for both near- and mid-term energy
market analysis and forecasting.
In fiscal year 2004, EIA's priority is to maintain high-quality
core energy data programs and forecasting systems needed to provide
timely data, analysis, and forecasts. EIA will complete the update and
overhaul of its consumption surveys. EIA will continue to overhaul the
electricity surveys and data systems to accommodate changes in the
deregulated energy industry and improve data quality and accuracy in
the petroleum, natural gas, and electricity areas.
EIA continues to aggressively expand the availability of electronic
information and upgrade energy data dissemination, particularly on the
EIA Web site. The increased use of electronic technology for energy
data dissemination has led to an explosive growth in the number of its
data customers and the breadth of their interests, as well as an
increase in the depth of the information distributed. During fiscal
year 1997, EIA established a goal to increase the number of users of
its Web site by 20 percent annually. In each of the succeeding years
EIA has managed to either meet or exceed this commitment, with a 39
percent increase in fiscal year 2002 while delivering more than 2,400
gigabytes of information.
EIA also has increased dramatically the distribution of its
information by becoming the dependable source of objective energy
information for the news media. By using this distribution channel EIA
has ensured its energy data to be widely seen and used by the general
public at minimal additional cost to the Federal Government.
In May 2002, on short notice, and with no new budget resources,
EIA, at my direction, began operation of a new weekly survey of natural
gas in underground storage after the American Gas Association stopped
operation of its weekly survey. This survey is the Nation's only weekly
gas supply data and is crucial to decisions of supply planners in
industry and utilities as well as to analysts assessing the current
natural gas supply and demand situation, especially prior to the winter
heating season.
EIA culminated a three-year effort to revise its electric power
data collection forms with a new set of surveys. The new surveys will
collect information necessary to understand and evaluate many of the
changes that have occurred in the electric power industry due to
restructuring and retail competition by collecting additional
information from the growing percentage of nonutility generators. EIA
added to its E-Government initiatives by incorporating Internet data
collection with this set of surveys.
In the area of improving data quality, EIA has reprocessed twelve
years of electricity data from nonutility generators and has revised
its Annual Energy Review to present this data according to industry
conventions, moving nonutility power producers' consumption from the
industrial sector to the electric power sector. The revised data uses
natural gas consumption supplied by nonutility electric generators in
place of natural gas pipeline deliveries, providing a better
representation of natural gas consumption. These revisions will be
extended to other EIA publications this year.
With increasing frequency, EIA has been requested by the
Administration and Congress to produce comprehensive service reports
that analyze current energy issues of major importance. The number and
sophistication of these analytical requests have grown, often requiring
EIA to postpone work on vital quality assurance activities, and
requiring negotiation with the requestor on delivery dates and the
scope of the study and final report. As in past years, EIA fulfilled
several requests for special studies and investigations for the
Administration and Congress. During fiscal year 2002, EIA expended
nearly $2 million in resources to complete the 93 special reports and
analyses during the fiscal year. In particular, EIA was asked by
several Members of Congress to evaluate the impact of several
provisions of the proposed House and Senate Energy Bills on energy
demand, supply, prices, and on the economy. These analyses were often
referred to Congressional floor debates and many were cited in revision
to the proposed Senate bill. If this level of demand continues, EIA is
expected to exceed $2 million in fiscal year 2004 to fulfill these
requests for analyses and reports on topical energy issues.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have at this time.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We have been
joined by the ranking member, and former chairman of the full
committee, Senator Byrd this morning. Senator Byrd, if you have
a statement, we would entertain that at this time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank
you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today so that the members of this subcommittee have an
opportunity to review and discuss the administration's fiscal
year 2004 budget request for the Office of Fossil Energy, the
Office of Energy Efficiency, the Energy Information Agency, and
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I appreciate your willingness
to ensure the Secretary's appearance this morning. He's kind of
hard to get hold of, but you brought him in. You are from the
west, and when you go after them, you get them, right?
Senator Burns. I wish I could say that about my fishing.
Senator Byrd. Much of the $1.7 billion appropriated to the
Energy Department through the Interior bill is directed towards
research and development activities. These programs,
particularly the fossil energy programs, are the linchpin to
ensuring our Nation's energy security. Mr. Chairman, 52 percent
of the electricity generated in this country comes from a coal-
fired power plant, and close to 100 percent of our
transportation comes from oil and natural gas. Obviously, the
importance of fossil fuels to our national and economic
security cannot be overstated.
Yet despite those facts and contrary to all the rhetoric
that we hear coming from this administration, what is being
proposed for the Office of Fossil Energy is simply disastrous.
This budget cuts coal research 10 percent below the fiscal year
2003 enacted level. It cuts natural gas research and
development by 43 percent. It cuts oil research and development
by 64 percent. And it would put 150 of the brightest fossil
energy scientists out of work at the very moment we should be
redoubling our efforts to find resources in an environmentally
sound manner.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you throughout
the appropriations process to see what can be done to rectify
these shortsighted and negative proposals. I know that
resources will be particularly tight for fiscal year 2004, but
this budget request cannot be adopted in its present form
without doing serious damage to our Nation's energy security
efforts. I would urge you and all the members of the
subcommittee to resist going down that path.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator.
We discussed this when the Secretary was in my office, and
we're going to find a way to get the job done the way it should
be done. I'm always amazed at the mindset of some folks. The
majority of our oil and gas is found on public lands. Yet, we
vote every day to take those lands and those areas where that
resource is found completely off the board when it comes time
to inventory what we have in the event that we need them. So
this thinking on oil and gas runs counter to some ideas here on
the Hill of what we should be using.
We spend a lot of money every year on the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, and send millions of barrels of oil down
there, we simply buy it and put it in the ground. That's a cost
to the taxpayer. The taxpayer is paying nothing for the natural
reserves that we find on some of our outer continental shelf
and our public lands. It is already there because Mother Nature
stores it, but we are denied the right to inventory it and
recover it, if it has to be recovered.
About 2 weeks ago we had the opportunity to drive the fuel
cell automobiles that General Motors had out here. I will tell
you that looking at the numbers, and looking at the work that's
being done, we are closer to a hydrogen society than we think
we are. The work that's being done in hydrogen fuel cells is
starting to see some results. So I'm very encouraged about
that. Also the Secretary and I think there is a great
possibility with Future-Gen.
We have tons and tons of coal, and we should not back off
in working on the technology to make it more feasible, to make
it more acceptable to the environment, and to look at this
great product we have because it is a source of the cheapest
power that we produce today other than hydro. Hydro is the only
one that can come close to that. So, Mr. Secretary, we talked a
little bit about Future-Gen and its proposals, we look forward
to working with you on that, and of course we also have some
very distinct ideas on where it should be located, but
nonetheless I think it is a bold step as far as our concerns.
In the area of conservation, I believe you are aware of the
solid-state lighting initiative which this subcommittee
supported with an appropriation of around $3 million last year.
You have requested $5 million for this program and there is
significant promises that lay ahead in solid-state lighting and
we've been a witness to a lot of that research and development.
I understand the Department has investigated and calculated
these potential benefits while developing a road map for the
solid-state lighting program. Would you want to share with the
committee your conclusions or have you drawn any conclusions,
or where are you in that particular program?
Secretary Abraham. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman that the
conclusions we have to this point is we believe it is possible
to produce higher quality lighting using advanced solid-state
technology that could produce a 70 percent improvement over the
best fluorescent lighting today. We are seeking about a 21
percent increase in the lighting R&D budget from what we had
submitted in 2003, in part to accommodate an increase in next-
generation solid-state lighting.
So you know, I think the percentage of total electricity
used in this country that's attributed to lighting is about 22
percent of all of our electricity demand level, so if we can
make gains in efficiency or breakthroughs in this area, it has
a much broader application than a lot of the other things in
which we do research. So I think we are exploring creating a
more formal public/private kind of partnership and try to focus
more on this issue. And I know that in the energy bill, this
has come up as an area in which the Congress will want to take
a lead in setting out a formalized process for this and it is
an area where real potential exists.
Senator Burns. For the information of the committee, we are
talking about the use of fiber optics for the purpose of
lighting. Senator, this can even be done through your drapes.
They can change the tone of light and the amount of light. The
folks who work what they call the midnight shift now, but in
your day we worked graveyard, if you remember.
Senator Byrd. The hoot owl.
Senator Burns. The hoot owls. They can now make lighting in
a plant to simulate a morning light, noon light, and an
afternoon light, even though it's dark outside. It's a
marvelous breakthrough. There is a consortium of manufacturers
who have come together to support this lighting initiative.
It's just like the Secretary says, when you talk about the
possibility of a 70 percent savings in lighting costs alone in
this country, you're talking about a big chunk of conservation.
I really hope that the Department of Energy will take a closer
look.
According to the budget justification, a rather small off-
highway vehicle R&D program is being terminated because other
research opportunities have higher impact on energy savings. In
looking at the Department's own R&D road map off-highway,
however, I find that off-highway uses account for 20 percent of
the fuel used in the transportation sector. That is a huge
amount and I don't think there are a lot of people that
understand how much off-highway fuel is used in this country.
Can you reconcile these figures with the energy use and the
emissions with your decision to terminate a $3.5 million
program?
OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE R&D PROGRAM TERMINATION
Secretary Abraham. As I understand, the principal focus of
the work that has been done has been related to railroad
applications, and I think in that area the amount of actual
demand or the use of oil is pretty small compared to the daily
total consumption of the country, which is about a quarter-
million barrels a day out of 12 million barrels a day of
imports alone. So in terms of the priority somebody has to set
when somebody sets a budget, we looked at that percentage
versus the percentage that goes to the rest of the
transportation sector and made the judgment that even if we
were highly successful in the improvement of R&D in this area
that it wouldn't have in terms of application that big of an
effect, and I think that's the basis of that conclusion that
you read.
GASOLINE PRICES
Senator Burns. I think even though we're going into the
vacation season gasoline prices are on everybody's mind. We saw
the spike in February, and it's settled down to around $27 or
$28 a barrel now. They tell me the domestic supplies are lower,
our domestic production keeps going down. OPEC made an
announcement the other day that they were going to watch their
supplies. Can you give us an update on these fluctuating oil
prices? And have you drawn any conclusions about what we should
be doing about them?
Secretary Abraham. Let me talk about the sense of the
market for a minute and then what we should be doing. On the
market itself, there is no question that we went through a
period here over the last 4 or 5 months that was sort of the
perfect storm in terms of problems. Just an incredible
combination of events happened in a very short period of time.
One of them was the strike in Venezuela, which took about 3
million barrels of production out for a very long time, and
much of the Venezuelan oil comes to the United States, that's
one of our major supply sources. We also had a cold winter
which made the demand go up during the winter heating season.
We had in Nigeria a period of civil unrest that threatened some
of the employees that worked in the oil sector there and they
pulled people out of the fields and caused production in
Nigeria to drop for a period. And we had the period leading up
to the war in Iraq, we had the war, and since its beginning of
course and even today, the production from Iraq was essentially
halted. So this was a pretty amazing period of events.
In one sense we saw some spikes in the market and you
referred to them, we saw the market go from the mid-20s to even
a little bit higher, to spike up into the high-30s for a brief
period of time right before the war, I think the top limit it
hit was $39.99 a barrel. And it has now come down and is
stabilizing in the mid-to high-20 range. We would like probably
less of that, to see, you know, obviously less of that
volatility.
On the other hand, if you compare this period to three
similar periods in which a lot of international crises were
taking place, from the last 30 years, the spike was
substantially lower. In 1973 during the oil embargo that took
place, prices spiked four-fold. In the 1979-80 period during
the revolution in Iran, prices more than doubled. From the
Persian Gulf War in 1990, 1991, prices doubled. But here they
went up for a shorter period of time and by a much smaller
amount.
As a consequence, we have seen gasoline prices, the
projection for gasoline prices for the summer based on our
energy administration reduced substantially. At one point we
were pointing to a summer-long average of almost $1.70 a
gallon, and now it's $1.46 a gallon. We would like to see
gasoline prices lower than that, but that's comparable or lower
than two of the last three seasons, so in that sense we are a
little more optimistic today than we would have been just 1 or
2 months ago.
What we would like to do in the long term is much more
important, and I think the subcommittee cares how we address
this. One, the chairman has talked about with me and talked
publicly at some length about the need to diversify our
international source of supply.
Senator Byrd makes a good point. We will try to get our
national labs focused on this challenge.
So to complete the thought I was on before, Senator, the
issue you have raised on a number of occasions about the
diversification of where we have energy partnerships is
important and Russia is one area I know you're interested in,
and is one focus of our attention as well. Last year we hosted
a summit between Russian energy companies and American energy
companies, tried to bring them together to create an
opportunity for people to become familiar with new project
opportunities in Russia and the Caspian region generally. There
is a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built in order for
those resources to become available to the world market, but we
see that as an opportunity. We see in Africa as well as our own
hemisphere areas where greater production is possible. That's
one part of the solution.
A second part of the solution is the need to proceed
producing more here at home, and the debate the Senate last had
on the war and other production issues is critical to that.
Finally, we try to look ahead, how can we reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, and that's really the reason that
the hydrogen proposal that we're talking about this morning, we
see it as a way to address both the dependence on imports on
the one hand and the environmental issues that relate to
internal combustion engines on the other. And we are very
confident that the research we're proposing and would be
carried out with Congress's support to develop not just a fuel
cell operating vehicle but the infrastructure to support it has
the potential by 2020 to produce the capability to literally be
operated on hydrogen fuel cells. The source of the hydrogen
could be domestic in nature and it would change the game
completely in terms of the dependence issue on the one hand and
the issue of the environmental concerns on the other.
The one thing I always point out to people is that these
issues keep coming up. Every time there is a spike in energy
prices, we all look for answers and then when the prices go
back down it seems that the people sort of forget about it for
a while and yet, the cycle continues. And whether it's a series
of issues like the ones we have had this year or others, it's
going to keep going in that sort of pattern until we get past
this debate if we are successful, which I think we can be on,
the hydrogen fuel cell initiative.
Senator Burns. Senator, do you have a statement? I was
going to go to Senator Byrd for his questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. I have a brief statement. First, I want
to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome the Secretary. It's
good to have you here and great to be with you again. I am
interested in the President's budget for fossil energy R&D and
energy conservation programs of the Department, and related
programs. It has been 2 years since President Bush submitted
his comprehensive energy plan, and we renewed our commitment to
passing a comprehensive energy act. I look forward to Senate
action on Senate bill 14, which is pending on the calendar, and
I thank you for the help you gave us in preparing that bill.
I also thank Senator Byrd and his staff and others for the
significant help they gave us for preparing the coal provisions
of that bill, which we think are mighty powerful for America's
future. I believe the programs under the jurisdiction of the
Interior Subcommittee are critical to our Nation's future. The
administration's proposal to develop a hydrogen-powered car
through the FreedomCAR and FreedomFuel initiatives with about
$1.5 billion spread over the next 5 years hold significant
promise for the future and again, Senator Byrd, we will find
provisions for that in Senate bill 14 as a part of a Senate and
congressional policy, with some changes.
The Clean Coal Power Initiative and the Coal Research and
Technology Initiative in which DOE proposes to invest $2
billion over 10 years focuses on our most abundant energy
resource. Coal is necessarily part of our energy future, and we
want it to be clean coal. Investments in more efficient energy
technologies for industry, the building sectors, and
transportation have big payoffs for the country.
Conservation is an important component of our energy
security. The administration plans to double the funding for
weatherization assistance over 10 years will greatly advanced
this goal.
There are many good initiatives in the President's budget,
and most necessarily come at the expense of our ongoing
programs. You know of my concern, Mr. Secretary, over the
repeat of the administration proposals to significantly reduce
our investments in oil and gas technologies. These are not big
programs but over a number of years they have contributed
significantly to new technology by which we are discovering oil
and gas underground. The budget proposes funding oil at 65
percent below the currently enacted level and gas by 44 percent
below the enacted level. Those are the funding levels.
Congress has traditionally restored funding to these
programs and I suspect, even though the budget is tight, that
we will try again to set our priorities in these appropriations
bills. It will be tough for us to provide funding for all the
initiatives, but we are up to the task, and with the ranking
member understanding these issues as he does, I believe somehow
or another we are going to come through with a good
Presidential budget being made better by this subcommittee.
So I join my colleagues in welcoming you, Mr. Secretary,
and look forward to an exchange of views. Before I am finished
today, I will cite a technology that's going on in a little
community in New Mexico and that I'm going to invite you to
come and see. When it comes to the issue of clean coal, it is
truly a marvel. We can't quite get it exposed, but it's
something that the world should know about. I yield.
Senator Burns. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Senator Domenici, for the good work you're doing, and you have
made my statement already but I'm going to make it again,
because I know the Secretary wants to hear it.
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH BUDGET CUTS
Mr. Secretary, 2 years ago, the administration ignored its
own campaign rhetoric and proposed an 18 percent cut in funding
for fossil energy research. At that time, I remember that
speech that the President made in West Virginia, and that's why
you're sitting right here today. He made that speech in West
Virginia, he was going to add $2 billion to fossil energy
research, so here you are. But for that, and his outreach to
the steelworkers in West Virginia, he wouldn't be President and
you wouldn't be Secretary.
So at that time, you explained away the inconsistencies
between the rhetoric and the reality by telling us that you
were new to the job and that you did not have complete control
of the budget. You told us just wait a year and we would see
concrete evidence that the administration was truly committed
to the kind of research needed to secure our national energy
security.
Last year, the President's budget proposed a 16 percent cut
in the fossil energy account. You told us then, with all due
respect, that despite its actions, the administration was
indeed devoted to fossil energy research but that the Assistant
Secretary was new to his job and did not have complete control
of the budget. You also said that he was undertaking a top-to-
bottom review of all fossil energy programs and that that
policy review would drive future budget requests.
Now today, here comes the Secretary before us to present a
budget request which again cuts fossil energy research by 16
percent overall, including 13 percent from the Clean Coal
program, 44 percent from natural gas research, and 58 percent
from oil research. I think these requests constitute prima
facie evidence that this administration lacks a coherent and
comprehensive national energy plan. I can't believe that these
cuts are based on sound policy decisions. Nor do I believe that
anyone can seriously argue that in a $2.2 trillion Federal
budget, $600 million invested in research that will allow us to
utilize our most abundant energy resources in a sound manner is
too much. Thus, I question you, Mr. Secretary.
Can you point to anything in your top-to-bottom policy
review that would suggest, even suggest a need for the level of
cuts that this administration has proposed?
Secretary Abraham. Well, let me try to preface my remarks
if I could take a little additional time on this response by
saying this administration absolutely is committed to and is
working hard on programs that relate to maintaining the
strength of coal and/or fossil fuels as part of our energy mix,
and there should be no misunderstanding of that.
Second, I want to also sort of talk briefly about the
commitments we are making and the programs we are trying to
launch.
Third, I want to put in context, although just for your
consideration, the chronology of how some of these budgets have
been put together.
Let me talk about the program, Senator. We obviously are
demonstrating a greater level of commitment to putting the
fossil fuel, and particularly the coal sector, to bring it into
the 21st century and maintain it as a strong part of our energy
mix. I base it on the rhetoric of people who accuse us of being
far too committed to coal in the future. In fact, when we
announced our hydrogen fuel vehicle program, people assailed it
because they said you were going to burn dirty coal to create
hydrogen.
Our position is that for coal to succeed and survive and be
successful, we have to address some of these environmental
concerns, and we concluded that the carbon sequestration is a
key component of that long-term vision for the use of coal.
That's why that program is increased by 60 percent. That's a
result of the review which we conducted.
I am also convinced that we have to go beyond the
laboratory and demonstrate to the world the capabilities that
we have and the ability that we will have to actually operate a
totally clean power plant, coal-based electricity generation
facilities that sequesters 100 percent of the carbon. That's
why we launched a $1 billion program in the new Future-Gen
proposal which over the next decade and perhaps 10 or 12 years
will be, I think the most ambitious new program in the area of
fossil fuel that is being undertaken anywhere in the world. In
fact, since we announced it, we have had many numerous nations
contact us to ask if they can participate.
Now, you have to----
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, my time is limited. You are
still cutting the budget. Now, is there anything in the policy
documents or in the administration's national energy policy
that would convince Congress to massively scale back our
national commitment to fossil energy research?
Secretary Abraham. Let me apologize. I was taking extra
time and I hope it won't come off Senator Byrd's time.
Senator Burns. Nothing comes off his time.
Senator Byrd. You see what respect age brings you. I am the
ancient gnome of the Capitol.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL [PART]
Secretary Abraham. Let me try to focus on that specific
issue. First, in determination of some specific conclusions,
one of the things which was included in the process of putting
this budget together was the result of a series of analyses
called PART scores, that analyzed various Department of Energy
programs. It was a review conducted by the Office of Management
and Budget, and regrettably from our point of view, the scores
with respect to our natural gas and oil technology programs
deemed those programs as currently constituted ineffective.
After that process, with the programs in those areas deemed to
be literally ineffective in their performance, not every part
of them, but substantial parts of them, I did not feel I could
come to this committee or the public and say we are asking for
large amounts of money to support programs that have been rated
as ineffective. We are in the process of reconfiguring those
test programs.
Second, I would say to the committee if the chronology
could be thought about, we submitted this budget before this
committee and this Congress passed its budget, and now the
comparison to what was the enacted level of 2003 is being used
to say that we proposed big cuts. And granted, there were marks
in the House and Senate at the time, but we didn't have a final
budget. We are proposing in R&D for fossil energy a $40 million
increase over what we proposed last year.
I would also note that we had available to us last time
when we submitted our budget for our 2003 request, we had
available advanced appropriations which we could include in
that request. We still submitted a budget with an R&D----
FOSSIL ENERGY OMB BUDGET
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, would you provide the
committee with the fossil energy budget submission that your
Department presented to OMB, so the committee can compare it
with what the administration has requested?
Secretary Abraham. I don't know if such documents are
normally provided in this kind of setting and I would have to
check on whether that kind of document is provided.
Senator Byrd. What I'm trying to get at is, I'm trying to
get at what you really told the Office of Management and
Budget--I suppose Mr. Mitch Daniels is still at the helm--what
you really told OMB you needed and what, how we can compare
that with what the administration requested. Perhaps then we
will be in a position to make an adjustment that will help you
meet your needs. And that's what the people I think want to
see, they want to see careful handling of their money, but they
also want to see research go forward so their children can be
encouraged by the needs are that are going to confront them.
Can you provide that?
Secretary Abraham. Senator, I can't recall which documents
we have made available or would make available. That which has
been made available in the past, I will make available. I can't
recall which of these sorts of submissions have ever been
submitted to Congress.
Senator Byrd. I can assure you that's not the first time
that question has been asked and I can also assure you that the
Appropriations Committee has been provided with the answers to
such questions as they have been propounded to various
department heads in the past. I have been around here 50 years
and this is something the committee needs to know. See what you
can do and see if you can provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Non-Release of Department's OMB Budget Request
According to the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], the advice
and counsel leading up to the recommendations that form the basis of
the President's budget are part of the internal deliberative process of
the executive branch. Similar to the pre-mark up activities of any
congressional committee, the initial views and positions within the
executive branch vary widely relative to the outcome in the President's
budget. In order to assure the President the full benefit of advice
from the agencies and departments, the administration treats these
working papers, such as the Department's OMB budgets, as pre-
decisional, internal documents. Therefore, the Department's OMB budget
is not releasable outside of the executive branch.
Senator Byrd. Is my time up?
Senator Burns. It is, and I would call on Senator Domenici.
CLEAN COAL
Senator Domenici. Mr. Secretary, I want to compliment the
administration on the continuing commitment to the Clean Coal
Power initiative and to the Clean Coal Power and Coal Research
initiative in the 2004 budget. I believe we should capitalize
on our greatest strength in coal and nuclear, in both areas and
address the risk areas. I think you are handling these in the
right way now and I compliment you for it.
I would like to assure you that coal initiatives will
address issues associated with mining as well as the subsequent
combustion process. For example, I want to cite this for you
and for you, Senator Byrd. There is a small company in New
Mexico in the city of Raton which has worked with a Russian
institute through your Department's Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention to develop instruments that allow
remarkable refinements in coal and how it is mined.
This instrument, which actually mounts itself on a drill
head, enables the drill to automatically, believe it or not,
leave the last few inches of the top and bottom of the coal
seam in place. The majority, it happens, of all the heavy metal
contaminants are in those few inches of coal. Can I repeat? The
majority of the metal contaminants, which are the worse, are in
those few inches. This machine goes through the mine and leaves
that there, never touches it, and it's geared to it, it's
instrumented to it, it's all technology. What comes out is coal
that is far less contaminated. Thus, the burden of what you
have to do with it to clean it is dramatically reduced.
I continue to believe that we should focus on research and
development in clean coal. I like the big picture, let's
produce a machine. I think the same way about nuclear, let's
produce the new nuclear machine. But at the same time, there is
research of this type and many like it, and I would like to
call it to your attention because I believe it has some
fantastic potential for America. I would hate to see it used
exclusively in Russia for the next 8 or 10 years before we take
a look. So I leave that with you and I will call it to your
attention again, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Abraham. Thank you.
FUEL CELLS
Senator Domenici. On oil and gas research, I'm disappointed
in the request. I told you about it, but I believe we will work
together on this committee to see what we can do about it.
On fuel cells, the administration's proposed initiatives
for fuel cells and hydrogen R&D have been very well received in
the scientific community and in the Congress. The so-called
FreedomCar and other things that go with it are excellent
ideas. There is a serious question about whether that program
is going to get us where we want to be fast enough, but in an
economy where we don't have all the money in the world to
spend, I believe for an initiative just announced to have $1.4
billion is an excellent start.
A recent report of the National Research Council raised the
issue, essentially saying that in its assessment, that a number
of the fuel cell demonstration projects seemed to be getting
ahead of our progress on essential fuel cell R&D. Mr.
Secretary, do you share my concern that we need more
fundamental R&D to make progress on fuel cell technology?
Secretary Abraham. Yes, we do. The challenges we have on
the hydrogen fuel cell and FreedomCar initiatives are multiple.
We have a challenge in bringing down the cost of the fuel cell
itself. The price has come down a lot in recent years, but it
still has a long way to go.
Second, we have an issue relating to storage. We have to be
able to store sufficient power on the vehicle to enable the
range that they think you should be able to drive, that's 300
miles, and there is research involved there. We have the
production of the hydrogen, and one of the things that we are
doing in this next 5-year period is to try to invest in a
variety of production technologies, coal being a possible
source, nuclear energy being a possible source, natural gas
being a source, and renewable sources as well.
Senator Domenici. Just for the record, I rode around in
one. How much was the cost of that one?
Secretary Abraham. The rental cost is in the $10,000 range.
Senator Domenici. Aren't they worth more than a few million
dollars each?
Secretary Abraham. Yes.
Senator Domenici. I would expect that if they are going to
each cost $10 million, we will have to vote on whether we want
to make any progress or not. Let me leave that.
What is your assessment of research on liquid hydrogen,
compressed gas, and carrier fuels that would transport hydrogen
in vehicles?
HYDROGEN VEHICLES
Secretary Abraham. At the end of the day, our belief is
that some of these technologies, can work for near-term
demonstrations of hydrogen vehicles. One of the major problems
is that they, for example, the liquid tanks come nowhere close
to meeting the volume targets, the issue I mentioned a moment
ago. One of the ideas a few years ago was electric vehicles,
and then people realized the distance you could drive was
constrained. We recognize that for a hydrogen motor vehicle
fleet to work, people have to see it as a comparable product to
the product it's used to, it has to drive as far, sufficient
power and size, but you have to be able to refuel and get home
when you drive some place, and the storage issues are
substantial for liquid tanks and compressed tanks.
Fuels like gasoline or methanol can be used, you have to
have an on-board processing unit, and the processors have been
reduced dramatically in size. They are expensive and
complicated projects, so again, we question whether either of
these routes will get you to a vehicle comparably priced even
after much development, which is why we tried to develop the
fuel cell.
FUEL CELL RESEARCH AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Senator Domenici. I want to close my testimony here by
making a suggestion to you. I note that the researchers at Los
Alamos National Laboratory continue to make progress in fuel
cell research, and I think you would concur in that statement.
I think they are poised to be one of the centers of excellence
in this area. I believe the Nation needs to create a center to
integrate a number of the specialties to more easily develop
commercially-ready fuel cell initiatives, and I think the
Department ought to be thinking about a center, a focal point.
I ask you to consider that and obviously in your consideration
of it, if you might consider Los Alamos as a center of
excellence to pursue more vigorously the various research
moving efficiently towards a prototype and more ready-to-go-
fuel cell.
Secretary Abraham. The answer would be of course as we move
through those considerations, both the question of one or more
centers will be examined, and we already have I think very high
regard for the work that has gone on and continues at Los
Alamos in this area. What we're trying at this stage to do is
to determine the road map in kind of the logistics. I think we
have an excellent road map in terms of the research pathway
forward. A key part of that is we really make sure that the
money that's needed, I think 80 percent is the amount that we
believe has to be focused on basic research with a smaller
percentage, 20 percent or so in terms of demonstrations, and
now that we have that pathway for it, I think how we execute
the pathway is what is important.
We definitely know what the research challenges are and we
hope to keep people realistic about the time frame. People
think that somehow in 4 or 5 years, we can mandate or force the
marketplace to move faster than it is prepared to move and I
think that will undermine the success of this transformation.
It took many, many years and a trillion dollars to build the
petroleum infrastructure we have today and it's going to take
time with respect to a hydrogen fuel infrastructure, and if you
try to short-cut that, it would be counterproductive.
Senator Domenici. But Mr. Secretary, the objective of
moving as rapidly as you can in the most efficient manner to
get to a consumer-ready fuel cell system is something you must
look at every day, because that may not happen by having
diffuse research that's going on with everybody excited about
their little business.
Secretary Abraham. You are absolutely correct and there is
no question that the time issue is critical in the following
respect. This has always been 30 years away.
Senator Domenici. It's not now.
Secretary Abraham. I will say this. It will be 30 years
away if we don't put it on a fast track, don't fund it and
don't move with the vehicles at the same time. Because as I
think many of you are already well aware, which is a challenge
itself, is we can't just build the car when there isn't a fuel
system, or a fuel system when there is no car. We really have
to move them both.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
HYBRID TECHNOLOGY
Senator Burns. I want to follow up on that. You have cut
Vision 21 on the hybrids and that tells me that the production
or the results of that R&D has been on the negative side. Can
you bring me up to date?
Secretary Abraham. In the budget we submitted, we're
seeking a higher amount than we did last year for hybrid
technology because we do see developments in that area as still
beneficial. However, we don't believe the hybrids are the final
answer, we see this as a transitional step between where we are
today with a basic, you know, internal combustion engine,
traditional system and the day in 20 years or so when hydrogen
vehicles are available. We would like to and believe there can
be an expansion of other kinds of more fuel efficient vehicles
and we see hybrids as a part of that transition, which is why
you will see that we are proposing a slight increase in hybrid
technology.
Senator Burns. I am concerned about all these cuts in
particular areas. I don't want you to weaken your hand when it
comes to interagency governmental policy. I think you have to
have a strong hand about interagency on these environmental
issues, because I would like to see more cooperation between
the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior.
Sometimes those talks break down when we talk about either
stationary or transportation fuels, so I would kick that up if
we could. We are going to have new people to deal with at EPA,
but this is very sensitive.
I have some questions on off-shelf reserves. We talked
about most of these issues privately, and I think we can deal
with them. We look forward to working very closely with you as
we develop this budget.
Do you have any further questions, Senator Byrd?
Senator Byrd. I do have some, Mr. Chairman. Shall I
proceed?
Senator Burns. You may.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Senator Byrd. 2\1/2\ years ago, I referred to this earlier,
candidate George Bush endorsed the Clean Coal Technology
program, he committed to spend $2 billion over 10 years to
support that program. That's $200 million a year, a very strong
endorsement of coal, and I'm sure that's one of the reasons he
was able to carry the State of West Virginia in the 2000
election.
But despite his promise, in fiscal year 2002 he only
proposed $150 million, in fiscal year 2003 he again proposed
$150 million, and this fiscal year 2004 budget proposes just
$130 million. By my calculation, I use the old math, I don't
think the new math will be far off the point, that's $170
million behind on the promise. Rather than seeking $600 million
for the Clean Coal program, as candidate Bush promised, the
administration sought only $430 million, 38 percent less than
what was pledged. That seems to be a credibility gap between
what was said and what has taken place. What can you say, Mr.
Secretary, to the people who heard Mr. Bush as a candidate
proclaim if he was elected that he would spend $2 billion on
the Clean Coal program, and does the administration have a plan
to live up to its commitment?
Secretary Abraham. I would state that we are $430 million
ahead of where we were, and the administration has demonstrated
those commitments, and in a variety of other regulatory debates
that have gone on, that we are deeply committed, as I said
earlier, to the coal sector and the role of coal in the energy
mission. But I would just add to what I said earlier, that in
addition to the Clean Coal Power initiative that you have
discussed, there are 7 more years to go and we are mindful of
the commitment that was made.
We have just announced the Future-Gen program, which I
believe will be a very substantial $1 billion program over the
next 10 to 12 years, so it's my anticipation that the Future-
Gen program will be running parallel to the Clean Coal Power
initiative and the combination of these over this time frame
will at least reach the level that the President committed and
could conceivably be a fair bit higher than that level when the
price tags are added up at the end.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, you seem to be counting all
coal research. Mr. Bush cited in specificity the Clean Coal
program, not coal in general, he said Clean Coal. And so, there
is a credibility gap. He wasn't talking about all coal, he was
talking about clean coal research when he used that figure.
FUTURE-GEN
Secretary Abraham. Senator, again, I focus on our Future-
Gen proposal as being the greatest enterprise that will be
undertaken to demonstrate how we can generate power with coal
in an environmentally clean fashion. It complements the Clean
Coal initiative that you referenced and so I believe, as I
said, over the 10 years, I mean, the combination of those
programs will more than meet the $2 billion commitment the
President made.
NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY
Senator Byrd. The administration's request for the Office
of Fossil Energy contains $92.7 million for employee salaries
and expenses. Most of those people are assigned to the National
Energy Technology Laboratory headquartered in Morgantown, West
Virginia. On the face of it, it would appear to be a $5.5
million increase over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. But
just as it did last year, the administration has again double
counted $14 million in employee salaries previously authorized
under the Clean Coal acts. The true request, therefore, is not
$92.7 million, but, rather, $78.7 million, an 11 percent cut
that translates into a loss of 150 jobs.
The country cannot afford to lose 150 of the brightest
fossil energy scientists we have. I can assure you that I will
do everything I can to see to it that this budgetary sleight-
of-hand is reversed. In the meantime, would you please tell the
committee the rationale for this decision, and is the
Department of Energy responsible or as I would rather think,
have you been dictated to by the Office of Management and
Budget?
Secretary Abraham. Senator, I take all the responsibility,
because that's my job, and my only comment would be that we
certainly will do our very best to address the issue of the
work force. I'm happy to note that in addition to the money we
had available to work with when we submitted the budget, the
advanced appropriations which were included in the final
enacted budget included an additional $80 million which we did
not have access to when we made our submission for Clean Coal
Technology. Obviously, the implementation of programs with that
money will require us really to have more program direction and
we'll work within that amount certainly to try to address the
question of our work force.
FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAM TOP-TO-BOTTOM REVIEW
Senator Byrd. Last year when you testified before the
subcommittee, you told the subcommittee that you had directed
the new assistant secretary to conduct a top-to-bottom review
of all programs under his jurisdiction. And on November 21,
2002, you wrote to me that the committee would be fully briefed
on the contents of the review as soon as it had been approved
by the Office of Management and Budget. The approval has now
taken place and I know our subcommittee has, in fact, received
a copy of the review, but I don't believe our staff has been
fully briefed on its contents, nor have they had the
opportunity to ask questions about the review's many
recommendations. For example, it would be helpful to know more
about the management reforms that have been proposed on page 4
of the review for the Office of Fossil Energy and the National
Energy Technology Lab in Morgantown. Given the fact that any
such reorganization would have to be approved by the committee
before it could be implemented, it's important to have these
matters discussed with our staff as soon as possible.
Can you tell us when you anticipate having the fossil
energy staff brief the subcommittee staff?
Secretary Abraham. I believe, Senator, in fact your staff
brought this specifically to my attention, or at least that
there has been inadequate communication between our staffers,
this week on Tuesday. I conveyed that to my staff on Tuesday.
My understanding is there was conversation yesterday with an
offer actually to come up yesterday to provide an initial
opportunity to have discussions, but because of the hearing
that was happening today, that was not feasible. So it's my
understanding there will be a meeting next week. I don't know
that that will satisfy all of the issues, but it will be a
starting point of what I hope will be much more frequent
discussion and dialogue between the staffs. And I would make
clear to you as I did to your staff, that if there is an
inadequate level of this communication, please bring it to my
attention and I will be happy to address it.
Senator Byrd. Very well, thank you. If you do intend to
move forward with a reorganization, can you tell the committee
whether you expect to formally seek the committee's approval?
Secretary Abraham. I guess I'm happy to try to answer that,
but I'm not sure I can answer it at this time. Perhaps the
Assistant Secretary, who is here--within the next week would be
a time frame in which the request should be forthcoming.
COMPETITIVE SOURCING PROGRAM
Senator Byrd. Very well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have
just a couple other quick ones, if I may.
One of the government-wide initiatives that I am
particularly interested in is the administration's competitive
sourcing program. As I understand it, the Office of Management
and Budget essentially scores each department and agency on how
well it complies with the President's management agenda. The
various agencies are encouraged to submit management plans to
the OMB and to meet competitive sourcing targets outlined in
the President's budget. I have been informed by officials at
OMB that these plans, while submitted to OMB for approval, may
be released to the public at the discretion of the agency or
department head.
If this subcommittee is to recommend the appropriation of
nearly $1.8 billion to the Department of Energy for the
programs under the committee's jurisdiction, I think it's
reasonable to expect a full accounting of any management plan
or competitive sourcing plan submitted to OMB for approval.
Will you please tell the committee the status of your
Department's competitive sourcing plan, and will you agree to
make it available to the Congress when it is complete?
Secretary Abraham. Senator, I would be happy to make it
available if it is--unless there are constraints I am unaware
of. If it is being made available by other agencies, we
wouldn't have a different viewpoint on that, and I would be
glad to also provide, if the committee would like, some kind of
personal briefing on it by the folks who have been engaged in
the competitive sources work.
[The information follows:]
U.S. Department of Energy, Revised Competitive Sourcing Plan
[June 9, 2003]
BACKGROUND
The Department of Energy [DOE] listed 9,889 full-time equivalents
[FTE] on its 2001 FAIR Act Inventory as ``commercial,'' or about 67
percent of DOE's total civilian workforce of 14,717 FTE. These figures
include 3,409 commercial FTE at the Power Marketing Administrations
[PMA]. Since the PMAs are largely funded by ratepayers and are already
subject to the competitive forces of the marketplace, the Department
and the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] mutually agreed to
exclude the PMAs from the competitive sourcing initiative.
Consequently, the Department's overall goal is to study 3,230 positions
or 33 percent of its commercially coded FTE. In March 2002, DOE
commenced studies on 972 FTE. As a result of further review and
analysis, the total number of FTE included in the Department's first
round of studies has increased to approximately 1,100. DOE plans to
study an additional 2,100 FTE in fiscal year 2004 and beyond to reach
its OMB mandated objective. It is expected that the taxpayers will
benefit from the initiative, regardless of who wins the competitions,
as a result of reduced costs, greater effectiveness, and increased
responsiveness.
SUMMARY OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Department plans to meet its goals through the use of in-house
and contract support resources. The Department assembled a team of
management, human resources, financial, acquisition and functional area
analysts and defined the conversion, public-private competitions and
privatization initiatives necessary to meet DOE's fiscal year 2002 and
fiscal year 2003 performance targets. The Department awarded
Performance Based Service Contracts (PBSC) to support the development
of the management studies and competitions. The provisions of OMB
Circular A-76 govern DOE's studies and competitions. The Department
will continue its on-going studies and will conduct feasibility studies
to determine the specific activities and related FTE that should be
studied in future rounds. Business case anaylses will be the
methodology employed, as well as a determination as to the studies'
resource impacts and the ability of the Department to sustain its
mission.
Below is a further breakout of the fiscal year 2002/2003 plan by
Departmental function and FTE. The name of the individual responsible
for the Department of Energy's Office of Competitive Sourcing/A-76,
with telephone number, is also provided.
Competitive Sourcing Project Manager: Dennis E. O'Brien, Office of
Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO
Phone Number: (202) 586-1690
The Department, on March 22, 2002, announced an initial list of 927
FTE to be competed in fiscal year 2002/2003. As anticipated, the number
increased to approximately 1,100. It is expected that the scope of the
studies and changes to the baseline will occur as the teams continue to
review the functions and FTE under study.
Announced cost comparison functions: Financial Services, 150 FTE,
Department-wide. Revised to 159 FTE; Information Technology, 420 FTE,
Department- wide. Revised to 642 FTE; Human Resources (training), 98
FTE, Department-wide. Revised to 130 FTE; Logistics, 190 FTE,
Department-wide. Revised to 220 FTE; Personnel Security Investigators,
27 FTE, Department-wide. Study Deferred; Paralegal Support, 21 FTE,
Department-wide. Exempted from further study; Graphics, 13 FTE; and
Civil Rights Reviews, 8 FTE.
These figures do not include contractor positions that are also
being studied by the A-76 Teams.
Overall the Department expects to compete at least 30 percent
percent of its adjusted 2001 FAIR Act inventory upon the conclusion of
its first round of studies.
We estimate that the one-time additional budgetary cost of
conducting these competitions will be about $6M (based on an estimated
cost of $7,700 per FTE for a multifunction/multilocation study
subjected to a full public-private cost comparison and other associated
study and acquisition costs).
The Department has completed the initial overview training program
for competition managers, program managers, selected employees, and
labor organizations that focused on the A-76 process. The Department's
training emphasized performance and delivering quality service in the
most cost-effective manner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tasks Completion date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete fiscal year 2001 FAIR Act Completed.
Inventory/Challenges/Appeals.
Develop Competitive Sourcing Plan.......... Completed.
Identify functions, locations and FTE.. Completed.
Coordinate program with employee labor Completed.
organizations.
Establish communication/training Completed.
program.
Publish guidance for functions with 10 Completed.
or fewer FTE.
Publish guidance for cost comparisons.. Completed
Create tracking and reporting database. June 2003.
Develop, plan and schedule fiscal year 2002/ Completed.
2003 studies.
Assemble team to review inventories/ Completed
functions on sourcing plans.
Review competitive sourcing plans and Completed
adjust as needed.
Identify potential functional or Completed
geographic groupings.
Determine schedule for function reviews Completed
Announce functions to be studied in Completed
fiscal year 2002/2003.
Develop performance-based work Completed
statements for common functions.
Issue Guidance for fiscal year 2002 FAIR Completed.
Act Inventory.
Submit fiscal year 2002 FAIR Act inventory Completed.
to OMB.
Establish Study Team Organizations......... Completed.
Select Study Team Support Contractors...... Completed.
Develop and submit for Secretarial approval Completed.
individual study action plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2004/05 COMPETITIVE SOURCING/A-76 PLANNING
DOE is initiating a feasibility study to determine the FTE to be
competed in fiscal year 2004-2005. This study will encompass cost
benefit tradeoff analyses, identification of potential functions/
organizations and related FTE, identification of locations and
recommended number of studies, identification of insourcing
opportunities and characterization of mission/personnel and
geographical impacts. The result will be the development of the most
effective and efficient business case to support particular study
areas.
INSOURCING
DOE has and will continue to explore insourcing opportunities when
it is deemed appropriate to fulfill mission requirements and in cases
where significant efficiencies and economies can be achieved. The
Department received approval under the fiscal year 2001 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act to federalize its Emergency
Operations contractor workforce. To-date, this has resulted in a
conversion of 30 contractor positions with an additional 5 positions
expected to be federalized by the end of fiscal year 2003. Overall,
this national security related initiative will result in a net savings
of $1.7 million annually. These savings will be redirected to enhance
emergency operations training and to provide additional technical
assistance to the field. Also during fiscal year 2003 and 2004, DOE
will be soliciting organizations to identify insourcing opportunities
warranting an A-76 study. To date, potential insourcing opportunities
have been identified and are being investigated in the function of
aircraft maintenance.
Senator Burns. I think that would be helpful.
CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS
Senator Byrd. I have one last question. Congress has urged
the administration to support increased opportunities to open
and expand international energy markets and export U.S. clean
energy technologies to developing countries and other nations
abroad. These efforts are very important to help meet our own
energy security needs, addressing related economic job
creation, trade, environmental, and climate change objectives.
Additionally, such efforts could significantly aid in meeting
other nations' infrastructure and development needs while also
increasing the deployment of a range of U.S. clean energy
technologies, including clean coal technologies.
The Clean Energy Technology Exports, or CETE, will help
meet that challenge. It had its genesis within the Senate
Appropriations Committee and has had broad bipartisan support.
The administration has talked about such ideas on occasion, but
despite such rhetoric, the participating Federal agencies have
done little, if anything, to implement the strategic plan. It
seems to me that someone is sitting on their hands and missing
a critical opportunity.
Because the Department of Energy is a leading agency
involved in the implementation of the CETE initiative as called
for by the Congress and released by the administration in
October of 2002, what specific actions is your agency taking to
work with the other Federal agencies and to engage
nongovernmental organizations, private sector companies, and
other international partners with regard to this plan? And can
you tell the committee when the Appropriations Committee will
receive the required annual CETE progress report that was due
to this committee on March 1, 2003?
Secretary Abraham. Senator, here is what I know we have
done. We have created a new Office of International Energy
Market Development, and acting separately the Fossil Energy
Division has developed an international program for clean coal
which will augment the efforts of that. We have now been
designated to be a co-chair of the interagency working group to
try to promote clean energy exports, so that gives us a greater
role in being able to move this ahead, which we intend to do.
Obviously, a lot of work that we are engaged in is
applicable to sharing internationally. But if I could just go
beyond the confines of that program to reassure you that this
is a high priority that I have personally become engaged with.
We have a lot of meetings both in Washington, and occasionally
in multilateral and international settings with developing
countries who are just starting to look at how they can address
their growing demand for energy with environmental concerns,
and we have been looking at a lot of bilateral working groups
to try to provide that assistance on that basis as well.
It is probably the single most frequently requested support
that I receive when I am having a meeting with an energy
minister from a developing country because they are challenged,
they don't have the technology to do the sorts of things they
want in an environmentally clean or effective way. So I see it
as an area of substantial growth on the international side of
what we do, even in addition to the program which you talked
about.
I'm not sure what the status of the March 1 report is and
if somebody with me can answer that, and if they can't, we will
get you an answer for the record immediately.
[The information follows:]
Status of Clean Energy Technology Report
The Department expects to submit the clean Energy Technology Report
to Congress by the end of July 2003.
Senator Byrd. Very well. If I have further questions, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to submit them for the record.
SOLID STATE CONVERSION ALLIANCE
Senator Burns. You might update us along the same lines
with respect to the solid state conversion alliance. Can you
update the committee on the progress of the program and how you
propose allocating resources for fiscal year 2004, to ensure
you have adequate resources for the team to fulfill its
promises?
Secretary Abraham. I will be happy to. I will comment in
general here, I don't think there is at all disagreement as to
the potential for solid state energy production the program is
designed to achieve. I think we are in total agreement, as far
as I can tell, which is, this is a program with which we are in
agreement in terms of what the issue is, what is the pace at
which we get there and what is the timetable that has the
highest potential for success. So, I will be glad to get that
information for the committee.
[The information follows:]
Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance
Overall, the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance Program [SECA]
is progressing extremely well. In fact, there is early interest from
auto manufacturers in SECA type fuel cells as evidenced by BMW's
arrangement with Delphi, one of the SECA industry team developers, to
put a compact fuel cell unit for auxiliary power in the trunks of BMW
vehicles by 2007.
The SECA program is dedicated to developing innovative, effective,
low-cost ways to commercialize solid oxide fuel cells [SOFCs]. The
program is designed to move fuel cells out of limited niche markets
into widespread market applications by making them available at a cost
of $400 per kilowatt or less through the mass customization of common
modules. SECA fuel cells will operate on today's conventional fuels
such as natural gas, diesel, as well as coal gas and hydrogen, the fuel
of tomorrow. The program will provide a bridge to the hydrogen economy
beginning with the introduction of SECA fuel cells for stationary (both
central generation and distributed energy) and auxiliary power
applications.
The SECA program is currently structured to include competing
industry teams supported by a crosscutting core technology program.
SECA has six industry teams working on designs that can be mass-
produced at costs that are ten-fold less than current costs. The SECA
core technology program is made up of researchers from industry
suppliers and manufacturers as well as from universities and national
laboratories all working towards addressing key science and technology
gaps to provide breakthrough solutions to critical issues facing SECA.
The SECA industry teams collectively are making very good progress.
Delphi, in partnership with Battelle, is developing a 5 kW (kilowatt),
planar, 700C-800C, anode-supported SOFC compact unit for the
distributed generation [DG] and auxiliary power unit [APU] markets.
Delphi is expert at system integration and high-volume manufacturing
and cost reduction. They are focused on making a very compact and
light-weight system suitable for auxiliary power in transportation
applications.
General Electric is initially developing a natural gas 5 kW,
planar, 700C-800C, anode-supported SOFC compact unit for residential
power markets. GE is evaluating several stack designs and is especially
interested in extending planar SOFCs to large hybrid systems. They also
have a radial design that can simplify packaging by minimizing the need
for seals. GE has made good progress in achieving high fuel utilization
with improved anode performance using standard materials by optimizing
microstructure.
Cummins and SOFCo (formerly McDermott) are developing a 10 kW
product initially for recreational vehicles [RVs] that would run on
propane using a catalytic partial oxidation [CPOX] reformer. The team
has produced a conceptual design for a multilayer SOFC stack assembled
from low-cost ``building blocks.'' The basic cell, a thin electrolyte
layer (50-75 micron) is fabricated by tape casting. Anode ink is
screen-printed onto the one side of the electrolyte tape, and cathode
ink onto the other. The printed cell is sandwiched between layers of
dense ceramic that will accommodate reactant gas flow and electrical
conduction. The assembly is then co-fired to form a single repeat unit.
Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp. [SWPC] is developing 5-10 kW
products to satisfy multiple markets. SWPC has developed a new tube
design for their 5 kW units that use flat, high power density [HPD]
tubes. This allows for a shorter tube length and twice the power output
compared to their current cylindrical tube. It also results in more
efficient manufacturing, assembly, and better volumetric power density.
The Department is requesting $33 million in fiscal year 2004 for
the SECA Program from several research budget elements. Primary funding
of $23.5 million will be provided from the Distributed Generation Fuel
Cells Innovative Concepts budget line. This funding will be primarily
for the six industry teams. In addition, $6.0 million for SECA from
Fuel Cells Advanced Research will be used for the SECA core technology
program, $1.5 million for SECA from Advanced Research--for research on
materials for coal-based SECA systems, and $2.0 million for SECA from
Advanced Metallurgical Research (Albany), for metallurgical research
applicable to general SECA systems. Additionally, in fiscal year 2004,
we will begin funding the two additional SECA industry teams just added
in fiscal year 2003--Fuel Cell Energy and Acumentrics. These industry
teams represent additional industry design alternatives that will
enhance the prospects of success of SECA fuel cells for a broader
market. The SECA program cost-share levels range from 20-50 percent.
For the industry teams the cost share begins at 20 percent and ends at
50 percent for later phases.
Senator Burns. Okay, I think that takes care of just about
all our questions. There will be a couple more coming up. And I
want to thank Senator Byrd for being here this morning, and for
you. We know the scheduling is tough. We will leave the record
open for a couple weeks and hopefully after the break, we will
begin finalizing these appropriations.
Secretary Abraham. Senator, thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Burns. There will be some additional questions
which will be submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
hydrogen transportation system
Question. Your testimony refers to the difficult ``chicken and
egg'' problem that confronts us as we discuss moving to a hydrogen-
based transportation system. No consumer is likely to invest in
hydrogen or fuel cell products without adequate fueling infrastructure
in place, and nobody will invest in fueling infrastructure without
customers. How do you think we get past this problem?
Answer. Launching a hydrogen-fueled transportation system does face
the classic ``chicken and egg'' question as it relates to fuel cell
vehicles and hydrogen infrastructure. Establishing a new fuel
infrastructure such as hydrogen will be complicated, yet it will need
to be largely in place when widespread fuel cell vehicle introduction
starts. Strong market signals will be needed for this infrastructure
development to happen, making low cost hydrogen production and delivery
technologies essential. Transition strategies will have to be developed
that are far more effective than what has been used to foster markets
for today's alternative fuels. The exact nature of those strategies
will depend on infrastructure and vehicle technologies that are far
from being fully developed. Therefore, the Department is working with
all stakeholders to develop both the vehicle and the infrastructure
technologies in parallel. DOE's planning efforts have included the
FreedomCAR Partnership Plan, the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, and
R&D plans. These documents describe how DOE will integrate its ongoing
and future vehicle and hydrogen R&D activities into a focused effort.
This coordinated DOE effort will improve the effectiveness and
accountability of DOE's research, development and demonstration (RD&D)
activities and strengthen its contribution to achieving the technical
milestones on the road to a hydrogen economy.
Question. What have we learned to date from efforts to get other
alternative fueled vehicles into the marketplace?
Answer. Our experience with alternative fuels tells us that the
issue of reasonable fuel availability must be resolved before
widespread acceptance of dedicated alternative fueled vehicles is
possible. DOE learned that consumers find it simply more convenient to
operate fuel flexible vehicles with petroleum-based fuels rather than
alternative fuels because of the lack of alternative refueling
stations. In addition, natural gas, methanol and ethanol vehicles are
limited to niche markets or certain regions because fuel for these
vehicles isn't available nation-wide.
Because hydrogen is a universal energy carrier made from various
primary energy resources, we think it can be a standardized national
fuel. This assumes successful resolution of technical and cost
barriers, and development of codes and standards. To address these
issues, the Department is launching a transportation and infrastructure
partnership with industry and local government agencies to demonstrate
and evaluate fuel cell vehicles under real operating conditions to
obtain cost, performance and reliability information, and hydrogen
fueling stations to validate efficient, clean, and economical hydrogen
production, storage, and delivery technologies, including standard
vehicle refueling interfaces, safety practices, and codes and
standards.
Question. Some have suggested that natural gas might be a logical
bridge to a hydrogen based transportation system. Is there merit to
this suggestion, or are we likely to have to make the leap directly to
hydrogen from today's gasoline-based system?
Answer. Hydrogen does present a long-term solution to America's
energy security needs, and can do so with significant benefits for the
local and global environment. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an
energy resource like natural gas, and can be produced from a variety of
domestic feedstocks. This feedstock diversity is a benefit unique to
hydrogen and means we would not be dependent on any one energy
resource.
In the near-term, natural gas will be an important hydrogen
feedstock. It is a good choice for near-term hydrogen production
because the distribution infrastructure exists, and because the
economics are presently more favorable than that of other feedstocks.
Hydrogen production is not expected to increase demand for natural
gas by any more than 5 percent in 2025, due to the small number of
vehicles expected to be on the road. The vehicle infrastructure needed
for these demands will be small. It is envisioned that as the hydrogen
fuel cell vehicle fleet increases, our ability to produce hydrogen from
other sources will grow to match it. In the long-term, we hope to
generate hydrogen through renewable energy and other carbon-free
processes, such as nuclear energy.
ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS--PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION
OF VEHICLES (PNGV) AND FREEDOMCAR
Question. Your budget states that the FreedomCAR program will build
on the successes of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
(PNGV) program and learn from its failures. What were the successes of
the PNGV program?
Answer. PNGV provided the framework for government and industry to
align previously independent research to address common societal goals.
The partnership opened up new channels of communication between
industry and government, which has provided both parties with access to
more and better technical data.
In its annual reviews of the PNGV, the National Research Council
noted ``the substantial accomplishments already gained in pursuing the
program so far'' (seventh report--2001) and observed that the
partnership has ``enhanced cooperation at all levels and has achieved
results more rapidly than would have been the case in the absence of
partnership'' (6th report--2000). Selected concrete examples of
technological achievements are listed below.
Enabling research
--Increased the life of lithium ion batteries from 2 years to 7 years
for hybrid-electric vehicle drives.
--Demonstrated that, under certain conditions, advanced diesel fuel
formulations can achieve particulate matter (PM) emission
reductions of up to 35 percent without compromising fuel
efficiency or raising oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
emissions.
Vehicle integration
--The aluminum body structure on the Ford's Prodigy concept vehicle
is 53 percent lighter than a conventional steel design, and the
process used on the Prodigy is applicable to high volume
production.
--In DaimlerChrysler's ESX3 concept vehicle, the unique thermoplastic
injection molded body system is estimated to reduce weight by
46 percent and cost by 15 percent versus conventional steel
structures.
--General Motors' Precept concept vehicle proved the technical
feasibility of achieving 80 miles per gallon, however, high
cost remained as a major barrier toward commercialization.
PNGV Research successes migrating into production
--Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and Chevrolet vehicles incorporate aluminum
door, deck, and hood panels by utilizing a PNGV developed
production processes.
--The 2001 Chevrolet Silverado uses a 50-pounds lighter composite
pickup truck box.
--The 2001 Jeep Wrangler utilizes a new, lighter, recyclable
thermoplastic hardtop.
FreedomCAR will build on the technology advancements gained from
successful PNGV R&D efforts. The new research portfolio, focused on
longer range, higher risk research, will be applicable to a broader
range of production vehicles.
Question. What were PNGV's failures, and what have we learned from
them?
Answer. FreedomCAR is taking advantage of the technological
progress made under the PNGV to build a stronger, better partnership
more closely aligned with the Nation's needs. The centerpiece of the
FreedomCAR Partnership is the effort to develop efficient, affordable
fuel cell technologies that can help to reduce our Nation's petroleum
consumption while eliminating vehicle emissions.
One key improvement of FreedomCAR compared with PNGV concerns
management structure. DOE, the agency that funded the majority of PNGV
activities, now solely represents the government in the partnership,
with consultation from other agencies as appropriate. The streamlined
organizational structure improves communication with the industry.
Another improvement is in the research time horizon and focus. The
PNGV had a 10-year horizon and was aimed at a single vehicle platform,
the mid-size sedan. In order to meet the accelerated 10-year horizon,
some promising technologies (i.e., ultracapacitors) were prematurely
downselected from the research portfolio. These technologies were
unable to meet the requirements of the PNGV within the 10-year horizon.
The single vehicle platform narrowed the research focus on a vehicle
segment that was the highest selling segment at the start of the
partnership but did not address the explosion in the sport utility
vehicles.
FreedomCAR is focused on performing R&D at the component and sub-
systems level and leaves the vehicle integration of these technologies
to the automakers, offering more flexibility. As in the PNGV,
FreedomCAR places significant effort on the core technologies
supporting hybrids, such as advanced materials and batteries, not only
because the work is essential for the hydrogen vehicle but also because
of the near-term benefits possible from petroleum-fueled power sources
in hybrid.
TRANSITION OF TECHNOLOGIES TO MARKET
Question. In several places your budget request terminates or
reduces funding for activities that are closer to the deployment end of
the R&D spectrum, choosing instead to focus resources on more basic,
high-risk research. Generally speaking I understand this philosophy,
but at some point we run the risk of investing in a lot of
technological advances that will sit on the shelf without some
additional support for deployment or demonstration. Do you think your
budget request is balanced in this regard?
Answer. Yes, I believe it is balanced. About ten years ago these
programs made a similar (but opposite) shift in their balance, moving
some resources from more basic work to near-term and deployment
efforts. That was never intended to be a permanent change in balance.
To some degree, we have been living off accumulated intellectual
capital, and we now need to move the balance back toward more
fundamental research in order to replenish those reserves and refill
the technology pipeline. This is not a wholesale change in our R&D
balance, however: we are continuing to propose substantial funding in a
variety of deployment activities.
Energy markets are changing and our energy policies have matured.
The unusually low energy prices of the 1990s made it particularly
difficult for new technologies to enter the marketplace successfully,
and our energy policies were focused on showing action on near-term
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. While today's energy prices are
not high in historical terms, they are high enough to create
significant economic incentives for energy efficiency in applications
such as industrial processes.
The progress we made on advancing hybrid vehicle technology has
caused almost every major automobile manufacturer in the world to turn
their attention to such vehicles, and competitive pressures are now
growing to the point where most major auto manufacturers have announced
production plans for at least some forms of hybrid vehicles. But the
types of hybrids currently being announced and produced use
conventional engine technologies, and do not offer the really dramatic
gains in efficiency that we believe are possible with advanced
technologies such as fuel cells and unconventional lightweight
materials.
In many cases, including hybrid and electric vehicles, the
technologies we are currently deploying run the risk of remaining
niche-market products unless technology breakthroughs or leapfrog
approaches make their performance and economics so compelling that they
become mainstream.
Our energy and climate-change policies are now focused on the 2015-
2020 timeframe, and we have a renewed emphasis on energy security. In
order to make a major market impact in that timeframe, products will
need to be competitive in broad market segments, not just niche
markets, which is driving our search for leapfrog technologies in
activities such as the FreedomCAR Partnership, the Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative, solid-state lighting for buildings, and distributed energy
resources.
Question. Take black liquor gasification, for example. We've
invested significant funds to develop this technology in partnership
with the pulp and paper industry, and the Department had expressed its
intention to participate in at least three demonstrations of different
gasification technologies. Now the budget proposes to terminate the
program after only one partial demonstration. There is great potential
for reduction in energy use and emissions if advanced technologies are
deployed, but industry says the capital investment is simply too large
to justify investing in an unproven technology. Is the industry just
bluffing in your opinion?
Answer. The Department did not request funds for the industrial
gasification activities under the Interior Appropriation in fiscal year
2004 based upon the state of technology advances made and a review
using the Administration's R&D investment criteria, which helped guide
this decision. The Department has invested substantially in R&D on the
thermochemical conversion of biomass for producing power, fuels, and
products that is directly applicable to the pulp and paper industry. We
also are continuing with R&D on advanced technologies that will further
lower the risk to industry for the deployment of these technologies.
Additionally, we have committed available funds to complete our
obligation for the black liquor gasifier demonstration at Big Island,
VA.
As discussed in the previous question, we believe that there are
sufficient economic incentives for industry to adopt many new energy
efficiency technologies such as black liquor gasification. When it
comes to determining the appropriate Federal role in R&D, there is
frequently an inherent tension between the Federal Government (acting
as a prudent steward of taxpayer dollars while seeking to maximize
benefits from a broad research portfolio) and industry (which seeks to
minimize new technology development and acquisition costs in order to
reduce outlays and achieve a greater financial return for its
investors). Thus, while the Department does not wish to conclude that
industry is ``just bluffing'' in this instance, we would note that we
believe it would be shortsighted of industry should they decide not to
bring this gasification technology to commercialization.
Question. Do you think market forces will eventually compel
companies to install these new technologies on their own, or that
industry will be forced to do so because of regulatory pressure?
Answer. Those factors and more will provide businesses with the
incentive to use or market the technologies that we have been
developing. Virtually all of our efforts are planned in conjunction
with industry, and the ``road mapping'' process we have used means that
we know the technologies we have developed are useful, and the roadmaps
give the companies a good sense of how they can utilize the
technologies for their own benefit. In the case of some industries,
such as the automakers discussed above, it is competitive pressures
that will lead to adoption of new technologies. In energy-intensive
industries, such as pulp and paper and the ones we have worked with in
our Industrial Technologies program, the companies would be financially
shortsighted not to make use of the energy- and cost-saving
technologies we have developed. In yet other industries, the regulatory
pressures you allude to may become important--there is clearly more
interest now among heavy truck and bus manufacturers in adopting more
efficient, less-polluting engine technologies than there was prior to
the recent tightening of heavy diesel emissions standards.
OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE R&D
Question. According to the budget justification, the rather small
Off-highway Vehicle R&D program is being terminated ``because other
research opportunities have higher impact on energy savings.'' In
looking at the Department's own R&D roadmap off-highway research,
however, I find that off-highway uses account for 20 percent of fuel
use in the transportation sector. I also find that of all mobile
sources, large off-highway diesel engines contribute 20 percent of
NOX emissions and 36 percent of particulate matter. Can you
reconcile these figures on energy use and emissions with your decision
to terminate a $3.5 million program?
Answer. The definitions of ``Off-Highway'' and ``Non-Highway'' that
DOE uses are found in the Transportation Energy Data Book, which is
published annually by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for DOE. Off-
Highway includes vehicles that are used in construction and
agriculture. These vehicles accounted for 3.4 percent of transportation
energy use in 2000. Non-Highway includes aircraft, marine vessels, rail
and pipeline. These activities accounted for 21.1 percent of
transportation energy use in 2000. The Off-Highway Vehicle R&D effort
within the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program was aimed at
saving oil in vehicles that account for less than four percent of the
oil used in transportation, therefore the potential oil savings would
be small relative to potential oil savings achievable by shifting these
funds to other aspects of our transportation sector R&D portfolio.
While off-highway vehicles currently contribute a
disproportionately large amount of NOx and PM, we anticipate
that EPA's existing and proposed future emissions standards, to be
phased in over the next decade, will result in a significant decline in
criteria pollutant emissions from these sources.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FUELS
Question. Your budget also eliminates funding for analysis of the
environmental impacts of fuels, deeming this activity to be in the
purview of other agencies. While I would agree that DOE shouldn't be
duplicating the efforts of EPA or other Federal agencies, I think there
have been times that the Department has had differences with EPA about
the environmental impacts of various fuels or technologies. Are you at
all concerned that termination of this program will weaken your hand in
inter-agency policy or regulatory discussions?
Answer. DOE's and EPA's complementary efforts to research the
environmental impacts of alternative fuels have been ongoing for many
years at this point. DOE's work was intended to ensure that emerging
technologies do not have unforeseen negative environmental impacts, as
was the case with tetraethyl lead and MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl
ether). In addition, DOE activities investigated the environmental
effects of fuels derived from diverse feedstocks such as biorenewables,
oil sands (tar sands), and even hydrogen. EPA's efforts focus on the
determination of the impacts of current technologies and fuels on the
environment.
The DOE work provided a feedback loop to the management of our
research and development efforts, but we believe that the topics have
been quite thoroughly researched now. If such feedback is needed for
additional fuels in the future, we feel we can rely on external
organizations. EPA will continue to conduct the comprehensive
evaluations necessary to support regulations. Since their research,
rather than ours, has been what has driven regulations, we do not
expect any regulatory impact from the termination of our program.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Question. First of all, let me acknowledge the work that your staff
has done to be responsive to this committee's repeated calls for
better, more clearly written budget justifications. I'm not saying it's
a perfect document yet, but this year's product is an improvement in
many areas over past years. Some of the more interesting displays in
the justification are your Government Performance and Results Act
estimates that project the benefits of your R&D programs. I know this
is a complex undertaking, but the numbers do raise some interesting
questions. Among the Energy Conservation R&D programs, the Industrial
echnologies program, the Vehicle Technologies program and the Buildings
Technologies program are expected to produce by far the largest savings
in energy use, oil consumption, and carbon emissions. In spite of this,
the Industrial Technologies program is taking the largest cut of any
program, and the vehicle and buildings programs are being reduced as
well. How should we interpret this seemingly conflicting information?
Answer. Potential benefits are but one consideration in making
difficult allocation decisions. Other considerations include program
performance, relative priority, and alignment with the Administration's
R&D investment criteria, among others (see response to next question).
One aim of the R&D investment criteria is to ensure an appropriate
Federal role exists, and that there are market barriers causing
underinvestment by the private sector. In the case of many Industry
Program R&D activities, firms have the financial incentive to invest in
energy efficient technologies that can reduce their costs. Thus, the
seemingly conflicting information you describe can be explained by our
determination that, despite potentially large benefits, many industry
R&D activities benefit firms more than the taxpayer, so there is less
of a Federal role in these activities.
We would make two important notes. First, on the whole, the
reductions you identified were more than offset by increases in other
programmatic areas. For example, reductions for some activities in the
FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies program were more than offset by
increases in the Hydrogen (in the Energy Supply account) and Fuel Cells
subprograms. This represents a shift in funding from near-term
technology issues that industry is very capable of addressing, such as
combustion engines and petroleum-based fuels, to more advanced
technologies that offer greater energy and carbon-emissions benefits in
the long term, such as fuel cells for hybrid vehicles. Second, we
continue to improve our modeling assumptions and scenarios so that we
can better compare potential benefits of technology investments within
and between programs. This effort is a priority in helping to implement
the Administration's R&D investment criteria.
Question. Aside from the expected benefits in terms of energy
savings and emissions reductions, what other inputs are used as you
develop your budget request?
Answer. We seek a portfolio balance among a number of criteria:
--the energy savings and emissions reductions that you've already
mentioned, plus
--other benefits like:
--energy security,
--pollution reduction, and
--net economic benefits to society;
--program performance and alignment with the Administration's R&D
investment criteria, which include many policy considerations
such as:
--the need for, or appropriateness of, a government role in a given
technology (typically a clear public benefit with a market
failure or friction that precludes optimal private
investment);
--plans for merit-based, competitive program execution;
--industry's apparent commitment to adopting or marketing a
technology (often as evidenced by their willingness to
cost-share);
--clearly-defined performance measures and decision-points for the
R&D area;
--a technology's or industry's track record of progress based on
those performance measures; and
--maintaining a portfolio balance of near-, mid-, and long-term
technology RD&D in each of the major sectors of our
economy.
FOSSIL ENERGY--DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION/IMPORTS
Question. First, I would like to commend the Department's efforts
to keep an eye on energy markets through the work of the Energy
Information Administration. However, I am extremely concerned that the
Department seemingly ignores its own information in the formulation of
budget priorities. During the early stages of the recent war with Iraq,
crude prices shot to $38 a barrel and have recently stabilized at a
lower level. However, all indicators seem to illustrate crude prices
are rising again and stocks are low. Can you update us on the current
state of the highly fluctuating oil markets?
Answer. We expect oil markets to continue to be volatile but well
within the high and low limits established in the last two years.
Supplies are dependent on the rate at which Iraqi exports return to
market, the stability of West African production, recovery in
Venezuela, the reaction of other non-OPEC producers to current prices
and, of course, the level of exports from OPEC countries. Demand may
also deviate from expectations, as the world's economies grow at rates
different from projections. Given the current level of oil inventories,
news will tend to move prices up and down rather quickly, but we do not
expect them to approach either the highs set earlier in 2003 or the
lows reached in early 2002.
Question. This Subcommittee has an acute interest in energy
production, as most domestic production comes from land and waters
under our jurisdiction, and the Fossil Energy portfolio under DOE
requires our close attention due to the Administration's lack of
adequate commitment to domestic energy R&D. Can give us a sense of how
current crude imports compare to prior years as a percentage of
domestic consumption?
Answer. In March 2003, the most recent month for which complete
monthly data is currently available, the ratio of average U.S. crude
oil imports to average domestic petroleum consumption (or products
supplied) is estimated to have been 46.0 percent. The comparable
percentage for March 2002 was 44.7 percent and for March 2001 it was
48.3 percent. For the first three months of 2003, the ratio of average
U.S. crude oil imports to average domestic petroleum consumption is
estimated to have been 43.2 percent. The comparable percentage for the
first three months of 2002 was 45.6 percent and for the first three
months of 2001 it was 46.4 percent. For the years 1997-2002, the ratio
of the annual average U.S. crude oil imports to annual average domestic
consumption ranged from a low of 44.2 percent in 1997 to a high of 47.5
percent in 2001, and for 2002 it was 46.3 percent.
Question. It is my understanding the recent reductions in crude
costs are directly related to increasing imports. Given these trends,
can you explain why your budget reduces funding for the Fossil accounts
focused on increasing domestic oil production by 65 percent from the
enacted level?
Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy has completed its Top to Bottom
Review, and is beginning to implement it. The review provides a solid
first step towards a new program direction, emphasizing results and
focusing on customer groups in order to more effectively carry out the
President's energy plan to increase energy security and improve the
environment through his Clear Skies and Climate Change initiatives.
Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific
goals of this new direction will be terminated. As stated in the
President's Management Agenda, spending large budgets without a clear
goal does not necessarily achieve good results.
These changes were also in part a response to the results of the
Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the
President's Management Agenda initiative for better R&D Investment
criteria.
Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was
completed for all program elements. Analysis of PART showed that the
program did not link annual activities and outputs to long-term
benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction.
Question. Your own testimony before the House Interior Subcommittee
last month states, ``Previous oil program funding was spread thinly . .
.'' In my opinion reducing a ``spreadly thin'' [sic] budget by 65
percent when it is the primary budget focused on enhancing domestic oil
recovery technologies seems a little haphazard at best. Can you
reconcile this proposed reduction with your written testimony for the
House and trends in domestic production?
Answer. The completed Top to Bottom Review, conducted by the Office
of Fossil Energy resulted in a new program direction, emphasizing
results and focusing on customer groups in order to more effectively
carry out the President's energy plan to increase energy security and
improve the environment through his Clear Skies and Climate Change
initiatives.
Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific
goals of this new direction will be terminated. As stated in the
President's Management Agenda, spending large budgets without a clear
goal does not necessarily achieve good results.
These adjustments in the program's investment portfolio were also
in part a response to the results of the Investment Criteria Scorecards
that were completed as part of the President's Management Agenda
initiative for better R&D Investment criteria.
Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis
completed for all program elements showed that the program did not link
annual activities and outputs to long-term benefits. These outcomes
reinforced the new program direction.
Question. An alarming highlight of last month was what appears to
be an all-time monthly record for gasoline imports. It is bad enough to
be dependent upon other nations for raw natural resources, but it is
even more alarming that we now are becoming increasingly dependent upon
foreign nations to produce refined product. Can you explain whether
this dependency on foreign gasoline is an anomaly or part of a trend?
Answer. In almost every year, gasoline demand increases. This
increase can either be supplied by more production from refineries or
increased gasoline imports. In recent years, suppliers have more
economically increased supplies through the use of imports. There are
several reasons for this.
First, for many countries, they produce more gasoline than they can
consume. In Europe, for instance, diesel fuel and other middle
distillates are the most important part of the barrel, and thus,
surplus gasoline is produced. With the United States being the world's
largest consumer of gasoline, it is thus not surprising that increasing
amounts of gasoline arrive from Europe each year. In addition, if
refiners were to increase gasoline production it would merely reduce
the amount of other products that are produced, or else would require
an increase in refinery throughput. The latter is an option only when
refinery economics dictate that it would lead to increased income. This
would usually require high product prices with comparatively lower
crude oil prices. If, however, refiners kept the same throughput, but
instead produced more gasoline at the expense of production of other
petroleum products, that would dampen prospects for rebuilding low
inventory levels for those products, e.g. distillate fuel.
That being said, it is likely that product imports, including those
for gasoline, will continue to increase over the next several years. Of
course, the alternative is to get the increased supplies needed form a
source that would be less economical, thus putting an additional strain
on the U.S. economy.
Question. What are the factors for this reliance and does the
ongoing effort of the Department to divert domestic crude into the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve have a tangible impact?
Answer. North America and Europe have long been integrated markets
for refined petroleum products. This integration has proved beneficial
for both the United States and Europe, allowing the best possible
utilization of refineries and inventories. At times the United States
is an importer of products and at others it exports to Europe depending
on market conditions. At the moment, Europe is increasing its
consumption of diesel fuel relative to gasoline, thereby making its
surplus gasoline available for export to the United States at
reasonable prices. The fact that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is
acquiring crude oil probably has only a marginal impact on oil prices,
and whatever that impact, it is the same for United States and foreign
refiners. Therefore, whether the Strategic Petroleum Reserve acquires
or does not acquire crude oil is immaterial to the level of U.S.
imports of refined products.
FOSSIL ENERGY--DOMESTIC GAS PRODUCTION/IMPORTS
Question. In February 2003, the gas markets were subject to
unprecedented spikes as natural gas availability hit rock bottom.
You'll remember that when you were serving in the Senate, similar cost
spikes hit the electricity markets, leading to public outcry and the
subsequent failure of many businesses. Could you update us on the
natural gas markets?
Answer. Natural gas markets have recovered from the unprecedented
spikes in February 2003 but they remain tight. Spot market natural gas
prices were in the $5.24 to $6.24 range in May while natural gas
inventories were at least 29 percent below the five-year average for
this time of the year. Recent inventory additions have been at record-
levels and the situation appears to be improving. However, the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) projected in its June 2003 Short-Term
Energy Outlook that natural gas prices will remain well above average;
they are expected to average $5.50 to $6.00 per million Btu for the
remainder of the year; 2004 natural gas prices are expected to ease
slightly.
As I said at the time of that report, the nation's stocks of
natural gas in underground storage are unusually low due to weather
factors and declines in both domestic production and net imports.
Industry is already responding by significant increases in storage
rates, with record net injections reported in each of the first two
weeks of June, but a hot summer could increase demand for natural gas
that may jeopardize storage refill, and thus, exacerbate the problem.
I had previously asked the National Petroleum Council to conduct a
study of natural gas in the United States that is expected to be
released later this year but, in my view, we cannot wait to take action
on the problem. Therefore, I have called for a special meeting on June
26 during which the National Petroleum Council will gather information,
and discuss problems and solutions.
Question. What steps are the Department taking to help alleviate
these gas supply problems?
Answer. In the near-term, we are working to better understand U.S.
natural gas needs. In March 2002, we requested that the National
Petroleum Council, an advisory body to the Secretary of Energy, conduct
a comprehensive study of the North America natural gas market (supply,
transmission, and demand issues through 2025). The results of this
study will be delivered in September of this year.
We are also called on the Council to hold a National Gas Summit on
June 26 to gather information from State and Federal officials,
consumer groups, and industry experts, and discuss actions and develop
recommendations that can be taken immediately to address the near-term
natural gas situation. Among the measures expected to be discussed are
those related to energy efficiency, conservation, and fuel switching.
DOE will also publish a paper dealing with the issues associated with
expanded supplies of natural gas from the Rocky Mountain region.
Question. I know the Natural Gas Technologies accounts under Fossil
Energy focuses on exploration and production techniques as well as
developing advances in infrastructure to prevent failures and enhance
delivery capabilities. Unfortunately your budget request suggests
reducing these activities from $47 million to $26 million. Can you
explain the disconnect between the information collected by your
Department and the direction the Research and Development Accounts
appear to be headed?
Answer. The President's Natural Gas Technology research and
development program under Fossil Energy accounts is intended to
complement and enrich the existing portfolio of ongoing industry
sponsored natural gas research and help ensure that long-term, high-
risk technology options in exploration and production, gas hydrates,
natural gas storage, and delivery reliability are explored.
The Office of Fossil Energy has completed its Top to Bottom Review,
and is beginning to implement it. The review provides a solid first
step towards a new program direction, emphasizing results and focusing
on customer groups in order to more effectively carry out the
President's energy plan to increase energy security and improve the
environment through his Clear Skies, Climate Change, and Energy
Security initiatives.
Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific
goals of this new direction will be terminated. As stated in the
President's Management Agenda, spending large budgets without a clear
Federal goal does not necessarily achieve good results.
These changes were also in part a response to the results of the
Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the
President's Management Agenda initiative for better R&D Investment
criteria.
The Office of Management and Budget's analysis of Fossil Energy's
Natural Gas Technology Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
submissions showed that overall the Natural Gas Technology program did
not successfully link annual activities and outputs to measurable long-
term benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction and
a reduction in the fiscal year 2004 budget request for Fossil Energy's
Natural Gas Technology research and development program.
Question. Your budget also proposes a ``new'' initiative to produce
hydrogen from natural gas sources. Much like your testimony on the Oil
Research Development accounts, I believe our natural gas infrastructure
is spread too thin. The prior administration envisioned a world based
on natural gas, but without backing the vision with investment in
technology. I fear the current administration is doing the same. While
we are shifting all this demand to natural gas, domestic production is
not increasing at a similar rate. How to you believe we prevent a
demand crunch in the natural gas markets without investing in new
technology?
Answer. The majority of the funding in our natural gas research
program is directed to long-term technology development--where the
government has a key role. These efforts will help ensure that adequate
supplies of natural gas are available to meet the long-term increase in
demand--about a 50 percent increase by 2025.
Natural Gas Exploration and Production-Sustainable Supply program
will provide new tools and technologies that can improve access,
economics and environmental performance of onshore gas operations.
Significant emphasis will be placed on public lands in the Rocky
Mountain region where much of the nation's undiscovered gas resource is
located.
Natural gas storage will also assume increasing significance as
more power plants require consistent, year-round supplies of natural
gas. A nationwide, industry-led consortium will develop ways to improve
the reliability and efficiency of the nation's gas storage system.
Over the long-term, the production of natural gas from the U.S.'s
vast deposits of methane hydrates, which is a program goal, could
strengthen energy security and provide a major component of the
Hydrogen Fuels Initiative. Understanding hydrates will also improve the
scientific understanding of greenhouse gases and offer possible
mechanisms for sequestering carbon dioxide. In the near-term,
implications for drilling or producing oil and gas near or through
hydrate formations will be defined, to avoid environmental issues that
could arise with conventional oil and gas operations.
The environmental science program will focus on defining and
mitigating issues constraining produced water from coal bed methane
production.
Question. On the same topic, you list a new $6.5 million Hydrogen
from Gas initiative under the Natural Gas Technology account. However,
you reduce the Fuels account under Fossil Energy Research and
Development from $31 million to $5 million. It is my understanding we
were already performing substantial work in the Fuels budget that
focused on hydrogen as a product. Could you detail how much DOE plans
to focus on hydrogen production in the fiscal year 2003 Fossil
Accounts?
Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the Transportation Fuels & Chemicals
budget line in the Fuels program request was $5 million for Syngas
Membrane Technology (SMT) activity with an additional $17.1 million
added by Congress to increase this activity and to support the ongoing
Early Entrance Coproduction and Ultra Clean Fuels (UCF) programs, and
the new Hydrogen from Coal Research (HCR) program. Since syngas is a
mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen and a few of the UCF projects
produce syngas as an intermediate on the path to liquid fuels, it is
fair to say that some of the Syngas Membrane Technology and UCF
programs could be considered Hydrogen Programs. However, to be
efficient, the projects would have to be modified with a substantial
change in direction. Thus, the funding for fiscal year 2003 that
focuses on hydrogen as a product includes the new HCR (about $2.4
million), SMT (about $6 million), and UCF (about $5.4 million).
FOSSIL ENERGY--FUELS
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am interested in your decision to
essentially stop all advanced research in the Fossil program. For
fiscal year 2003, Congress provided $31 million to continue research
aimed at developing cleaner fuels from domestic fossil sources
including coal, gas and petroleum. The strides made in producing new
fuel products such as ultra clean diesel have given hope that we can
produce and use much cleaner burning fossil fuels in the near term. Can
you explain why you believe we should abandon research that is arguably
on the verge of creating marketable solutions to near term
environmental concerns?
Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 of $5
million for the Fuels/Transportation Fuels and Chemicals program is to
perform supporting research for the Administration's FutureGen and
Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives. In addition, $6.55 million is being
requested in the Natural Gas Technologies program--Emerging Processing
Technology budget to support research on natural gas to hydrogen as
part of the Administration's Hydrogen Fuels Initiative. The Department
believes that this budget request is appropriate to support a balanced
energy research program within the budget constraints in fiscal year
2004. In addition, considerable work is being conducted in the private
sector on natural gas to liquids processes and we believe that industry
is prepared to meet the promulgated EPA Tier II standards. The
Department believes that research dollars would be better spent in
longer-term fuels research such as that which is associated with the
production, storage and delivery of hydrogen from coal and natural gas.
Question. You assert in your request that portions of the fuel
programs proposed for elimination have been shifted to the Oil and Gas
programs, which have been reduced by 65 percent and 44 percent
respectively. Could you show the Subcommittee where exactly this
research shows up in the Oil and Gas programs, and explain what level
of funding will be provided under your proposal for fiscal year 2004?
Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the Fuels Program provides funding for
both natural gas and coal based programs even though the Fuels Budget
line is found in the Coal & Power Systems budget. However, in fiscal
year 2004, the Fuels activities, which are related to production and
delivery of hydrogen, will be split into two budget lines, one will
remain in the coal program under Fuels and the other program activity
will be moved to the Oil and Gas Program under the Emerging Process
Technology activity in the Natural Gas Program. In fiscal year 2004,
$6.555 million has been provided for this budget area.
Question. Will all ongoing contracts continue at the level of
funding agreed to by the contractors and DOE?
Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 of $5
million for the Fuels/Transportation Fuels and Chemicals program is for
conducing research activities to develop advanced, lower cost
technology for the production of hydrogen from coal for the
Administration's FutureGen and Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives. In addition,
$6.55 million is being requested in the Natural Gas Technologies
program--Emerging Processing Technology budget to support research on
advanced, lower cost natural gas to hydrogen technology, which is also
part of the Administration's Hydrogen Fuels Initiative. The Department
believes that the budget requests are appropriate to support a balanced
energy research program within the budget constraints in fiscal year
2004. To the extent that funds are available, it is planned to continue
those projects that can adjust their scopes of work to fit the new
longer-term program goals. However, it is not likely that all contracts
can be continued.
fossil energy--distributed generation--fuel cells--vision 21--hybrids
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have long been a proponent of fuel cell
technology and am as frustrated as anyone else is with our inability to
mass-produce fuel cells at a price point that makes them commercially
viable to most markets. Your proposal to reduce the Vision 21 Hybrids
account by $8.4 million peaks my interest as the Department has long
touted the wonders of the Vision 21 program. With a reduction of this
amount, I can only imagine one of two outcomes. Either we have hit the
price point and these units are ready for mass development, or the
technology has underperformed and DOE is making the decision to abandon
the program. I don't believe we have Vision 21 Hybrids being produced
commercially, so can you explain the decision that led to the reduction
in this program?
Answer. The $13.5 million for Vision 21 Hybrids in the fiscal year
2003 budget is for the completion of DOE-funded work on tubular solid
oxide fuel cell systems and fuel cell/turbine hybrid systems. The
fiscal year 2004 budget request of $5 million supports a redirected
Vision 21 enabling cost reduction and performance enhancement program
to emphasize SECA-based low-cost, Vision 21 fuel cell/turbine hybrid
and Vision 21 zero-emissions system concepts.
Question. Are we on target with the goals set by DOE and will we
continue on target at this funding level?
Answer. The Department's goals for tubular solid oxide fuel cell
turbine hybrids systems will be achieved with the conclusion of
activities in fiscal year 2003. Tests on a first-of-a-kind tubular
solid oxide fuel cell/turbine hybrid system have contributed valuable
design knowledge that will be used in the next phase of the Vision 21
hybrids program, which is focused on SECA-based hybrid systems. The
funds proposed for fiscal year 2004 are appropriate for the re-directed
effort focused on SECA-type fuel cells.
FOSSIL ENERGY--DISTRIBUTED GENERATION--FUEL CELLS--SOLID STATE
ELECTRICITY CONVERSION ALLIANCE (SECA)
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am extremely interested in the SECA
program and am watching its progress with high hopes. I know that DOE
has recently decided to add two new industry teams to the program, yet
has proposed reducing funding for the core program from $33.8 million
to $23.5 million. I am concerned that reducing the funding and trying
to support additional teams will cause the program to slow, when it is
poised to make great strides. Additionally, it is my understanding some
teams may be under performing, and some of the competing technologies
may show little promise for future development. Can you update the
Subcommittee on the progress of the SECA program and explain how you
propose allocating resources in fiscal year 2004 to ensure we are
providing sufficient resources to the teams showing the most promise?
Answer. The Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) Program
is progressing extremely well with implementation as planned and
promised. The SECA industry teams are making good progress towards
their Phase 1 performance targets for prototype demonstrations in
fiscal year 2005/fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2003, the second full
year for the initial four industry teams, the teams have built, tested,
and evaluated small single ``button'' cells, completed designs for
multi-cell stacks, improved performance, and reduced proof of concept
volume. The new industry teams represent design alternatives that will
enhance the prospects of success of SECA fuel cells for a broader
market.
The Department is requesting in fiscal year 2004, $33 million for
the SECA Program from several research budget elements. Primary funding
of $23.5 million will be provided from the Distributed Generation Fuel
Cells Innovative Concepts budget line. This funding will be primarily
for the six industry teams. In addition, $6.0 million for SECA from
Fuel Cells Advanced Research will be used for the SECA core technology
program, $1.5 million for SECA from Advanced Research--for research on
materials for coal-based SECA systems, and $2.0 million for SECA from
Advanced Metallurgical Research (Albany), for metallurgical research
applicable to general SECA systems.
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES--ROCKY MOUNTAIN OIL TECHNOLOGY
CENTER (RMOTC)
Question. I notice the Naval Petroleum Account proposes closing the
Rocky Mountain Oil Technology Center (RMOTC). Could you provide the
committee with the number of industry proposals to partner with this
facility for each of the past five years?
Answer. RMOTC received 151 proposals from fiscal year 1999 through
the current fiscal year 2003. These proposals were from a variety of
small businesses, major industry leaders, and international consortia
and cover testing related to: drilling technology, coal bed methane,
oil shale production, enhanced oil recovery, CO2
sequestration, produced water management, environmental rehabilitation,
renewable energy development, homeland security, reservoir services and
flow assurance. The proposals are broken down accordingly; 25 in fiscal
year 1999; 25 in fiscal year 2000; 31 in fiscal year 2001; 29 in fiscal
year 2002; and 41 fiscal year 2003 (YTD).
Question. It is my understanding industry partnerships to promote
advanced oil recovery utilize this center with great success. I am also
aware of renewed interest by industry to re-examine the potential of
oil shale production. If we were to follow your recommendation to
reduce the oil program by 65 percent and close RMOTC, what other
avenues are available for independent producers to partner with DOE to
research avenues of increasing domestic production?
Answer. The President's budget does request $41.6 million for
research and development in oil and natural gas, and that money will be
targeted to the most promising opportunities. We hope that industry
will independently increase its funding for recovery research, which
would be appropriate, and the Administration supports across the board
tax incentives for R&D and investment in domestic production of all
kinds. An important action the Government could undertake is to
increase access to lands for oil and gas exploration resulting in
increased domestic production without any cost to taxpayers.
If the Center were closed, those activities would have to be
conducted at private facilities such the Gas Technology Institute's
Catoosa test facility in Oklahoma.
Question. Is it your belief DOE holds no responsibility to work
with industry to advance domestic fossil fuel production?
Answer. The Department of Energy supports private industry
development of domestic fossil fuels in every way. We are committed to
research to increase the recoverable resource base of oil and natural
gas and research to reduce the cost of production and protect the
environment. We have a national laboratory working on ways to mitigate
the environmental impacts of fuels production and consumption. We
support tax and regulatory changes that would encourage domestic energy
production, and we support making Federal lands available for
exploration and development of fossil fuels. The Department of Energy
fully supports the Administration's National Energy Plan, which makes
explicit its support for more domestic energy production of every type.
FOSSIL ENERGY--FUTUREGEN
Question. Mr. Secretary, we talked a little bit about the FutureGen
proposal when you came to see me earlier this week. Montanans are very
excited about this project and my office has been working with our
Governor's office and a large group of other entities wanting to make
sure Montana is given full consideration as a possible site for the
project. Can I have your assurance the Department will work with me and
the State of Montana to make sure Montana's unique geographic and
geological offerings are taken into full consideration as the site
selection process moves forward?
Answer. I can assure you that we will be glad to work with Montana,
and any other interested states, to ensure that the FutureGen site
selection process will be a fair and open competitive process. Montana
will be given full consideration, along with other sites proposed for
evaluation.
SOLID STATE LIGHTING
Question. In reply to: believe you're aware of the Solid State
Lighting Initiative, which this subcommittee supported last year with
an appropriation of $3 million. Your budget request includes $5 million
for this program, which has significant promise in terms of energy
savings, environmental benefits, and lower costs to consumers. I
understand that the Department has investigated and calculated these
potential benefits while developing a ``Road Map'' for the solid-state
lighting program. Would you share with the Committee the Department's
conclusions?
Answer. The Department believes that solid state lighting has the
potential to create the technical foundation to revolutionize the
energy efficiency, appearance, visual comfort, and quality of lighting
products for general illumination by achieving efficiencies upwards of
70 percent (source efficiency). In consultation with industry, the
Department has estimated long-term benefits, which include annual
savings of nearly 40 percent of lighting energy and $19 billion in
consumer expenditures by 2020. As with all benefits modeling, the
assumptions have a large impact on the results. Because modeling
procedures and assumptions used to generate this estimate are different
from those used in EERE GPRA models, we cannot directly compare the
estimated benefits of this initiative to other EERE or other
Departmental applied R&D activities. But we intend to improve the
consistency in our modeling efforts. As a stand-alone document, the
multi-sector forecast, Energy Savings Potential of Solid State Lighting
in General Illumination Applications, is available at:
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/documents/.
As solid state lighting represents the most promising approach to
more efficient lighting systems of the future, success in the
initiative will retain the technology base and jobs in the United
States (while facing increased product competition from Pacific Rim
corporations supported by their governments) and will widely enable
more efficient lighting systems to be applied widely. The potential for
such technology is quite significant, given the very low performance
characteristics of present incandescent (1 percent efficient in
delivered, useful light) and fluorescent systems (20 percent).
The Department has held seven workshops over the past two years to
plan out a broad agenda for research and development focused on
improving the performance of compound semiconductor science in the
application of general illumination. More than 300 participants
attended these workshops (including the conventional lighting industry,
compound semiconductor industry, academia, National Labs, research
institutions, and other government agencies). In general, R&D is
necessary in several areas: quantum efficiency, lifetime, performance,
packaging, infrastructure, and first cost. The most recent summary
document on this research agenda, The Promise of Solid State Lighting
for General Illumination, is available at: www.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/documents/.
SOLID STATE LIGHTING
Question. How far has this technology developed and what is the
nature of the research that has to be concluded?
Answer. Solid state lighting (SSL) exists today in a monochromatic
form (i.e. single color such as red or green). Currently, SSL is used
for ``exit'' signs and traffic control lights, and offers several
attributes beyond energy savings, such as durability and longer
lifetime. Additionally, the auto industry is converting incandescent
lamps applications to solid state devices (e.g. LED tail lights). To
save significant energy, the science and engineering of SSL needs to
mature in several performance metrics to be capable of competing in the
general illumination market with high quality white light, which is the
focus of the DOE SSL research.
White light SSL is in its infancy, with many prototypes in the 5 to
10 lumens per Watt (LPW) range. Newer prototypes perform in the 15 to
25 LPW range, about what an incandescent can do. Future research needs
cover six concept areas:
Efficiency.--The ability of solid state light sources to convert
electrons into photons is governed by three basic elements: (1)
materials systems; (2) internal quantum efficiencies (IQE); and (3)
external quantum efficiencies (EQE). Materials system research
evaluates semiconductor materials, studying the performance and
limitations of materials. IQE measures a material's ability to convert
electron-hole pairs into photonic emissions, and is largely a function
of the material system selected. EQE measures the amount of light that
leaves the semiconductor device and is available for collection and
use.
Lifetime.--Technologies lasting in excess of 50,000 hours are
sought. SSL research will focus on advancing our basic science
understanding of the role of impurities, defects, crystal structure and
other factors closely related to materials systems choices.
Lighting Performance.--(a) basic material properties and (b)
semiconductor physics directly impact the evolution of photon
wavelength, emission bandwidth and ultimately, color. For the future,
emission spectrum approaching the spectral power distribution of
natural sunlight is required.
Device Design.--Research will focus on (a) geometrical optical
engineering and (b) optical simulation within the compound
semiconductor--increases of 5 to 10 times present levels of optical
coupling are predicted. Research on structures of the individual layers
of materials will be required, as will integration of the substrate
geometry and optics.
Packaging.--Investigate packaging requirements such as sealing out
moisture and oxygen, managing heat transfer, and protecting optical
material from UV degradation. SSL technology will assemble them into an
optimized light delivery system.
Manufacturing.--Research will concentrate on significant first cost
reduction through aggressive development of suitable manufacturing
technologies and technical elements of the distribution infrastructure,
such as technology standards.
CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE (NCCTI)
Question. The budget request includes $40 million for a new Climate
Change Technology Initiative; $23 million of which is funded through
this subcommittee. Why is it necessary to establish a new, separate
program for this purpose?
Answer. The President's National Climate Change Technology
Initiative Competitive Solicitation program is intended to complement
and enrich the existing portfolio of ongoing research throughout the
Federal government and help to ensure that all possible technology
options are explored. The program is unique and warranted because
funding will be allocated solely on the basis of the potential for a
technology to contribute in significant ways future reductions or
avoidances of greenhouse gas emissions, and/or their capture and
sequestration (permanent storage). No program, past or present, has
made technology-neutral funding allocations in this manner. In general,
successful proposals would be focused on novel approaches for
contributing to broader technological goals, or on innovative ways of
solving or circumventing technical barriers to progress along a
plausible line of technology development
Question. Weren't climate change objectives already folded into
many of the Department's R&D programs like the Carbon Sequestration
program within the Office of Fossil Energy?
Answer. Many of the existing DOE R&D programs aim to provide
multiple public benefits such as increased energy security, reduced
emissions of pollutants, and reduced emissions of carbon dioxide. The
purpose of the NCCTI program is to focus solely on potential climate
change benefits. In doing so, we expect to identify R&D opportunities
that complement and enrich existing R&D programs. The responses to the
NCCTI Request For Information, released in November 2002 and closed in
January 2003, suggest that there are certain categories of novel
concepts (e.g., crosscutting evaluation methodologies, research that
does not clearly fall into the basic or applied research areas) that
show great promise for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that are
unlikely to be eligible for or selected in procurements conducted under
existing DOE programs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE
Question. I compliment the Administration on continuing its
commitment to the Clean Coal Power Initiative and Coal Research
initiative in the fiscal year 2004 budget with a request of $320.5
million overall. I firmly believe that we should capitalize on our two
greatest strengths in electricity supply--coal and nuclear. In both
cases, we should address risk areas. I'd like to ensure that the coal
initiatives would address issues associated with mining as well as the
subsequent combustion processes. For example, a small New Mexico
company in Raton has worked with Russian institutes, through the
Department's Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program, to
develop instruments that allow remarkable refinement in how coal is
mined. This instrument, which actually mounts on the drill head,
enables the drill to automatically leave the last few inches at the top
and bottom of a coal seam. The majority of the serious heavy metal
contaminants in the seam are concentrated at the edges of the seam;
thus this new tool allows dramatically cleaner coal to be mined. When
burned, that coal then burns much more cleanly. I continue to believe
that we should focus on coal at the source in the coal R&D program and
in the Clean Coal Power initiative. Mr. Secretary, does the Clean Coal
Power Initiative include opportunities for advancing exciting new
technologies like this, no matter what part of the overall coal
utilization cycle they impact?
Answer. The current structure of the Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI) focuses on demonstrating advanced technologies that will provide
clean, efficient, reliable and affordable electricity from coal. In
order for a technology to qualify for consideration under CCPI, it must
be proposed as part of an integrated power system that utilizes clean
coal. If a proposed technology, associated with another part of the
coal utilization cycle (such as mining), is integrated into the coal
power system, it could be considered under CCPI.
OIL AND GAS RESEARCH
Question. I'm very disappointed to note that oil and natural gas
technology research and development funds were again sharply cut in the
Administration's budget. Oil technology R&D is reduced by nearly 65
percent below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level (from $42.3 million to
$15 million in the President's request), and natural gas R&D is reduced
by nearly 44 percent from ($47.3 million to $26.3 million in the
President's request). These two energy sources play major roles in
current national energy supplies. In New Mexico, I've noted how
improved extraction technologies, which depend on continued research
and development, have helped to boost production of old wells. The
Senate bill would support R&D of the type done at the Petroleum
Recovery Research Center at New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology in Socorro. How would the Administration's reduced budget
for oil technologies impact ongoing strong R&D programs, such as this
one at New Mexico Tech?
Answer. The proposed budget would have no impact on the Petroleum
Recovery Research Center at New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology in Socorro, as there are no outstanding mortgages on
projects with this institution. The proposed fiscal year 2004 budget
does require the elimination of $5.9 million for projects being
conducted at other universities. However, only $1.3 million is for
projects that support the newly aligned oil program. This shortfall
will be addressed by extending the projects over a longer period of
time.
The new direction for the oil program resulting from a complete
strategic review of the program, emphasizes results and focuses on
customer groups in order to more effectively carry out the President's
energy plan to increase energy security and improve the environment
through his Clear Skies and Climate Change initiatives.
These changes were also in part a response to the results of the
Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the
President's Management Agenda initiative for better R&D Investment
criteria.
Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was
completed for all program elements. Analysis of PART showed that the
program did not link annual activities and outputs to long-term
benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction.
Question. What is the Administration's rationale for nearly
terminating these R&D programs as the nation makes a comprehensive
effort to increase our energy security and independence through
reducing dependence on foreign sources and developing new sources of
domestic energy?
Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy has completed its Top to Bottom
Review, and is beginning to implement it. The review provides a solid
first step towards a new program direction, emphasizing results and
focusing on customer groups in order to more effectively carry out the
President's energy plan to increase energy security and improve the
environment through his Clear Skies and Climate Change initiatives.
Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific
goals of this new direction will be terminated. As stated in the
President's Management Agenda, spending large budgets without a clear
goal does not necessarily achieve good results.
These changes were also in part a response to the results of the
Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the
President's Management Agenda initiative for better R&D Investment
criteria.
Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was
completed for all program elements. Analysis of PART showed that the
program did not link annual activities and outputs to long-term
benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction.
OIL AND GAS--FEDERAL TRANSMISSION SITING
Question. Congestion and inadequate transmission infrastructure has
an impact on consumers. The Electric Power Research Institute estimated
that transmission reliability losses cost the economy $120 billion
annually. Contained in S. 14 is a provision to accelerate the
permitting of transmission lines across federal lands. The provision
requires the Department of Energy to take the lead in coordinating the
federal permitting efforts in order to accelerate and improve the
siting process. Do you believe that DOE can assist in this role and
reduce the time and costs associated with permitting transmission
facilities?
Answer. The process for obtaining permits for transmission lines
across federal lands has been a major source of delay and unnecessary
cost in the development of new transmission projects, particularly in
the West where much of the land is federally owned. Better coordination
is needed among a wide range of parties, including project developers,
state agencies, Native American tribes, and federal agencies. DOE is
well positioned to help facilitate this coordination.
FUEL CELLS
Question. The Administration's proposed initiatives for fuel cells
and hydrogen R&D have been very well received in the scientific
community and in the Congress. The FreedomCAR and FreedomFuel proposals
would receive about $235 million in the Energy Conservation budget
specifically to work on vehicle technologies ($157.6 million) and fuel
cell technologies ($77.5 million). Another $88 million would go to
hydrogen technology R&D through the Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy budget. These initiatives hold great hope for this nation to
move away from our heavy reliance on petroleum products for
transportation.
Mr. Secretary, you know of my strong support for moving toward a
hydrogen economy, but I have some concerns about the mix of the program
between essential R&D and demonstration programs. A recent letter
report of the National Research Council raised this issue essentially
saying that in its assessment the number of fuel cell demonstration
projects seem to be getting ahead of our progress on essential fuel
cell R&D. Mr. Secretary, do you share my concern that we need more
fundamental R&D to make progress on fuel cell technology?
Answer. The April 4, 2003 interim letter report from the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended that fundamental and exploratory
research should receive additional budgetary emphasis, and the DOE
should develop a careful plan for evaluating, funding, and validating
emerging technologies for hydrogen production, transportation, storage,
and end-use. Within the background, the interim report stated that,
when properly used, demonstrations have a place in a balanced research
program because they can lead to cost reductions and accelerate the
development of codes, standards, environmental permitting, and
strategies for inspection and monitoring. But, demonstrations also risk
distorting budgets and diverting effort toward technology with limited
potential. Development of a careful plan for funding and evaluating
demonstrations to address this risk will serve the public interest.
Since the time of the NAS letter, the DOE Office of Science (SC)
hosted a workshop to determine the basic science needs that support
hydrogen and fuel cell technology development. SC is currently
developing a research plan based on the outcomes of that workshop. The
DOE plan is based on the Hydrogen Vision and Roadmap that were
developed in collaboration with over 200 technical experts. The current
DOE plan includes 80 percent of funding for research and development
and 20 percent of funding for technology validation. These technology
validation projects are cost-shared 50/50 by industry partners. Strong
leveraging of Federal dollars indicates private sector support of the
RD&D pathway we have outlined and that our research validation approach
is sound. The results of technology validation are critical to refining
and directing future research and development efforts.
Question. What is your assessment of the progress of R&D on liquid
hydrogen, compressed gas, and on several carrier fuels that would
transport hydrogen in vehicles?
Answer. Liquid and compressed hydrogen tanks are relatively mature
technologies that are suitable for near-term demonstrations of
hydrogen-powered vehicles. Development of pressurized insulated vessels
has reduced evaporative losses in liquid tanks. However, liquid tanks
do not meet the volume targets for on-board storage and liquefying
hydrogen incurs a sizable energy penalty. Development of low-permeation
liners, high-strength fibers, and conformable tanks has led to
fabrication of 5,000 and 10,000 psi gaseous hydrogen tanks. However,
these compressed gas tanks do not result in the required 300-mile range
while also meeting vehicle weight and space requirements. Therefore,
the long-term effort of the DOE program will be the development of low-
pressure, solid-state materials that store hydrogen, such as carbon
nanotubes, hydrides and alanates.
Question. What in your view is the appropriate mix of fuel cell R&D
and demonstration projects?
Answer. Every research activity must be evaluated with
consideration to its own particular factors, including the state of
research progress. At this point, we believe that an 80/20 fuel cell
R&D/demonstration mix, where demonstration projects require a minimum
50 percent cost share by industry, is appropriate.
Question. I note that researchers at Los Alamos National Lab
continue to make great progress in fuel cell research and are poised to
be a center of excellence in this area. I believe the nation needs this
center to integrate a number of separate specialties to more
efficiently develop commercially-ready fuel cell systems. Previous
budget submissions led me to believe this was also part of the
Administration's thinking. What is the Department's current position on
establishing a national fuel cell research center?
Answer. We appreciate the major advances that Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) has made in polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel
cells and that they hold seminal patents in the field. For example,
LANL scientists were responsible for achieving the breakthrough that
allowed a 90 percent reduction in the platinum required by fuel cell
electrodes. This breakthrough significantly lowered the cost of PEM
fuel cells and stimulated the large-scale automotive industry
investment that exists today.
With respect to establishing a national center for fuel cell
research, the Department is currently studying this concept.
Question. What level of funding for fuel cells could be effectively
utilized to advance this exciting technology as rapidly as possible?
Answer. The Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewal Energy
Fuel Cells Programs are working with partners to accelerate the
development and successful market introduction of these technologies.
In fiscal year 2004, the Fossil Energy Budget Request is $44.5
million for the continuation of the entire program, with emphasis on
the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) where efforts are
underway to drastically reducing fuel cell costs to make them more
broadly applicable and widespread commodity in the competitive, mature
distributed generation and auxiliary power markets. Funding at the
requested level will allow six competing SECA industry teams and about
19 core technology participants to advance the technology at an
accelerated pace.
In fiscal year 2004, the Energy Efficiency and Renewal Energy
(EERE) budget request is $77.5 million for development of polymer
electrolyte membrane fuel cells in support of the President's
FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. This request level is
appropriate for EERE's planned fuel cell R&D and is consistent with our
technology roadmap plans. Research in membranes, electrodes, fuel
processing and system components will lead to $30/kW engine costs, 60
percent energy efficiency and 5,000 hours durability on hydrogen.
Fiscal year 2004 funding for fuel cells and hydrogen is the first year
of the President's Initiative, which will accelerate commercialization
of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 15 years to 2015.
HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
Question. If I could change subjects for a moment, I would like to
ask you about the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget, and
high temperature superconductivity R&D. It is my sense that within DOE
there is support to move into grid-level demonstration projects to
begin effective utilization by utilities of high-temperature
superconductivity technology for more reliable supplies of electricity.
The request of $76.9 million for electricity reliability activities is
9 percent below the $85 million approved for fiscal year 2003 and does
not move us in that direction.
Answer. Within the $76.9 million request, there are significant
grid-level demonstration projects that will be more visible in fiscal
year 2004 in which utilities will begin effective utilization of high
temperature superconductivity. The most notable is a planned Long
Island installation of a superconducting transmission power cable able
to serve 300,000 homes. This could lead to a future superconductivity
``backbone'' being put in place to supply electricity to most of Long
Island. Similar projects are planned in Albany, NY, and Columbus, OH.
Our intent is to move as rapidly as possible to effective utilization
of several types of grid technologies (transmission and distribution
cables, transformers, generators, and fault current limiters) while
maintaining research on higher capacity, cost-effective,
superconducting wires and other key enabling technologies.
Question. What is the major thrust of the Department's fiscal year
2004 budget proposal for high-temperature superconductivity?
Answer. In the Department's fiscal year 2004 budget proposal for
high-temperature superconductivity, the major thrust is to improve
Second Generation superconducting wire (longer lengths, higher
capacity, lower-cost processing) through collaboration of university,
national laboratory, and private company scientists; while
simultaneously moving as rapidly as possible to effective utilization
of transmission and distribution cables by installing and testing
different cable types in the electric grid. The latter work is carried
out by industry teams consisting of a utility, cable manufacturer,
superconducting wire supplier as well as special expertise from the
national labs and universities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER--CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY EXPORT (CETE)
Question. Mr. Secretary, Congress has urged the Administration to
support increased opportunities to open and expand international energy
markets and export U.S. clean energy technologies to developing
countries and other nations abroad. These efforts are very important to
helping meet our own energy security needs while at the same time
addressing related economic, job creation, trade, environmental, and
climate change objectives. Additionally, such efforts could
significantly aid in meeting other nations' infrastructure and
development needs while also increasing the deployment of a range of
U.S. clean energy technologies, including clean coal technologies. The
Clean Energy Technology Exports (CETE) Initiative will help meet that
challenge. It had its genesis within the Senate Appropriations
Committee and has had broad bipartisan support. The administration has
talked about such ideas on occasion, but despite such rhetoric, the
participating federal agencies have done little, if anything, to
implement the strategic plan. It seems you are just sitting on your
hands and missing a critical opportunity. Because the Department of
Energy is a leading agency involved in the implementation of the CETE
Initiative as called for by the Congress and released by the
Administration in October 2002, what specific actions is your agency
taking to work with the other federal agencies and engage non-
governmental organizations, private sector companies, and other
international partners with regard to this plan?
Answer. The Department is involved in many activities with other
federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, private sector
companies and international partners to expand the market for clean
energy technologies. One such effort is the current joint working group
on U.S.-China Olympic cooperation. This cooperative effort is
consistent with CETE objectives and aims to deploy clean energy
technologies for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games, by facilitating U.S.
industry interest in the Chinese market, and promoting U.S.-made
equipment and services while protecting the global environment. One of
the eleven areas of mutual interest for cooperation is clean coal
technology. To this end, the Department's Office of Fossil Energy has
developed a plan to: use U.S. NOX Control Technologies for
Beijing region power plants; jointly design coal preparation plants;
and reach out to U.S. industry on business opportunities.
Question. Can you tell me when the Appropriations Committee will
receive the required annual CETE strategic plan progress report that
was due to this committee on March 1, 2003?
Answer. The Department expects to submit the CETE report to the
Congress by the end of July 2003.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTING
Question. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and
Secretary Abraham, thank you for coming. I am interested to hear your
answers to many subjects important to Californians. Among them are the
Administration's position on the use and development of low-yield
nuclear weapons; banning fraud and manipulation in the energy sector;
and the President's hydrogen fuel and fuel cell car proposals in the
fiscal year 2004 Department of Energy Budget. First and foremost, I
want to focus on the Administration's position on the use and
development of low-yield nuclear weapons. The President is right that
the greatest threat facing the United States lies in the global
proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and terrorist access to
those weapons. But I am deeply concerned that by appearing to focus its
national security strategy on its nuclear arsenal, current U.S. policy
may well actually encourage proliferation, alienate our friends and
allies, and promote a backlash against the United States. Instead of
ratcheting back on our reliance on nuclear weapons with the Cold War
over, the administration seems to be looking for new ways to use our
nuclear advantage to restructure our forces so that they are more
``usable''--blurring the lines between nuclear and conventional forces
and legitimizing the idea that nuclear weapons can be used.
Like it or not, the United States sets the pace when it comes to
international norms regarding nuclear weapons, and, in fact, just
considering the use of these weapons much less actually using them
threatens to undermine our efforts to stop proliferation and makes us
less safe, not more.
The administration's Nuclear Posture Review, released in January
2002, stressed the importance of being prepared to use nuclear weapons.
The review noted that we must plan to possibly use them against a wider
range of countries. And it said that we need to develop new types of
weapons so that we can use them in a wider variety of circumstances.
According to press reports the review also explicitly listed seven
nations Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North Korea
against which the United States should be prepared to use nuclear
weapons even though most of those nations do not have nuclear weapons
themselves. That means the Administration is contemplating the first
use of nuclear weapons in a conflict.
Indeed, a few months after issuing the nuclear posture review,
President Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive-17,
which, according to press reports, abandons a bipartisan policy of
ambiguity and explicitly says that the United States might use nuclear
weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack. Clearly the
administration seems to be moving toward a military posture in which
nuclear weapons are considered just like other weapons in which their
purpose is not simply to serve as a deterrent but as a usable
instrument of military power, like a tank, a fighter aircraft, or a
cruise missile.
I believe that such an approach is not in our nation's interest,
nor is it consistent with our standards and values. A first use of
nuclear weapons by the United States should be unthinkable, and
responding to a non-nuclear attack with nuclear weapons violates a
central tenet of just war and U.S. military tradition. There is no
question that in the post 9/11 era a full range of policy options for
dealing with new and uncertain events should be on the table. But in my
view, nuclear options should not be considered as an extension of
conventional options because this inevitably lowers the threshold for
use.
So, if the United States is seeking to develop nuclear weapons
which blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear forces and
lowers the threshold for the possible use of these weapons, we must
consider the message that this sends to the rest of the world. I
believe that it is critical that the United States sets a very high
international standard for nuclear restraint. If we do not, we may well
encourage others to develop their own standards and their own nuclear
arsenals.
Using nuclear weapons, even ``small'' ones, would cross a line that
has remained sacrosanct for almost 60 years. Using a small nuclear
weapon makes the use of all nuclear weapons more permissible it
legitimizes their use and legitimizing nuclear weapons promotes their
spread. It also puts us in greater danger should we ever have to fight
a nuclear power.
Moreover, there is no real evidence that the United States needs to
use nuclear weapons in the scenarios outlined in the Nuclear Posture
Review or NSPD 17.
The most often-cited need for new nuclear weapons is to destroy
underground bunkers. But the most important factor in destroying a
deeply buried target is knowing exactly where it is. And if we know
exactly where it is, we can either destroy it with conventional weapons
or deny access to it by destroying entrances and air ducts.
Earlier this year, at an Energy Committee Hearing, I asked you
whether Secretary Rumsfeld had been quoted correctly in The Washington
Post, on the 20th of February, when he said that the Administration had
no plans to develop new low-yield nuclear weapons. You said yes, he had
been quoted correctly, that the Administration was only studying
adaptations of existing weapons.
This week on the Floor of the Senate I offered an amendment to
strike the controversial provision in the Defense Authorization Bill
that will end a 10-year-old ban on research and development of low
yield nuclear weapons.
The Defense Authorization Bill would repeal the decade old
``Spratt-Furse'' provision, which bans all development leading to the
production of nuclear weapons with yields of fewer than five kilotons.
I believe this prohibition should remain in full force because
repealing it:
--Provides the United States no military benefit;
--Could lead to the resumption of nuclear testing;
--Undermines efforts to halt the proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction; and
--Blurs the line between conventional and nuclear weapons.
Now that the ban will be repealed, what are the exact plans for the
Administration's study, development, and testing of low-yield nuclear
weapons?
Answer. The Department has no research currently under way to
develop low-yield or other new nuclear weapons at the Department's
nuclear weapon design laboratories. However, the Department of Defense
and Department of Energy have begun a two to three-year study on
potential modifications to current stockpile gravity bombs, the B61 and
the B83. The study, known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)
phase 6.2 study, will assess the feasibility, design definition, and
cost for modifications of providing a robust earth penetrating weapon
to address the threat posed by hard and deeply buried facilities.
The RNEP concept is being studied as one of a number of possible
means to deal with emerging threats. Development, production and
fielding of the RNEP concept would not require nuclear testing.
There has been no decision to move the RNEP to engineering
development. Should this occur in the future, the Department of Energy
would request funds from Congress as a separate budget line item,
consistent with Section 3143 of Public Law. 107-314, in the President's
budget request for that year.
I appreciate your observation that ``a full range of policy options
for dealing with new and uncertain contingencies should be on the
table.'' I believe that the Department's work will not blur the
distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons. I also encourage
you to seek the views of the Department of Defense on the issues you
raise regarding military utility of low-yield weapons and their
potential contribution to the deterrent.
Question. What exactly will you do differently when this Defense
Authorization Bill is passed?
Answer. Repeal of the prohibitions of Spratt-Furse would allow the
NNSA's weapons laboratories to examine more fully the technical
options, the investigation of which is currently prohibited by law and
to a lessor extent by the Spratt-Furse provisions of the House bill.
There are problems in attempting to confine intellectual efforts to
``research only'' rather than ``research and development'' because
these lines are often not clear. In the end, Congress controls these
activities which could lead to a recommendation to initiate engineering
development, since the Department of Energy would request funds from
Congress as a separate line item in the President's budget request for
that year.
Question. Will the Administration seek to test these weapons?
Answer. The Administration remains committed to adhering to a
moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. At the same time, the
Administration has no intention of resubmitting the CTBT to the Senate
for ratification.
ENERGY MARKETS
Question. Now I would like to turn to the energy markets. Over the
past few years, we have seen corporate scandal after corporate scandal
in the news--and nowhere has there been more fraud and market abuse
than in the energy sector. In March, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission issued its ``Final Report on Price Manipulation in Western
Markets'' which confirmed there was widespread and pervasive fraud and
manipulation during the Western Energy Crisis. The overwhelming
evidence uncovered demands that California receive full and complete
refunds and that FERC revise the state's long-term contracts to remedy
the manipulation that has taken place and to deter future abuse.
Three years ago, this month California's energy market began to
spiral out of control. The crisis forced the State of California into a
severe budget shortfall. It forced the state's largest utility into
bankruptcy and nearly bankrupted the second-largest utility. Now three
years and $45 billion in costs later, we have learned how the energy
markets in California were gamed and abused.
Yet the Senate Energy Bill doesn't prevent the type of gaming that
went on during the energy crisis. The Senate bill only bans one type of
specific manipulation--wash trades in the electricity market--but it
does not address the natural gas market, nor does it prevent other
forms of fraud and manipulation that took place in California and were
detailed in the Enron memos as ``Fat Boy,'' Ricochet,'' ``Death Star,''
and ``Get Shorty.''
Does the Bush Administration support banning the type of fraud and
manipulation that Enron engaged in?
Answer. The Administration strongly opposes illegal market
manipulations and supports the prevention of fraud and manipulation in
the nation's energy markets. It would not be appropriate to discuss
cases involving Enron, and other energy firms that are still pending
before FERC and in other forums, and this answer should not be
understood as presuming the outcomes of those cases.
Question. FERC Chairman Pat Wood and FERC Commissioner Bill Massey
support conforming the penalty and refund provisions in the Federal
Power Act with those of the Natural Gas Act. Does the Bush
Administration also support these changes?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Section 1121 of Senator Domenici's Energy Bill prevents
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from issuing any rulemaking on
the proposed Standard Market Design until July 1, 2005. What are the
Bush Administration's views on delaying the Standard Market Design
rulemaking until this date--especially in light of the recent revisions
proposed by the FERC Commissioners in their White Paper?
Answer. In the White Paper FERC demonstrated its willingness to
work with state regulators and industry to accommodate regional
perspectives in the design of regional transmission organizations
(RTOs) and other matters related to the formation and operation of
regional wholesale markets for electricity. The Administration opposes
blocking the FERC from any final rulemaking in this area for two years,
which could prevent FERC from taking needed action to maintain
stability in regional electricity markets.
Question. In a speech last week to the National Petroleum Council,
you made some comments about the current conditions in our natural gas
markets. As you know, low U.S. production, low inventories, and high
prices are battering industries that rely on natural gas as a raw
material or energy source. In addition to the chemical, aluminum, and
fertilizer industries--the ethanol industry is also dependant on
natural gas. Since most ethanol plants rely solely on natural gas, is
this the time to mandate billions of gallons of ethanol into our fuel
supply and force many more ethanol plants to be built?
Answer. New, modern dry mill ethanol plants use about 40,000 BTUs
of natural gas per gallon of ethanol produced (76,000 BTUs). A small
additional amount of natural gas will be used in the production of
fertilizer used to grow corn. For the incremental 2.5 billion gallons
that would need to be produced to reach the 5 billion gallon per year
target under a renewable fuels standard, natural gas demand would be
about .075 TFC higher in 2015. This would be an increase of about half
of 1 percent in expected 2015 gas demand. We do not believe this is a
significant amount given the potential factors that will drive natural
gas supply and demand over the next 10-20 years.
Question. Is the ethanol mandate something DOE is considering in
evaluating our long-term natural gas needs?
Answer. As discussed in the answer above, we do not believe that
the impact of a 5 billion gallon per year renewal fuels standard will
have a significant impact on future natural gas demand.
HYDROGEN FUEL
Question. I support research and development efforts to make
hydrogen fuel and fuel cell powered automobiles a reality. In fact,
companies and universities based in California have been at the
forefront of developing hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. However, I
am concerned about the overwhelming amounts of energy it will take to
extract hydrogen fuel on a large scale. Since the actions we take today
will influence what kind of hydrogen economy develops 10 or 20 years
from now, how does the Administration propose to generate this large
amount of energy?
Answer. A big advantage of hydrogen as a transportation fuel is its
potential to be produced efficiently and economically via a number of
processes and from a variety of domestic resources, such as natural gas
and other fossil fuels, abundant renewables, and nuclear. The
Department has established a balanced effort to research and develop
hydrogen production capabilities from all of these resources. Today,
the most cost-effective and efficient process is steam reforming of
natural gas. Natural gas reforming is a route for producing hydrogen,
particularly in the near term because of its current economics and the
availability of existing infrastructure. Use of coal with
sequestration, renewable resources, and nuclear are other routes for
producing hydrogen over the long term. Although hydrogen production in
the future is not likely to come from natural gas alone, an Energy
Information Administration (EIA) calculation indicated that if 36
million hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were on the road by 2025, it would
add about 5 percent to total natural gas that will be used in the
United.States that year. This increase would be more than offset by
natural gas demand reduced by new advanced technologies and efficiency
improvements to existing technologies under development within the EERE
portfolio. EERE's analysis, based on our fiscal year 2004 budget
request, indicates that by 2020 the industrial, buildings, and other
portions of our portfolio will be freeing up some 11 percent of
expected natural gas demand. In the future, hydrogen will likely be
produced from a diverse suite of domestic resources, such as
renewables, nuclear, natural gas and, if carbon capture and
sequestration technologies are perfected, coal. Thus, the domestic
resources needed to produce large amounts of hydrogen are available
and, with continued research and development, the necessary production
processes should meet required efficiency and cost objectives to
facilitate a fuel cell vehicle commercialization decision by industry
in 2015.
ELK HILL
Question. The Department of Energy entered into a Settlement
Agreement with the State of California to compensate the State for its
interest in the Elk Hills oil reserve. The Settlement Agreement calls
for the State to receive compensation in seven annual installments. The
Department has met its obligations for the first five installments. Mr.
Secretary, will the Department continue to meet its obligations under
this Agreement?
Answer. Estimates for the total for the remaining payments have
been as high as $118 million; however, until final equity and final
cost determinations are made, the precise amount is speculative. The
President's budget for fiscal year 2004 requests $36 million for the
payment to California, indicative of the Department's intention to meet
its obligation to California. Under the agreement, if equity has not
been finalized by July 2003 (which it will not be), DOE and the state
should confer, and DOE must determine whether any or all of the seventh
installment should be deferred.
Question. DOE has held back $26 million in compensation due to the
State because DOE has taken 6 years to finalize the split of the
proceeds from selling Elk Hills. Under DOE's Settlement Agreement, for
the sixth installment in fiscal year 2004, the State is entitled to
half of the balance in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund that's left
after this holdback. Thus, the State is entitled to $59 million in Elk
Hills compensation for fiscal year 2004, not the $36 million requested
in your budget. Mr. Secretary, what is the Department's view of an
appropriation of the full $59 million?
Answer. The Settlement Act provided for 9 percent of the net sales
proceeds to be reserved in a contingent fund in the Treasury for
payment to the State, subject to appropriation. The Department's
estimate of 9 percent of the net sales proceeds was $324 million, of
which $298 million has already been deposited into the contingent fund.
The Department will adjust the amount in the contingent fund once all
divestment related costs and final equity have been determined. It is
now apparent that the final equity determination will not be completed
until fiscal year 2006. Since 9 percent of the net revenues can only be
calculated after final equity and final costs are determined, the
amount of the two ``equal'' final payments is contingent upon events
that have not yet occurred, and it will be impossible for Congress to
appropriate an amount for fiscal year 2004 that would be known to be 50
percent of the remaining payment.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Burns. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., Thursday, May 22, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses, the statements and
letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
In Support of $5,200,000 to assist in Colorado River Salinity
Control, Title II, and with support for the President's request for the
Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management.
Specifically, this testimony supports the President's request for the
Soil, Water and Air account in the amount of $34,936,000 and for a
designation that $800,000 be used to further advance Colorado River
salinity control efforts.
This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) for activities that assist the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program. The BLM budget, as proposed by the
Administration in the BLM budget justification document, calls for four
principle program priorities within the Soil, Water and Air Management.
One of these priorities, in part, is ``through continuing BLM measures
to meet the international agreement for salinity of the Colorado
River.'' It is also noted that in the budget justification document
there are identified performance estimates for 2003 and it is stated
that ``The BLM continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate
progress in cooperation with Bureau of Reclamation and Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and report salt-retaining measures in
order to further the Plan of Implementation of the Federal Salinity
Control program in the Colorado River Basin.'' The Forum believes that
in fiscal year 2004 funds appropriated by Congress will be used for
this purpose in this next fiscal year.
The seven Colorado River Basin States, through the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Forum, have been trying to engage the BLM in a
partnership with the Basin states as has been done with other federal
agencies. This enhanced working relationship has been slow to develop.
The Forum is encouraged by the words in the BLM budget document. The
Forum supports the funding request. Our analysis indicates that the BLM
needs to specifically target the expenditure of funds in the amount of
$5,200,000 for activities that help control salt contributions from BLM
managed lands in the Colorado River Basin in fiscal year 2004 with
$800,000 being focused upon salinity control efforts.
Although the Forum has not been able to determine, to its
satisfaction, how funds have been or will be spent, we are encouraged
by recent BLM efforts. The Forum has requested that the BLM select a
salinity coordinator for the basinwide program. This person would serve
with the two full-time coordinators now in place for the USBR and the
USDA. Salinity Coordinators in each of the state BLM offices have been
identified.
The BLM has been charged by the Congress with preparing a special
report as to how the Bureau will advance salinity control activities.
In the past, it has been difficult to determine the extent of BLM
efforts in the water quality program. It has been very general in its
accounting for accomplishments. The Forum hopes that the BLM report to
the Congress, which is required under S. 1211 (Public Law 106-459),
will better document the BLM efforts. The success of the BLM in
controlling erosion and, hence, salt contributions to the Colorado
River and its tributaries is essential to the success of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program, including adherence to the water
quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states and
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Inadequate BLM control
efforts will result in very significant additional economic damages to
water users downstream. The Forum submits this testimony in support of
adequate funding so that the BLM programs can move ahead at a pace that
is needed to meet these water quality standards.
OVERVIEW
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by
Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
made, through a minute of the International Boundary and Water
Commission, to Mexico with respect to the quality of water being
delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act established
a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado River water
users in the United States and to comply with the mandates of the then
newly enacted Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the Interior
and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead federal role by
Congress. This testimony is in support of funding for a portion of the
Title II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. Congress revised the Act in 1984. That revision, while leaving
implementation of the salinity control policy with the Secretary of the
Interior, gave new salinity control responsibilities to the Department
of Agriculture and to the Bureau of Land Management. Congress has
charged the Administration with implementing the most cost-effective
program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt removed). The
Basin states are strongly supportive of that concept and have proceeded
to implement their own salinity control efforts in the Colorado River
Basin.
Since the congressional mandates of nearly two decades ago, much
has been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River
system. Reclamation recognizes that the damages to United States' water
users alone is about $0.3 billion per year.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of Gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven-state
coordinating body for interfacing with federal agencies and Congress in
support of the implementation of the salinity control program. In close
cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under
requirements of the Clean Water Act, every three years the Forum
prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River,
anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep
the salinities at or below the levels measured in the river system in
1972.
The plan necessary for controlling salinity has been captioned the
``plan of implementation.'' The 2002 Review of water quality standards
includes an updated plan of implementation. The level of appropriation
requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed to plan. If
adequate funds are not appropriated, state and federal agencies
involved are in agreement that the damage from the high salt levels in
the water will be even more widespread in the United States and Mexico.
JUSTIFICATION
The BLM is, by far and away, the largest land manager in the
Colorado River Basin. Much of the land that is controlled and managed
by the Bureau of Land Management is heavily laden with salt. Past
management practices, which include the use of lands for recreation;
for road building and transportation; and for oil, gas, and mineral
exploration have led to man-induced and accelerated erosional
processes. When soil and rocks heavily laden with salt erode, the silt
is carried along for some distance and ultimately settles in the
streambed or flood plain. The salts, however, are dissolved and remain
in the river system causing water quality problems downstream.
The Forum believes that the federal government has a major and
important responsibility with respect to controlling salt contributions
from public lands. Congress charged federal agencies, including the
BLM, to proceed with measures to control the salinity of the Colorado
River, with a strong mandate to seek out the most cost-effective
options. It has been determined that BLM's rangeland improvement
programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control
measures available. These salinity control measures may be more cost-
effective than some now being considered for implementation by the
Bureau of Reclamation and by the Department of Agriculture. They are
very environmentally acceptable, as they will prevent erosion, increase
grazing opportunities, increase dependable stream flows, and enhance
wildlife habitat.
Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah,
Colorado, and Wyoming, consortiums of federal and state agencies,
including the BLM, have selected several watersheds where very cost-
effective salinity control efforts could be implemented immediately. In
keeping with the Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-
effectiveness of salinity control, the Forum is requesting that the
Congress appropriate and the administration allocate adequate funds to
support the Bureau of Land Management's portion of the Colorado River
salinity control program as set forth in the Forum's adopted plan of
implementation.
BLM has not had a history of always adequately reporting its
efforts, the associated expenditures and its accomplishments with
respect to Colorado River salinity control. Legislation passed in 2000,
S. 1211, requires the BLM to report its program for salinity control to
the Congress. The Forum supports this requirement and looks forward to
the filing of the report, which, by law, must also be filed with the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
Support for fiscal year 2004 Federal Funding of $5.2 Million for
the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land Management to assist in
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, with $800,000 to be
designated specifically to salinity control efforts.
Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
year 2004 funding for the Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land
Management with respect to the federal/state Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program. This program is carried out as a part of
ecosystem and watershed management pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act.
As you are aware, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the
largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin. Due to geological
conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and managed by the
BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past management practices have led to
man-induced and accelerated erosional processes from which soil and
rocks, heavily laden with salt have been deposited in various stream
beds or flood plains. As a result of this disposition, salt is
dissolved into the River System causing water quality problems
downstream.
Congress has charged federal agencies, including the BLM, to
proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
effective salinity measures available. These salinity control measures
may be more cost-effective than some now being considered for
implementation by the Bureau of Reclamation through its Basinwide
Program and by the Department of Agriculture through its EQIP program.
In keeping with the Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-
effectiveness of the salinity control program, the Colorado River Board
is requesting that Congress appropriate and the administration allocate
adequate funds to support BLM's portion of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program.
The Colorado River Board of California, the state agency charged
with protecting California's interests and rights in the water and
power resources of the Colorado River System, requests that Congress
appropriate $5,200,000 of these funds in fiscal year 2004, to
accomplish activities that BLM either has underway or should initiate
in order to further control the concentrations of salinity of the
Colorado River. It is particularly important that the BLM's line item
for Management of Lands and Renewal Resources be adequately funded. The
Colorado River Board urges the Subcommittee to specifically mark,
$800,000 from this line-item for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program as has been the direction to BLM from the Subcommittee
in past years.
Soon your Subcommittee will receive testimony from the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) on behalf of the seven
Colorado River Basin states. The Colorado River Board concurs in the
fiscal year 2004 funding request and justification statements for BLM
as set forth in the Forum's testimony.
California's Colorado River water users are presently suffering
economic damages, estimated at $300 million per year, due to the
river's salinity, as stated in a recent report prepared by the Bureau
of Reclamation and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California. In addition, the federal government has made significant
commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven Colorado River
Basin states with regard to the delivery of quality water to Mexico. In
order for those commitments to be honored, it is essential that in
fiscal year 2004 and in future fiscal years, that Congress provide
funds to the Bureau of Land Management for its activities.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the 17 million residents of southern California.
Preservation of its quality through an effective Salinity Control
Program will avoid the additional economic damages to river users in
California.
The Board greatly appreciates your support of the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program and asks for your assistance and
leadership in securing adequate funding for this vital program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Doris Day Animal League
The Doris Day Animal League is a non-profit, member supported
animal advocacy organization located in Washington, D.C. On behalf of
our more than 350,000 members and supporters, we respectfully present
to the subcommittee our concerns about the Bureau of Land Management's
(BLM) Wild Horse and Burro Program (Program).
In 1971, Congress charged the BLM with preserving America's wild
horses and burros via passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro
Act. The Act declares that ``wild free-roaming horses and burros are
living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West . . .
[who] shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment or death.''
Further, they are to be considered as ``an integral part of the natural
system of the public lands.''
We are gravely concerned that the BLM is failing to fulfill this
mandate, and instead is engaging in questionable and unsustainable
practices under the guise of multiple-use land management. While the
BLM has several mandates and must appease various interested parties,
it should not do so at the expense of the very animals and land it is
charged with protecting.
In fiscal year 2001, the BLM requested and received a $9 million
budget increase from Congress to implement a four year program to halve
the number of wild horses on the range in order to restore the health
of the land. Despite the agency's failure to meet its own goals, this
new level of funding was effectively maintained in fiscal years 2002
and 2003.
The BLM's plan raised several questions, not least of which was,
where would the thousands of rounded-up horses go? Although the BLM has
recognized the shortage of good adoptive homes and has subsequently
made a commendable effort to open additional long-term holding
facilities to accommodate these horses, it is unclear how the agency
can sustain this plan of action; as more horses are rounded up,
additional facilities and homes are needed, yet the agency's budget
remains essentially static.
Already, BLM spends some 40 percent of its annual budget on holding
and caring for horses and burros removed from the range. Nearly 40
percent of the program budget goes to administering and marketing an
adoption program that can never be expected to absorb the thousands of
wild horses and burros rounded up annually. In contrast, little more
than 3 percent of the budget is devoted to range work, including
monitoring and censusing of wild horse populations, even though such
work is critical to the successful management of wild horse and burro
populations and the range itself.
Despite some grazing reductions in recent years, domestic livestock
still so dramatically outnumber wild horses on BLM land (the ratio is
estimated to be 50:1) that the removal of tens of thousands of horses
has not had a significant impact on the health of the range. As a GAO
report from 1990 stated, ``. . . the primary cause of degradation in
rangeland resources is poorly managed domestic livestock (primarily
cattle and sheep) grazing . . . wild horses are vastly outnumbered on
federal rangelands by domestic livestock . . .'' (Rangeland Management:
Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse Program, GAO, 1990). Our
observations and experience in working with this program over the past
several years reinforce that this is still very much the case.
We therefore respectfully urge this subcommittee to carefully
scrutinize the BLM's request for funding for fiscal year 2004. While we
do not oppose the agency receiving additional funds, we do not agree
that the health of the range can be noticeably improved simply through
the removal of large numbers of wild horses. Not only does this not
yield significant improvements in range conditions, but the strategy
also is financially unsustainable.
As such, we strongly suggest that a new GAO Report on the BLM's
Program be conducted to determine if its wild horse and burro policies
are appropriate when viewed as part of the agency's larger mission.
Further, in light of the huge number of wild horses and burros being
rounded up through emergency and scheduled gathers, it is imperative
that the ``no-kill'' provision that has been attached to the Interior
Appropriations bill for several years now remain intact. That provision
reads:
``The appropriations made herein shall not be available for the
destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care
of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.''
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages some 262 million acres
of the Nation's public lands, which is 48 per cent of our total public
lands, making it the single largest natural resource management agency
in terms of acres managed. Yet its operating budget amounts to a
funding rate of $3.73 per acre, about $4-$16 less per acre than the
three other largest Federal land and natural resource management
agencies. These lands provide critically important fish and wildlife
habitat, and, in 2004, over 60 million visitors are expected to
participate in recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting,
camping, rafting, hiking, mountain biking, and wildlife viewing. The
Association is concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget proposes
essentially a static funding level. This will continue to present
significant challenges to BLM to even maintain current levels of
activity on these public lands, without providing the agency any
capability to enhance its management presence and programs. Congress
needs to begin to incrementally increase BLM's operational budget to
bring it into parity with the other Federal land management agencies.
The BLM's Fish and Wildlife Priorities
While the Association appreciates the fact the Secretary of the
Interior has revised the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, as well
as increased the Challenge Cost Share Program, we also recognize that
these undertakings are largely made possible by reallocating money from
existing resource-based programs. For example, in fiscal year 2003,
$5.5 million--over 60 percent--of the funding for the Challenge Cost
Share Program originated from the wildlife, fisheries and T&E species
programs. Since a like amount is not guaranteed to be used for these
same purposes, the long-term implications are a reduction of program
emphasis. The Association, therefore, requests funding for the
Challenge Cost Share program not come from existing programs and those
redirected funds be returned to the budget of origin. In addition to
the source of funding, the Association remains very concerned that BLM
does not have the staff to take full advantage of either the
Cooperative Conservation Initiative or the Challenge Cost Share
Program.
Wildlife Management
Consumptive (hunting and fishing) and non-consumptive wildlife
activities (such as viewing, photography and conservation education) on
public lands provide millions of America's outdoor enthusiasts with
opportunities to pursue these endeavors, which are part of our Nation's
rich cultural heritage. Such activities on BLM lands result in $2
billion in expenditures from participants each year. The
Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget for BLM's Wildlife Management
program is $22.42 million, which is nearly identical to the fiscal year
2003 enacted level, but nearly $2.9 million (13 percent) below the
fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The Association strongly urges Congress
to increase BLM's fiscal year 2004 wildlife management budget by an
additional $4 million. The return for this investment in expenditures
in local communities is significant.
Fisheries Management
The BLM manages roughly 117,000 miles of fish bearing streams,
17,000 miles of anadromous fish habitat, and 3 million acres of
fishable lakes and reservoirs which provide recreational anglers with
high quality fishing opportunities, generating $390 million annually in
economic benefits. In order to manage these resources, the
Administration is requesting $11.87 million in fiscal year 2004 for
Fisheries Management. This represents a program increase of $200,000
from the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget, but remains nearly $250,000
below the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget. This will reduce BLM's
aquatic and riparian habitat restoration capabilities on vital public
lands. Management activities will focus on the maintenance and
restoration of habitat for both anadromous and resident species. These
improvements are aimed at providing recreational angling opportunities
and precluding the need for the listing of fish stocks as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The Association strongly
encourages Congress to increase this budget by an additional $1
million.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Lands administered by BLM provide habitat to more than 900
vulnerable and declining species and 306 threatened or endangered plant
and animal species. The latter number has more than doubled since 1990.
Like other Federal agencies, the Bureau is mandated by the Endangered
Species Act to take steps to ensure that strategies are implemented to
protect and restore both the species and the habitat that they require.
With the rapid increase in the number of listed species, however, BLM's
Threatened and Endangered Species Program has transformed from one of
proactive species conservation management to one that, out of
necessity, must react to the increasing consultation workload.
In the Conference Report from the Committee on Appropriations on
the 2001 Department of Interior Appropriations Bill, the Committee
specifically requested the Bureau to, ``submit as part of its fiscal
year 2002 budget request the results of its ongoing analysis and review
of the impacts of ESA listings on the ability of the Bureau to
accomplish its mission while at the same time responding to the growing
demand for use authorization requests''. The Committee also requested
the Bureau to, ``provide a detailed roadmap of how it intends to
address these impacts, including the level of funds and other resources
that would be required to address these problem areas''.
In its Report to Congress, dated March, 2001, and entitled
``Effects of Endangered Species Act Listings on Bureau of Land
Management Programs and Activities,'' the agency concluded the
following: ``. . . BLM is proposing a future management strategy that
streamlines the consultation process, enhances pre-listing management
through the development of multi-species conservation frameworks, and
aggressively addresses recovery actions identified in formal species
recovery plans. This strategy will be integrated within the framework
of the Bureau's strategic plan. It will require doubling the current
Threatened and Endangered Species budget to $48 million and take an
additional 70 staff positions over 5 years . . .''.
The President requests $21.83 million in fiscal year 2004 for BLM
threatened and endangered species management, which represents a
$543,000 increase from the fiscal year 2003 request, but totally
ignores the aforementioned Report to Congress. The request is woefully
inadequate to meet identified needs or allow the BLM to carry out its
responsibilities under the ESA--or for that matter--its mission.
Significant increases in funding are needed in fiscal year 2004 and the
next several years to accomplish what was recommended in the 2001
Report to Congress--that is: ``. . . At that time, funding and
personnel needs should stabilize, and begin to decline as species
recovery becomes effective''. In view of this gross inequity between
resource needs versus funding levels, the Association strongly
encourages Congress to add an additional $5 million to the Threatened
and Endangered Species fiscal year 2004 budget.
BLM Fish & Wildlife Staffing
The Association supports the previously-referenced programs and
Bureau funding requests (with the recommended changes), however, we
remain extremely concerned that at current staffing levels, the Bureau
and its field staff will be unable to meet its program and statutory
requirements. The western states' population has more than tripled, to
over 60 million people, over the past 55 years, while the Nation's
largest land management agency's staff has declined. At current staff
levels, biologists are often forced to divide their time between on-
the-ground program implementation efforts and other program
requirements, which may or may not provide direct fish or wildlife
benefits.
Evaluations of staffing needs by BLM have shown that the Bureau is
lacking in staff to accomplish program goals. For example, a 1990 study
of the Fish, Wildlife, and Forest Group showed that BLM was in need of
three times its workforce at that time. Exacerbating the problem is the
fact that the fisheries and wildlife staffing levels have declined 20
percent since that time. Further, a recent workforce evaluation showed
that with its current level of staffing in fisheries and wildlife, the
BLM is staffed at only 50 percent and 57 percent, respectively, of its
1993 identified needs. More recently, the March, 2001, Report to
Congress concluded it would take an additional 70 staff positions over
five years to address its consultation, pre-listing management and
recovery actions under the ESA. Nowhere in the fiscal year 2004 budget
request are these staffing needs addressed. Given the increased
emphasis in this budget on accelerating the completion of land use
plans and expanding energy development on public lands, these staffing
shortages are resulting in fish and wildlife resources being
inadequately addressed in agency actions.
The Association understands the entire Wildlife and Fisheries
Management Program has just undergone a complete review and the
findings will be made public in the coming months. It is our sincere
hope that recommendations contained therein will help guide preparation
of the fiscal year 2005 and subsequent budgets. The Association asserts
it is critical that the BLM be provided both the adequate staff and
additional operating funds needed to implement its base programs in
order to be effective in managing aquatic and terrestrial resources on
public lands. These programs can help point the way towards both
wildlife sustainability and economic stability and development.
Because of these ongoing staffing shortages, the BLM has to utilize
more and more contract employees to do much of its work related to
planning efforts and on-the-ground monitoring, and this past year
implemented an intern program with the Institute for Plant Conservation
Biology. While the Association understands the use of contract
employees and graduate students, we would encourage the BLM to explore
ways to partner with State fish and wildlife agencies--through MOUs and
funding agreements--to help accomplish its work related to wildlife and
fisheries and threatened and endangered species management. This, in
fact, should be aggressively pursued. This approach would help utilize
existing expertise from the States who have management authority over
resident species and expand the state-federal partnership necessary to
perpetuate the diversity of flora and fauna of Western rangelands.
The BLM needs to coordinate closely with the respective State fish
and wildlife agencies so that programs and activities do not compromise
State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident wildlife and to
facilitate the cooperative design and conduct of research and
management programs. Collaborative efforts between the BLM and the
State fish and wildlife agencies play a critical role in achieving land
and resource objectives for species and related resources. The
Association recommends that funds be made available to the States to
maximize discretion of the States in fish and wildlife information and
management needs, wherever possible, instead of duplicating or
authorizing conflicting programs.
On a related matter, the Association continues to be deeply
concerned that, as part of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act
(FAIR) inventory, wildlife biology is one of the position categories
that has been identified for possible outsourcing (i.e., contracting)
to the private sector. We are adamantly opposed to any action that
might result in the reduction or elimination of Federal career
professionals being responsible for day-to-day oversight and management
of the Nation's public land resources.
Finally, with the increased emphasis on energy development on BLM
lands being advocated by the Administration, increased demands and
needs for fish and wildlife expertise are expected. Already,
approximately 30 percent of existing wildlife and fisheries staff time
is being directed at energy-related functions. The Association strongly
supports hiring additional fish and wildlife staff to address these
critical program areas in the context of addressing the Nation's Energy
Policy, but recommends these positions be directly funded from the
energy account, rather than extracted from the existing base Wildlife
Management, Fisheries Management or Threatened or Endangered Species
Program budgets.
Riparian Management
The BLM manages over 23 million acres of land classified as
riparian or wetland. These areas include or support some of the most
ecologically diverse and important plant and animal communities on the
public lands. These areas have ecological significance far beyond their
small acreage. They provide vital habitat components for hundreds of
fish and wildlife species, filter sediment from water, afford greater
water storage capacity, dissipate flood waters and offer excellent
recreational opportunities. For these reasons and more, the Association
supports BLM efforts in riparian areas, but remains concerned that the
requested $21.97 million is insufficient to meet all of the identified
needs. This amount, in addition to inflation and uncontrollables, is
actually far less than what has been devoted to this important work in
prior years. Given the potential for partnerships this program provides
with other State and local interests, it is disheartening to see any
lessening of attention paid these important resources. The Association
requests that Congress add $3 million to this program, and urges BLM to
continue its coordination with State fish and wildlife agencies in
order to achieve optimal program results.
Rangeland Management
The Association is encouraged by BLM's efforts to address the
problem of invasive and noxious weeds on public lands and recommends a
more focused effort to address high priority invasive species that are
serious problems for fish and wildlife habitat. The Association
supports a fiscal year 2004 budget of $9.4 million for invasive weed
management, rather than the $8.3 million being requested. We also
encourage Congress to add $3 million for local and State efforts to
combat invasive weeds.
Realty and Ownership Management
The Association recommends reinstatement of the proposed reduction
of $2 million in the Alaska Conveyance and Lands program in the fiscal
year 2004 budget. This reduction, coupled with absorption of nearly
half of the uncontrollables, will significantly impact this program.
Completion of this program is long overdue and critical for the State
and native corporations to receive their land entitlements under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and Alaska Statehood Act, both of
which are several decades old. Until the land conveyances are complete,
it is difficult for Federal and State agencies and private landowners
to make land management decisions affecting State fish and wildlife
management, public access, and land uses.
In addition, we urge the BLM to redirect to actual land conveyances
any funds currently being used for the ``2001 Public Easement Review
Process'' in the Alaska region. Until the conveyance process is
complete, any agency resources spent on the ``2001 Process'' is
premature. Existing regulations already prescribe an easement vacation
process that can be used when needed. We recommend the BLM focus on
signing and marking of easements to reduce trespass and land management
issues. We urge the funds currently being spent on expediting vacations
be more appropriately spent on completing land conveyance itself and
the management of existing easements.
Monitoring
The Association understands the fiscal year 2004 budget request for
BLM includes $1 million to conduct long-term, large-scale, ``cumulative
effects'' resource monitoring. We support this effort and the manner in
which these fiscal resources are included in the appropriate programs
including wildlife management; fisheries management; soil, air and
water; and cultural resources. Conversely, BLM is proposing $500,000 to
expand resource monitoring to increase its ability to assess the
cumulative impact of oil and gas development, especially on cultural
resources and species-at-risk. This effort is targeted at states where
coalbed natural gas development is occurring. However in this instance,
the funding is contained in the oil and gas account. The Association
supports this monitoring, but recommends the fiscal resources to
conduct this work be allocated within the appropriate program area
budget where biological and cultural resource expertise exists.
Wild Horse and Burro Management
The Association remains very concerned about the BLM's inability to
reach appropriate population levels for wild horses and burros on
western rangelands and the resulting habitat damage, being further
worsened by the continuing region-wide drought. In some instances,
resource damage caused by excessive numbers of wild horses and burros
will never recover, and in other areas, the situation is reaching
crisis proportions. Yet, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
request for this program is $295,000 less than the fiscal year 2003
enacted budget. This is simply an inconsistent response to a
significant resource problem. The Association, therefore, recommends
Congress increase this budget by an additional $500,000 in fiscal year
2004 and require BLM--if not already scheduled--to undertake a complete
review of the Wild Horse and Burro Management Program and have it
accompany the fiscal year 2006 budget request. Not to be lost in this
recommendation is the importance of the fact that BLM's existing Wild
Horse and Burro Management Program--which is funded at $29.7 million
for fiscal year 2003--already exceeds what is committed for its
Fisheries Management ($11.7 million); Threatened and Endangered Species
($21.7 million); and Wildlife Management ($22.4 million) programs
during the same period. This further validates the Association's
earlier assertion that the latter three program areas are grossly
under-funded, by comparison.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
SUMMARY
This Statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2004
appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control program
activities of the Bureau of Land Management. I urge that $5,200,000 be
appropriated for the Bureau of Land Management for activities that
benefit the control of salinity in the Colorado River Basin, and of
that amount, $800,000 be marked specifically for the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program. In addition, I support the President's
requested appropriation of $34,936,000 for the Land Resources
Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management.
STATEMENT
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum is comprised of
representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States appointed by
the respective Governors of the States. The Forum has examined all of
the features needed to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
Those features include activities by the States, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The salinity control program has been adopted by the
seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the EPA as a part of
each state's water quality standards. Also, water delivered to Mexico
in the Colorado River is subject to Minute 242 of the United States
treaty with Mexico that sets limits on the salinity of the water.
About 75 percent of the land in the Colorado River basin is owned,
administered or held in trust by the federal government. BLM is the
largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin, and manages public lands
that are heavily laden with salt. When salt-laden soils erode, the
salts are dissolved and remain in the river system affecting the
quality of water used from the Colorado River by the Lower Basin States
and Mexico. BLM needs to target the expenditure of $5,200,000 in fiscal
year 2004 for activities that benefit salinity control in the Colorado
River Basin: In addition, BLM needs to target the expenditure of
$800,000 of the $5,200,000 specifically for salinity control projects
and technical investigations. Experience in past years has shown that
BLM projects are among the most cost-effective of the salinity control
projects.
I believe that the Federal government has a major and important
responsibility with respect to controlling salt discharge from public
lands. Congress has charged the federal agencies to proceed with
programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River Basin with a
strong mandate to seek out the most cost-effective solutions. BLM's
rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
effective salinity control measures available. In addition, these
programs are environmentally acceptable and control erosion, increase
grazing opportunities, produce dependable stream run-off and enhance
wildlife habitat.
The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin
States contain a plan of implementation that includes BLM participation
to implement cost effective measures of salinity control. BLM
participation in the salinity control program is critical and essential
to actively pursue the identification, implementation and
quantification of cost effective salinity control measures on public
lands.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that damages from the Colorado
River to United States water users are about $300,000,000 per year.
Control of salinity is necessary for the Colorado River Basin States,
including New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned
waters of the Colorado River. The Basin States are proceeding with an
independent program to control salt discharges to the Colorado River,
in addition to up-front cost sharing with Bureau of Reclamation and
Department of Agriculture salinity control programs. It is vitally
important that BLM pursue salinity control projects within its
jurisdiction to maintain the cost effectiveness of the program and the
timely implementation of salinity control projects to avoid unnecessary
damages in the United States and Mexico.
For much of the last decade or more, there has been a protracted
problem with BLM accounting and reporting on salinity control efforts.
Congress required, by Public Law 106-459, that BLM report to Congress
on its salinity control efforts. I fully support the action by Congress
to require BLM to report on its accomplishments within the salinity
control program. Accounting and reporting BLM salinity control
accomplishments annually is an essential activity to provide a
coordinated, cost effective salinity control program.
At the urging of the Basin States, BLM has agreed to create a full
time position to coordinate its activities among the BLM state offices
and other federal agencies involved in implementation of the salinity
control program. BLM is to be commended for this important first step
to improve cooperation and coordination with the Basin States and other
federal agencies, and to comply with BLM responsibilities pursuant to
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, as amended. The Basin
States and I are pleased with the current BLM administration's
responsiveness in addressing the need for a salinity coordinator and
are hopeful that submittal of the required report to Congress will
signal a renewed effort by BLM to identify and implement projects to
address the salinity control objectives required to maintain the water
quality standards for salinity. It is commendable that BLM's budget
focuses on ecosystems and watershed management, but it is essential
that funds be targeted on specific subactivities and the results of
those expenditures reported. This is necessary for accountability and
effectiveness of the use of the funds.
I request the appropriation of $5.2 million in fiscal year 2004 for
Colorado River salinity control activities of BLM, and that $800,000 of
that amount be marked specifically for the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program, including projects and technical
investigations. In addition, I request the appropriation of $34,936,000
for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management as
requested by the President. I very much appreciate favorable
consideration of these requests. I fully support the statement of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum submitted by Jack Barnett,
the Forum's Executive Director, in request of appropriations for BLM
for Colorado River salinity control activities.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Management Institute
The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is a nonprofit organization
staffed by experienced resource management professionals and is
dedicated to sound, scientific management of wildlife and wildlife
habitats. This letter contains our comments on the Administration's
proposed fiscal 2004 budget for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In
particular, we propose increases of $40 million for the Wildlife and
Fisheries program, a $50 million increase for the Threatened and
Endangered Species program, and a $10 million increase for the Riparian
Area Management program.
The BLM manages some 262 million acres of the nation's public
lands, which is 48 percent of our total public lands, making it the
single largest natural resource management agency in terms of acres
managed. These lands provide critically important fish and wildlife
habitat, and, in 2004, over 60 million visitors are expected to
participate in recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting,
camping, rafting, hiking, mountain biking, and wildlife viewing. In
contrast, the energy and mineral production components of BLM's mission
often pose extreme threats to wildlife resources and associated
recreation. These circumstances merit an ongoing commitment to funding
sound wildlife management.
Hunting and non-consumptive wildlife activities (Such as viewing,
photography and conservation education) on public lands provide
millions of America's outdoor enthusiasts with opportunities to pursue
these endeavors. Such activities on BLM lands result in $2 billion in
expenditures from participants each year, most of this spent in rural
communities. The Administration's fiscal 2004 budget for BLM's Wildlife
Management Program is $22.42 million, which remains $2.9 million (13
percent) below the fiscal 2002 enacted level. WMI strongly urges your
subcommittee to increase BLM's fiscal 2004 wildlife management budget
by an additional $4 million to $26.42 million.
The BLM manages roughly 117,000 miles of fish bearing streams,
17,000 miles of anadromous fish habitat, and 3 million acres of
fishable lakes and reservoirs, which provide recreational anglers with
high quality fishing opportunities, generating $390 million annually in
economic benefits. Yet, the Administration is requesting $250,000 less
than was enacted in fiscal 2002. This will reduce BLM's aquatic and
riparian habitat restoration capabilities on vital public lands. WMI
encourages your subcommittee to increase the agency's fisheries budget
by an additional $1 million to $12.87 million.
Lands administered by BLM provide habitats to more than 900
vulnerable and declining species and 306 threatened or endangered plant
and animal species, and these numbers are increasing. With the rapid
increase in the number of listed species, however, BLM's Threatened and
Endangered Species Program has transformed from one of proactive
species conservation management to one that, out of necessity, must
react to the increasing consultation workload. The BLM is proposing a
future management strategy for at-risk species that streamlines the
consultation process, enhances pre-listing management through the
development of multi-species conservation frameworks, and aggressively
addresses recovery actions identified in formal species recovery plans.
This strategy will be integrated within the framework of the Bureau's
strategic plan, and is projected to cost the agency $30 million above
current authorized funding levels. The Administration is requesting
$21.83 million in fiscal 2004 for BLM threatened and endangered species
management, but this request is woefully inadequate to meet identified
needs or allow the BLM to carry out its responsibilities under the
ESA--or for that matter, its mission. Significant increases in funding
are needed in fiscal 2004 and the next several years. In view of the
inequity between resource needs and appropriated funding levels, WMI
encourages your subcommittee to increase the Threatened and Endangered
Species fiscal 2004 budget for the BLM to $27 million. Failing to
provide adequate fiscal support for these programs will allow further
unnecessary declines in sensitive species populations, resulting in
even greater costs for future restoration and management.
We support the Administration's requested increase of $15.11
million for Resource Management and Planning to $48.146 million. We
understand these funds are to expedite the development of 37 land
management plans, but we are concerned that the BLM will overlook the
need to balance biological and other resource monitoring with the rush
to accelerate energy development. We believe these plans should provide
guidelines for management of public lands for the next 15 years and
that they should require an orderly development of energy resources. We
recommend that each land management plan have an annual monitoring
plan, and that funding be appropriated to conduct and analyze the data.
The BLM has identified a need of approximately $140 million to
implement 13 ecosystem restoration initiatives over the next four
years; almost half of which deal with sagebrush/sage grouse, lesser
prairie-chicken or prairie dog habitats (BLM's Sagebrush and Prairie
Grassland Initiatives). These innovative restoration projects range
from the Arctic Tundra and Boreal Forests in Alaska to the Chihuahuan
and Sonoran Deserts in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Without
additional funding, BLM will have no choice but to delay action on
these initiatives. While the total cost to restore these ecosystems is
high, it will be even more expensive to restore them in the future. We
recommend you subcommittee to provide at least $2 million to the BLM to
implement the Sagebrush and Prairie Grassland Initiatives (particularly
to support the efforts of the High Plains Partnership). Importantly,
other State and Federal agencies, as well as private organizations, are
poised to fund closely allied efforts for these initiatives, so BLM has
a unique opportunity to leverage its expenditures, if appropriate
funding is provided.
We are concerned about the agency's request not to provide funding
to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). The foundation
leverages more than $3 private for every Federal dollar invested. The
collaborative and cooperative projects supported by the NFWF resolve
real conflicts in conservation and land management that otherwise would
lead to gridlock and extreme cost. We recommend that your subcommittee
provide $1 million in the BLM's budget for the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation.
The Wildlife Management Institute is concerned that at current
staffing levels, the Bureau and its field staff will be unable to meet
its program and statutory requirements. The western states' population
has more than tripled--over 60 million people--over the past 55-years,
while the nation's largest land management agency's staff has declined.
At current staff levels, biologists are often forced to divide their
time between on-the-ground program implementation efforts and other
program requirements; which may or may not provide direct fish or
wildlife benefits. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the
fisheries and wildlife staffing levels have declined 20 percent in
recent years. Nowhere in the Administration's fiscal 2004 budget
request for the agency are these staffing needs addressed. Given the
increased emphasis in this budget on accelerating the completion of
land use plans and expanding energy development on public lands, these
staff and skill shortages are resulting in fish and wildlife resources
being inadequately addressed in agency actions. We request that your
subcommittee provide the BLM with the authority and funding for staff
and operation resources necessary to implement its base programs in
order to be effective in managing aquatic and terrestrial resources on
public lands. We also encourage your subcommittee to direct the BLM to
explore ways to partner with State fish and wildlife agencies, other
Federal agencies and professional private wildlife groups and
individuals--through MOUs and funding agreements--to help accomplish
its work related to wildlife and fisheries and threatened and
endangered species management. However, we are opposed to any action
that might result in the reduction or elimination of Federal career
fish or wildlife professionals who are responsible for day-to-day
oversight or management of the nation's public land resources.
The BLM needs to coordinate closely with the respective State fish
and wildlife agencies so that programs and activities do not compromise
State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident wildlife and to
facilitate the cooperative design and conduct of research and
management programs. Collaborative efforts between the BLM and the
State fish and wildlife agencies play a critical role in achieving land
and resource objectives for species and related resources. WMI
recommends that funds be made available to the States to maximize
discretion of the States in fish and wildlife information and
management needs, wherever possible, instead of duplicating or
authorizing conflicting programs.
Finally, the increased emphasis on energy development on public
lands by the Administration has placed a heavy burden on BLM's
professional fish and wildlife staff. Already, approximately 30 percent
of existing wildlife and fisheries staff time is being directed at
energy-related functions yet charged to fisheries and wildlife program
elements. WMI recommends that your subcommittee direct the BLM to
ensure that energy accounts pay for the costs related to energy
development. Further, WMI recommends that your subcommittee strongly
support hiring additional fish and wildlife staff by the BLM to address
these critical program areas, but again, we recommend these positions
be directly funded from the energy account, rather than extracted funds
from Wildlife management, Fisheries Management or Threatened or
Endangered Species Program budgets. Without addressing these fish and
wildlife staffing and skill needs, the orderly development of our
energy resources could be curtailed and make activities more vulnerable
to legal challenge. We believe Congress should invest more in assuring
that high profile fish and wildlife resources are treated before
development creates a crisis.
Thank you for considering our comments, and we look forward to
working with you and your staff throughout the appropriation process as
we learn more details about the Administration's budget request and
needs. If you or your staff would like to discuss our recommendations
further, please contact me or Terry Riley, Director of Conservation, at
(202) 371-1808.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
REQUESTING $100 MILLION FOR STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS PROGRAM IN FISCAL
YEAR 2004
The mission of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is to manage,
protect, maintain, and improve the fish, game and aquatic plant
resources of Alaska. The ability of the Department to carry out this
mission is greatly enhanced by federal funding provided by the State
Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program.
The Department appreciates the significant support this committee
has given to the SWG Program over the past several years. This
relatively new funding source has enabled us to initiate new programs
needed to monitor low and declining species in Alaska, especially those
not hunted or fished. We have commenced new research programs to
monitor amphibians, neotropical migratory birds, and a variety of
individual species, including the Queen Charlotte Goshawk, which was
recently petitioned to be listed as a threatened species, largely
because little was known about the bird. We have also initiated a
comprehensive planning effort, aimed at identifying those species most
in need of management attention.
Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2003 funding for this program was cut
substantially from $85 million to $65 million. This represented a
breach in the commitment made to supporters of Conservation and
Reinvestment Act legislation, when--as a compromise--Congress created
the Conservation Trust Fund within the fiscal year 2001 appropriations
bill. The intention was to fund these programs for six years and to
increase funding by 10 percent annually. This occurred for the first
two years; however, last year funding for State Wildlife Grants was cut
significantly. The decrease from $85 to $65 million threatens to
undermine this critical program just as it is beginning to influence
on-the-ground conservation. We encourage you to uphold the 2001
compromise and provide this much-needed funding at the $100 million
level.
With more than 1,000 animals and plants already listed as federally
threatened or endangered, State Wildlife Grants are our best hope for
aggressively stemming this decline. Investing federal dollars now to
protect or restore wildlife populations is far more effective than
waiting until populations reach critically low levels and need
``emergency room care'' through the Endangered Species Act. Ultimately,
State Wildlife Grants will save both our nation's precious wildlife
heritage and taxpayer dollars.
We urge you to help ensure that $100 million is provided in fiscal
year 2004 to fund this priority fisheries and wildlife conservation
program.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Back Bay
I am Molly Brown from Virginia Beach, Virginia. I am the President
of Friends of Back Bay, a group of over 400 dedicated volunteers who
are committed to the protection of the Back Bay National Wildlife
Refuge. Located in southeastern Virginia Beach, Back Bay National
Wildlife Refuge was established on February 29, 1938, as a 4,589-acre
refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds. We thank Congress for
their continued support of this project.
The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a
Refuge boundary expansion on May 7, 1990. The expansion area includes
6,340 acres of important wildlife habitat. To date the Fish and
Wildlife Service has been able to acquire 4,452 acres. The Virginia
Division of Natural Heritage has identified 14 natural areas within the
Back Bay watershed, nine of which are within the Refuge boundary. These
areas contain rare plant and animal communities, some of which are
found nowhere else in Virginia. The Refuge annually supports tens of
thousands of migratory birds including neotropical migrants, other
songbirds, waterfowl, shore birds, wading birds and raptors. Submerged
aquatic vegetation has begun to make a reappearance in Back Bay, due in
part to land protection efforts of the Service. Various wintering
waterfowl (widgeons, green-winged teal, and gadwall) have wintered in
Back Bay this year. This acquisition had been zoned to accommodate
3,000 homes; however, thanks to Congress, this area has been protected
forever as a portion of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
The Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge is truly a diversified
ecosystem. The Refuge is the first undeveloped area south of the mouth
of the Chesapeake Bay. The first successful bald eagle nest on Back Bay
in over 30 years occurred on newly acquired Refuge lands in 1994. For
the past nine years, fifteen eaglets were fledged from this nest. Again
this year the eagles are nesting. Furthermore, additional adult Bald
Eagles have been observed on the Refuge, as well as other area of the
City of Virginia Beach. Also, loggerhead sea turtles nest on the Refuge
beaches at the northern limit of their nesting range. Three loggerhead
nests were successfully located and protected in 2002 and sea turtle
management on the Refuge received significant media coverage during the
summer. Peregrine falcons and piping plovers continue to use Refuge
habitats during migration. Finally, owl research continues to be
conducted on the Refuge. So far they have banded and studied the
eastern screech, great horned, common barn and saw-whet owls.
The threat to the Back Bay watershed continues. The primary threat
is conversion of existing farmland and woodland into residential,
commercial and recreational uses. The City of Virginia Beach
Comprehensive Plan projects an estimated 100,000 additional residents
in the Back Bay watershed. Current proposals include condo development,
mineral extraction and golf course development. As development
restrictions are relaxed, land values are escalating and may soon be
out of reach for conservation purposes.
Since the metropolitan area of Southeastern Virginia is one of the
fastest growing urban areas in the nation, natural havens such as the
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge are increasingly important to its 1.5
million inhabitants. A survey of 500 registered voters conducted in
2000 by the City of Virginia Beach and Trust for Public Lands revealed
that 86 percent believed that it is important to protect the Back Bay.
This in part led the City of Virginia Beach to adopt the Virginia Beach
Outdoors Plan in February 2001. This plan is an initiative to preserve
open space for physical and visual enjoyment. The Refuge provides
public recreation, e.g. hunting, fishing, bird watching, photography
and environmental education. Visitation at the Refuge is over 100,000
per year. Environmental education is a major public use, with over 5000
schoolchildren utilizing the area in 2002. 2003 marked the 100th
anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Back Bay NWR and
its partner in education school, Red Mill Elementary, observed it with
a school assembly and photo contest for the fifth graders. The photos
were the student's reflection on the Back Bay area. The winning photos
were placed in the 100-year time capsule, as evidence of the importance
of Back Bay to today's students and future leaders. From the Refuge's
visitor center, students can observe seven different habitats. These
habitats are necessary for the survival of a wide variety of wildlife.
In keeping with our environmental education opportunities, a group of
local volunteers have worked with the Refuge staff to put the Back Bay
Refuge on the Internet. This will enable people world wide to access
information about the Back Bay ecosystem.
Furthermore, the Back Bay Refuge is now part of the Charles Kuralt
Trail, which includes eleven refuges in Virginia and North Carolina.
Back Bay is designated for the osprey and has a handicap accessible
trail to view these magnificent ``fish hawks.''
The acquisition of lands on the west side of Back Bay, that are
contiguous with Refuge property, will provide a more complete wildlife
habitat unit that can be managed with the existing Refuge staff. In
addition, in 1997 the Fish and Wildlife Service purchased a 17-acre
tract on the west side of the Bay that is now serving as a new
environmental education center for the Back Bay Refuge. This is helping
to introduce school children and other interested citizens to the
ecology of freshwater marshes and forested wetlands. The location of
this facility is closer to the people and reduces the travel time by
forty minutes.
With money appropriated in fiscal year 2003, the Fish and Wildlife
Service has purchased 139 acres from willing sellers. In order to
continue the Back Bay Refuge expansion project, we respectfully request
$1.0 million for fiscal year 2004. This money will help to fill in the
mosaic pattern of small land parcels from willing sellers who have been
waiting patiently to sell their land to the Refuge. One 15-acre tract
for sale on Horned Point Road is bound on both sides by Refuge
property. The owners of another 65-acre marsh are willing sellers who
want to see this area protected. A 20-acre tract will provide ingress/
egress to a parcel recently purchased by the Refuge and will complete
the acquisition of this property. A 260-acre shallow lake is being
added to the Refuge boundary at the request of the owner. Approximately
three-fourths of the shoreline is bounded by the Refuge and the
remainder is bounded by Dam Neck Naval Base.
I wish to extend my appreciation for the funding that you have
appropriated through fiscal year 2003. This money has purchased 4,452-
acres of the proposed 6,340-acres expansion. This means that this
project is over 70 percent completed in thirteen years. Also, this
project is ranked thirty-seventh on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's LAPS list and is in the President's budget. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this important project.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Kansas City, MO
I am pleased to provide written comments on behalf of the City of
Kansas City, Missouri (the City) in support of the President's 2004
Budget Request of $288.2 million for the Department of Energy's Low-
Income Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). For more than 20 years
the City has been the leader in the State of Missouri in effective and
efficient energy conservation assistance to low-income households. The
City has historically supported weatherization assistance by
contributing more than $250,000 in General Funds annually. The City
also leads the State in leveraging private utility and business monies
for the WAP. We have ``honed'' service delivery skills through highly
technical diagnostic analysis of each site to be assisted. These
increased skills provide assurance that any monies spent on
weatherization will meet performance expectations before energy
conservation measures are installed on site. This results in guaranteed
outcome before public dollars are spent.
Despite these successes, changes in the economy have dramatically
increased requests for assistance. Increased energy costs also affect
requests for assistance. We are confident that the full provision of
the President's requested funding for WAP will provide many more
benefits than reductions in energy use.
Energy providers throughout the nation are pleased to participate
in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP's
``safety net'' assistance is helpful; however, most energy providers
support the notion that investment in energy efficiency is a better
long-term solution than paying fuel bills. LIHEAP is critical during
intense heating and cooling seasons; however, the ratio of energy
assistance to the prevention component of energy efficiency is
estimated to be more than 8 to 1. Energy efficiency investment produces
a better bottom line for energy suppliers by reducing collection, turn-
on turn-off cycles and charge offs to bad debt which all customers
eventually pay through rate increase that are affected by the
collection problems.
The WAP's mission statement is ``to reduce the heating and cooling
costs for low-income families, particularly for the elderly, people
with disabilities, and children, by improving the energy efficiency of
their homes while ensuring their health and safety.'' In Kansas City,
we track incidences of health issues discovered during the course of
site analysis of homes eligible for assistance. We find the average
low-income home visited was built inefficiently when energy was
inexpensive and with little knowledge of whole house energy use
technology versus today's standards. By their low-income nature, most
eligible homes experience critical deferred maintenance. Some of the
most critical areas of deferred maintenance are with the heating/
cooling and hot water and cooking appliances. A review of past years
weatherization activity in Kansas City shows that on average:
--Approximately 600 households receive energy efficiency assistance
annually;
--One or more natural gas leaks are detected and corrected on each
house;
--Very high levels of carbon monoxide is discovered in 20 percent of
the houses;
--Indoor air quality issues are diagnosed and corrected in 87 percent
of the houses; and
--Back drafting of flue gas occurs in over 25 percent of homes
weatherized.
These health issues have a major impact on the well being of the
applicant, the community. Eliminating natural gas leaks not only saves
energy dollars, their elimination also eliminates personal injury and
property damage due to explosions. We know that without weatherization
intervention, there are increased health care costs from over exposure
to high levels of carbon monoxide and moisture related indoor air
quality problems. From time to time we receive anecdotal feedback that
cellulose insulation installed by WAP prevented fire from spreading in
homes.
The sum total of energy efficiency investment though WAP is a
compelling reason for full program funding. Numerous empirical studies
by Oakridge National Laboratory and The Final Report by TecMRKT Works
Process and Impact Evaluation of Missouri Gas Energy Pilot
Weatherization Program, 827 Shady Oaks lane, Oregon, Wisconsin, 83575
that the return on public dollars is more the 3 times its investment.
The partnerships WAP developed with HUD, state finance agencies and
the private market provides assurance that the innovative financing
mechanisms that are used to produce affordable housing assure the
success of the affordable concept. You should note that because most
development costs for government and privately financed affordable
housing are fixed and generally predictable. Home energy costs are the
most volatile component of housing expenses. On that basis energy
efficiency investment becomes a critical tool to ensure affordable
housing remains affordable. Neighborhoods and many communities are now
at risk due to higher than usual layoff and plant closings. Households
that traditionally do not apply for assistance are now seeking help.
WAP investment reduces household energy expenses for this newly group
in need of help.
We know that WAP is often the test bed for efficiency technologies
that ultimately are adopted by the housing industry. We are proud of
this historical legacy and we know that we can continue to contribute
to the well being of America by maximum use of the WAP infrastructure.
______
Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife
Defenders of Wildlife has substantial concerns about the
Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget and makes recommendations
regarding these concerns and funding in the following priority areas.
fish and wildlife service endangered species funding
Defenders urges an increase of $13 million over the
Administration's budget request of $12.2 million for the FWS endangered
species listing account and $50 million over the Administration request
of $62 million for the recovery account. The President's request for
the four main FWS endangered species accounts, $128.7 million, is up
slightly by nearly $3 million from fiscal year 2002. Most of this is a
modest increase for the listing account largely due to a series of
court decisions forcing the federal government to designate critical
habitat for listed species. FWS has a current listing backlog of $137
million and more than 250 species awaiting ESA protection--including
the Washington ground squirrel, Northern sea otter, sheath-tailed bat,
gunnison sage grouse, friendly ground dove, lesser prairie chicken,
band-rumped storm petrel, and the elfin woods warbler. Many candidates
could become extinct while awaiting protection. A total of about $25
million per year for listing for the next 5-6 years would help FWS
address this backlog.
Recovery funding is cut $1.6 million below fiscal year 2002 even
though FWS has said that more than 200 species currently listed under
the Act could become extinct in the next five years simply because not
enough funds are available for recovery activities. Some of these are
Hawaiian species, including the world's rarest bird--the po'ouli with
only three individuals known to exist in the wild. Others include: the
Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit with less than 50 individuals in the wild;
the Selkirk population of the woodland caribou with less than 35
remaining in the wild; and the Mississippi gopher frog which is limited
to one pond in south central Mississippi. We understand that FWS
believes it could realistically spend an additional $50 million per
year in recovery with current staffing and we urge such an increase.
LAND, CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION, AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT FUND
(LCPII)
Defenders urges full funding of this conservation trust fund at its
dedicated fiscal year 2004 level of $1.56 billion for the Interior
appropriations subcommittee portion of the fund. We further urge the
subcommittee to maintain the integrity of the fund and include only
programs originally incorporated in the fund when it was established.
We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's past support for fully funding
and maintaining the integrity of this historic dedicated fund, however
we were dismayed that the final fiscal year 2003 Omnibus appropriations
bill cut the Interior portion of the fund by more than $400 million
below its dedicated fiscal year 2003 level. We understand that during
final resolution of the fiscal year 2003 bill the subcommittee was
under substantial funding constraints not within its control, and we
will be working to generate Congressional support for a fiscal year
2004 302(b) allocation sufficient to allow full funding for the
conservation trust fund. Unfortunately, the Administration's budget
cuts the subcommittee's portion of this historic fund by $477 million
below the fiscal year 2004 $1.56 billion dedicated level. Moreover, the
request again erodes the original purpose of the dedicated fund by: (1)
substantially cutting existing programs; (2) substantially increasing
the level in the fund for federal lands maintenance originally intended
to be complementary to amounts provided in the base; and (3) adding
programs not originally included in the fund as a new ``Cooperative
Conservation Initiative.''
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program.--Defenders of Wildlife
and the more than 3,000 organizations nationwide in the Teaming With
Wildlife Coalition are requesting at least $125 million for this
important program for fiscal year 2004. The Administration's budget
recommends $60 million for fiscal year 2004, slashing this critical
program by $25 million or nearly 30 percent below its fiscal year 2002
level. This important program gives states desperately needed funding
to develop and implement comprehensive conservation plans to protect
declining species and their habitats before protection under the ESA is
necessary. More than 1,200 species currently are under the ESA's
protection. Without proactive efforts to reverse species declines,
scientists estimate that more than 5,000 new wildlife and plant species
may need to be listed under the ESA. State fish and wildlife agencies
have identified a need that totals $1 billion annually--the requested
amount of $125 million is only a modest 12.5 percent of the total
annual need.
The State and Tribal Wildlife grants program is particularly
important to future efforts to prevent habitat loss. The most
significant threat to U.S. biodiversity is habitat loss and
degradation. A 1995 report analyzing habitat loss by conservation
biologists Reed Noss and Rob Peters, ``Endangered Ecosystems: A Status
Report on America's Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife,'' identified 69
ecosystems that have lost more than 85 percent of their acreage since
colonization. The State and Tribal Wildlife grants program requires
states to develop landscape-level comprehensive wildlife and habitat
conservation plans as a condition for receiving program monies; these
plans are blueprints that will help arrest the type of habitat declines
occurring nationwide while guiding restoration and conservation.
Land and Water Conservation Fund.--Defenders urges funding of at
least $650 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund for fiscal
year 2004: $450 million for federal LWCF and $200 million for state-
side LWCF. The Administration says it is requesting full funding for
the Land and Water Conservation Fund at its authorized $900 million
level. But all the request does is re-package 15 other separate and
important but non-LWCF conservation programs as LWCF. Ostensibly, the
request for LWCF is $900 million, but only $348 million of this is for
authorized LWCF purposes--$225 million or 39 percent below fiscal year
2002 and $552 million below the authorized level. Moreover, the
Administration budget actually cuts federal land acquisition for our
National Wildlife Refuges, Parks, Forests and Bureau of Land Management
lands by $240 million or 56 percent below fiscal year 2002.
The Natural Resources Inventory estimates 2.2 million acres are
lost to development each year. Funding for LWCF land acquisition needs
to be increased, not decreased. LWCF remains one of the greatest tools
we have to address the increasingly severe problem of loss of open
space, forests, and wildlife habitat. While the subcommittee has for
the most part not acquiesced to the Administration's request to add new
programs to LWCF, it has placed several new programs under the Fund.
Defenders urges the subcommittee to maintain the integrity of the LWCF
by reversing this action and rejecting the Administration's proposal to
fund additional important conservation programs out of it.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM OPERATIONS
AND MAINTENANCE
Defenders and the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement are
requesting an fiscal year 2004 increase of $100 million over the fiscal
year 2003 funding level of $367 million, or $75 million over the
President's requested $25.5 million increase and urge that the bulk of
it be directed to operations. We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's
support in the past and ask that it be continued. The National Wildlife
Refuge System is an American treasure that recently passed a landmark
when it celebrated its 100th anniversary on March 14. The 94 million
acre National Wildlife Refuge System is the only federal public lands
system dedicated primarily to the conservation of fish and wildlife; it
is crucial to the protection of a teeming array of migratory birds,
endangered species and other wildlife. Yet despite its critical
importance to the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat,
chronic and severe funding shortfalls for operations and maintenance
have threatened the Refuge System's ability to achieve its mission for
many years. At this point, the bulk of the need is for operations
funding to address protection of wildlife, management and restoration
of wildlife habitat, public outreach and visitor services, and a
crippling 38 percent staff shortage--nearly 200 refuges have no staff
on site. The current backlog of the most critical operations and
maintenance projects totals $955 million.
Defenders is a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 20 environmental, recreation
and scientific organizations working to substantially increase funding
for the Refuge System. CARE is calling for increasing the Refuge
System's budget to a total of $700 million over the next three years so
that it has the funds to carry out its mission as it embarks on its
second century of wildlife conservation. Defenders is extremely
concerned, however, that the requested O&M increase appears to be at
least partially at the expense of critically needed land acquisition
for refuges which has dropped by 59 percent since fiscal year 2002. We
urge any increase for O&M not come at the expense of land acquisition
for refuges.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MIGRATORY BIRD PROGRAMS
Defenders requests a $15 million increase for Migratory Bird
Management over the fiscal year 2002 level of $28 million and full
funding of $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. As currently
funded, these programs cannot fulfill their mandates to adequately
monitor and plan for the conservation of 825 species of migratory
birds, of which more than 750 species are nongame birds. Nearly 100
nongame birds are listed under the ESA and more than 100 species are on
the FWS List of Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern. Thus,
over 25 percent of all migratory birds are in serious need of
conservation to assure their long-term survival.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM): RESOURCE PROTECTION AND ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT
Defenders urges rejection of the requested $10 million increase for
expansion of energy and mineral development. Instead, we urge increases
for important resource protection needs including: Integrated Weed
Management to curb the prolific spread of invasive species; Threatened
and Endangered species to preserve the 306 listed, 59 candidate and
1,500 sensitive species on BLM lands; Sagebrush and Prairie Grassland
Ecosystem Projects to apply multi-species conservation approach across
large landscapes; Rangeland Management to help improve the health of
grazing lands; Recreation Resources Management to prevent off-road
vehicle damage; and the National Landscape Conservation System which
contains some of our country's most extraordinary natural and cultural
resources. Under the Bureau of Land Management, the Administration is
requesting a nearly $10 million increase to expand energy and mineral
development on public lands including expedited permitting and
increased leasing, energy related rights of way, and further
development on Alaska's North Slope--including plans for drilling in
the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The budget also includes
assumptions of lease sale receipts from the Arctic Refuge in 2004.
FOREST SERVICE: FIRE PREVENTION AND RESOURCE PROTECTION
Defenders urges that at least 85 percent of funds for hazardous
fuels activities on federal lands be spent within the zone nearest to
communities and that substantial funding be provided directly to
states, tribal and local authorities to support community wildfire
preparedness activities. We urge significant reductions for Forest
Products and Timber Road Construction, un-needed timber industry
subsidies, and redirection of funds to recovery from prior timber
sales, including to ecosystem restoration and Road Decommissioning and
to resource protection programs including Wildlife and Fisheries
Habitat Management; Wildlife, Fish, Water and Air Research; and
Inventory and Monitoring. We urge Congress to reject the legislative
proposals in the Administration's ``Healthy Forests Initiative'' which
would undermine the public's ability to appeal and seek judicial review
of projects. Finally, we strongly opposed addition of the damaging
Stewardship End Results Contracting rider to the final fiscal year 2003
bill, and we urge the subcommittee to exercise rigorous oversight of
this program to prevent it from being used as a vehicle for fiscal and
environmental abuse.
SPECIFIC PROJECTS
Defenders wishes to highlight two specific funding needs for
efforts that contribute to endangered species protection. First, a
broad group of interests, including environmental groups, sea otter
researchers, agencies, fisheries group representatives, legislative
staff, aquarium staff, and public stakeholders has determined that
$1.675 million in research is needed each of the next five years to
support recovery of the threatened sea otter whose population has
suffered declines in 4 out of the last 5 years. Funding should be
earmarked to the USGS Biological Research Division. Second, we request
$600,000 for continued Nez Perce Tribe operation of gray wolf recovery,
monitoring, research and outreach programs in Idaho: $450,000 for on-
going programs and $150,000 for more staffing, updating of equipment
and the monitoring program, holding additional public meetings and
conducting necessary research. The Tribe has been successfully managing
wolves since the species was reintroduced in 1995 and 1996. With the
dramatic increase in the Idaho wolf population, funds are more critical
than ever to achieve necessary research and management goals,
particularly in light of recent federal actions to downlist, and
eventually delist, wolves in the region.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
Refuge
Thank you for the opportunity to offer this written testimony. I am
writing on behalf of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
Refuge, which is a non-profit organization based in Maine. I am writing
in regards to Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, which is a
national wildlife refuge located on Maine's southern coast.
I hope that the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
(Committee on Appropriations) will support $4.5 million in land
acquisition funding for Rachel Carson NWR in fiscal year 2004. This
funding would enable the protection of multiple properties with willing
landowners in several portions of the Refuge. Available properties are
located in five of the Refuge's ten units. These potential acquisitions
would consolidate existing Refuge ownership and would complement land
protection that has already taken place.
Rachel Carson NWR is working to buffer sensitive lands from the
pressures of development and is doing a great job of protecting
critical habitat lands. Southern coastal Maine is under severe sprawl
and development pressures. The Refuge has been able to permanently
protect beautiful and important parts of the southern Maine coast for
present and future generations to enjoy.
On behalf of the Friends of Rachel Carson, we hope that you will
provide $4.5 million for Rachel Carson NWR from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2004. Thank you for your
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Frontera Audubon Society
Frontera Audubon Society respectfully requests appropriation of $5
million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year
2004 for purchase of lands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.
Half of this appropriation--$2.3 million--would fund acquisition of
two specific tracts totaling 1,937 acres.
The first of these tracts, called the ``Southmost Tract'', is 614
acres of farmland located south and east of the City of Brownsville. It
is adjacent to or near several other protected areas, including six
tracts of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge totaling
4,586 acres, The Nature Conservancy's 1,034-acre Lennox Foundation
Southmost Preserve, the National Audubon Society's 527-acre Sabal Palm
Grove Sanctuary, and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's 68-acre
Voshell Unit. The property includes not only agricultural land but also
significant habitat along field edges, heavily vegetated frontage along
the Rio Grande, and an oxbow lake. The farmland could be easily
restored to native habitat, including stands of the native sabal palms
(Sabal mexicana) which once lined the banks of the Rio Grande from the
river's mouth inland for approximately 80 miles. Today, little remains
of this original palm forest. The protection and restoration of Texas'
native sabal palm community is one of the primary objectives of
conservation partners at this site. The Refuge's current holdings
include only about one-third of the planned acreage of Sabal Palm
Forest.
The second tract, called the ``Starr County Tract'', is 1,323 acres
of farmland and thornscrub that can be revegetated to restore Upper
Valley Flood Forest. As we have pointed out in past years, the biotic
communities found in Starr County, including Upper Valley Flood Forest,
Chihuahuan Thorn Forest, and Ramaderos, are important and unique biotic
communities that are significantly underrepresented in terms of the
Refuge's strategic protection plan. Purchase of this tract would raise
Refuge holdings of the Upper Valley Flood Forest to close to 50 percent
of the acquisition goal. Most fortunately, this property is held in
clear title and thus does not present the severe title problems that
have slowed acquisition of other sites in the area.
While both tracts require revegetation, this important conservation
tool has been used successfully for more than two decades on many
thousands of acres in the Valley. Revegetation returns areas to
functioning wildlife habitat and allows reestablishment of populations
of rare plants. Among the many species of rare, threatened and
endangered plants in Starr County are Runyon's huaco, Vasey's adelia,
and Mission fiddlewood. Planting of these species could help forestall
their future listing under the Endangered Species Act.
As Frontera Audubon has documented in our past testimony, the Lower
Rio Grande Valley is a biological treasurehouse. The Valley is home to
half of all bird species found in the United States, including sixty
species found in no other part of the country. The 300 species of
butterflies outnumber any other part of the country except the Florida
Everglades. In addition, there are more than 200 species of mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, and fish and 1,200 species of plants. For these
reasons, completing the ``wildlife corridor'' will be a significant
contribution to meeting the Nation's conservation goals.
When completed, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife
Refuge will protect nearly half of a planned 285,000 acre wildlife
protection network--the ``Wildlife Corridor''--that reaches 275 miles
along the Rio Grande River. Other lands and waters in the corridor are
managed by state, county, and private conservation organizations as
well as the Laguna Atascosa NWR. The entire planned complex will
protect a modest 10 percent of the valley's area.
Permanent protection of wildlife habitat in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley National Wildlife Refuge also provides economic benefits by
helping the region to take advantage of growing nature tourism. Texas
is already the number one birding destination in the United States and
the Rio Grande Valley is the number one birding destination in the
state. More than 200,000 people watch birds or other wildlife in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley every year. These visitors spend more than $100
million and create or sustain more than 2,000 jobs. It has been
calculated that each rare bird sighting accounts for approximately
$100,000 per year in spending locally.
Because the Refuge protects lands from the Gulf Coast to Fontana
Dam, it draws visitors to all parts of the Valley. The result is
welcome economic diversification in regions with otherwise limited
economic resources.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley needs the economic stimulus that nature
tourism provide. Despite rapid population growth, the region is
economically depressed, with unemployment chronically near 20 percent
and a high proportion of residents living below the poverty level.
Agriculture, which formerly dominated the economy, is in decline due to
a prolonged drought, freezes that have discouraged the citrus industry,
and other factors.
Furthermore, the increased recreational opportunities provided by
the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge will contribute to
a better quality of life for everyone. Already, the Refuge has opened
40,000 acres to the public for recreation; more will be opened as the
management funding is appropriated. In addition to birding and
canoeing, these acres are available for public hunting of deer, feral
hogs, nilgai, and white-winged doves.
Lands acquired for the refuge all come from willing sellers.
Completion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR is critical to
providing the open space and wildlife viewing opportunities underlying
the Valley's ecotourism economic development strategy.
______
Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior
and Related Agencies Subcommittee on several funding items of
importance to The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its
7.3 million supporters nationwide. As the largest animal protection
organization in the country, The HSUS urges the Committee to address
these priority issues in the fiscal year 2004 budget.
Bear Feeding
The HSUS strongly recommends that all federal land management
agencies develop consistent policies with respect to prohibiting the
feeding of bears on their land, including deliberate baiting practices.
Bill or report language should direct the Bureau of Land Management and
the U.S. Forest Service to promulgate regulations banning the practice
of feeding bears, just as the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service have done.
Baiting involves the intentional placement of human food as a means
of attracting bears for the purpose of shooting the animals. While 40
states have resident bear populations, only 10 states permit baiting.
Baiting occurs on BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands in 9 states despite
agency materials emphatically stating that feeding bears is harmful to
the animals and hazardous to humans.
Bears are naturally wary of humans. But once they acquire a taste
for human food, they lose their wariness and become emboldened in
approaching people and property. Human-fed bears cause millions of
dollars in damage to property every year and can pose a serious safety
threat to humans. A consistent policy should apply to all federal lands
and for all forest users. Such a policy would have no impact on how
states set bag limits, season lengths, and weapons rules for bear
hunting which is a duty otherwise reserved to the states.
Trapping on National Wildlife Refuges
National Wildlife Refuges should not permit commercial and
recreational trapping with inhumane traps. The National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS) is the only category of federal lands specifically set
aside for the protection and benefit of wildlife.
According to a June 1997 report to the Congress, ``Mammal Trapping
within the National Wildlife Refuge System: 1992-1996,'' the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service administered 487 trapping programs on 281 refuges;
thus, more than half of the nation's 520 refuges permit some trapping.
According to the report, ``[e]ighty-five percent of the mammal trapping
programs on refuges were conducted primarily for wildlife and
facilities management reasons. The remaining 15 percent occurred
primarily to provide recreational, commercial, or subsistence
opportunities to the public.''
In 2001, recreational trappers visited 80 units of the NWRS a total
of 40,696 times (number of trapper visits per unit ranged widely from 4
to 9,563). ``Consumptive'' uses as a whole (including recreational
trapping and hunting) are allowed on the majority of NWRS units
according to data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for fiscal
year 2001. However, most people who enjoy the refuges are ``non-
consumptive'' users, whose activities in the refuges include hiking,
photography, and nature observation. In particular, in fiscal year
2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recorded over 36 million
visits by non-consumptive users to the 485 refuges open to the public.
Clearly, an elimination of recreational trapping on the NWRS would have
negligible effect on the millions of Americans who use and enjoy the
refuges every year. In fact, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's most recent national survey, people who appreciate wildlife
in a non-consumptive manner, such as bird watchers, spent $40 billion
in the year 2001 to travel and purchase equipment related to activities
such as wildlife observation and photography.
The American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal
Hospital Association, and the World Veterinary Organization have all
declared leghold traps to be ``inhumane.'' These traps are designed to
slam closed and grip tightly an animal's leg or other body part.
Lacerations, broken bones, joint dislocations and gangrene can result.
Additional injuries result as the animal struggles to free itself,
sometimes chewing off a leg or breaking teeth from biting the metal
trap. Animals caught in leghold traps sometimes die from dehydration,
starvation, exposure to sub-freezing temperatures, or predators. An
animal may suffer for several days before a trapper returns to check a
trap.
These traps are as indiscriminate as they are inhumane. Any animal
unlucky enough to stumble across a trap will be victimized by it. In
addition to catching ``target'' animals, traps catch non-target, or
``trash,'' animals, such as family pets, eagles, and other protected
species. A number of studies conducted by professionals from management
agencies reveal that for every target animal caught in a steel-jawed
leghold trap, there are one to ten non-target animals caught. This is
an unacceptable level of by-catch.
Voters in Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and
Washington have approved ballot measures to ban leghold traps. New
Jersey and Florida have also banned the use of these traps, and many
other states have severe restrictions on their use, including
Connecticut and Rhode Island. A May 1999 national poll conducted by
Peter Hart Research Associates, Inc., revealed that 84 percent of
respondents oppose the use of steel-jawed leghold traps on National
Wildlife Refuges. There are dozens of wildlife refuges in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, and
Florida. There have been no adverse impacts on those refuges from the
statewide bans.
Neck snares are similarly inhumane and indiscriminate. Coyotes,
foxes, and other animals trapped in neck snares often die slowly over
hours or days by strangulation, as evidenced by necropsy data. Even
when animals are anesthetized prior to snaring in laboratory tests of
the snares' humaneness--a procedure that decreases the time to loss of
consciousness--foxes often take several minutes (up to 45 minutes in
one study) to lose consciousness.
In 1999, the House approved an amendment offered by Representative
Sam Farr to bar the use of tax dollars to administer or promote the use
of steel-jawed leghold traps or neck snares for commerce or recreation
on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The amendment allowed
use of these traps for purposes of research, subsistence, conservation,
or facilities protection. The House approved this measure by a
bipartisan vote of 259-166.
We urge the Committee to incorporate the language of the Farr
amendment in the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations Act. It is a
sensible, humane, and narrowly crafted provision. The amendment would
not bar trapping on refuges. Other traps, including foot snares,
Conibears, and box and cage traps, could be used for any purpose
consistent with law and regulation on the refuges. The Farr amendment
would not forbid the use of steel traps or neck snares. It would ban
those two devices only for commercial and recreational purposes.
Law Enforcement Division of the Fish and Wildlife Service
After illegal drugs and arms, trade in wildlife parts is the third
most lucrative smuggling enterprise in this country. New technology and
a full complement of Special Agents are essential if law enforcement is
to have any hope of effectively enforcing the nation's endangered
species trade laws. The HSUS strongly supports an increase of $5
million over the Administration's request for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Law Enforcement Operations and Maintenance. The recommended
increase represents an additional $1 million for nine inspectors at our
borders, and $4 million to hire twenty Special Agents.
The Law Enforcement Division is currently undergoing a three-year
rebuilding effort designed to bring the number of Special Agents to
253. These Special Agents investigate domestic and international
wildlife crime and monitor wildlife trade. The Division of Law
Enforcement is also charged with the responsibility of inspecting
shipments at ports of entry. Wildlife inspectors play an invaluable
role in stopping wildlife smuggling by inspecting wildlife shipments to
ensure compliance with laws and treaties.
Investigating sophisticated wildlife smuggling operations requires
the latest in law enforcement technology. The Clark R. Bavin Wildlife
Forensics Laboratory is capable of providing assistance in the
prosecution of wildlife crimes by analyzing claws, teeth, feathers,
tissue, blood, and other wildlife samples. The Clark R. Bavin Wildlife
Forensics Laboratory is indispensable in the vigorous enforcement of
the nation's wildlife trade laws. The HSUS urges the Committee to
expedite the $6.1 million approved for fiscal year 2005 for the coming
fiscal year. This increase will allow the lab to add scientists and
staff, expand and improve its physical location, and continue its
valuable work ahead of schedule.
Protection for Walruses
We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year
2004 to fund much-needed research on the Pacific walrus. Walruses are
targeted by Native hunters for subsistence, despite a paucity of data
regarding their current population status or population structure.
Hundreds of walruses are killed annually; in some years this number has
climbed to as many as 7,000. Moreover, in some hunting villages,
females and their calves are preferentially killed, against the
recommendation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and standard
management practice. A portion of these funds could also be used to
assist and improve the Walrus Harvest Monitor Project, which collects
basic management data.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund
The HSUS joins a broad based coalition of organizations in
requesting an increase over the Administration's request for the
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MNSCF). The MNSCF is a fund
established by Congress to benefit African and Asian elephants, rhinos
and tigers, great apes, and neotropical migratory birds. Last year,
Congress demonstrated its commitment to the Fund by appropriating $7.8
million for the five programs. Unfortunately, the Administration
requested only $7 million for the five funds in fiscal year 2004. We
ask that you continue to support these highly threatened mammals and
birds in fiscal year 2004 by appropriating $2 million each for the
African Elephant Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant Conservation
Fund, and the Great Ape Conservation Fund, $3 million for the
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, and $5 million for the
Neotropical Migratory Birds Conservation Fund, for a total of $14
million.
While there are threats to the long-term survival of elephants,
rhinos, tigers, great apes, and neotropical migratory birds, there have
been improvements attributable to funds made available through the
MNSCF. Grants made from the MNSCF provide a stable funding source that
has leveraged over four times as much in additional contributions from
range states, non-governmental organizations, and others.
While The HSUS wholeheartedly supports increased funding for the
MNSCF, we are concerned about past incidents and future opportunities
for funds from these conservation programs to be allocated to promote
trophy hunting, trade in animal parts, and other consumptive uses--
including live capture for trade, captive breeding, and entertainment
for public display industry--under the guise of conservation for these
animals. We would like to see grants made to projects that are
consistent with the spirit of the law.
Wild Horse and Burro Program
Wild horses and burros are a public trust greatly beloved by the
American people. Consequently, we strongly believe that the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) should be given the direction and resources it
needs to ensure the health of wild horse and burro herds and the public
lands they inhabit, as well as the welfare of the horses and burros
that are removed from the range.
During fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the Bureau of Land
Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program received a substantial
increase to their annual operating budget. This increase was to be used
to implement BLM's four-year plan to achieve appropriate management
levels (AML's) in all herd management areas, principally through an
increase in the number of horses and burros removed from the public
lands. The HSUS supports in principle the BLM's attempt to establish a
national, strategic approach to wild horse management. We strongly
believe, however, that many of the AML's set by the BLM exaggerate the
impact of wild horses on the public lands, and do not provide wild
horses and burros with the fair share of public land resources to which
they are entitled under the law. We also fear that the planned removals
will threaten the viability of these populations. To adequately address
these concerns, the BLM should carry out a programmatic environmental
impact analysis of the impacts of wild horses, burros, and livestock on
the conditions in herd management areas, and of the proposed population
reductions on the viability of wild horse and burro populations on
public lands.
Currently, however, the BLM's plan to achieve AML has been stalled
by the rapid filling of the holding facilities available for horses
removed by the range. As has happened repeatedly, the budget and
attention of the Wild Horse and Burro Program are being diverted from
management of wild populations on the public lands to maintenance of
wild horses and burros in captivity. There is a long-term solution,
which only awaits agency implementation that can help restore the
agency's focus to wild horses and the land. With the strong support of
The HSUS and this committee, BLM-sponsored research has produced a one-
shot, one-to-two-year contraceptive vaccine for wild horses. Wide
application of this vaccine, known as PZP, would be a humane, publicly
acceptable, cost-efficient means for reducing the number of horses that
must be removed from the public lands. Accordingly, we ask the
committee to insert the following language into the fiscal year 2004
Interior Appropriations bill: ``The BLM is strongly encouraged to
implement immunocontraception to help control populations of wild
horses on the public lands.''
In addition to the more traditional threats faced by wild horses
and burros, which include habitat destruction, wildfires, and cattle
ranching encroachment, wild horses are coming under pressure from the
increasing demand for horsemeat as a result of the ``mad cow'' disease
threat in Europe. The BLM documented that in 1999 hundreds of wild
horses that had been adopted through the BLM's adoption program were
sold into slaughter, despite the congressionally mandated prohibition
on such action.
Because of pressure on wild horses and burros from decreasing
habitat, the policy of aggressive removals, and mad cow disease, we
urge the committee to once again include the following standard
language in the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill: ``The
appropriations made herein shall not be available for the destruction
of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau
of Land Management or its contractors.'' We also request $100,000 in
additional funding to be allocated to the preparation of a
comprehensive NEPA review. Finally, we urge this committee to allocate
$500,000 in additional funding to the BLM for pre-titling compliance
monitoring of adoptions, adopter mentoring programs, and other means of
ensuring that adopted wild horses and burros are treated consistently
with the intent of the Wild Horse and Burro Protection Act and are not
sent to slaughter.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)
General Comments
The Association is pleased that the Administration's fiscal year
2004 budget request for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is
more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget. We understand the
reasons for certain reductions, however we also understand that if our
Fish and Wildlife program needs are not met today, it will be far more
expensive in the future. We are most concerned that some of the more
significant budget reductions are for State fish and wildlife
administered programs, the cutting of which seems inconsistent with
building strong partnerships with the States.
The Association is particularly concerned that the fiscal year 2004
budget request further reduces the State Wildlife Grants account in
fiscal year 2004 to $59.9 million. While the Association is
appreciative of those funds, there is a demonstrated need for at least
$350 million per year. We strongly recommend that the $59.9 million in
fiscal year 2004 be increased to $125 million, for apportionment to the
State fish and wildlife agencies under the formula allocation used in
fiscal year 2002, in order to achieve significant progress toward $350
million.
We fully recognize the difficulty of providing adequate funding for
conservation while at the same time meeting national defense and
homeland security needs. Unfortunately, there are long-term
consequences to delaying conservation work. Cooperative programs with
States multiply efforts through matching funds and, therefore, should
be given high priority.
The Association believes the programs within the FWS that offer the
following characteristics are consistent with its basic mission and
afford the highest benefit to fish and wildlife resources and the
cooperating State fish wildlife agencies:
(1) establish true State/Federal partnerships which recognize the
primacy of State jurisdiction for fish and resident wildlife;
(2) offer significant leverage of non-Federal funds through
cooperative programs;
(3) support efforts to prevent species and their habitats from
becoming threatened or endangered;
(4) provide fish and wildlife associated outdoor recreation
opportunities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
environmental education which serve a large number of people each year;
(5) provide important economic and environmental benefits to large
segments of the American people;
(6) reinvest and enhance existing public land holdings/refuges;
(7) empower States to determine priority management action at the
State level; and
(8) provide adequate flexibility for local program adjustment.
The Association encourages Congress to measure programs against
these criteria and ensure that programs that measure up are adequately
and appropriately funded.
The Association is concerned about any FWS programs or activities
that compromise State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident
wildlife and/or lack funding and commitment to secure meaningful
management on the ground. The FWS needs to coordinate closely with the
respective State fish and wildlife agencies to avoid compromising State
authorities and to facilitate the cooperative design and conduct of
research and management programs. Cooperative efforts between the FWS
and the State fish and wildlife agencies will play a critical role in
achieving land and resource objectives for species and related
resources. The Association recommends that funds made available to the
States provide discretion to the States in meeting fish and wildlife
information and management needs, wherever possible, and where not
possible, to emphasize close cooperation with the States to reduce
duplicating or conflicting programs which are both costly and confusing
to the public.
Consistent, dedicated and assured funding for state-based broader
fish and wildlife conservation, wildlife-associated recreation and
conservation education programs is vitally needed in the states.
Programs at the state level are required in order to preclude the need
to list species (under the Endangered Species Act) by addressing life
needs and habitat requirements in response to early warning signs of
decline. The Association urges Congress and the Administration to work
cooperatively with the states in the design and enactment of
legislation which would provide $350 Million annually in assured
funding for the full array of fish and wildlife programs. The
Association is committed to working with Congress to identify an
appropriate source of funds for this vitally needed endeavor, whether
it be revenues from Outer Continental Shelf Gas and Oil leases, or
other sources.
A Proposal for an Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program
Public and private aquaculture interests have suffered from an
almost total lack of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved aquatic
drugs and chemicals. For the past seven years, the FWS, State fish and
wildlife agencies, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture have engaged in a cooperative project to gain approval for
high priority use of eight drugs in aquaculture. This project is
nearing its end, and many of the project's goals will have been met
within the next year. However, not all the necessary broad approvals
for these critically needed drugs will have been obtained. Continued
work will be needed on gaining additional approvals and developing new
aquaculture drugs to meet existing and new disease and aquaculture
problems.
Unfortunately, no one agency currently has responsibility to obtain
the approvals, develop new drugs, and coordinate continuation and
expansion of this drug approval effort. To meet this critical need, the
Association recommends that $450,000 in new funds be added to the Fish
and Wildlife Service's fiscal year 2004 budget for the development and
implementation of an ``Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership''
program. This program would have responsibility to coordinate its
efforts with those of other interested Federal, State, and private
agencies and organizations to meet the current and future needs for
safe and effective aquaculture drugs.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act Activities
The Association strongly supports the FWS request of $49.56 million
for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). However,
Congress authorized a funding level of $55 million for this important
conservation program in fiscal year 2004 and the Association recommends
full funding. The authorization level for this program will increase by
$5 million each year. This cooperative program, requiring at least a
1:1 non-federal match, is one of the most successful, non-regulatory,
incentive based programs within all of government and the program has
shown unprecedented success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl and other
migratory bird populations. The program has more than 2,000 partners
from communities, governments (including of Canada and Mexico),
nonprofit organizations, States, and academia. The program has put over
1,114 projects on the ground in North America, including a total of
more than of 15.9 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands in
the United States and Canada, with a return of $2.88 for every dollar
the Federal government has invested to date. The Association strongly
urges that Congress appropriate the full $55 million authorized for the
NAWCA in the FWS fiscal year 2004 budget.
The Association believes that evaluation of on-the-ground wetland
habitat enhancement activities under the NAWCA, the Farm Bill and other
programs are extremely important and supports adequate funding for this
evaluation.
Migratory Bird Management
The Association is disappointed to see that migratory bird
management is reduced from with the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
This has occurred during a time when public interest in migratory birds
is at an all-time high, and when the need for management programs is
increasing. With the broad support for the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative by conservation organizations and the States,
the Association believes the FWS should continue to place a high
priority and budget emphasis on migratory bird management.
Inflation and increased operating costs have escalated and enhanced
funding in recent years has been absorbed in these areas. Additional
funding is needed to facilitate meeting program objectives for
migratory bird conservation. The Association recommends an increase of
$3 million to address this need, and urges the FWS to cooperate with
the State fish and wildlife agencies to begin implementation of the
Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan, Shorebird Conservation Plan and
the Partners in Flight Plan. All of these plans are complete and funds
are needed to put these programs on the ground for the birds and the
many people who enjoy them. These plans are particularly critical as
many nongame migratory bird populations are declining, but not yet
endangered. These plans are intended to provide actions to avoid
listing these populations as threatened or endangered while there still
is time. It makes financial, biological and political sense to take
actions early on when it costs less and there are more biological
options. The economic benefits provided by migratory birds are far in
excess of the funding these programs received.
The Association strongly supports the request for $1 million to
begin an aircraft replacement program to support migratory bird
surveys, which are important for setting hunting regulations. We
strongly recommend these funds become part of the FWS budget base for
this program.
The Association strongly supports the requested funding ($550,000)
in the FWS budget to enable the Service to appropriately assess
(through band reporting) the effects on harvest of proposed early and
late season extensions to duck hunting seasons. As duck populations
continue to grow, there is more demand for additional hunting
opportunities. The FWS and the States need to monitor and evaluate the
impacts of these extensions on harvest distribution and rates of
harvest in order to assess the effects of the experimental season
extensions. The Association strongly recommends that these funds become
part of the FWS budget base for this program.
The Association also strongly recommends an addition of $250,000 to
the migratory bird program to enable the FWS to begin to modernize its
database on mourning doves. While the mourning dove is one of our most
popular gamebirds, there is a demonstrated need for better population
and harvest survey information for this species. Again, the Association
requests that these funds (at appropriate future levels) become part of
the FWS base budget request.
Since the early 1980s, insufficient effort has been devoted to
improving data collection related to the management of webless
migratory game birds. There is a demonstrated need for better
population and harvest survey information for species such as woodcock,
mourning doves, sandhill cranes and rails. The Association strongly
contends webless migratory game bird management is an integral and
important part of the Service's programs and responsibilities, and
recommends full funding of $750,000 for the Webless Migratory Gamebird
Program.
The Association is pleased to recognize Congress' and the
Administration's continuing commitment to the implementation of the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), including support for
the 12 habitat and 3 species Joint Ventures. However, the Association
reasserts its position that a need exists for additional funds to
enable the FWS to provide adequate assistance for the Joint Ventures.
In the fiscal year 2003 Appropriation Act, Congress recognized the need
for increasing support for Joint Ventures and urged the Service to
request additional funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget. Joint
Ventures are the ``engine'' of plan implementation and these
partnerships need to be supported. Most Joint Ventures are under-
funded, but the Association is pleased that Joint Venture funding has
been increased and supports the Service's request for $10.3 million in
fiscal year 2004 for the Joint Venture program. Congress anticipated
that by fiscal year 2004 there should be an appropriation of $10.4
million annually for existing habitat and species Joint Ventures. In
addition to direct habitat protection, restoration and enhancement,
Joint Ventures engender private-public partnerships and communication
in pursuit of their conservation objectives. This is good business,
good relationships and good conservation and a success story to be
emulated.
The Association continues to recommend that Congress appropriate an
additional $5 million to collect data and monitor 16 priority goose and
brant populations across North America. Currently there are no
operational breeding population surveys or pre-harvest banding programs
on populations of Arctic geese. This information is needed for
management of these migratory, international resources.
For several years, Congress has added $1 million to the FWS budget
to assist several states in managing depredating geese, particularly
through partnerships with USDA-APHIS (Wildlife Services) and the
agriculture community. This add-on was absent from the fiscal year 2003
omnibus appropriations bill and the Association urges Congress to
restore that additional $1 million in the fiscal year 2004
appropriation for FWS.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Funding for States
The Association is concerned with the proposed reduction (from the
fiscal year 2003) in the Administration's request for Cooperative
Endangered Species grants to the States. The reduction of $2.3 million
will continue to erode this program. Traditional Section 6 grants to
the States remain funded at $7.5 million, which is grossly insufficient
to satisfy growing needs. Cooperative efforts between the FWS and the
State fish and wildlife agencies are the surest way to meet objectives
for species recovery and conservation under the Act. The Association
recommends that the increase for assistance in this fund be made
available to the States through a mechanism that maximizes spending
discretion to the States, such as a State Fish and Wildlife Agency ESA
Conservation and Recovery Block Grant Program, with the individual
States deciding the best mix of information, incentives and
acquisitions to achieve habitat conservation and recovery objectives.
Much of the Section 6 grant funds in fiscal year 2004 are already
earmarked for program needs such as HCPs and CCAs. While these are
certainly meritorious and useful purposes, the Association's first
priority for Section 6 Grants to the States remains for those dollars
which allow the States the greatest discretion in satisfying priority
needs.
The Association strongly supports and urges Congress to appropriate
an additional $10 million to Section 6 (Cooperative Endangered Species
Fund) for traditional grants to the states, particularly in the western
United States. The funds would be allocated within the State grants
program to benefit at-risk species for example, in western grasslands,
shrub-steppe, Hawaiian Islands and Sierra Nevada foothills. The funds
would be used by 19 western States to aggressively pursue proactive,
broad-scale and interstate conservation efforts, including partnerships
through State Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements,
Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances or other agreements
with willing landowners and public, State, Tribal, and other land
management agencies. Funding under this program will be used to support
actions by all partners in a given project.
The Association also strongly supports and urges Congress to
appropriate an additional $7.4 million to Section 6 (Cooperative
Endangered Species Fund) being requested by 11 western states, to be
allocated within the appropriate State grant programs to fulfill the
requirements of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Agreement,
developed in 1999. Key to the agreement is forging partnerships with
local interests and developing and implementing State-specific
management plans that contribute to conserving the species, while
maintaining management at the State and local level. An integral part
of each State plan is providing incentives for private landowner
participation. Private lands are crucial to meeting range-wide
population objectives identified by the Multi-State Conservation Team.
These funds will allow the States to complete and implement their
management plans, and provide an incentives program for private
landowners. Absent this Federal funding, listing of the species under
the ESA is inevitable, with the consequent social and economic
disruption.
The Association is pleased with the seriousness at which the FWS is
proceeding with the delisting process for the gray wolf population in
the Northern Rockies. That population has met all recovery criteria and
the three states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming will soon complete their
requisite state management planning efforts. As management authority
transitions from the Federal government to the affected States, there
is an immediate and long-term need to continue rigorous monitoring of
that region's wolf population. Heretofore, the FWS has had that
responsibility. The fiscal year 2003 FWS budget included a $250,000
Congressional add-on for the State of Idaho to launch this effort
within that state. The Association supports this kind of funding
assistance to all affected states, especially when it involves species
of national significance, and, therefore, recommends $1.2 million be
added to the FWS' fiscal year 2004 budget for wolf monitoring
activities in the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, with that
amount being equally distributed among the three states. This will
ensure a coordinated and consistent approach to monitoring the wolf
population in the Northern Rockies during this critical period.
The Association also strongly supports the Administration's request
for $40 million for the Landowner Incentive Program. The Association
appreciates that FWS has engaged the State fish and wildlife agencies
in developing the criteria for this competitive program. The quality of
the proposals submitted for first year money (fiscal year 2002), and
the fact that proposals exceed available funds, exemplify the merits of
and need for this program. Consistent funding is essential to be able
to work effectively with private landowners, and the Association urges
the FWS to continue to work with the states to bring greater assurance
to the availability of these funds.
The Association is concerned with the reductions in the Endangered
Species Act Recovery Program. Endangered species recovery efforts can
ultimately lead to delisting actions that result in significant
benefits to species through State management efforts. Delisting of
recovered species needs to receive priority attention and should be
based on science and biology rather than other inappropriate factors.
The targeted programs for decreases represent important partnerships
with state fish and wildlife agencies that should continue. The
Association recommends that Congress increase the amount allocated to
recovery efforts in the FWS budget request.
Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund
The Association is disappointed that the Administration deleted
funding for the Partnership for Wildlife Act. Because these funds were
matched equally by both State and private monies, this effective
program leveraged substantial dollars. We expect these cooperative
proposals to increase dramatically in the years ahead. The Association
recommends restoring and enhancing this program at the $2 million
level.
Refuges and Wildlife
The Association is pleased to see an increase of $25.5 million
requested in the fiscal year 2004 budget for National Wildlife Refuge
operations and maintenance. Even with this increase, there is a
tremendous backlog of funding needs that will have to be addressed in
the future to successfully meet the Service's NWR System mission of
conserving fish and wildlife. Several years ago the Association, along
with 16 other organizations, created the Cooperative Alliance for
Refuge Enhancement (CARE) specifically to address this growing backlog.
As a result of this cooperation, the CARE group developed a plan of
modest increases for Refuge Operations and Maintenance budgets that
will enable the Refuge System to be fully functional by its 100th
anniversary in 2003. The Association continues to support the CARE
recommendations to eliminate the backlog of Refuge Operations and
Maintenance, and strongly urges these recommendations be used to guide
future budget requests.
A significant problem still exists with regard to brucellosis,
which affects both wildlife and domestic livestock and is present in
elk and bison in the Greater Yellowstone area, located within the
states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The Association understands that
FWS and the National Park Service intend again this year to contribute
to a research program conducted by the Biological Resources Division
(USGS) to improve the vaccination program for brucellosis in elk and
bison. This continuing need should clearly be carried as a budget item
rather than identified as a program that will be funded on an ``ability
to pay'' basis by the several agencies. This has been a concern since
the onset of this project, yet no attempt has been made to date to
correct this deficiency. The Association strongly supports this
research endeavor, but remains concerned about the level of cooperation
with the involved states. We urge the commitment by these several USDI
Bureaus to this project be affirmed in their respective budgets through
some type of formal agreement, in full cooperation with the states
involved. We look forward to this being reflected in the fiscal year
2005 budget request. Brucellosis recognizes no boundaries and only a
fully cooperative program will likely be successful.
The Association is pleased that $500,000 has been requested to
address Chronic Wasting Disease on the refuge system; however, much
more will be required to deal with this epizootic.
In late 1997, the United States entered into an agreement with the
European Union that identified a process to develop and test more
effective and humane alternative trapping devices used by wildlife
professionals to manage certain wildlife populations (e.g. for
research, to reestablish species extirpated from prior habitats, and to
protect endangered species). An active research program is being
developed at the USDA's National Wildlife Research Center in Fort
Collins, Colorado. Given the significant role that trapping plays in
management of the NWR System for research, protecting habitat, roads
and other investments, and managing predation and epizootic diseases,
the Association recommends that $250,000 be added to the fiscal year
2004 FWS budget to support this research effort.
With respect to the use of certain types of traps on NWRs, the
Association strongly opposes any legislative language that would
prohibit the FWS from funding the use or authorization of the use of
certain of these devices on NWRs. The Association, along with several
other conservation organizations, has successfully defeated proposed
amendments that would restrict FWS authority with respect to traps in
previous years. The FWS needs to retain the discretion to use these
devices to protect and conserve endangered species, migratory birds,
and significant habitats; protect buildings, roads, and other
facilities; and to protect public health and safety through managing
epizootics such as rabies. These decisions are best made by the FWS-NWR
manager working cooperatively with the State fish and wildlife agency,
which has legal responsibility for the management of most furbearing
wildlife species.
The Association supports the efforts of the FWS for increased
public visitation to the Nation's refuges. We believe that each refuge
is a unique area that varies in its capability to support carefully
planned and managed user pressure. However, increased public use has
the potential to adversely impact the fish and wildlife resources of
the refuges and some uses may not be compatible under the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Association would
support the establishment of a research program, including cooperative
grants, to support carrying capacity studies that would help develop
innovative management measures to ensure the sustainability of the
resources on these properties. The study design and preparation,
however, must be done with the full cooperation of the appropriate
State fish and wildlife agency. The program should be a joint effort
utilizing the State fish and wildlife agency within the State where the
Federal refuge resides, the refuge management staff and the Fish and
Wildlife Cooperative Research Units. Since state fish and wildlife
agencies manage comparable state lands, they have substantial
experience in assessing impacts to species and habitats and balancing
competing uses of these types of habitats, the principal use of which
is fish and wildlife conservation.
Law Enforcement
Federal law enforcement is an important tool in fish and wildlife
management and a critical element in complementing and filling gaps
within State fish and wildlife law enforcement programs. While Law
Enforcement enjoyed a modest appropriations increase in fiscal year
2003, a past history of flat funding has left this important program
significantly underfunded. The number of agent vacancies remains at an
unacceptable level because managers continue to absorb increasing
operating costs by keeping vacant positions unfilled. The fiscal year
2001 and fiscal year 2002 increase was the first of a 3-year plan to
restore funding for law enforcement to acceptable levels (a $10 million
requested increase per year for 3 years was deemed to be necessary).
The Association has urged the Service to stay on course with this plan
and request funding for law enforcement staffing at more appropriate
levels in future years. The Association is therefore disappointed and
concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget indicates only a minimal
requested increase of $700,000. The Association urges Congress to
increase funding for FWS law enforcement to a total program level of
$60 million. This increase will put the Service's law enforcement
program back on track to fulfill its needs.
While the Association is vitally interested in seeing all FWS law
enforcement vacancies filled and the workforce then kept at authorized
levels, we are fully aware that 40 percent of the FWS' officers are
expected to retire by the end of 2005. If not vigilant in its response,
the FWS could exacerbate an already acute workforce situation--one that
could have serious ramifications to State fish and wildlife agencies.
The Association was pleased to learn the FWS is developing a
comprehensive five-year plan to guide the decisions to address the
challenges this poses. We encourage Congress to monitor this planning
effort to make certain there is no lessening of emphasis on this
critical program, and furthermore, that sufficient opportunity for
state participation be afforded throughout this process to ensure their
needs and concerns are adequately addressed.
International Conservation
The Association recommends that Congress fund the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act at its full authorization of $5
million. This legislation passed both houses of Congress in 2000 with
strong bi-partisan support. It provides a broad-spectrum approach to
bird conservation sought for a long time by game bird and non-gamebird
advocates alike. The NMBCA has the potential to serve as a major
delivery mechanism to further develop bird conservation strategies for
songbirds, shorebirds, waterbirds, and other neotropical bird species
in need of conservation action.
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation
The Association recognizes the impressive progress the Service's
Fisheries Program has made in working collaboratively with the
Association and the various States, as well as with other partners in
industry, academia, conservation organizations and Tribal
organizations, to develop its Strategic Vision and to develop strategic
plans for each of its Regions. In furtherance of this Vision and the
underlying relationships with States and other partners, the
Association supports the increases for the Fisheries Program proposed
in the President's budget request. The Association supports the
proposed $5 million increase for hatchery operations, which are badly
needed, but is concerned with the proposed allocation of these funds to
the recovery of threatened and endangered species (+$1.6 million),
restoration of key species in accordance with prescriptions in fishery
management plans (+$2.5 million), and development of additional
scientific capabilities at hatcheries, Fish Technology Centers and Fish
Health Centers (+$0.9 million). Absent from this proposed allocation is
the large and important segment of the Service's hatchery program that
produces fish to meet the Federal mitigation obligations at Federal
water projects. The production from these mitigation hatcheries is
critically important to the states, both recreationally and
economically, and fulfills the Federal obligations that were agreed to
by Congress when these water projects were authorized. The Association
urges Congress to specify that the $5 million increase for hatchery
operations be used proportionally for the Service's mitigation
hatcheries, as well as other appropriate uses of hatchery production.
The Association supports the Service's request for an additional
$3.0 million for hatchery maintenance, which will begin to enable the
Hatchery System to address priority needs in its water management
facilities across the entire System. However, the Association believes
that this amount is inadequate to significant address the current $300
million hatchery facilities maintenance backlog. FWS hatchery
facilities average 55 years in age and much of the infrastructure is
outmoded and in serious need of repair. For several years, these
maintenance needs have been largely ignored and hatchery facilities
have been allowed to deteriorate to an alarming level. The Association
strongly urges Congress to provide an additional $7 million in the
Service's fiscal year 2004 appropriation for hatchery maintenance.
Furthermore, the Association asks the Congress to support the
President's request for an additional $1.0 million to combat aquatic
nuisance species, which the Fisheries Program will use to support
interdepartmental and intergovernmental efforts to control and
eradicate alien invaders.
The Association also requests the Congress to provide additional
funds that will enable the Fisheries Program to strengthen and expand
its efforts to conserve and restore critical aquatic habitats that
support valuable recreational fisheries. Specifically, the Association
asks that the Congress include an additional $3 million in the base
appropriations of the Fisheries Program to eliminate additional
barriers to fish passage and fish migration nationwide. The Service has
recently reported impressive progress in its fish passage program--a
program that is clearly achieving impressive results in increasing the
abundance and distribution of native fishes and in providing additional
angling opportunity.
Furthermore, the Association asks the Congress to appropriate an
additional $15 million for the Service's Fisheries Program to work with
the southeastern States and its other partners in developing the
Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership, which is making progress
toward development of a comprehensive plan that will protect, conserve,
and restore aquatic resources including habitats in the Southeast. This
partnership of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and all states in
Region IV is preparing a report that will provide a blueprint for
fisheries which will incorporate objectives in six issue areas: (1)
Public Use, (2) Fishery Mitigation, (3) Imperiled fish and aquatic
species, (4) Interjurisdictional fisheries, (5) Aquatic habitat
conservation, and (6) Aquatic nuisance species. The Association
recommends Congress appropriate $15 million to assist the Fish and
Wildlife Service and all southeastern states in this endeavor in which
local biologists would examine local needs with respect to the six
issue areas and those findings would be consolidated and prioritized at
the state level. This work would facilitate timely implementation of
future regional programs that may develop as a result of the
Partnership's final report.
Further, the Association requests an additional $770,000 be
appropriated to FWS in their fisheries program for the Connecticut
River Atlantic Salmon Commission Migratory Fish Restoration Program to
continue efforts to restore migratory fish in the four state basin of
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.
In addition, the Association supports the President's request for
an additional $9.6 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program. This program has proven enormously popular with America's
private landowners and has an impressive history of conserving and
restoring hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands, riparian habitats
and upland habitats, as well as opening thousands of miles of streams
and rivers to fish passage. No program in the Service has been more
successful in achieving on-the-ground results and in benefiting fish
and wildlife and the millions of Americans who enjoy hunting and
fishing, as well as non-consumptive uses and benefits of fish and
wildlife. In addition, the Association asks the Congress to appropriate
an additional $4 million to enhance the Service's Coastal Program,
which much like the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, has
delivered tangible improvements in wetland and upland habitats in
America's coastal states, where upwards of 75 percent of our nation's
population resides.
No less importantly, the Association respectfully asks the Congress
to provide $2 million increases to each of two Ecological Services
programs that have essentially been level-funded for the past decade
and unable to address growing resource challenges. A $2 million
increase in the Environmental Contaminants Program would enable the
program to meet basic needs in its efforts to address accidental
releases or spills of oil and other hazardous chemicals, and to work
collaboratively with the Environmental Protection Agency and States in
reviewing and promulgating water quality standards and criteria for
aquatic organisms. A $2 million increase in Ecological Service's
Coordination Act program would enable the Service to participate more
fully in important planning processes and decisions relative to
hydropower and wind power, as well as mineral extraction. For the past
decade inflation and stable funding have combined to reduce the
program's involvement and effectiveness in this important function and
in ensuring sustainable development coupled with wise stewardship of
fish and wildlife resources.
Invasive Non-Native Species
The Association is concerned over the lack of priority placed on
invasive non-native species in the fiscal year 2004 budget. The program
of the FWS, as well as other federal agencies, lacks focus and
therefore is likely to fall short of expectations to address the most
significant problems caused by some invasive non-native species. The
Association requests an additional $10 million be included in the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation to be distributed among several FWS
programs to help address a significant and serious domestic and
international threat to indigenous fish and wildlife species. The
Association strongly supports the FWS efforts to address high priority
invasive species that are serious problems for fish and wildlife
habitat.
______
Prepared Statement of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources strongly supports
efforts by Congress to continue the State Wildlife Grants (SWG)
program. We urge the Subcommittee to allocate $125 million to the State
Wildlife Grants program for fiscal year 2004 and to take measures to
establish a long-term funding mechanism for this important program.
Congress created the State Wildlife Grant Program (SWG) in 2001 to
protect and manage those wildlife species of greatest conservation
need. This program seeks to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered
and ensure a bright future for the nation's wildlife. Its proactive
approach to wildlife and habitat conservation will save both wildlife
and taxpayer dollars because it protects species before it's too late.
This program is a first step to addressing the unmet needs of hundreds
of species that fall through the cracks because they are neither
abundant game species or rare and endangered.
Minnesota's State Wildlife Grants program funds a range of projects
across the state. Below are examples of current projects.
--Monitoring Goshawk Nesting Territories
--Timber Rattlesnake Recovery in Minnesota's Blufflands
--Rare Animals in the Glacial Lakes and Moraines Landscape of Central
Minnesota
--Statewide Mussel Resource Survey
--A Landscape Approach to Grassland Bird Conservation in Minnesota
--Critical Wildlife Habitat Acquisition
--Identification and Protection of Important Bird Areas
The State Wildlife Grants Program was established as part of the
Conservation Trust Fund in fiscal year 2001. SWG has strong bipartisan
support and leverages federal funds by requiring a state match. In
order to participate in the SWG Program, each state is required to
develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan by October 2005.
These plans will demonstrate the need for long-term, predictable
funding for wildlife conservation, and guide the use of future SWG
funds.
In addition to funding the State Wildlife Grants program at the
$125 million level for 2004, please consider decreasing the required
state match for this program from 50 percent to 25 percent, as is the
case with the Pittman-Robertson, Dingell/Johnson, and Wallop/Breaux
programs. The purpose of this program is to partner with states to
protect the wide array of wildlife species under their jurisdiction,
especially those species that are not hunted or fished. This area of
wildlife conservation has historically been under-funded, and it is
very challenging for us to identify a good, stable source of matching
funds this early in the program's life. Also, please consider
supporting reliable, long-term funding for state-based wildlife
efforts, as was originally intended with the Conservation and
Restoration Act of 2001 (CARA).
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments.
______
Pepared Statement of the National Association of University Fisheries
and Wildlife Programs
The National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife
Programs (NAUFWP) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
concerning the fiscal year 2004 budget for the U.S. Department of the
Interior. NAUFWP represents approximately 55 university programs and
their 440 faculty members, scientists, and extension specialists, and
over 9,200 undergraduates and graduate students working to enhance the
science and management of fisheries and wildlife resources. NAUFWP is
interested in strengthening fisheries and wildlife education, research,
extension, and international programs to benefit fish, wildlife, and
habitats on public land. We understand the many pressing needs of the
nation at this time, but we stress that a nation strong in its
international role must be strong in its support and conservation of
its natural resources, including fish and wildlife.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
We are concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request for State
Wildlife Grants will diminish the ability of state wildlife agencies to
conserve fish, wildlife, and habitat, and to prevent further declines
in at-risk fish and wildlife populations. State Wildlife Grants were
established in fiscal year 2001 with a promise from Congress to
increase the amount of funding for the program by 10 percent a year
over six years. However, this program was cut in fiscal year 2003 to
$60 million, a 29 percent reduction from the $85 million appropriated
in fiscal year 2002. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 request is
$60 million. NAUFWP strongly recommends that State Wildlife Grant
funding be increased to $125 million in fiscal year 2004, for
apportionment to the State fish and wildlife agencies under the formula
allocation used in fiscal year 2002, in order to achieve significant
progress toward the demonstrated conservation need of at least $350
million per year.
While we understand that Congress must make difficult programmatic
decisions during this time of fiscal constraints, it is critical to
recognize that State Wildlife Grants ultimately save federal dollars by
enabling states to be proactive and avert conservation catastrophes.
State Grants further maximize wildlife and taxpayer dollars for the
benefit of millions of Americans by leveraging additional funds from
states and NGOs.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION
NAUFWP is very concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request
for the Biological Resources Division (BRD), $138.875 million, is a
reduction from the fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $139.816 million.
This reduction is due primarily to the lack of continued funding for
several Congressional initiatives, most of which are intended to
provide critical, timely information to improve natural resource
management in the United States. Even with funding for these programs
however, BRD has been dramatically under-funded for years. Adjusted for
inflation, BRD would have to be funded at over $200 million to maintain
programs at 1994 levels. In addition, BRD is proposing to absorb
approximately $1.9 million of $3.4 million in uncontrollable costs in
the fiscal year 2004 budget. This equates to a significant loss in
operational funds for BRD. We recommend that Congress appropriate $200
million for the Biological Resources Division to allow critical
monitoring and research projects to continue, to eradicate the budget
decline in real dollars that the program has accumulated, and to fully
fund uncontrollable costs.
We support the Administration's requested increase of $1 million to
expand research on chronic wasting disease, a fatal disease in deer and
elk; the $500,000 increase in amphibian research; and the $4 million
increase to expand invasive species research and begin developing a
prototype model for a national early detection network for invasive
species in US terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. At the same time,
however, NAUFWP urges Congress and BRD not to diminish funding directed
at ongoing research needs that may not, at present, be garnering the
public attention that the above issues are, but for which there remain
many unanswered questions.
We appreciate the Administration's recognition of the value of the
National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) and support the
$1 million increase in funding requested for fiscal year 2004. However,
we also support Congressional direction in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus
appropriations bill to BRD to further refine the objectives for NBII
and clearly define a strategy for achieving those objectives. NBII, a
broad, collaborative program that provides increased access to data and
information on the nation's biological resources, is a good example of
what can be achieved by emphasizing partnerships with academic
institutions and others, provided those partnerships are meaningful.
NAUFWP applauds Congress' efforts to fully fund the Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Units (the Units). Full funding and staffing
for the Units was achieved in fiscal year 2001, but since then
available fiscal resources have been eroded, principally due to
uncontrollable costs. Uncontrollable costs for the Units are
disproportionately high compared to other agencies, as 90 percent of
the budget for the Units is salaries. This issue first surfaced in the
fiscal year 2002 enacted budget, which was $123,000 less than the
fiscal year 2001 budget, leaving the Units $400,000 short of covering
the high proportion of personnel costs. We are thankful that the fiscal
year 2003 enacted budget for the Units was $14.9 million, including
$623,000 to cover uncontrollable costs, and $400,000 for the new
Nebraska Cooperative Research Unit. However, the $400,000
uncontrollable shortfall from fiscal year 2002 still remains. The
Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Units is
$14.139 million, an $854,000 decrease from fiscal year 2003. This means
there would be no funding for the new Nebraska Cooperative Research
Unit to operate in 2004, and there would be a $600,000 shortfall in
uncontrollable costs, resulting in a net uncontrollable cost shortfall
for three consecutive years.
To maintain full funding and staffing levels for the Cooperative
Research Units, NAUFWP recommends that Congress increase the fiscal
year 2004 budget to $16 million. This would include $400,000 to
maintain the new Nebraska Unit that Congress established in fiscal year
2003, $600,000 to cover uncontrollable costs in fiscal year 2004, plus
sufficient funds to address the uncontrollable cost backlog from fiscal
year 2002.
There is a great deal of interest from the Unit cooperators to
expand the Cooperative Research Unit program. Currently, three states
have fisheries units only and 12 states have neither fisheries nor
wildlife units. Most states have expressed an interest in entering into
a partnership between BRD, a State University, and the state fish and
wildlife agency to bring one or both Cooperative Research Units to
their state. NAUFWP is pleased that the fiscal year 2003 appropriations
included language directing BRD ``to develop a priority system for
expanding the current program.'' NAUFWP looks forward to participating
in the long-term strategic planning process for the Units, and we urge
Congress to approve budget requests in subsequent years based on this
undertaking. The well-established record of accomplishment of the
Research Units, a partnership of universities, state agencies, federal
agencies, and non-governmental organizations, illustrates the success
of their work to conserve fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and
to train young professionals in the field.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NAUFWP recommends $2.225 million in support of the Cooperative
Ecosystem Study Units (CESU) program. This amount would provide
$125,000 to each host university, which provides research, technical
assistance, and education, and $125,000 for the national office to
partner with other agencies to support conservation and information
sharing through websites and other technologies. This funding could be
placed within the National Park Service under external programs on
behalf of all the federal agencies involved with the CESU program.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request provides $252
million for Forest and Rangeland Research, essentially level with the
fiscal year 2002 budget, including over $11 million for new research
initiatives related to invasive species, the Healthy Forests
Initiative, and Sudden Oak Death disease. The wildlife, fish, and
watershed research budget request is $54 million, about $2 million less
than was appropriated in 2003. NAUFWP recommends an additional $2
million for Forest Service Research, to be allocated to Wildlife, Fish,
Watershed, and Air Research, and recommends that current activities in
the Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air Research segment of the budget can
be maintained.
NAUFWP is concerned about the essentially level funding of $134.8
million for the Wildlife and Threatened & Endangered (T&E) Species
programs in fiscal year 2004. NAUFWP recommends that Congress
appropriate $149 million for the Wildlife, Fish and Threatened &
Endangered Species program in fiscal year 2004. This will help ensure
that each National Forest has a base infrastructure of personnel to
administer viable Wildlife Biology, Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered
and Sensitive Species, Botany and other natural resource programs, and
provide base level funding for Forest and District biologists to
implement proactive management, monitoring, and research projects.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 264 million acres (48
percent) of the nation's public lands, making it the largest natural
resource management agency in terms of acres managed. These lands
provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife and recreational
opportunities for millions of visitors. The Wildlife and Fisheries, and
Threatened and Endangered Species programs of BLM help ensure sound
management and protection of a diversity of wildlife, fish and
habitats, while providing for recreational and commercial uses of the
land. While the Administration has proposed slight increases in the
fiscal year 2004 budgets of these programs, they still will be running
at minimal funding and staffing levels. NAUFWP recommends that Congress
appropriate an additional $10 million over the President's request for
Wildlife and Fisheries Management, and an additional $5 million over
the President's request for the Threatened and Endangered Species
program.
The Administration's request for BLM also includes $500,000 for
monitoring the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development on natural
resources such as wildlife. We believe that if energy production on
public lands is accelerated, then BLM must have the funds necessary to
carry out not only monitoring and evaluation, but also eventual
mitigation of any impacts to wildlife and fish that are identified from
energy development. NAUFWP recommends that additional funds be
dedicated to mitigating the impacts of energy development on wildlife
and fish, particularly species-at-risk, and recommends that the fiscal
resources to conduct this work be allocated within the appropriate
program area budget where biological and cultural resource expertise
exists, as opposed to allocating this funding to the oil and gas
account.
In addition, with increased emphasis on energy development, we
expect an increased demand and need for fish and wildlife expertise.
Already, approximately 30 percent of existing wildlife and fisheries
staff time is being directed at energy-related functions. NAUFWP
supports hiring additional fish and wildlife staff to address these
critical program areas in the context of addressing the Nation's energy
policy, but recommends these positions be directly funded from the
energy account, rather than extracted from the existing base Wildlife
and Fisheries Management or Threatened and Endangered Species Program
budgets.
Thank you for considering the views of universities with fisheries
and wildlife programs. We look forward to working with you and your
staff to ensure adequate funding for wildlife conservation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee
On behalf of the Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee, we
request your support for the State Wildlife Grants program in fiscal
year 2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations. Teaming with
Wildlife is a broad coalition of more than 3,000 groups who have united
to enhance America's wildlife resources. We are dedicated to achieving
increased federal funding for state-level fish and wildlife
conservation, education, and recreation, to ensure a bright future for
all fish and wildlife and the habitat on which they depend. We strongly
urge you to appropriate $125 million for State Wildlife Grants under
the Land, Conservation, Preservation, and Infrastructure Improvement
Fund (LCPII) in fiscal year 2004.
State Wildlife Grants provide essential resources to state agencies
to conserve fish, wildlife, and habitat, and to prevent further
declines in at-risk fish and wildlife populations. More than 1,000
species are imperiled, or listed as federally threatened or endangered,
with many more under consideration for listing. While we understand
that Congress must make difficult programmatic decisions during this
time of fiscal constraints, it is critical to recognize that State
Wildlife Grants ultimately save federal taxpayer dollars. Past
experience shows that efforts to restore imperiled wildlife are
difficult and costly. State Wildlife Grants enable states to be
proactive and avert such conservation catastrophes, concurrently saving
wildlife and taxpayer dollars, and improving our quality of life by
conserving wildlife for the benefit of millions of Americans.
Within the first two years of the State Wildlife Grants program,
state agencies initiated a number of important wildlife conservation
measures. However, the Administration's request of $60 million for
State Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2004 is a substantial reduction
(29 percent) from the $85 million enacted in fiscal year 2002. This
will significantly curtail the effectiveness of many state wildlife
diversity programs that are in their infancy and require consistent,
adequate federal appropriations to realize their objectives. The
proposed cut for SWG in fiscal year 2004 also will jeopardize the
States' ability to craft and implement the Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Plan required by Congress. The development of these plans
is underway in many states, in anticipation of consistent funding for
implementation. If the commitment to this planning is reduced, the
focus of spending likely will shift toward meeting short-term needs,
instead of being channeled toward long-term conservation through
comprehensive conservation, education and recreation programs.
Indeed, the monies acquired for State Wildlife Grants through the
annual appropriations process offer only short-term support for fish
and wildlife conservation. For this reason, Teaming with Wildlife
remains committed to securing the reliable, long-term nature and intent
of Title III of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). Title III
of CARA would have provided $350 million per year for 15 years to
prevent species from becoming endangered, to enhance outdoor
recreational experiences, and to foster responsible fish and wildlife
stewardship through conservation education. We respectfully urge you to
address the continuing shortfalls in state wildlife program funding
with a long-term and comprehensive approach by supporting the passage
of dependable funding. We pledge to assist in implementing such a
program.
We understand the many pressing needs of the nation at this time,
but we stress that a nation strong in its international role must be
strong in its support for and conservation of its natural resources,
including fish and wildlife. We need and sincerely appreciate your help
with annual funding, and are hopeful that we can work together to bring
dependability to these funds, which will be necessary to achieve long-
term fish and wildlife conservation objectives for all citizens.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nebraska Game & Parks Commission
The Nebraska Game & Parks Commission is the agency responsible for
stewardship of Nebraska's wildlife resources in the best long-term
interest of Nebraskan's and those resources. The Commission is charged
with administration of the State Wildlife Grants program. The Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission strongly supports an appropriation of $125
million for the State Wildlife Grants Program (administered by the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service) in fiscal year 2004.
For more than 50 years, the highly successful Federal Aid to Fish &
Wildlife Restoration program (Pittman Robertson Act) has enabled state
wildlife agencies to meet their obligation to restore and conserve game
species. The recovery of wild turkey, deer, and waterfowl populations
is nothing short of miraculous. In addition to game conservation, the
Federal Aid program has indirectly conserved habitat for hundreds of
nongame species.
Nevertheless, Nebraska faces the immense challenge of conserving
more than 500 nongame species considered rare or declining. During the
past three years the State Wildlife Grants program has been
instrumental in helping the Commission and its many partners begin
implementing conservation strategies aimed at stemming population
declines of nongame fish and wildlife. The Commission fully embraces
the concept behind the State Wildlife Grants program--Use proactive
conservation strategies now, to reduce the likelihood for endangered
species listings in the future.
In 2002, the Commission used a competitive grant program to
disburse State Wildlife Grants funds. The agency received more than
eight times the request for funds than was available. We expect the
demand for these funds to increase substantially in the next few years.
As a result of this competitive grant program, the Commission has built
new and innovative partnerships with more than a dozen conservation
organizations and universities leveraging more than $1 million in state
and private conservation funds.
Without the State Wildlife Grants program, Nebraska will likely be
faced with the regulatory requirement to add more species to the state
endangered species list in the future. This outcome is exceedingly
expensive, controversial, and risky to imperiled species. We prefer a
more proactive approach such as that offered through the State Wildlife
Grants Program.
The Commission is extremely appreciative of your committee's
support of the State Wildlife Grants program in fiscal years 2002 &
2003. We encourage you to give thoughtful consideration for this
program in the 2004 budget. Thank you for your time.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
REQUEST
The Oregon Water Resources Congress is requesting $25 million for
the full funding in fiscal year 2004 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation program as authorized in
the Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) in November 2000
as Public Law 106-502 (H.R. 1444). The Administration has not request
any funding in the fiscal year 2004 Budget submission for this program.
FRIMA created a new federal partnership fish screening and passage
program in the Pacific Ocean drainage areas of Idaho, Oregon,
Washington and western Montana, administered by the Fish and Wildlife
Service and partnered through state fishery agencies.
The original legislation was supported and requested by the Pacific
Northwest Partnership, a coalition of local governmental entities in
the four Northwest states. As one of the members of that coalition, we
appreciate your consideration of this request.
NEED
Our association has represented irrigation districts in Oregon
since 1912. About half of those districts are affiliated with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation. The remainder of the districts were not
developed under the Reclamation program. There are over 200 irrigation
districts in Oregon that provide water supplies to over one million
acres of cropland in Oregon. Almost all of these districts are affected
by either state or federal Endangered Species Act listings of Salmon
and Steelhead, Bull Trout or other sensitive, threatened or endangered
species.
Fish passage and fishscreen needs have become critical to fishery
protection:
--to keep protected fish species out of water canals and delivery
systems;
--to allow fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and facility
structures; and
--to eliminate water quality risks to fish species.
Oregon irrigation districts anticipate no less than $500 million in
funding will be required to develop fish passage and fishscreening
needs. Limited cost-share funds are available from the Oregon Watershed
Enhancement Board (OWEB) program in Oregon, but primarily the cost
share for passage and screening needs will be provided by the districts
and their water users. Many districts already have screening facilities
in place, but requirements for screening have been changed to meet
federal agency requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Service and the Fish
and Wildlife Life Service, driven by implementation of the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA) so that existing facilities must be
upgraded at significant cost.
BACKGROUND OF PUBLIC LAW 106-502
FRIMA was enacted November 2000, creating a voluntary cost-share
fish screen construction program for water withdrawal projects in
Idaho, Oregon, Washington and western Montana. The Fish and Wildlife
Service is to implement this program through the fishery agencies in
the four states. The funding is to go to local governments for
construction of facilities. Irrigation districts (local governments),
can access the funding; individual irrigators can access funding
through their local Soil and Water Conservation District. (SWCD
districts are local governments affiliated with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.)
FUNDING
The legislation calls for $25 million annually, to be divided among
the four states, from 2001 forward. The Service has never included
funding in its budget requests since passage of the legislation.
Congress provided the first funding in 2001 through a write-in of $4
million to be shared among the four states. The agency did not get the
program up and running until late 2002, so the first moneys were
distributed then. A 2003 budget write-in resulted in a $470,000
allocation to Oregon ($1.8 million total for the 4 states) which has
not yet been disbursed.
FUNDING HISTORY
2000--Congressional authorization for $25 million per year
2001--Congressional write-in of $4 million as no agency budget line
2002--No budget; agency did not disburse 2001 money until late 2002
2003--Congressional write-in of $1.2 million as no agency budget
line
2004--No agency budget line
For the 4 years, 2001-2004:
--Congress--Authorized $100 million
--CBO--Anticipated $70 million
--Service--Budgeted $0
--Congress--Wrote in $5.8 million (2002 & 2003 total combined)
In 2000, in the report accompanying the legislation, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated outlays of $8 million for
fiscal year 2001; $15 million in fiscal year 2002; $22 million in
fiscal year 2003 and $25 million in fiscal year 2004 and years forward.
While the CBO estimate would have provided $70 million between 2001 and
2004, the actual appropriation was only $5.8 million (8 percent) during
that same time period and all of the money was a write-in.
Funding funneled through the Service to state fishery agencies is
distributed on the basis of an application and approval process that is
based on a ranking system implemented uniformly among the states,
including the following factors:
--fish restoration benefits
--cost effectiveness
--feasibility of planned structure
Each state is allocated 25 percent of the annual program funding.
Agency administrative costs cannot exceed 6 percent of the funding.
PROJECT BENEFITS
The project must provide improved fish passage or fish protection
at water diversion structures and must benefit fish species native to
and present in the area, including those listed on state or federal
endangered species or conservation lists. The project must meet
applicable state and federal requirements for project construction and
operation. Projects will increase the survival of many native fish
species in a relatively short period of time. Compared to other
recovery strategies, the risks posed by these activities are low and
the assurance of success in increasing numbers of fish is high.
Dislocation of existing social and economic activities is minor.
Screening and passage can make a very substantial contribution
utilizing existing implementation mechanisms and methods well accepted
by landowners and rural communities.
COST SHARE
The federal cost-share is 65 percent. The applicant's cost-share is
35 percent plus the on-going maintenance and support of the structure
for passage or screening purposes. Applicants operate the projects and
the state agencies monitor and review the projects.
For more information, see the Services' Fishery Resources website
for the Pacific Region at http://pacific.fws.gov/Fisheries/
Fish%20Passage-Screening %20Program.htm.
This program is headquartered in the Portland, Oregon regional
office of the Service.
OREGON'S PROJECT BENEFITS
Of the $4 million provided to the program in 2001 for the 4 states,
Oregon received $1 million for projects:
Santiam Water Control District Project.--Fishscreen project on a
large 1050 cfs multi-purpose water diversion project on the Santiam
River (Willamette Basin) near Stayton, Oregon. Partners are the Santiam
Water Control District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marion
Soil and Water Conservation District, and the City of Stayton. Approved
FRIMA funding of $400,000 leverages a $1,200,000 project. Species
benefited include winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow trout, and
cutthroat trout.
South Fork Little Butte Creek.--Fishscreen and fish passage project
on a 65 cfs irrigation water diversion in the Rogue River Basin near
Medford, Oregon. Partners are the Medford Irrigation District and
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Approved FRIMA funding is
$372,000 and leverages a $580,000 total project cost. Species benefited
include listed summer and winter steelhead, coho salmon, and cutthroat
trout.
Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project.--Fishscreen project on a 60
cfs irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Wocus Drainage District, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Jeld-Wen Ranches. Approved FRIMA
funding of $44,727 leveraged a total project cost of $149,000. Species
benefited include listed red-band trout and short-nosed sucker.
Lakeshore Gardens Project.--Fishscreen project on a 2 cfs
irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District and
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Approved FRIMA funding is
$5,691, leveraging a total project cost of $18,970. Species benefited
include red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost River sucker.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Inventory Project.--An
inventory project to be conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife to identify FRIMA-eligible passage and screening projects
within the Rogue and Klamath basins of southwestern Oregon. Approved
FRIMA funding is $76,000. Estimated total project cost is $125,000.
(See total projects list, Pacific Region States at http://
www.r1.fws.gov/Fisheries/Fish%20Passage-Screening%20Projects.htm.)
TOTAL OREGON PROJECT FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Projects:
FRIMA funds........................................... 0.9
Applicant funds....................................... 1.2
-------------
Total Project....................................... 2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY FUND NOW?
Dollar-for-dollar, providing screening and fish passage at
diversions is one of the most cost-effective use of restoration
dollars, creating fishery protection at low cost, with low risk and
significant benefits. That is why it is important that this program be
funded now. We urge the full authorized funding for fiscal year 2004
and urge Congress' oversight in encouraging the Service to budget for
this successful program in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
hearing record.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership
The Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership (Partnership) was
initiated in 1999 to protect and manage endangered least terns (Sterna
antillarum athalassos) and threatened piping plovers (Charadrius
melodus) that nest in Nebraska on river sand bars and on gravel mine
spoil piles. Birds that nest at these mines are vulnerable to predation
and potential conflicts with mining operations. The Partnership was
formed to protect these and other river birds in a way that reduced
conflicts with private industry and that educated and involved local
communities. To further these goals an ``Adopt-a-Colony'' program was
initiated in 2000 to help with project activities and to engage local
community members in endangered species management and protection
issues.
The Partnership is run solely by the means of grant funds and is
partially funded by the State Wildlife Grant program, being recommended
for a $45,000 grant in 2003. The program received a Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Program GRANT for $75,000 in 2002. The
Nebraska Environmental Trust and The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
also partially fund the Partnership.
These grants have helped with needed supplies and have allowed us
to meet the critical need of employing two seasonal technicians to
assist with monitoring and protection efforts during each nesting
season. Technicians are essential to the continuing success of the
Partnership. Without efforts from technicians it would be impossible to
monitor colonies on a regular basis, erect and maintain several
protective electric fences, and successfully mitigate potential
conflicts at sand mines. Technicians also help foster high quality
working relationships with sand and gravel personnel and volunteers.
Moreover, the grants have helped provide essential supplies such as
protective fencing, field signs, educational materials, and video and
GPS equipment.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for both the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has important responsibilities
in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, including management of federal
refuge lands and coordination with other federal, state, and local
agencies on river-related ecological issues. The UMRBA strongly
supports funding necessary to enable the Fish and Wildlife Service to
fulfill its responsibilities in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Refuges and Wildlife.--The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
administers over 250,000 acres of land and water scattered along the
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers from the most northerly unit near
Wabasha, Minnesota to the most southerly unit near Gape Girardeau,
Missouri. This includes the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
and Fish Refuge (NWFR), Mark Twain NWR Complex, and Illinois River NWFR
Complex. The existence of this extensive national refuge system is, in
part, the reason that, in 1986, Congress designated the Upper
Mississippi River System as a ``nationally significant ecosystem and a
nationally significant commercial navigation system.''
The UMRBA strongly supports the proposed increase for Refuge
Operations and Maintenance in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget.
In fiscal year 2003, funding for the three refuges along the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers totaled $13.4 million, approximately 43
percent of which was carryover for special flood-related repair needs.
Yet there continues to be a routine maintenance backlog and a need for
additional personnel to address law enforcement, biological needs,
floodplain forest management, technical assistance to private
landowners, environmental education, and other refuge management needs.
In particular, the refuges along the Upper Mississippi River System
have responsibility for the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of projects
that the Corps of Engineers constructs on those refuges, under the
authority of the Environmental Management Program (EMP). Currently,
those annual O&M costs are estimated to be $360,000, but will likely
increase within 10 years to more than $560,000. Fully funding the O&M
of EMP projects is vital to ensuring that these habitat restoration and
enhancement projects are fully operational and provide lasting
environmental and public use benefits.
In order to properly care for the lands already in the National
Wildlife Refuge System, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request
for acquisition of new lands is reduced by more than half. Despite this
dramatic cut, the fiscal year 2004 budget includes $2 million to
acquire lands for three refuges along the Upper Mississippi River.
Included are $1 million for acquisition of 924 acres for the Great
River NWR and $500,000 for acquisition of 400 acres for the Middle
Mississippi River NWR. Both of these refuges are part of the Mark Twain
NWR Complex for which 27,000 acres remain to be acquired. In addition,
the fiscal year 2004 budget includes $500,000 for acquisition of 380
acres for the Upper Mississippi River NWFR Complex, which has
outstanding unmet acquisition needs of over 35,000 acres. The UMRBA
supports the fiscal year 2004 budget request for refuge land
acquisition and is pleased that the refuges in this region are
recognized as a high priority, even in tight budget times.
Ecological Services.--Funding from the Ecological Services account
supports the field offices in Rock Island (IL), the Twin Cities (MN),
and Marion (IL), which provide most of the ecological services work on
the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) and tributaries. This includes work
on threatened and endangered species, environmental contaminants, and
habitat conservation. In fiscal year 2003, work being done by these
Ecological Services field offices related to the Upper Mississippi
River is estimated to be $375,000. The UMRBA supports this base funding
for Ecological Services offices on the UMR and thus recommends that, at
a minimum, Ecological Services fiscal year 2004 funding be increased
from the President's recommended level, to at least match the fiscal
year 2003 appropriation.
Fisheries.--Most of the Service's fish management on the Upper
Mississippi River is conducted out of the La Crosse (WI), Columbia
(MO), and Carterville (IL) Fisheries Resource Offices, which conduct
habitat restoration and assessments of paddlefish, pallid and
shovelnose sturgeon, and freshwater mussels. The UMRBA supports the
important work done by these offices and thus supports the funding
proposed in the President's budget for the Fisheries account in fiscal
year 2004. In particular, of the $1 million increase proposed for work
on aquatic nuisance species in fiscal year 2004, $250,000 is proposed
for efforts in this basin related to Asian carp.
The UMRBA is particularly pleased that the President's fiscal year
2004 budget recognizes the needs related to hatchery operations and
maintenance, by proposing an increase of $8 million in the hatcheries
budget. The National Fish Hatchery on the banks of the Mississippi
River at Genoa, Wisconsin has become a center of excellence in the
recovery of endangered mussels. Additional funds proposed for the Genoa
Hatchery in fiscal year 2004 would be used for production of freshwater
mussels, lake sturgeon, and brook trout to meet restoration and
recovery objectives. In particular, $370,000 is budgeted for large
migratory species, such as lake and shovelnose sturgeon, and $55,000 is
allocated for endangered mussels, such as the Higgin's Eye and Winged
Mapleleaf. Additional funds proposed for the Fish Health Center in La
Crosse, Wisconsin would be used for health diagnostics for lake
sturgeon and lake trout and would enhance the Wild Fish Health Survey
on the Upper Mississippi River.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
In contrast to the deep cuts proposed for the U.S. Geological
Survey over the past two years, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
signals strong support for the science mission of the USGS. Yet while
the Administration's fiscal year 2004 request for water and for
biological research reflects an increase over its prior years'
requests, it is, in fact, slightly lower than the fiscal year 2003
amounts recently appropriated by Congress. It is therefore important
that Congress actually increase funding above the President's request
just to maintain stable funding for these critical science programs.
The states of the Upper Mississippi River Basin are concerned that
the USGS' ability to provide timely and unbiased scientific information
about complex natural systems not be compromised. There are several
specific research and monitoring programs in the Water Resources and
Biological Research programs that are of particular interest to the
UMRBA.
Water Resources Investigations.--The UMRBA strongly supports
increased funding for the National Streamflow Information Program
(NSIP). The stream gaging network is essential to protecting public
health and safety by forecasting floods and droughts, managing the
nation's navigation system, and monitoring water quality. There are
currently 675 stream gages operated by USGS in the five UMRBA states.
Over recent years, 80 gages have become inactive in the five states,
many as a result of funding cutbacks. The loss of gages means the loss
of the historical record that is needed for managing our nation's water
resources. The UMRBA shares the commitment of water resource managers
across the nation to the long-term stability and security of the
nation's stream gaging program. Toward that end, UMRBA joins other
organizations, such as the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP),
in urging Congress to increase the Administration's fiscal year 2004
proposed budget of $14.4 million for NSIP by $2 million.
The UMRBA also strongly supports funding for the Federal/State
Cooperative Water Program. The Coop Program is an essential tool in
meeting state and local science needs, including both interpretive
studies and stream gaging. Originally, the match between nonfederal
cooperators and the USGS was 50-50. Over time, increased requests by
cooperators for USGS services, coupled with stagnant federal funding,
has altered that proportion. In 2002, cooperators generally matched
every $1.00 in federal funds with $1.65, demonstrating the value they
place on the program. In 2002, there were 182 nonfederal cooperative
projects in the five UMRBA states, an increase of over five percent in
just two years.
In contrast to last year's proposal to eliminate USGS' Toxic
Substances Hydrology program, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
proposes $11 million for this important research. The Toxics Program,
which conducts research on the behavior of toxic substances in the
nation's hydrologic environments, is particularly important to the
states of the Upper Midwest. Under this program, USGS has been studying
the occurrence, transport, and fate of agricultural chemicals in a 12-
state area in the Upper Midwest. This research effort, called the
``Midcontinent Agricultural Chemical Research Project,'' is helping to
identify factors that affect dispersal of agricultural chemicals in
surface and ground waters and evaluating the resulting effects in small
streams and large rivers. The goal is to provide the general scientific
basis needed to develop agricultural management practices that protect
the quality of this region's water resources. Through its Toxics
Program, USGS is also studying questions associated with hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico, including the loads and sources of nutrients from the
Mississippi River basin. Given the important work underway in the USGS
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, UMRBA urges Congress to provide
$13.5 million, at a minimum, commensurate with the fiscal year 2003
level of funding.
The UMRBA continues to support funding for the National Water
Quality Assessment (NAWQA), which is slated to be at $64 million under
the President's fiscal year 2004 budget. NAWQA is designed to answer
basic questions about the status and trends in the quality of our
nation's ground and surface waters, assessing 42 major river basins and
aquifers across the nation on a rotating basis every 3-4 years. The
Upper Mississippi River Basin includes four NAWQA study units (Upper
Mississippi, Eastern Iowa, Lower Illinois, and Upper Illinois). The
first 3 of these are scheduled for assessment in fiscal year 2004.
Biological Research.--The President's budget request for USGS
Biological Research is $168.9 million, reflecting an increase over the
fiscal year 2003 request, but a decrease from the fiscal year 2003
appropriation of $170.9 million. The UMRBA recommends that, at a
minimum, Biological Research be funded at the fiscal year 2003 level.
Of particular interest to UMRBA is funding for invasive species
research, including ballast water research and development of a
prototype model for a national early detection network for invasive
species. Also of interest is research into amphibian declines and
malformations that have been occurring in recent years.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Management Institute
The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is submitting its comments
on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) proposed budget for
fiscal 2004. WMI is a scientific, educational non-profit organization
that is staffed by professional wildlife biologists and is committed to
the sustainable management of wildlife populations and habitats
throughout North America. For 63-years we have worked closely with the
FWS to identify wildlife conservation needs and resource management
solutions. Our following comments include recommendations for the
following spending increases over the Administration's FWS requests:
$65 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants; $5 million for the
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; $1.2 million for Migratory
Bird Management; $2 million for Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation; and $10 million for controlling invasive species. It also
includes a $24.9 million request for traditional state grants under the
Cooperative Endangered Species Fund.
During this time of war, we greatly appreciate the Administration's
$9 million spending increase over the fiscal 2002 spending level. The
Administration's $1.3 billion request recognizes the significant
contributions of several partnership oriented programs and will help
the FWS leverage significant support among private organizations and
individuals when addressing critical issues confronting migratory
birds, declining species and a host of other game and nongame animals.
Specifically, we welcome the Administration's request for the following
programs and urge your subcommittee to support these programs
throughout the appropriations process:
1. Landowner Incentive Program and Private Stewardship Grants ($50
million);
2. Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ($38.4 million, of which
$9.1 million is for habitat restoration projects);
3. Joint Ventures under the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan ($10.3 million);
4. Refuge Challenge Cost Share Fund ($3 million);
5. Replacement of bird survey aircraft ($1 million);
6. Chronic Wasting Disease surveillance and control on National
Wildlife Refuges ($500,000 although spending increases should be
considered in future years); and
7. Updating database for mourning doves ($250,000).
WMI also supports the Administration's $25.5 million increase for
the National Wildlife Refuge System's operations and maintenance
account (total request is $402 million). Under the fiscal 2003 omnibus
appropriations bill, that account received the largest increase any
natural resources program had ever received in a single year ($48.4
million). These consecutive increases will greatly improve the Fish and
Wildlife Service's ability to reduce its operations and maintenance
backlog. However, according to the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement, the refuge system needs $700 million annually to expand
its support staff, to oversee maintenance projects and to conduct daily
operational work on refuges. To the degree that current circumnstances
allow, we ask that your subcommittee narrow the gap between the
Administration's $402 million request and the refuge system's $700
million need.
The Institute remains concerned about the lack of adequate funding
for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program, North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund, Cooperative Endangered Species Fund,
Migratory Bird Management, land acquisition program, and invasive
species control/eradication. Please accommodate the following comments
and spending recommendations to the best of your ability.
STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS
We are very concerned that the Administration has requested only
$60 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program for the
second consecutive year. This request represents a 30 percent reduction
from the fiscal 2002 amount of $85 million and significantly limits the
ability of State and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies to complete
their Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans and to implement on-
the-ground projects that benefit game and nongame species. These
agencies need a stable or growing source of funds to meet long-term
planning objectives, and WMI is committed to locating a dependable
source of funding that will provide states and Tribes with $350 million
every year to fulfill their unique conservation, recreation and
education needs. In pursuit of that $350 million per year goal, WMI
asks that your subcommittee appropriate $125 million to the grant
program in fiscal 2004.
NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND
WMI welcomes the Administration's request of $50 million for the
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, but according to the
reauthorizing language for North American Wetlands Conservation Act,
this fund is to receive $55 million in fiscal 2004. Since 1989, the FWS
has used this fund to collaborate with more than 2,000 partners and to
conduct at least 1,114 enhancement projects for wetlands and associated
upland habitat in 48 states, U.S. Virgin Islands, 13 Canadian
provinces, and 24 Mexican states. Moreover, every federal dollar in
this fund leverages $2.88 from the Fish and Wildlife Service's state
and private partners. For these reasons, we recommend that your
subcommittee appropriate the authorized amount of $55 million to this
fund.
COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES FUND
Through the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, state fish and
wildlife agencies receive necessary financial assistance to implement
habitat conservation and population recovery efforts for imperiled
species. However, the Administration's $86.6 million request for this
fund includes only $7.5 million for the traditional Section 6 state
grants program. We encourage your committee to support the Section 6
grant program at $24.9 million so that 19 western states can
participate in proactive, multi-state partnerships through efforts,
such as State Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements and
Candidate Conservation Agreements.
One specific project that requires additional resources is the
Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Agreement. This 4-year-old
partnership involves 11 western states and each state is developing its
own management plan to address prairie dog issues at the state and
local level. However, the partnership needs $7.4 million in fiscal 2004
so that each state can finalize its management plan and to let all
partners establish an incentives program for private landowners. The
High Plains Partnership is another effort that is proactively
addressing the population declines of multiple animals dependant upon
short and mixed grasslands (e.g., sage grouse, Cassin's sparrow and
prairie chickens). At least $10 million is needed to insure that the
Federal, State and private partners can restore grasslands and
associated wildlife species throughout the Great Plains and can enhance
the productivity of private land operations throughout the region.
MIGRATORY BIRD MANAGEMENT
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is an
international effort between Canada, the United States, and Mexico to
deliver bird conservation through regionally based, biologically
driven, landscape-oriented partnerships. To date, there has been no
authorization to provide the necessary staff to coordinate the program
within the United States. Needed are a National Coordinator, a Database
Manager, and 6 Regional All-bird Coordinators (Northeast, Midwest,
Southeast, Alaska, Southwest, Northwest). We believe these positions
should be funded through the Service's Migratory Bird Management
Division, but we recommend the FWS director be authorized to enter into
contracts with State wildlife agencies or non-governmental
organizations to fill these important positions. We recommend an
increase of $1.2 million in the Administration(s budget request for the
Migratory Bird Management program to fund these 8 positions critical to
NABCI. We also recommend that these positions be funded with new money
opposed to shifting funds from other existing fish and wildlife
programs.
Also, NABCI partners met in February 2003 to identify priorities
for fiscal 2004 and beyond and recognized the Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation program as one of its top priorities. This program is
authorized for $5 million but the Administration requested only $3
million. WMI seeks your support for a $5 million appropriation to this
account.
LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
In fiscal 2002, the FWS received $99.1 million to acquire
ecologically valuable and sensitive lands from willing landowners. For
fiscal 2004, however, the Administration requested only $40.7 million
so that the FWS can invest more time and fiscal resources on presently
owned lands. Although we support the Administration's decision to
improve the management of existing federal lands, we caution your
subcommittee against a drastic cut in this program. Over the course of
one year, opportunities to protect critically important habitat for
wildlife may be lost forever, which in turn would further limit the
Service's ability to remove fish and wildlife from the threatened/
endangered species list and to prevent the listing of other animals.
INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM
Although the Administration has requested $2.1 million to combat
the spread of non-native, invasive species in National Wildlife
Refuges, the FWS does not have a comprehensive plan for controlling and
eradicating invasives. Thus, WMI requests the appropriation of an
additional $10 million so that the agency can strategically incorporate
invasive species management activities into other conservation
programs.
In summary, we appreciate the Administration's $9 million boost for
Fish and Wildlife Service programs during such a difficult time for our
nation. Productive landscapes that host a diversity of wildlife and
fish offer all Americans a peaceful playground in which they can
connect to their local environment via fishing, hunting, wildlife
watching and photography and other recreational pursuits. But many
national conservation needs remain unmet, and WMI encourages you to
consider and act upon our above spending recommendations.
Thank you for reviewing our comments, and we look forward to
working with you throughout the appropriations process. If you or your
staff would like to discuss our recommendations further, please contact
me or Terry Riley, Director of Conservation, at (202) 371-1808.
______
Letter From the Wyoming Water Association
Wyoming Water Association,
Water is Wyoming's Gold!
Cheyenne, WY, June 3, 2003.
Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman
Hon. Robert C. Byrd, Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Burns and Senator Byrd: The Wyoming Water Association
sends this letter to request your support and assistance in insuring
continued funding for the Recovery Implementation Program for
Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program) and the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program. The objectives of the Wyoming
Water Association are to promote the development, conservation, and
utilization of the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of
Wyoming people. Since 1932, the Wyoming Water Association has served
the interests of Wyoming's water users. With changing and growing
demands on Wyoming's limited water resources, complicated by an
increasingly complex overlay of federal laws and regulations,
management and development challenges and conflicts continue to become
more numerous. The Association maintains an active role in supporting
the State of Wyoming's efforts to put Wyoming water to use for
Wyoming's citizens.
The members of our Association supports the continuation of these
two cooperative programs involving the States of Colorado, New Mexico,
Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests are ongoing in the Upper Colorado River Basin
and have as their objective recovering four species of endangered fish
while water development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, state law, and interstate compacts. The Wyoming
Water Association respectfully requests support and action by the
Subcommittee that will provide the following:
1. The continued allocation of $700,000 in ``recovery'' funds
appropriated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for fiscal
year 2004 to allow FWS's Region 6 to meet its funding commitment to the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same
amount appropriated in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for this program.
Funding will be used for FWS' program and data management costs,
estimating the abundance of fish populations, evaluating stocking and
monitoring fish and habitat response to recovery actions.
2. The allocation of $444,000 in appropriated base operation and
maintenance funds (``Fisheries Activity; Hatchery O&M Subactivity'') to
support the current operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
in Utah for fiscal year 2004.
3. The allocation of $165,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San
Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal
year 2004 to meet FWS's Region 2 expenses associated with program
management and implementing the San Juan Program's actions.
The enactment of Public Law 106-392, as amended by Public Law 107-
375, authorized the Federal Government to provide up to $46 Million of
cost sharing for these two ongoing recovery programs' remaining capital
construction projects. Additional hatchery facilities to produce
endangered fish for stocking, restoring floodplain habitat and fish
passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows, installing
diversion canal screens to prevent fish entrapment and controlling
nonnative fish populations are key components of the capital
construction efforts. The four participating states are contributing
$17 Million and $17 Million is being contributed from revenues derived
from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) hydroelectric
power. Subsection 3(c) of Public Law 106-392 authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to accept up to $17 Million of contributed funds from
Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, and to expend such contributed
funds as if appropriated for that purpose. The Wyoming Water
Association has for a number of years adopted a resolution supporting
the appropriation of federal and state funds to carry out the purposes
of these programs.
The above line item funding requests for the FWS are supported by
the State of Wyoming and each of the participating States engaged in
these effective partnership programs. The requested federal
appropriations are critically important and will be used in concert
with other federal and non-federal cost-sharing funding. The support of
your Subcommittee in past years is gratefully acknowledged and
appreciated, and has been a major factor in the success of these multi-
state, multi-agency programs in progressing towards endangered fish
species recovery in the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins while
necessary water use and development activities are occurring. We again
request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that the FWS is
provided with adequate funding for these vitally important programs.
Sincerely,
John W. Shields,
Executive Secretary.
______
Prepared Statement of Bear Trust International; Boone and Crockett
Club; Bowhunting Preservation Alliance; Buckmasters American Deer
Foundation; Campfire Club of America; Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation; Conservation Force; Foundation for North American Wild
Sheep; Houston Safari Club; International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies; Izaak Walton League of America; Mule Deer
Foundation; National Rifle Association; National Shooting Sports
Foundation; National Trappers Association; Pope and Young Club; Quality
Deer Management Association; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Ruffed
Grouse Society; Safari Club International; Shikar Safari Club
International; The Wildlife Society; Wildlife Management Institute; and
Whitetails Unlimited, Inc.
We urge you to include adequate funding in the fiscal year 2004
federal budget to fully implement the National Plan to Assist States,
Federal Agencies and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in
Captive and Free Ranging Cervids. We specifically ask your subcommittee
to appropriate $7.75 million for agency programs within Department of
the Interior and, further, $20.46 million for non-matching state and
tribal grants to be administered either through USDA-Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS).
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is always fatal for deer and elk. It
has been found in either captive or free-ranging wildlife in 12 states
and 2 Canadian provinces. Left unmanaged, this disease has the
potential to devastate local deer and elk populations. Moreover,
improper management of CWD will stimulate a major economic loss for
state agencies and private businesses that rely on hunting and wildlife
associated tourism for their livelihood. According to the USFWS's 2001
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation, 10.9 million sportsmen and women spent 153 million days
hunting big game in 2001. Collectively, they spent $10.1 billion to
purchase necessary equipment and to cover trip-related costs. And
within Colorado, the Division of Wildlife estimated that deer and elk
hunters generated $599 million for the state's economy in 2001.
Furthermore, the Division collected $44 million through deer and elk
license sales, which represented 54 percent of the agency's $81.9
million budget for 2001.
In May 2002, the House Resources Subcommittees on Forests and
Forest Health and Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans held a
joint oversight hearing on the CWD crisis. Invited witnesses were asked
to provide suggestions as to how Congress and the federal government
could most effectively assist states in the fight against CWD.
Resultantly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI) were directed to prepare a national
plan to address CWD.
A national CWD task force was quickly formed to ensure that federal
and state agencies cooperated in the development and implementation of
an effective national CWD strategy and program. Membership for the task
force, and its associated working groups, totaled 75 professionals who
were knowledgeable in wildlife health, wildlife management, wildlife
biology and livestock health and represented a myriad of state and
federal wildlife management and animal health agencies, as well as
universities.
On June 26, 2002 the task force released the National Plan to
Assist States, Federal Agencies and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting
Disease in Captive and Free Ranging Cervids, also known as the National
CWD Plan. This plan represents the most current scientific knowledge on
CWD, and delineates a strategy to identify the extent of the disease
and management actions necessary to limit its spread. An Implementation
Document was then developed to identify who will be responsible for
individual projects, how these projects will help control CWD, how much
money is necessary to implement the projects, and when each project
should be completed. The Implementation Document, dated October 16,
2002, was provided to Bobby Acord, Director of APHIS, and Steve
Williams, Director of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is our
understanding that the document has since been provided to the Office
of Management and Budget for review and analysis. Both documents are
available at http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/
policy.policy.
According to the National CWD Plan, the primary federal role will
be to provide coordination and assistance with research, surveillance,
disease management, diagnostic testing, technology, communications,
information dissemination, education and funding for state CWD
programs. Federal agencies will provide tools and financial assistance
to states and help develop consensus-based approaches to CWD control.
The federal funding requirements identified in the Implementation
Document total $108 million over a three year period. It is important
to recognize that not all CWD funding has been or will be federal
dollars. For example, it is estimated that the states of Colorado,
Nebraska, and Wisconsin expended $3.6 million to combat CWD during
2002. In Colorado, a portion of that money was used to cull
approximately 450 mule deer and 200 elk, further evidence of the
mounting need to protect the viability of wild and captive cervid
populations.
We are concerned that the collaborative science-based
recommendations in the National CWD Plan and its associated
Implementation Document have not been given due consideration during
the development of the fiscal year 2004 budget. The Implementation
Document recommends $13.6 million for USDA, $7.75 million for DOI and
$20.46 million for state and tribal grants during the first year.
However, the Administration only requested $14 million for USDA, of
which only $7 million is for Plan activities. Moreover, DOI would
receive $2.4 million under the Administration's request, less than half
of what the Implementation Document's authors recommended, and the
states would receive nothing. We believe this spending request is
woefully inadequate to effectively implement the National CWD Plan.
In summary, we urge you to include in the fiscal year 2004 federal
budget the funding necessary to fully implement year one of the
National CWD Plan. Both the DOI and the USDA Agriculture have been
assisting states and tribes to the extent that their budgets permit;
however, significant additional funding is needed to implement the
actions and programs outlined in the National CWD Plan and its
associated Implementation Document. Since the management of resident
wildlife is the responsibility of the appropriate state wildlife
agency, in addition to funding the CWD activities of both the DOI and
USDA, the federal budget appropriation must provide funding that will
be passed on to the states through a grant program that requires no
match. The states have already spent millions of dollars on this issue
and need federal funding assistance to continue the battle.
Thank you for reviewing our comments, and we look forward to
working with you on this important issue throughout the appropriations
process.
______
Prepared Statement of the African Wildlife Foundation, The Nature
Conservancy, American Zoo and Aquarium Association, Safari Club
International, The Wildlife Conservation Society, American Veterinary
Medical Association, World Wildlife Fund, International Rhino
Foundation, International Elephant Foundation, WildAid, Conservation
International, National Wildlife Federation, The Fund for Animals,
Sierra Club, The Humane Society of the United States, National Audobon
Society, Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, Defenders of Wildlife,
Wildlife Management Institute, Jane Goodall Institute, International
Fund for Animal Welfare, and American Bird Conservancy
We are writing as a coalition of conservationists, zoos, circuses,
sportsmen, veterinarians, and animal protection groups to request your
support of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. This Fund has
made an important contribution to the survival of wild tigers,
elephants, rhinos, great apes, and neotropical migratory birds. Last
year, Congress demonstrated its continued commitment to the Fund by
increasing the appropriation to $4.8 million for the four mammal
programs and $3 million for migratory birds. We ask for fiscal year
2004 that you again support these successful programs by appropriating
$2 million each for the Asian Elephant, African Elephant, and Great
Apes Conservation Funds, $3 million for the combined Rhinoceros and
Tiger Conservation Fund, and $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Fund.
There have been significant improvements in the status of elephants
and white rhinos in parts of southern Africa, rhinos in Nepal, and
tigers in Russia as a result of grants from the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund. The remaining 300 Sumatran rhinos and 60 Javan
rhinos would not have survived without the Rhino Protection Units
supported by the Fund. Black rhinos, whose numbers plummeted from
70,000 in 1970 to 2,500 in 1993 are now recovering in many parts of
Africa to a current total of about 3,100. These successes show that a
species can survive if sufficient and reliable resources are provided
for anti-poaching, habitat protection, disease control, public
education, and measures to increase compatibility with humans.
There are still many unfulfilled needs, particularly in India and
Indonesia where burgeoning human populations have fractured habitat and
isolated tiger, rhino and elephant populations. Great apes in the Congo
Basin and in Indonesia continue to struggle for survival against
disease, habitat reduction, and an increasingly commercialized trade in
bush meat. Elephants, rhinos and tigers face challenges from poaching
for ivory, horn, and body parts. Neotropical migratory bird populations
that migrate from the United States to wintering grounds in the
Caribbean and South America continue to suffer from environmental
contaminants and loss of habitat. Many of the countries where these
species are found cannot muster the resources to meet the needs of both
people and wildlife. Continued support will be needed from the Fund to
ensure the future of these species.
The Multinational Species Conservation Fund has been especially
effective in encouraging local and international matching contributions
from governments and private organizations. The program's $23 million
in grants over the past twelve years has leveraged almost $100 million
in additional funding, including $14 million alone during the first
year of neotropical migratory bird grants. The Fund benefits mammals
and birds that are cherished by millions of Americans who visit zoos,
watch birds, or adopt them as symbols of athletic prowess, corporate
strength or political power. Continued support by the United States
will conserve these highly threatened species, create a positive image
for America in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and encourage public-
private partnerships throughout the world. We urge you to support
increased appropriations for the Multinational Species Conservation
Fund and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund in fiscal
year 2004.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Museums, the Society
for Historical Archaeology, and the Society for American Archaeology
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I am Jason Hall,
Director of Government and Public Affairs for the American Association
of Museums, presenting written testimony on behalf of a consortium
consisting of the American Association of Museums, the Society for
American Archaeology, and the Society for Historical Archaeology.
As you know, Section 10 of the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101-601--``NAGPRA'') authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to ``make grants to Indian tribes and native
Hawaiian organizations for the purpose of assisting such tribes and
organizations in the repatriation of native American cultural items''
and to ``make grants to museums for the purpose of assisting the
museums in conducting the inventories and identification required under
sections 5 and 6.'' While we appreciate the Congress and the President
agreed in the Interior bill to provide funding of approximately $2.5
million for fiscal year 2003 to allow the statutorily-mandated
repatriation process to proceed, we respectfully urge Congress to
increase the appropriation to at least $5 million for fiscal year 2004.
We present the following reasons in support of this request.
As you are aware, NAGPRA is remedial legislation. Congress enacted
the law in 1990 in large part to assure that Native American remains
and funerary and other objects retained by the federal government and
museum community are returned under the law to appropriate tribes and
organizations for reburial or other appropriate treatment. As remedial
legislation, NAGPRA will not remedy the problem Congress sought to
resolve unless adequate dollars are appropriated so that tribes and
museums can complete the repatriation process--which is now under way
but which necessarily proceeds slowly in many cases because of
essential museum-tribe consultation and other factors. Repatriation is
a high priority of the museum and tribal communities, which do not have
adequate funds to do the necessary work required by NAGPRA.
Since repatriation is the subject of federal legislation as well as
regulations and administrative guidelines, the U.S. government has a
trust responsibility to Indian tribes and their members in the area of
repatriation. This trust responsibility imposes strict, binding
fiduciary standards on the conduct of executive agencies, here the
National Park Service and the Department of the Interior, in its
treatment of tribes in repatriation matters. Adequate funding for
tribes, museums and universities is necessary to carry out the
statutory mandates of Congress.
At the same time, it is clear that the communities and sovereign
Indian tribes represented by the consortium have been called upon to
take a much increased role in implementing Public Law 101-601 in the
past several years, as the mandated summaries and inventories of museum
holdings were largely completed by museums and sent to the tribes in
mid-November, 1993, and mid-November, 1995, respectively. Activity has
intensified immensely in recent years and will continue to do so as the
number of actual repatriations continues to increase. The consortium's
testimony provides information on how the requirements of the law are
creating significant costs for our communities and seeks your support
for funding for the grant program authorized in the law, so that we can
continue to comply with it in a timely and responsible way.
Let me start by addressing in generic terms the needs of the museum
community. In order to comply with Public Law 101-601, museums have to
engage in activities falling into four categories: (1) preparation of
inventories, in the case of human remains and associated funerary
object, and written summaries, in the case of unassociated funerary
objects, sacred objects and cultural patrimony; (2) notification and
consultation with Native American groups and visitation by those groups
to museum collections; (3) research to identify cultural affiliation of
human remains and objects; and (4) repatriation.
To prepare the inventories of human remains and funerary objects
which were due by November 16, 1995, museums have needed to: physically
locate every item within the museum's storerooms; locate and review
existing records to compile information necessary to determine whether
a funerary object is ``associated'' or not, and to determine the
cultural affiliation of the objects; catalog any remains ad objects
that are not catalogued; document (e.g., measure and photograph) and
analyze the human remains and funerary objects; and compile an
inventory of human remains and funerary objects containing the
information required under Public Law 101-601, including cultural
affiliation. The delay in promulgation of the final regulations, and
the late start and low level of grant funding for repatriation grants
to the tribes and museums, have slowed the process such that a
significant number of museums were not able to prepare inventories by
the November 16, 1995 deadline, despite timely and continuing good
faith efforts, and had to appeal for extensions.
With respect to unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects and
objects of cultural patrimony, museums were required to and did,
prepare a written summary by November 16, 1993 rather than an itemized
inventory of their collections. Nevertheless, many museums needed to
undertake many tasks similar to those noted above in order to collect
the required information. Throughout all of this, museums have needed
to consult with native American tribes which might have an interest in
the objects. The time and funds spent on consultation with Native
American peoples varies according to the physical proximity of the
museum to the particular group.
Once the inventory and written summary are complete, the museum
must identify the tribal representatives authorized to accept
repatriable objects and formally notify those representatives. Tribal
representatives must travel to the museums to examine the objects and
consult with the museum. Remains and artifacts must be packed and
shipped to the appropriate Native American group. During this process,
disagreements may arise as to the disposition of items covered by
Public Law 101-601, and these issues must be resolved.
Let me turn to some specific cases. On December 6, 1995, the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on the
implementation of NAGPRA. Final NAGPRA regulations, with some sections
still incomplete, were published two days prior to the hearing. Two
years later, the Interior Department published an interim rule on one
of those incomplete sections, the civil penalties section. But as of
April 2001, there have been no final regulations issued on the three
remaining sections (future applicability, culturally unidentifiable
remains, and unclaimed items from Federal or tribal lands.)
Representatives from the National Park Service, the NAGPRA Review
Committee, three affected tribes, and a witness representing both the
American Association of Museums and an affected museum, testified about
compliance with the law. NPS witness Katherine Stevenson noted that the
NPS had made 83 NAGPRA grant awards totaling $4.37 million since the
beginning of the program, but that over that time, they had received
337 grant proposal requests totaling nearly $30 million, and she
conceded that the Interior Department's $2.3 million request for fiscal
year 1996 did not meet the valid needs demonstrated in the grant
applications from museums and the tribes. Since that 1995 testimony,
the situation has remained much the same in terms of funding needs. As
of April 2002, the NPS has been able to make 351 NAGPRA grant awards
totaling approximately $21.3 million since the beginning of the
program, but during that time, it has received well over 770 grant
proposals totaling more than $52 million, and funding has essentially
been flat at $2.3 million, and more recently $2.5 million annually. The
$2.5 million appropriation continues to fall short of valid needs.
The witness representing museums in 1995, William Moynihan,
President of the Milwaukee Public Museum, testified about the effort of
his museum to comply with the law. He noted that the ``Milwaukee Public
Museum will have committed well in excess of half a million dollars by
1997 to deal with the legislation. Existing staff in our Anthropology/
History Section have been reallocated from their normal duties to
NAGPRA-related activities, a large team of volunteers assembled, and
trained student interns and work-study students hired.'' He noted that
the Museum has been collecting anthropological and archaeological
materials for over 100 years, that included in the holdings are the
remains of 1,500 individuals, and that the collections are not
computerized. Despite these difficulties, the museum had completed a
physical inventory of over 22,000 Native American ethnographic objects,
and a preliminary inventory of 50,000 archaeological objects; sent
summaries to 572 tribes and native Alaskan and Hawaiian groups;
followed up with hundreds of calls to tribes; and taken a variety of
other actions to comply with the law.
On a broader scale, we have results from the American Association
of Museums' 1994 repatriation survey of 500 of its member institutions,
including all of its natural history museums and a selected sample of
its art and history museums. The survey response rate was 43.6 percent.
Of those responding, 76 percent of the natural history museums, 43
percent of the history museums and 23 percent of the art museums had
Native American objects. Those respondents--a little more than 200--
alone had almost 3.5 million objects which fell into NAGPRA categories,
and that does not include 15 responding natural history museums,
including 3 large institutions, which could not give an estimate of
their NAGPRA- related holdings. An overwhelming number of these
institutions noted how lack of final regulations and of NAGPRA grant
funding had hindered or prevented their repatriation efforts.
Estimating aggregate costs is not possible from the survey data,
given the great disparities in how institutions calculated their own
costs. It is clear, however, that thousands of institutions across the
country are affected to some degree by NAGPRA costs.
The Native American community is also incurring major expenses in
attempting to comply with the requirements and deadlines of NAGPRA. As
you know, the repatriation process involves sacred items and, most
importantly, human remains, not just artifacts. In this light we must
approach the funding issues related to the Act. A 1994 repatriation
survey done by the National Congress of American Indians indicated that
some tribes had received hundreds of NAGPRA summaries from museums, and
that the need for outside funding to hire experts to help them analyze
these materials and subsequent NAGPRA inventory materials is virtually
universal. From the dozens of responses to the survey, it is apparent
that most tribes do not have the capacity to comply with the Act. For
example, the Shingle Springs Rancheria/Miwok/Maidu tribe reported,
``Our tribe has been well versed in the purpose and intent of NAGPRA.
The response from museums--the sending out of surveys to the tribes at
the November 1993 deadline--has been astounding. We have received over
100 notices. However, we cannot respond or take advantage because of
lack of funds.'' This tribe estimated its financial needs at
approximately $35,830. And at the December 1995 Senate oversight
hearing, Cecil Antone of the Gila River Indian Community noted that the
Community had received over 150 letters from various museums and
federal agencies about the disposition of NAGPRA-related collections.
The needs of the tribes vary depending on the number of responses they
have received, their present and future ability to comply with the Act,
and what, if any, experience their tribe has had with projects of this
sort. In fact, tribal responses estimating funding needs ranged from
``unknown'' to ``very much'' to ``$2 million.''
In October 1990, the Congressional Budget Office estimated NAGPRA
implementation costs to museums of $40 million and to tribes and native
Hawaiian organizations of $5-10 million over 5 years, assuming that
museums and federal agencies hold between 100,000 and 200,000 Native
American remains and that the cost to inventory and review each remain
would be $50-150. Those estimates now appear to be very low in light of
our experience since that time. As a result, viable tribal and museum
request for grants continue to exceed available funds by a large
margin. In addition, museums cannot repatriate to the tribes until
appropriate notices go into the Federal Register, and there is
currently a backlog of about 150 such notices at the NPS, about a
year's worth, due to lack of staff to process them.
In closing, let me add that while the museums and tribes must have
this grant program funded simply to comply with the requirements of
NAGPRA, it is also true that the grant program will accomplish far more
than compliance. Museums and tribes have discovered that the exchange
of data required under NAGPRA is yielding new information that helps us
all. In the process of identifying sensitive cultural items, museums
are learning much more about their entire collections. Delegations of
elders and religious leaders have supplied valuable new insights about
many objects in the repositories they have visited, and in turn they
are discovering items of immense interest to their own tribes, the
existence of which had been unknown in recent generations. Few items in
these categories are being sought for repatriation; it is simply that
access to the collections has led to much better mutual understanding
and exchange of knowledge. While the repatriation process will
eventually end as the transfer of materials is completed, the long-term
relationship created between museums and tribes will continue.
Thus, this funding will not just support expenses mandated by law.
It is also an excellent investment that serves the public interest
now--and will continue to pay dividends in the future--through more
accurate and respectful exhibits and education programs that are the
fruits of long-term collaborations.
Finally, we respectfully urge you to keep in mind that we are
talking in large part about the reburial of the remains of human
beings, and that under a reasonable and dignified standard, such
repatriation and reburial should occur with all due haste. Certainly
the United States government has acted urgently with due regard to
repatriation of remains of American soldiers killed in foreign wars or
missing in action. Native American repatriation and reburial should be
treated with the same priority and dignity.
The consortium appreciates this opportunity to testify on this
issue.
______
Prepared Statement of the Americans for National Parks
Americans for National Parks (ANP) is pleased to share its views
regarding the programs in the Department of Interior's budget that
affect national park resources and requests that this statement be
included in the hearing record for the fiscal year 2004 Interior and
Related Agencies appropriations bill. We appreciate the opportunity to
share our priorities for funding and we respectfully request that the
Committee consider these views as the fiscal year 2004 budget is
shaped. ANP requests an increase of $178 million over the current
fiscal year 2003 spending levels, $102 million above the president's
request, for a total of $1,633,351,000 in fiscal year 2004 for the
operation of the National Park System.
ANP is a growing coalition of people who care deeply about these
awe-inspiring places. Today, we have more than 325 members, including
chambers of commerce, nonprofit organizations, private businesses,
government municipalities, and tourism and trade associations, working
together to encourage Congress and the administration to address the
critical needs of the National Park System.
At a time when our country is at war, America's national parks
provide a priceless opportunity to reconnect with our shared history
and culture and awe-inspiring wilderness. From the hallowed grounds of
Gettysburg National Military Park to the peaks of Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park and Preserve. From breathtaking landscapes, like the
scenic badlands of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, to crown jewels
like Mesa Verde National Park, Bandelier National Monument, and other
sites that preserve and interpret our culture. All of our 388 national
park sites help define us, inspire us to continue to grow as a diverse
nation, and, especially during difficult times, offer us solace.
Now is the time to cherish these precious places, but sadly, many
are in dire straits. While Congress has regularly increased funding,
the budget of the National Park Service has failed to keep pace with
need, crippling the ability of dedicated park staff to protect native
plants and wildlife, and the cultural and historic artifacts within the
parks, as well as meet the needs of millions of visitors.
Examples of the dire need can be found across the National Park
System: At Death Valley National Park, public education activities have
been reduced by a third. Many of Mesa Verde's 600 archaeological sites
containing prehistoric architecture have not been visited in 40 years
due to inadequate staffing. These sites need to be assessed,
documented, treated, and monitored, resulting in long-term preservation
for research, interpretation and visitor education. Twenty-one Native
American groups have a history in Yellowstone, yet only one percent of
the park has been surveyed for Native American sites. Through natural
erosion, land use, and vandalism, sites are being damaged before they
can be studied. Great Smoky Mountains National Park doesn't have
sufficient staff and funding to maintain the park's many historic
structures, including historic log cabins and mills. White Sands
National Monument needs additional staff to manage its museum
collection, so that relics, such as Mogollon pottery shards, will be
properly preserved. Mount Rainier National Park doesn't even have a
volcanologist or geologist on staff to monitor the park's active
volcano!
Research in more than 50 parks has revealed that national parks are
operating, on average, with only two-thirds of the needed funding-and
annual shortfall of more than $600 million. A critical first step
toward alleviating this shortfall is an increase of $178 million, a
reasonable and manageable amount that would better enable the National
Park Service to fulfill its mission and preserve our national parks
unimpaired for future generations.
The national parks inspire all who treasure the best of our nation
to stand up as stewards for their protection. Please support a $178-
million increase for our national parks. Because there's just too much
to lose.
______
Prepared Statement of Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation
REQUEST
--Full funding of the Interior Appropriation's Conservation Trust
Fund (also known as the Conservation Spending Category) at its
$1.56 billion level;
--Funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund's stateside
program at no less than $200 million; and
--Funding for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program at no
less than $50 million.
Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation is a broad and diverse
organization representing more than 1,000 park and recreation
associations, state and local elected and non-elected officials,
conservation and wilderness proponents, the outdoor recreation and
sporting goods industries, wildlife enthusiasts, smart growth
champions, urban parks groups, historic preservationists, land trust
leaders, the youth sports community, and civic groups.
The organization works to communicate to policy makers at all
levels of government the value of parks and recreation areas made
possible by the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the need for
support of these sites. AHR mobilizes this national coalition through
its extensive grassroots communications network, employing regional and
state leaders to coordinate an integrated public education campaign.
AHR is committed to permanent full funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF), with an equitable allocation of funds between
its federal and state matching grants programs. In addition, AHR
supports a revived and substantially funded Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery program (UPARR). We believe the Conservation Trust Fund,
passed by Congress in 2000, is a significant short-term commitment.
Accordingly, AHR supports full funding of this program in fiscal year
2004 at its $1.56 billion level.
The organization recognizes the original intent of LWCF as a long-
term investment of proceeds from sales of non-renewable resources to
acquire land and water within our nation's national parks, forests,
wildlife refuges, and other public lands, and to enhance recreation
opportunities at the state and community levels. That is why AHR
supports the use of LWCF funds for these purposes but not for programs
outside of its legislative mandate. We also ask the Senate
Appropriators to follow the President's lead in fiscal year 2004 by
protecting the traditional priority of stateside LWCF funds for
accessible public recreation enhancement.
In asking for your leadership, we believe:
--LWCF and UPARR are programs that return conservation and recreation
funds to states and local communities.--LWCF has been
responsible for more than 38,000 community parks that reflect
local concerns and needs. UPARR has been integral to a healthy
and safe urban community life through funding municipal parks
and creating urban soccer, baseball, and football fields.
Collectively, these resources are nationally important.
--LWCF and UPARR encourage and promote healthy lifestyles, an area of
growing concern in our country.--Five chronic diseases--heart
disease, cancers, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary
diseases, and diabetes--account for more than two-thirds of all
deaths and three-fourths of the $1 trillion spent on health
care annually. Research is clear that aggressive health
promotion, especially with regard to daily physical activity,
can substantially alter the epidemic brought on by current
trends in these chronic diseases. If funded at appropriate
levels, LWCF and UPARR can continue to be instrumental in
helping local communities develop close-to-home recreation that
can serve as venues for physical activity.
--LWCF and UPARR promote smart growth and livable communities.--LWCF
and UPARR are a means to assist intelligent, planned growth,
and to curb the detrimental effects of sprawl by protecting
lands outside the borders of the city, and making efficient and
attractive use of open space within it. LWCF and UPARR empower
states and municipalities to accomplish these objectives
through leverage by partnering of federal, state, and local
funds.
--LWCF and UPARR are critical resources for providing recreation
places for America's kids.--LWCF has helped communities create
more than 7,000 soccer and football fields, 6,000 baseball
fields, and thousands of other recreation centers. UPARR
provides recreation centers for children in the critical 3 p.m.
to 6 p.m. time frame, providing learning environments where
children are tutored and have access to mentors.
Parks and recreation areas funded through LWCF and UPARR are
integral components of community life for millions of Americans
nationwide. They provide venues for everything from hiking and biking,
to picnicking and playing ball. They serve as places for people to
gather, gain strength, and affirm their faith in America's core values.
The broad range of groups that comprise AHR evinces the
enthusiastic support for LWCF and UPARR across the country. Fully
funding the Conservation Trust Fund, with LWCF at no less than $200
million and UPARR at no less than $50 million, will demonstrate to the
American people that Congress recognizes the important role these
programs have played in ensuring that parks and recreation centers will
always be there. This appropriation, coupled with adequate funding for
LWCF's federal program, will advance the goal of a national system of
American parks. The time to make this commitment is now.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Hiking Society
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, American Hiking
Society represents 5,000 members and the 500,000 members of our 160
affiliated organizations. As the national voice for America's hikers,
American Hiking Society (AHS) promotes and protects foot trails and the
hiking experience-and is a long time partner with the National Park
Service (NPS), USDA Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). In order for Americans to enjoy the outdoors, we need protected
open spaces and well-maintained trails and other recreation facilities.
We urge you to support funding increases that will protect trails and
recreation resources for the benefit of the nation. American Hiking
makes the following trail and recreation funding recommendations for
fiscal year 2004:
National Park Service:
--Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program.--$15 million
--National Trails System.--$11 million
--Geographic Information System Network for National Trails.--$1.25
million
USDA Forest Service:
--Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness.--$320 million
--Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails.--$100 million
Bureau of Land Management:
--Recreation Management.--$64 million
Conservation Trust Fund.--$2.08 billion
--Stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--$200 million
--Federal LWCF, Ice Age National Scenic Trail, National Park
Service.--$4 million
--Federal LWCF, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest
Service.--$8.3 million
--Federal LWCF, Florida National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest
Service.--$5 million
--Federal LWCF, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest
Service.--$5 million
--Federal LWCF, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, BLM.--$1
million
--Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR).--$50 million
TRAILS AND RECREATION FUNDING
Our public lands offer Americans outstanding outdoor recreation
opportunities, especially hiking, to experience freedom and renewal
while enjoying natural and cultural treasures. Hiking represents one of
the fastest growing recreational activities--75 million Americans hike
regularly or occasionally according to the Outdoor Industry
Association's Participation Study 2001. However, many recreation
opportunities are at risk, have deteriorated, or been lost due to
funding shortages.
Federal policy encouraging healthy lifestyles, promoting
volunteerism, and backing partnerships to protect and maintain our
public lands prompt and support funding increases for trail and
recreation programs across the National Park Service, USDA Forest
Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Targeted funding increases
coupled with increased on-the-ground recreation staff, including trail
and volunteer coordinators, is essential to providing and preserving
hiking and other outdoor recreation opportunities nationwide.
National Park Service.--The 17 national scenic and historic trails
administered by the National Park Service require $11 million for
natural and cultural resource management and protection, improving
visitor services, and strengthening volunteer partnerships. For most of
the national scenic and historic trails, barely one-half of their
congressionally authorized length and resources are protected and
available for public use. Most trail offices are understaffed,
hindering the agencies' ability to properly administer and manage these
trails and work effectively with other public agencies and non-profit
volunteer partner organizations.
In 2002, national trail volunteer organizations contributed more
than $6.8 million in financial resources and over 662,429 volunteer
hours with an estimated labor value of $10.6 million to the national
scenic and historic trails (Partnership for the National Trails System
data). Of this, the volunteer hours contributed to the 17 NPS
administered trails represents approximately 11 percent of total
volunteer hours contributed to the NPS. These volunteer contributions
leverage federal funding significantly but must not be considered a
substitute for appropriations. Many of the national scenic trails have
made significant strides in trail maintenance and protection efforts,
but much work remains for these trails to become the continuous
footpaths that Congress intended. American Hiking thanks the
subcommittee for its support of the National Trails System and urges
you to increase funding to help complete and protect these national
treasures. AHS endorses the specific figures submitted by the
Partnership for the National Trails System.
In addition, NPS requires $1.25 million to continue work on a
Geographic Information System network for the national scenic and
historic trails. This program, costing approximately $9.8 million over
five years, will provide accurate information to assist the public,
trail managers, and other stakeholders in trail protection,
development, maintenance, interpretation, and resource management. The
project applies state-of-the-art technology to better administer and
protect trail resources and landscapes and facilitates interagency
coordination of staff, data, and resources.
The NPS' Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program
requires $15 million to help communities manage and protect their
recreational and natural resources. Despite the program's successes in
coordinating over 200 projects annually, RTCA funding has remained
relatively stagnant during the last decade and lagged well behind the
rate of inflation. The program's declining real budget has caused large
cuts to staff and therefore, to projects.
With its strong focus on partnerships, RTCA is exceptionally cost
efficient and effective. In fiscal year 2002, RTCA helped develop more
than 1,200 trail miles, protect more than 850 river miles, and preserve
nearly 18,000 acres of open space. RTCA-assisted projects accomplish
much more than conservation goals. They promote physical activity,
encourage smart growth, minimize flood loss, provide opportunities for
close-to-home recreation, and revitalize inner-city communities. RTCA
has experienced a dramatic increase in requests for assistance but is
only able to assist half of all applicants. The Administration budget
includes a much needed $1.5 million increase, but the program needs a
total of $15 million to put staff closer to the people they serve, to
replace the staff they lost in years of declining real budgets, and to
better help communities meet local conservation needs.
USDA Forest Service.--We strongly support increased funding for two
major Forest Service programs-Recreation Management, Heritage, and
Wilderness and Capital Improvement and Maintenance for trails. The
current investment in Forest Service recreation falls far below the
level needed to support the role recreation plays in the agency and
economy, yet the Forest Service itself highlights the growing
importance of recreation through the continued implementation of its
Recreation Agenda released in September 2000.
The Forest Service estimates that recreation creates over 75
percent of the Gross Domestic Product generated from Forest Service
land, yet only about 10 percent of the Forest Service budget goes to
recreation. The Forest Service requires increased funding to restore
and maintain thousands of miles of trails; protect and preserve natural
and cultural resources; upgrade inadequate and/or poorly maintained
recreation facilities; reduce the maintenance backlog; augment on-the-
ground recreation staff; and more effectively utilize and support
volunteers. Increased funding is especially crucial to the Recreation
Agenda goals of reducing the $298 million recreation maintenance
backlog and placing trail and volunteer coordinators and/or recreation
planners at each national forest and for each nationally designated
area or trail. Just as the Administration is focused on eliminating the
maintenance backlog for the NPS, we urge Congress to appropriate funds
to address the Forest Service and BLM maintenance backlogs.
Despite the agency's increased emphasis on recreation, we are
concerned that this conversation at the top is not translating to the
ground. Very few national forests have even one full-time trails
coordinator. Understaffing often results in volunteers performing
essential functions instead of agency personnel. And despite the number
of hiking and other recreation organizations that offer to volunteer to
build and maintain trails in national forests, very few forests have a
volunteer coordinator. Ironically, volunteer trail crews have been
turned away because of the agency's inability to provide even minimal
supervision or support. In 2002, more than 90,700 volunteers
contributed three million work-hours valued at $38 million to the
Forest Service; 70 percent of this contribution supported recreation.
These efforts warrant an expanded commitment to trails and recreation
funding, notably funding for recreation staff on the ground.
The Forest Service must receive additional funding to manage
Wilderness effectively and appropriately. With 33,000 miles of trail in
FS Wilderness, and an estimated 12.7 million visits in 2001, increased
funding is necessary to provide quality recreation experiences with
minimal impact to the environment and to keep these places truly wild
for future generations.
Ensuring visitor safety, protecting natural resources, maintaining
visitor access, and improving the backcountry and recreation experience
require a greater investment in trails. The Forest Service trail
maintenance backlog totals over $118 million. Inadequately maintained
trails suffer from excessive erosion, trail widening, and braiding.
Many trails are in such disrepair that they require re-construction.
Increasing the trails budget is crucial to enable the agency to begin
to address this significant recreational infrastructure need, including
projects such as bridge replacement or trail relocation.
The Forest Service administers four national scenic and historic
trails and manages significant portions of 11 other national trails.
Responsible administration requires the full-time attention of an
inter-regional administrator for each trail and continual collaboration
with other federal and state agencies and nonprofit partner
organizations. Land acquisition by dedicated land teams is underway for
the Florida and Pacific Crest Trails. New sections of the Continental
Divide, Florida and Pacific Crest Trails must be constructed to fill in
gaps in these long-distance trails.
Bureau of Land Management.--BLM manages over 4,700 miles of
national scenic, historic, and recreational trails as well as thousands
of miles of multiple use trails. BLM requires increased funding to
manage rapidly expanding recreational use while protecting natural and
cultural resources, including the special areas managed under the
National Landscape Conservation System. Outdoor recreation is an
important use of these lands and management of outdoor recreation
resources, facilities, and visitor use are important components of the
BLM's multiple use mission, yet the agency remains severely underfunded
and understaffed.
BLM requires additional funding to manage existing recreation
programs; protect resources; upgrade planning efforts, including the
engagement of local communities; adapt to increasing visitor demands;
and to manage off-highway vehicle usage more effectively. Recreation
facilities are inadequate or often in poor condition, and staff
shortages place recreational, natural, and cultural resources at risk.
Additional staffing is especially needed to meet the management demands
for each of the National Monuments and National Conservation Areas.
Conservation Trust/Land and Water Conservation Fund.--AHS strongly
supports federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) appropriations
for the Appalachian, Ice Age, Florida, and Pacific Crest National
Scenic Trails. Only one of the eight national scenic trails--the
Appalachian Trail--is nearly complete; we urge you to turn your support
toward the remaining national scenic trails and label them as high
priority projects under the LWCF. LWCF monies for land purchases must
also be accompanied by adequate funding for the agencies to effectively
manage the acquisitions process and disburse the appropriations. We
support $200 million for the stateside LWCF program. UPARR should be
restored at the amount of $50 million, and the Conservation Trust Fund
should be funded at its dedicated amount of $2.08 billion in fiscal
year 2004.
Fee Demo.--AHS recognizes that the Recreational Fee Demo Program is
an attempt to meet the growing needs of recreationists at a time when
appropriations are not keeping pace with demand, yet we urge the
Subcommittee to continue to oppose any trail and recreation
appropriations offsets with Fee Demo revenues. American Hiking is
committed to working with Congress and the agencies on the proper role
and application of recreation entrance/user fees.
On June 7, 2003, AHS will coordinate the eleventh National Trails
Day (NTD) to raise public awareness and appreciation for trails.
Participants will gather at more than 2,000 NTD events nationwide.
Thank you for considering our request. AHS members and outdoorspeople
nationwide appreciate the subcommittee's support in the past and look
forward to continued strong support.
______
Prepared Statement of Audubon of Florida
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, on behalf of Audubon of
Florida, a strategic alliance of the National Audubon Society, Florida
Audubon Society and 43 chapters and 40,000 members in the State of
Florida, thank you for the opportunity to express to your Committee our
recommendations for fiscal year 2004 funding of specific programs and
projects at the Department of the Interior related to the restoration
of America's Everglades.
The Everglades ecosystem, from the Kissimmee River Valley in the
north through Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, Florida Bay, the Keys,
and the coral reefs to the south, is a unique and world-renowned eco-
region. The Everglades has been abused for more than 100 years. Its
restoration is the most ambitious environmental challenge our nation
has ever undertaken. Congress approved, and the State of Florida
supports, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as a
framework for changes to the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF)
Project. CERP, along with Modified Water Deliveries and C-111 projects,
are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida
ecosystem, while providing for other water-related needs of the region
consistent with restoration goals. We urge support for the following
funding needs for fiscal year 2004:
LAND ACQUISITION ASSISTANCE TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA--ZERO FUNDING
The Administration has proposed to zero out this critical program
that provides assistance to the State in purchasing lands needed for
Everglades restoration at the worst possible time, when the State of
Florida has run out of money for land acquisitions. The program was
funded at $20 million in the President's request last year and needs to
be significantly increased, not zeroed out. Now is not the time to cut
land acquisition assistance when over 200,000 acres needed for the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) remain to be acquired
at an estimated cost of approximately $2 billion and real estate prices
are escalating dramatically. Restoration options are being foreclosed
in South Florida as the CERP footprint is being developed, and the
State is out of money for its land acquisition program, leaving crucial
lands at risk. National Park Service Land Acquisition Assistance to the
State of Florida should be funded at $20 million.
SCIENCE FUNDING
We urge the Committee to fund U.S. Geological Services and NPS
Everglades science programs at least $15 million. The National Research
Council's December, 2002 report on Everglades science indicated that
recent funding for the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI) of
$4 million is inadequate. CESI funding should be gradually restored to
its previous levels of $12 million. In addition to CESI, adequate
funding should also be provided to ongoing critical Everglades studies
regarding the sheet flow of water across the Everglades, water quality,
the levels of mercury and other contaminants, nutrient levels, and the
complex interaction of groundwater and surface water in South Florida.
On-going science and research are critical to the successful use of
adaptive assessment. Applied research that directly supports
implementation and monitoring of project effectiveness is vital to the
success of the CERP.
CERP FUNDING
The Administration's request of $9 million for CERP implementation
for Fish and Wildlife Service and NPS in fiscal year 2004 should be
increased to $10 million. The functions and responsibilities of the
recently closed Interior South Florida office were transferred to the
Miami Office of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. We
urge the Committee to provide $1 million additional funding to support
these additional functions and responsibilities.
MODIFIED WATERS DELIVERIES TO EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK PROJECT
Funding for this project, which would return critical sheetflows of
water to Everglades National Park and Florida Bay, was cut by $300,000
to $13 million. The Modified Water Deliveries project should be funded
at $15 million, $2 million above the Administration's request. The
budget must continue adequate funding for previously authorized
programs such as this project whose performance assumptions have been
included in the CERP. It is crucial to the successful and timely
implementation of CERP that all components of the Modified Water
Deliveries project be adequately funded and completed in 2005. This
will require $15 million in fiscal year 2004 and an additional $15
million in fiscal year 2005.
NO CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FOR PILOT PROJECTS
While funding for the Pilot Projects comes under the purview of the
Energy and Water Subcommittee, we feel it is appropriate to keep the
Interior Subcommittee apprised of the urgent need to fund these
projects since so much of the CERP is dependent on their results.
Congress authorized Everglades restoration with the understanding that
there were some unanswered questions regarding the technological and
scientific challenges facing certain aspects of Everglades restoration,
and that the plan would have to evolve and adapt over time to answer
those questions. Pilot projects were designed to provide the technical
detail needed to resolve some of the uncertainties surrounding the
Aquifer Storage and Recovery, Seepage Management, and Lake Belt storage
components of the CERP. Construction funding of $2.5 million is needed
to begin these pilot projects that have been delayed for several years
due to a lack of construction funding.
The President committed on January 9, 2002 in the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan Assurance of Project Benefits Agreement,
``To effectuate this agreement, the Federal party [President of the
United States] agrees [t]o include within the President's budget
submissions to the Congress requests for the Federal appropriations in
the amount the President deems necessary to implement the Federal share
of the Plan's implementation[.]'' We note that this funding was left
out of the Administration's budget, and ask that Congress correct this
apparent oversight in order to implement the plan with the requisite
scientific rigor.
We greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide the Committee
with our views on the fiscal year 2004 Interior budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition
On behalf of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this
statement for the record in support of our fiscal year 2004 funding
request of $1,000,000 for CCOS as part of a Federal match for the $9.1
million already contributed by California State and local agencies and
the private sector. This request consists of $500,000 from the
Department of Energy (DOE), $250,000 from the National Park Service
(NPS), and $250,000 from the Forest Service.
Most of central California does not attain federal health-based
standards for ozone and particulate matter. The San Joaquin Valley is
developing new State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the federal ozone
and particulate matter standards in the 2002 to 2004 timeframe. The San
Francisco Bay Area has committed to update their ozone SIP in 2004
based on new technical data. In addition, none of these areas attain
the new federal 8-hour ozone standard. SIPs for the 8-hour standard
will be due in the 2007 timeframe--and must include an evaluation of
the impact of transported air pollution on downwind areas such as the
Mountain Counties. Photochemical air quality modeling will be necessary
to prepare SIPs that are approvable by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
The Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable
central California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for
use nationwide. The CCOS field measurement program was conducted during
the summer of 2000 in conjunction with the California Regional
PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major
study of the origin, nature, and extent of excessive levels of fine
particles in central California. CCOS includes an ozone field study, a
deposition study, data analysis, modeling performance evaluations, and
a retrospective look at previous SIP modeling. The CCOS study area
extends over central and most of northern California. The goal of the
CCOS is to better understand the nature of the ozone problem across the
region, providing a strong scientific foundation for preparing the next
round of State and Federal attainment plans. The study includes six
main components:
--Developed the design of the field study
--Conducted an intensive field monitoring study from June 1 to
September 30, 2000
--Developing an emission inventory to support modeling
--Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region
--Designing and conducting a deposition field study
--Evaluating emission control strategies for upcoming ozone
attainment plans
The CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting
of representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well
as private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing
state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately
$9.1 million for the field study. The federal government has
contributed $3,730,000 to support some data analysis and modeling. In
addition, CCOS sponsors are providing $2 million of in-kind support.
The Policy Committee is seeking federal co-funding of an additional
$6.25 million to complete the remaining data analysis and modeling and
for a future deposition study. California is an ideal natural
laboratory for studies that address these issues, given the scale and
diversity of the various ground surfaces in the region (crops,
woodlands, forests, urban and suburban areas).
There also exists a need to address national data gaps, and
California should not bear the entire cost of addressing these gaps.
National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of
particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study
took place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate Matter
Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local and
private sector funds. Thus, CCOS was timed to enable leveraging the
efforts of the particulate matter study. Some equipment and personnel
served dual functions to reduce the net cost. From a technical
standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently was a unique
opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter and ozone
control efforts. CCOS was cost-effective since it builds on other
successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study.
Federal assistance is needed to address these issues effectively.
For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is seeking funding of $500,000
from the Department of Energy (DOE) Fossil Program.--The California
Energy Commission is a key participant, having contributed $3 million.
Consistent with the memorandum of understanding between the California
Energy Commission and the DOE, joint participation in the CCOS will
result in: 1) enhanced public interest in programs on energy research,
development, and demonstration; 2) increased competitiveness and
economic prosperity in the United States; and 3) further protection of
the environment through the efficient production, distribution, and use
of energy.
The CCOS program coincides with DOE's initiative to develop the
Federal Government's oil technology program. In fact, the oil industry
in California has been working for several years with DOE to identify
innovative partnerships and programs that address how changes in those
sectors can cost-effectively reduce particulate matter and ozone-
related emissions. This approach will likely result in new ideas for
technologies to improve oil recovery technologies, as well as improve
environmental protection in oil production and processing operations.
The overlap of CCOS and the California Regional Particulate Matter Air
Quality Study provides a unique opportunity to perform research related
to petroleum-based VOC and particulate matter emissions as well as
methods to characterize these categories of emissions. The CCOS program
is utilizing modeling, instrumentation, and measurement to obtain
results that can be used to better understand the impact of oil and gas
exploration and production operations on air quality. CCOS program
results might also be applied to identify the most efficient and cost-
effective methods of reducing emissions from oil and gas operations.
The Department of Energy has been a key participant in many
programs with the oil and agricultural sectors. By becoming a partner
in this program, DOE will be furthering its own goals of ``Initiatives
for Energy Security'' by aiding domestic oil producers to enhance their
environmental compliance while reducing their costs. DOE will also be
building upon an established and effective partnership between state
and local governments, industry, and institutional organizations.
For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is also seeking funding of
$250,000 from the National Park Service (NPS) and $250,000 from the
Forest Service.--The National Park Service and Forest Service conduct
prescribed burns that contribute to both ozone and particulate matter
pollution. Prescribed burns are needed for forest health or to reduce
fuel loads, and must be carefully managed to minimize public health and
visibility impacts.
Improving the fundamental science related to emissions,
meteorological forecasting, and air quality modeling will help in
designing effective smoke management programs. In addition, attainment
of air quality standards is an important goal for protecting national
parks and forests. Ozone damage to trees and vegetation in national
parks and forests is well documented in California and nationwide. The
National Park Service and Forest Service are key stakeholders relying
on the success of SIPs in achieving the emission reductions needed to
attain air quality standards. The participants in the CCOS have been
partners in regional study efforts addressing visibility and haze
impacts on national parks and forests in the West. The results of this
study will provide valuable information that will further those efforts
on a regional basis.
Scientists at the University of Nevada, Desert Research Institute
(DRI) are involved with the CCOS. To expedite research studies related
to biomass burning and smoke management for CCOS, it is requested that
funds provided by the National Park Service and Forest Service be
allocated directly to DRI.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Citizens For Mojave National Park
Mr. Chairman, the Citizens For Mojave National Park (CFMNP) would
like to thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations and
comments on the fiscal year 2004 Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill. On behalf of the more than 500 members
and supporters of CFMNP, an organization dedicated to protecting the
natural and cultural resources of the Eastern Mojave Desert, I provide
below our fiscal year 2004 funding recommendations for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund projects and Conservation Trust Fund. Our top
priorities include:
--$450 million for Land and Water Conservation Fund federal land
acquisition within the Conservation Trust Fund in fiscal year
2004:
--we specifically recommend $2 million for the National Park Service
to fund Mojave National Preserve federal LWCF projects;
--the Conservation Trust Fund should be funded at its dedicated
amount of $2.08 million in fiscal year 2004.
Adequate fund for the programs discussed below is vital to protect
America's wild areas and environmental values, essential components of
our American identity and our heritage. The land and our relationship
with it infuse our history, our heroes, and our hearts. We hope to work
with you to find the resolve and funding to protect those values that,
like freedom itself, are a national birthright.
The Mojave National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service,
is a diverse ecosystem that contains sand dunes, Joshua tree forests,
desert washes, dry lakes, and mile-high mountains. The landscape
provides habitat to a wide variety of animals including bighorn sheep,
cougars, mule deer, and the threatened desert tortoise. Numerous
private inholdings exist within the National Preserve, some of which
have proposed development by the owners in the past. As these
inholdings become available for purchase it is essential that they be
acquired for preservation to prevent development and critical habitat
loss. The purchase of critical inholdings within the Mojave National
Preserve is an ongoing project and we request funding of $2,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004. Funding will be used to secure the most urgent
properties first.
In conclusion, it is important to our high desert communities that
willing sellers have an avenue with which to sell their inholding
properties within the Mojave National Preserve. This relatively new
national preserve is a great tourism attraction in our county and
brings in thousands of dollars of income to our desert communities each
year. Please fund the Land and Water Fund with $450 million for fiscal
year 2004 and the Conservation Trust Fund at $2.08 billion. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Civil War Preservation Trust
On behalf of the 43,000 members of the Civil War Preservation Trust
(CWPT), I respectfully ask the Subcommittee's support for the $2
million requested in President Bush's fiscal year 2004 Budget for Civil
War battlefield preservation matching grants. The request is included
in the Federal side of the National Park Service's land acquisition
appropriations account financed from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002, Congress allocated a
total of $19 million for Civil War battlefield preservation matching
grants. Most of the funding has already been put to good use, saving
more than 10,000 acres of key endangered battlefields in 14 states.
CWPT has met with Subcommittee Majority and Minority staff to provide
them with specific information demonstrating these results and
contrasting them to the costly legislative taking at the Manassas,
Virginia, battlefield in 1988.
However, despite these accomplishments, much more needs to be done
if our children and grandchildren are to have the opportunity to walk
these precious and threatened historic resources.
For this reason, Congress late last year authorized a total of $50
million for Civil War battlefield preservation matching grants between
fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2008. The bill, which received broad
bipartisan support, was signed into law by President Bush on December
17, 2002 (Public Law 107-359). These Federal grants must be matched on
a one-to-one basis by the Government's partners in state and local
governments and the private sector.
The grants will be administered on a competitive basis through the
American Battlefield Protection Program, an arm of the National Park
Service. The program will employ ranking criteria developed by the 1993
Congressionally established Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, on
which House Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
Chairman Charles Taylor served.
I should also emphasize that none of the matching grants will go to
finance Civil War Preservation Trust or other non-Federal staff or
overhead. All the funding will be directly used to protect America's
historic battlefields.
The President's $2 million request will build on the success of the
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002 funding and last year's historic
authorization legislation. It is an excellent example of sensible,
cost-effective public/private land conservation.
In addition, it will complement the ``Preserve America'' initiative
announced by the First Lady on March 3, 2003. This initiative is
intended to bring history alive for all Americans.
The President's fiscal year 2004 request features:
--cooperative Federal partnerships with state and local governments
and the private sector;
--acquisition of lands and interests in lands from willing sellers
only, outside the boundaries of National Park System units
(thus, not adding to the Park Service's backlog of deferred
maintenance);
--highly targeted funding using matching grants and the already
established, Congressionally sanctioned, priority list of Civil
War battlefield sites recommended by the 1993 Commission (this
is no ``save everything everywhere program''); and
--most importantly, the opportunity to preserve historic resources
that illuminate the past and tell us what it means to be
Americans (resources that will be gone forever over the next 5-
10 years if we do not act now).
Mr. Chairman, the Civil War Preservation Trust is grateful for the
past support Congress has given to the issue of battlefield
preservation. We look forward to working with Subcommittee Members and
staff to ensure that the momentum of past accomplishments is maintained
in the coming year.
In particular, our chairman, Paul Bryant, our vice-chairman, John
Nau (who is also the chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation), and I are especially appreciative of Congressional
support of Civil War battlefield preservation, and what the previous
appropriations and the $2 million request for fiscal year 2004 have
meant, and will mean, for the permanent protection of hallowed ground
throughout the nation.
Thank you for your consideration and your attention to this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Acadia
I am writing on behalf of Friends of Acadia to respectfully request
$1,633,351,000 in operations for the National Park Service in the
fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill. This represents an
increase to the Park Service's operating budget by $102 million above
the President's request and $178 million above the enacted fiscal year
2003 level.
Friends of Acadia is a nonprofit conservation organization located
in Bar Harbor, Maine. The organization's mission is to preserve and
protect the outstanding natural beauty, ecological vitality, and
cultural distinctiveness of Acadia National Park and its surrounding
communities. Friends has approximately 4,000 members in Maine and 32
other states who share a common love for the park, Maine's most visited
natural destination.
Two years ago, a business plan was completed for Acadia under the
national Business Planning Initiative, a program started by the
National Parks Conservation Association in conjunction with the
National Park Service and several private foundations. On average,
business plans completed at national parks across the country showed a
32 percent annual operational funding shortfall ($600 million overall).
At Acadia, the situation was much worse--a 53 percent or $7.3 million
annual operating funding shortfall.
Despite the best efforts of Acadia National Park staff, these
operating funding shortfalls limit the Park Service's ability to fully
manage park resources and serve the three million visitors who come to
the park each year. Some examples:
--The park's complex, 115-mile boundary and miles of roads and trails
are not adequately patrolled, resulting in resource damage from
illegal snowmobile and all-terrain vehicle use, illegal trail
cutting, and poaching.
--Acadia National Park owns or holds conservation easements on more
than 70 coastal Maine islands. Due to operational funding
shortfalls, park staff is unable to routinely monitor and
protect important archaeological sites on these islands.
--A pair of Civil War-era dueling pistols and museum artifacts that
are centuries old sit in boxes at park headquarters, awaiting
cataloging and preservation with more than a million other
objects because there is not enough funding to do the job.
--Over the next few years, Acadia will be restoring the natural and
cultural environments of the Park's campgrounds (i.e.
revegetate social trails, repair water and road systems, etc.),
yet these improvements are at risk if operational dollars are
not available to maintain them.
Acadia is fortunate to have received several operating funding
increases in recent years, and we thank you for your leadership in
securing these crucial operating dollars. Unfortunately, however, the
National Park Service operating budget, including Acadia, has failed to
keep pace with the increasing demands being placed on our parks.
Friends of Acadia recognizes that in these difficult times, there
are many needs competing for limited funding. Our national parks,
especially Acadia, represent an important quiet refuge for American
citizens, and they help protect much of our natural and cultural
heritage. We support a $178 million increase in the National Park
Service operations over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level because we
feel that it demonstrates long-term Congressional commitment to
preserving the National Parks while preventing greater costs in the
future to repair degraded national assets.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Great Smoky Mountains National Park
As you prepare the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill,
Friends of Great Smoky Mountains National Park respectfully requests
your support for $1,633,351,000 in operations for the National Park
Service, an increase to the Park Service's operating budget of $102
million above the President's request, $178 million above the enacted
fiscal year 2003 level.
We thank you for your leadership and commitment to our national
parks, and appreciate the increase of $98 million that the Committee
provided for park operations during the fiscal year 2003 appropriations
process. As you know, unfortunately, this funding increase was
significantly reduced in the final fiscal year 2003 figures.
While the National Park Service's operating budget has increased in
recent years, it has failed to keep pace with the increasing demands
being placed on our parks. The Park Service operating budget is
critical to protecting park resources and providing visitor services
for the nearly 300 million people who visit our national parks
annually.
These funding shortfalls are a source of significant concern for
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the most popular national park in
the country. This is especially true for the park's law enforcement
program, which experiences one of the heaviest law enforcement
workloads in the system. The park is also impacted by rapid
development, intense visitation, and special events conducted in
gateway communities. Over the years, the park's ability to sustain its
law enforcement program has steadily eroded, resulting in a
consolidation of districts, a reduction in law enforcement supervisory
positions, and elimination of the park's dedicated backcountry patrol
function. Even with a more streamlined organizational structure, at
current levels, the Division needs an additional $532,000 to sustain
currently approved positions on a year-round basis. To make ends meet,
the Division has had to lapse a large number of positions for sustained
periods and will have to do so for the foreseeable future. The safety
and well being of remaining staff--and visitors--are compromised.
Additional funding shortfalls have been identified in other aspects
of the park's operations--from preventative maintenance to historic
preservation. Similar stories can be told about other units of the
National Park System ranging from Glacier National Park in Montana to
Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota and many more. While
we welcome line-item appropriations to address law enforcement and
other operating needs in the Smokies and other specific parks, we
realize that the funding problem affects the entire park system and
that it requires a more comprehensive solution.
By increasing operating dollars for the National Park Service,
Congress can take a critical step toward providing Great Smoky
Mountains National Park and the other 387 units of the National Park
System the funding they need and deserve. An increase of $178 million
in the parks' operating budgets this year represents a reasonable and
manageable amount, and it signifies a wise investment to protect these
priceless assets. It is critical to protect our national treasures at a
time when their values and resources are so greatly needed by the
American public.
We thank you again for your support for our national parks, and we
appreciate your continuing attention to this important matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Grand Canyon National Park Foundation
As you prepare the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill,
we respectfully request $1,633,351,000 in operations for the National
Park Service, an increase to the Park Service's operating budget by
$102 million above the president's request, $178 million above the
enacted fiscal year 2003 level.
We thank you for your leadership and commitment to our national
parks, and appreciate the increase of $98 million the Committee
provided for park operations in its bill during the fiscal year 2003
appropriation process. As you know, unfortunately, this funding
increase was significantly reduced in the final 2003 omnibus
appropriations act.
While the National Park Service's operating budget has increased in
recent years, it has failed to keep pace with the increasing demands
being placed on our national parks. The Park Service operating budget
is critical to protecting park resources and providing visitor services
to the nearly 300 million visitors to our national parks annually.
In Grand Canyon National Park, the operations budget has remained
relatively flat over recent years. A Business Plan Initiative study
conducted for the park last summer measured $8,500,000 as its annual
operating budgetary shortfall. This limits the park's ability to
provide transit needs in one of the world's most popular national
parks. It limits the park's staff ability to manage and protect the
endangered California condor. It limits the park's ability to defend
remote backcountry canyons from the encroachment of nonnative plants
like the widely spreading, water hungry tamarisk. Increased operating
dollars for the Park Service represent a critical step toward providing
Grand Canyon National Park and the other 387 units of the National Park
System the needed funding to survive and meet the needs of
constituents.
An increase of $178 million in the parks' operating budgets this
year represents a reasonable and manageable amount, and is a small
price to pay to protect these priceless assets. While we recognize that
our nation is faced with many important funding needs during these
challenging times, shortchanging the Park Service's operating budget
now will only result in escalating costs in the future.
Americans are unified in supporting our national parks. On behalf
of the Grand Canyon, and all our national parks, we urge your support
so that current and future generations will enjoy these irreplaceable
national treasures.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS)
Natural Resource Challenge
The Association has previously raised serious concerns regarding
the conduct and products of the National Resources challenge which
National Park Service has not address to our satisfaction. Therefore,
the Association can no longer support funding under the Natural
Resource Challenge until the Association's concerns are adequately
addressed. Despite repeated requests described below, to date we remain
unable to ascertain what has actually been accomplished with the
previous four years' expenditures in this program. We supported this
program when it was established in fiscal year 2000 as a five-year
effort ``to allow critical conduct of scientific inventory,
preservation, protection and management activities, thus bringing the
parks current data and other tools necessary to identify and address
management needs'' by the end of fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 2001,
the Association continued to support the program but urged Congress
request status reports to assess NPS' progress in meeting the original
goals. The Association did not support funding increases requested in
fiscal year 2002, the third year of the program, due to concerns
regarding the conduct and lack of accountability in reaching identified
products. The fiscal year 2002 budget stated ``there are nearly $470
million in unfunded natural resource project needs identified in
Resource Management Plans'' [p.41] and claimed that ``the percentage of
the basic inventory needs completed has increased from 20 percent to
approximately 40 percent by the end of fiscal year 2002 . . .'' [p.
102]. Despite these statements, no accounting of the needs and products
are provided. Thus, in fiscal year 2003 the Association refused to
support any funding, noting it was the fourth year NPS requested
significant increases, originally established as a five-year program.
The NPS provided an Annual Performance Plan section in the fiscal year
2002 budget and each year provided reports to Congress consisting of
general overviews with few specific examples. The NPS has yet to list
the items for which funding has been received each year and the status
of completing the previously identified project and inventory needs.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request is the fifth year of the five-
year program. With the requested $8.5 million increase, the fiscal year
2004 NPS budget includes a total of $76 million for the Natural
Resource Challenge. The Association finds that it cannot support
funding for this program until a clear presentation of the status of
projects is available, as repeatedly requested, along with specific
information on the natural resource information needs. Some of the
fiscal year 2004 budget documents state the program is ``designed to
protect native species and habitats through resource management and
performance measures'' and that the fiscal year 2004 ``increase will
focus on monitoring resources.'' Specifics in the fiscal year 2004
budget indicate the increases will be used ``to establish 25 of 32
monitoring networks that track the vital signs of the health of the
national parks.'' Without the requested program specifics, we interpret
from the above that considerable increases in staffing has occurred
rather than actual data acquisition as justified at the program's
inception: ``critical conduct of scientific inventory, preservation,
protection and management activities, thus bringing the parks current
data and other tools necessary to identify and address management
needs'' by the end of fiscal year 2004.
The Association is also concerned that projects have been developed
without consultation with the State fish and wildlife agencies. While
NPS may have exclusive jurisdiction within some units of the park
system, the state fish and wildlife agency(s) authority overlays many
park units. Furthermore, fish and wildlife move across boundaries.
Thus, any inventory and monitoring efforts should be fully coordinated
with the states prior to the selection, development, design, and during
the conduct of the projects.
The Association urges the NPS to coordinate closely with the
respective state fish and wildlife agencies so that programs and
activities do not compromise State jurisdictional authorities for fish
and resident wildlife and to facilitate the cooperative design and
conduct of research and management programs. Collaborative efforts
between the NPS and the state fish and wildlife agencies play a
critical role in achieving land and resource objectives for species and
related resources. We are aware of numerous projects that have been
conducted without appropriate coordination with the state to use
current research techniques or collect useful information. The
Association further recommends that funds be made available to the
States to maximize discretion of the States in fish and wildlife data,
monitoring, and management needs, wherever possible, instead of
duplicating or authorizing conflicting programs.
Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU)
The Association retains strong concerns about the establishment and
continued expansion by NPS of the Cooperative Ecosystem Units and
therefore requests that Congress direct the Secretary of the Department
of the Interior to clearly and explicitly identify the need for CESUs
and articulate the distinction between these entities and the Fish and
Wildlife Cooperative Units in the BRD of USGS. It is the Association's
conclusion that, unless such a distinction can be clearly articulated
and the need clearly identified, Congress should ultimately transfer
all monies budgeted for the establishment and operation of CESUs be to
the Biological Resources Division of the USGS. NPS has used Natural
Resource Challenge monies to create 12 CESUs located in universities
and intends to establish 5 more in fiscal year 2004. The purpose of the
CESUs is to coordinate and conduct resource research within and
adjacent to the park units and to cooperate in other agencies'
research. The BRD was created and continues to be funded to serve as
the primary research arm for the Department of the Interior bureaus.
This research function was solidified with the transfer of the
Cooperative Research Units from the FWS to BRD, establishing one
research arm to prioritize and conduct quality, credible, and
coordinated research on resources. However, the creation of and
continued expansion of natural resources research activities in the
CESUs, separately established within NPS, has led to duplication of
effort among federal and state agencies, confusion among cooperators,
and significant expenditures of limited resources. Because Congress
intends that BRD be the research arm of the USDI, the Association urges
Congress to direct the Secretary to undertake the appropriate analysis
of the need for CESUs in the NPS.
Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) and Traditional Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Grants Program
The Association supports the fiscal year 2004 funding of $12.0
million in the Cooperative Conservation Initiative for natural resource
protection as part of the Challenge Cost Share program. The proposed
CCI's intended goal is ``restoration, protection and enhancement of
natural areas.'' We urge NPS to thoroughly consult with the states,
including the State fish and wildlife agencies, to ensure that the goal
of the grants is appropriately addressed in dispersing this $12
million. We similarly urge that the additional $10 million funded in
the traditional NPS Challenge Cost Share and Public Lands Volunteers
program be dispersed through a coordinated consultation process with
the states.
Brucellosis
A significant problem still exists with regard to brucellosis,
which affects domestic livestock and other animals and is present in
elk and bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area, located within the
states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The Association understands that
NPS and the Fish and Wildlife Service intend again this year to
contribute to a research program conducted by the Biological Resources
Division of USGS to improve the vaccination program for brucellosis in
elk and bison. This continuing need should clearly be carried as a
budget item, rather than identified as a program that will be funded on
an ``ability to pay'' basis by the several agencies. The Association
strongly supports this research endeavor, but remains concerned about
the level of cooperation with the involved states. We urge the
commitment of these several Department of the Interior Bureaus to this
project be affirmed in their respective budgets through some type of
formal agreement, in full cooperation with the states involved.
______
Prepared Statement of the Japanese American Citizens League
On behalf of the Japanese Americans Citizens League, the nation's
oldest and largest Asian Pacific American civil rights organization, I
am writing to express our unqualified support for funding to continue a
study of the Eagledale Ferry Dock site on Bainbridge Island, Washington
(authorized under Public Law No. 107-363).
As you may know, on March 30, 1942, a little over one month after
Executive Order 9066 was signed, 227 men, women and children on
Bainbridge Island were herded onto a ferry at the former Eagledale dock
to begin their journey to internment camps. This community was the very
first group of Japanese Americans in the United States to be forced
from their homes to be interned. Only allowed to bring what they could
carry or wear, they boarded the ferry ``Kehloken'' with their friends
and neighbors watching, and said goodbye to Bainbridge Island,
beginning a lonely journey with an unknown destination and fate.
This tragic episode in is an important part of American history
that must be preserved to ensure that the full and rich diversity of
our history is represented on the public record. This site is the
literal and symbolic starting point for the Minidoka Internment
National Monument (ID) and the Manzanar National Historic Site (CA),
two internment camps already designated by the National Park Service,
and it should be preserved for future generations to learn about the
experience of Japanese Americans during the war. Bainbridge Island is a
short ferry ride from Seattle and the site would be within easy reach
for those discovering or wanting to learn about this period in our
nation's history.
The National Park Service has already demonstrated its their
commitment to this project by allocating initial funds of $25,000, and
while we believe this is an excellent start, the entire study is
estimated at $250,000. We would like to urge the committee to fully
fund the National Park Service's budget for special resources studies
with an addition of $150,000 for the Bainbridge Island study, above and
beyond the $500,000 request in the NPS budget.
The Bainbridge Island site is a tremendous opportunity to allow
history to come to life outside the confines of a classroom. The story
of this community will educate future generations about the courage of
Americans--those who suffered sixty years ago by being removed from
their homes and those who supported their friends as they left, in
their absence and upon their return home.
Continuing the special resources study is essential to tell this
American story, and we respectfully urge the committee to fully fund
the National Park Service's budget for special resources studies with
an addition of $150,000 for the Bainbridge Island site. Thank you for
your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources strongly supports
efforts by Congress to continue the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) stateside program. We urge the Subcommittee to allocate $200
million to the LWCF stateside program for fiscal year 2004. In
addition, we request that you fund the Conservation Trust Fund (CARA
Lite) at the dedicated amount of $2.08 billion.
Over the last three years, the reinvigorated LWCF stateside program
has helped fund over 50 state and local park and openspace projects
across Minnesota. Historically the LWCF projects include state parks
and historic sites, trails, wildlife management areas, public water
accesses, scientific and natural areas, state forests, and other areas.
A few recent examples of projects that benefited from the LWCF
program are:
--Lake Gervais Park, a county park in the suburbs of St. Paul
--Split Rock Lighthouse State Park, a well known landmark on Lake
Superior
--Tansem Prairie, a state Scientific and Natural Area in Clay County
--Maple Creek Trail, a nature/walking trail in Owatonna.
These and many other projects were made possible by the
availability of the stateside LWCF funds. These funds allow for the:
--Acquisition of critical open space threatened by development
--Renovation of outdated, unsafe facilities
--Protection of high quality natural areas
--Improved accessibility of parks and trails for people of all
abilities
--Provision of a wide variety of outdoor recreational opportunities.
For our Spring 2003 grant round, preliminary requests for local
park, trail and open space projects in Minnesota alone total over $65
million. In addition to this figure, the backlog of state park and
trail acquisition and renovation needs is in the tens of millions. The
current LWCF Program is able to meet only a fraction of these needs.
One of our most urgent needs in Minnesota is to protect open space
in rapidly developing portions of the state, particularly in counties
surrounding the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. As land prices
accelerate, however, local government resources are inadequate to meet
these rising needs. For example, one county seeking to acquire
lakeshore and a high quality wooded area near the rapidly growing City
of St. Cloud requires an initial investment of at least $2 million.
While local officials have identified willing sellers, they will be
hard-pressed to raise all this money locally, without outside
assistance. For many years, the LWCF program has provided such
assistance.
State projects would also benefit from LWCF funds. The new Red
River State Recreation Area, the scene of massive residential flooding
several years ago, has been reclaimed as a state park in East Grand
Forks. With the assistance of the LWCF program we anticipate the
potential development of a new campground. Another project that could
benefit from the LWCF program is expanding our camper cabins in 15
state parks throughout the state. In addition, near the City of Granite
Falls, we hope to acquire a native prairie area that is home to
threatened plant and animal species.
These projects offer just a few examples of how the stateside LWCF
program benefits the citizens of Minnesota. Increasing the LWCF
stateside funding level to $200 million in fiscal year 2004 will help
us reach our goals. We believe that this funding level is consistent
with the commitment made by Congress and the current Administration to
the LWCF program.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers
SHPOS.--MAKING PRESERVE AMERICA A REALITY THIS YEAR
[Historic Preservation Fund Fiscal Year 2004]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2003 2004 2004 budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Historic Preservation Offices:
Core........................................................ $33,779,000 $50,000,000 $34,000,000
Expedite project reviews.................................... .............. 10,000,000 ..............
Local communities' preservation............................. .............. 30,000,000 ..............
Tribes.......................................................... 3,000,000 10,000,000 3,000,000
Save America's Treasures........................................ 29,805,000 30,000,000 30,000,000
NTHP Hist. Sites Fund........................................... 1,987,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 68,571,000 130,000,000 67,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preservation is a high priority for this Administration.--On March
3, 2003, the First Lady announced the Preserve America \1\ initiative
and the President issued Executive Order No. 13287 directing federal
agencies to assess, preserve and use the historic resources in their
control, particularly for heritage tourism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All quotes in this testimony come from the First Lady's March
3, 2003, ``Preserve America'' speech available at the White House
website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic Preservation Fund Puts Preserve America into Practice.--
The Historic Preservation Fund has for three decades put the Preserve
America principles in practice by laying the foundation for the
nation's historic preservation program. The fundamentals of historic
preservation are finding historic places, nomination of significant
places to the National Register, opening the door to localities to
participate officially, protecting historic National Conference of
State Historic Preservation Officers 2004 Historic Preservation Fund
Testimony Interior Appropriations Subcommittee places from inadvertent
harm by federal agencies, and supporting private investment in
rehabilitation through the rehabilitation tax credit (over $2 billion
annually). State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) deliver these
programs to the local level on behalf of the Department of the
Interior. Preserve America updates historic preservation program
launched by the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470) in
1966.
Although the Administration recommended a reduced level of funding
for the State Historic Preservation Offices for 2004, it is obvious
from his Preserve America initiative that the President strongly
supports historic preservation and the kind of federal/State/local
partnership program the SHPOs administer. The cornerstone of the 2003
Preserve America program is cooperation among federal, State and local
governments to identify and use cultural resources for economic
development, a function SHPOs have been performing since the passage of
the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966. We hope the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee will use the 2004 Historic Preservation
Fund appropriation to make the SHPO programs full partners in Preserve
America.
``Our land is the foundation upon which the American story is
written. Our history is rooted in buildings, parks and towns.''
Congress: Make Preserve America a 2004 Reality for All Americans.--
The National Conference of SHPOs request for fiscal year 2004 will make
Preserve America a reality including funding for tribal grants and Save
America's Treasures. The purpose of this testimony is to explain the
need for a $50,000,000 withdrawal from the Historic Preservation Fund
for the core preservation programs run by SHPOs. The First Lady said on
March third, ``America is blessed with historic architecture,
landscapes, and communities, everyone [emphasis added] tells a story. .
. . But to prepare for the future, we must remember our history.''
Before you can tell the story, you have to know the story which means
research and study. An increase in core program funding will
dramatically increase SHPOs' historic site inventory work, publication
of results, and entry of the data on to computerized geographic
information systems.
Historic site research brings the past to life. Owners who want
recognition for their stories look to the National Register to confirm
the significance of their properties. Funding the core program at
$50,000,000 will give the SHPOffices the resources to prepare
nominations (which low funding has eliminated) and to help and train
private citizens volunteering to prepare nominations.
``The second goal of Preserve America is to support community
efforts to restore cultural resources for heritage tourism.''
Heritage tourism is an important part of economic development for
many communities. It relies on the authentic experience. SHPOs'
historic site surveys and National Register nominations provide the
facts upon which heritage tourism programs are built. $50,000,000 for
States' core programs will benefit heritage tourism by expanding the
number of heritage sites to visit.
``Preserve America . . . will provide . . . greater support to
protect and restore our nation's cultural . . . from monuments and
buildings to landscapes and main streets.''
Preserve America Involves Protection.--Protection is an important
part of historic preservation. State Historic Preservation Offices
protect historic places in several ways. First, recognition and common
knowledge about historic places helps the public support preservation.
Second, the SHPOs operate a volunteer program for local governments who
decide to enact local ordinances and operate historic preservation
programs. Core program funding at $50,000,000 will automatically
increase the pass-through to local government partners from $3.4
million to $5 million. Third, SHPOs review every federal project
proposed in their State--that's a national total of 100,000 projects
annually. SHPOs work with federal agencies and applicants to minimize
adverse impacts on historic places. Protecting properties is a high
priority for SHPOs. While cuts in the HPF have reduced or eliminated
activity in other program areas, SHPOs have (until recent federal and
state cuts) maintained protection activities. Every preservationist in
America, relies on the SHPOs' work reviewing federal projects and
persuading agencies to modify the scope to protect historic places when
needed.''The President wants to continue his support and the
preservation of our heritage through Preserve America. Today, President
Bush signed an Executive Order . . . [which] directs federal agencies
to inventory and promote greater use of historic sites in partnership
with state, tribal, and local governments. Preserve America will
provide more opportunities for preservation and increase tourism and
economic development.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
North Carolina response times --------------------------------------
2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a HPF Allocation of........... $897,000.......... $747,000
To help developers using historic 30 days........... 60 days
tax credit.
On National Register nominations. 3 months.......... 7 months
to local governments seeking 3 days............ 3 weeks
information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic Preservation Fund Decisions Adversely Affect the Private
Sector.--There are consequences when the Historic Preservation Fund is
cut. Discretionary programs get cut first. As cuts go deeper, non-
discretionary programs get cut too which means reductions in force.
These cuts cost time and money to everyone who uses SHPO services. The
impacts fall hardest on private business and federal projects. Reducing
the resources to SHPOs has the same effect as narrowing the neck of a
funnel--the flow is constrained. As an example, Wyoming's average
response time for individual federal projects increased from 12 days in
fiscal year 2001 to 18 days in fiscal year 2002 following the decline
in their allocation from $680,000 to $569,000.
These increases in response time affect applicants who need SHPO
comments. Applicants for an oil and gas lease or for an Army Corps
permit and developers borrowing money to invest in a historic
rehabilitation project face increased carrying costs because of
extended response times.
The National Conference of SHPOs proposes a special $10,000,000
withdrawal from the Historic Preservation Fund to focus exclusively on
upgrading historic site surveys, inventory information and geographic
information systems in areas of high potential for development and
future federal agency activity. Historic preservation needs to stop
being an obstacle to project planning and to streamline and expedite
project reviews.
Preserve America Through Private Investment and Economic
Development.--America has seen a decade of private investment in
historic preservation at a level of $2 billion a year. Investors have
seen the potential in America's underused historic resources for
productive, modern uses. The rehabilitation investment tax credit has
provided the incentive for this voluntary commitment to America's
historic downtowns and neighborhoods. State Historic Preservation
Offices are the delivery system for developers and owners. Increasing
the core funding for SHPOs to $50,000,000 will provide the resources
for the time consuming, pre-construction technical assistance to advise
on historic preservation alternatives. Equally important, an increase
in core programs to $50,000,000 will provide resources to expedite
National Register nomination processing. (National Register listing is
a requirement for rehab tax credit eligibility.)
``Preserve America will promote historic and cultural preservation
and encourage greater public appreciation of our national treasures.''
``Help Americans Volunteer for Preservation.''--Core funding of
$50,000,000 for the State Historic Preservation Offices will mean a
return of preservation education programs to help volunteers prepare
National Register nominations, work toward local preservation
ordinances, and prepare for heritage tourism. Further beneficiaries of
public education will include federal agencies working to fulfill the
mandates of the President's Executive Order 13278 whose offices are
closer to a State capitol than to Washington.
Preserve America and Preserving America's Beloved Landmarks.--The
First Lady said, ``Many of our historic sites and monuments are
deteriorating and need to be preserved.'' That is why the National
Conference of SHPOs is proposing a special grant program to flow
through the SHPOs to localities to provide matching, restoration grants
for the landmarks that have meaning to ordinary American's. Montana's
Treasure State Treasures Survey will identify what Montanans what they
value from the past. While the companion Save America's Treasures is
reserved for an elite category of properties that people in Washington
see as nationally significant, the $30,000,000 for local landmarks will
be dedicated to the places that everyday Americans value.
Preserve America: , ``. . . what will we pass down to our
children--what will their heritage be?''--SHPOs want to work with
Congress and the First Lady to Preserve America.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) is the only
national, nonprofit conservation organization that advocates
exclusively for the national parks. Through public education, advocacy,
and citizen outreach, NPCA works to protect, preserve, and enhance
America's National Park System for present and future generations.
NPCA is pleased to share its views regarding the programs in the
Department of Interior's budget that affect national park resources and
requests that this statement be included in the hearing record for the
fiscal year 2004 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. We
appreciate the opportunity to share with you our priorities for funding
and respectfully request the Committee consider these views as the
fiscal year 2004 budget is shaped.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OPERATIONS
A top priority for NPCA in the budget of the National Park Service
is to significantly increase funding for the operations of the Park
Service. NPCA requests an increase of $178 million over the current
fiscal year 2003 spending levels, $102 million above the president's
request, for a total of $1,633,351,000 in fiscal year 2004 for the
operation of the National Park System.
NPCA greatly appreciates your leadership and commitment to our
national parks, demonstrated in the increase of $98 million that the
Committee provided for park operations in the fiscal year 2003 Interior
appropriations process. As you know, this funding increase was
unfortunately significantly reduced in the final 2003 omnibus
appropriations act.
As you know, park operational funding continues to lag behind the
need. This situation is further aggravated by homeland security needs,
which have put increased pressure on park budgets and staffing. For
example, many park rangers have been reassigned to security detail at
icon and border parks, leaving their visitor interpretation and
resource protection duties unmet. In addition, National Park Service
Director Fran Mainella recently stated that added security expenditures
since the Code Orange alert are anticipated to cost the national parks
an additional $23 million annually.
While Congress has regularly increased the operating budget of the
parks, research in more than 50 parks has shown that funding fails to
keep pace with need. On average, the national parks are operating with
only two-thirds of the needed funding--an annual shortfall of more than
$600 million system-wide. An increase of $178 million in the national
parks' operating budget this year represents a reasonable and
manageable amount, and a critical step toward fulfilling the mission of
the Park Service and protecting our national heritage.
Just last month, Director Mainella testified to the House Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee that, ``support of park operations is
integral to fulfilling the mission of the National Park Service.'' As
caretaker of some of our nation's most valued natural, cultural, and
historic resources, the Park Service has a tremendous responsibility,
managing 388 sites nationwide.
NPS NATURAL RESOURCES CHALLENGE
NPCA strongly supports the National Park Service's Natural
Resources Challenge(a successful multi-year program to preserve and
protect the natural resources of the national parks. We request an
increase of $20 million above enacted fiscal year 2003 level, $11.5
million above the administration's request for this important program.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Frederick Douglass National Historical Site, Washington, D.C.--$2
million in fiscal year 2004 for historic preservation of this important
home. Mr. Douglass' historic 1850s home in Anacostia is in need of
immediate repair. The National Park Service lacks critical funding and
staff to meet day-to-day needs and to protect Mr. Douglass' personal
belongings and the integrity of the property. For example, $550,000 is
needed to restore light-damaged photographs from the 19th century and
to restore Mr. Douglass' treasured library collection. The site also
needs funding to complete a Landscape Maintenance Plan and to hire
archaeological expertise to inventory and protect the park's cultural
and archaeological resources.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LAND ACQUISITION
Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas.--$10 million in fiscal year
2004, $6.6 million above the administration's request, to complete
acquisition of land previously owned by timber companies within the
1994 boundary expansion. Big Thicket National Preserve, often called
the ``biological crossroads of North America,'' contains a unique mix
of southeastern swamps, eastern deciduous forest, central plains, pine
savannas, and dry sandhills. This acquisition is critical to protecting
this unique area.
Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park, Virginia.--$2
million in fiscal year 2004 to acquire land from willing sellers in
this model partnership park dedicated in January 2003. Private
landowners have expressed an interest in the National Park Service
acquiring land in Cedar Creek & Belle Grove. $2 million is a reasonable
amount to provide the Park Service a foundation for moving forward with
serious discussions.
Everglades Restoration, Florida.--$20 million in fiscal year 2004
to provide assistance to the State of Florida in purchasing lands
needed to restore the Everglades. The Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP) requires that more than 200,000 acres of land
be purchased for water storage, flow and treatment. With the rising
cost of real estate and increasing pressure to develop land in South
Florida, it is critical that land acquisition remain on track.
Fort Clatsop National Memorial, Oregon.--$8 million in fiscal year
2004 to purchase from willing sellers a portion of the 1,500-acre
expansion of the memorial. President Bush signed the Fort Clatsop
National Memorial Expansion Act into law on August 21, 2002,
authorizing the expansion. Acquiring this land is important step in
preparation for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial event to culminate at
Fort Clatsop in November 2005. The Clatsop County Board of
Commissioners and Governor of Oregon support this acquisition.
Mojave National Preserve, California.--$2 million in fiscal year
2004 to complete purchase of approximately 4,000-6,000 acres of the
nearly 150,000 acres of privately held lands in the Preserve. We
appreciate the $1 million provided by the Committee in fiscal year
2003. $2 million in additional funds are needed in fiscal year 2004 to
continue the purchase of sensitive lands within the boundary of the
Mojave Preserve.
Tumacacori National Historical Park, Arizona.--$3 million in fiscal
year 2004 to acquire 310 acres. The Tumacacori National Historical Park
Boundary Revision Act of 2001, signed into law by President Bush on
August 21, 2002, expanded the boundaries of the park to protect
portions of the original mission, historic orchards, and ancient
irrigation systems that are extremely vulnerable to subdivision
development.
Obed Wild and Scenic River, Tennessee.--$1.5 million in fiscal year
2004 to acquire approximately 1,000 acres of inholdings within the Obed
Wild and Scenic River corridor in Tennessee. We appreciate the
Committee including this request in the fiscal year 2003 House bill,
which was not, as you know, included in the final conference. The Obed
is one of the few free-flowing streams of its type remaining in the
entire six-state Cumberlands region, and is the only National Wild and
Scenic River in Tennessee.
Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona.--$5 million in fiscal year
2004 as a down payment to complete the purchase of private lands next
to the park from willing sellers. The Arizona delegation is expected to
introduce legislation this year to expand the boundaries of Petrified
National Forest. A significant portion of lands within the proposed
expansion area currently are in private or state ownership. Acquiring
this land of nationally significant paleontological, archaeological,
and scenic resources is important to their long-term protection.
Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania.--$10 million
in fiscal year 2004, $5 million above the president's request. Of this
amount, $6 million for acquisition of the Toll Brothers tract, and $4
million for additional acquisition, potentially approximately 100 acres
owned by St. Gabriel's School for Boys. Valley Forge preserves the
history of the American Revolution through 190 historic structures and
more than 600 archaeological sites, various wetlands, grasslands,
woodlands, and wildlife, including more than 200 species of birds and
several state-listed rare plants.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONSTRUCTION
Denali National Park, Alaska.--$750,000 in fiscal year 2004 to
complete environmental reviews and compliance with all design and
permitting requirements for the South Denali Nature Center. This
funding was provided in the Senate fiscal year 2003 bill, but
unfortunately, was not included in Conference. This funding will help
to alleviate visitor pressure on the existing park infrastructure and
to provide a new opportunity for visitors on the south side of Denali
National Park. The State of Alaska and the Park Service are working
cooperatively on a South Denali Nature Center to be sited in Denali
State Park, near the border of the national park. The Nature Center
will focus visitor attention to the alpine environment through
interpretive programs and a trail system.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--OTHER
Everglades Modified Waters Deliveries Project.--$15 million in
fiscal year 2004 for the Modified Waters Deliveries Project, an
important Everglades restoration project launched prior to CERP. This
project would return critical sheetflows of water to Everglades
National Park. $30 million over the next two years is needed to
complete this project, so we recommend $15 million this year.
Everglades Restoration Plan Funding.--$10 million in fiscal year
2004 for the Department of Interior's Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP) funding. This important funding will enable the
Park Service and other Interior agencies to carry out critical
Everglades restoration projects.
Everglades Science Funding.--$6 million in fiscal year 2004 for the
Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI), the Department of
Interior's research program designed to help guide Everglades
restoration planning and project designs. A December 2002 report of the
National Research Council of the National Academies of Science found
that $4 million is insufficient to allow CESI to meet pressing science
needs of the restoration program.
National Park Service Soundscape Program Office.--$6 million in
fiscal year 2004 to hire contractors for research and development of
air tour management plans in national parks. The National Park Air Tour
Management Act of 2000 directed the Park Service to cooperate with the
FAA on the development of air tour management plans in parks. While
originally the Park Service and FAA anticipated that air tour operators
would wish to fly over 55 parks, they have received applications for
flights over more than 102 park units and require $6 million in fiscal
year 2004 to meet its mandate on air tour management plan development.
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.--$11 million in fiscal year
2004 through the Historic Preservation Fund to stabilize funding for
all Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) and to accommodate
new THPOs at a base level funding of $275,000 per Tribe. Increased THPO
funding will enable Tribes to achieve more timely compliance with
federal, states, and tribal historic preservation laws. The THPO
program represents a successful partnership; tribes match federal THPO
dollars at least 3 to 1. Examples of partnerships include the Navajo
National Historic Preservation Department working with the Park Service
at Chaco Culture National Historic Site and at Canyon de Chelly
National Park.
______
Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for
the National Trails System appreciates your support over the past
several years, through operations funding and earmarked Challenge Cost
Share funds, for the national scenic and historic trails administered
by the National Park Service. We also appreciate your increased
allocation of funds to support the trails administered and managed by
the Forest Service and your support for the trails in the Bureau of
Land Management's National Landscape Conservation System. To continue
the progress that you have fostered, the Partnership requests that you
provide annual operations funding for each of the 23 national scenic
and historic trails for Fiscal year 2004 through these appropriations:
--National Park Service.--$10.965 million for the administration of
18 trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails
program by the Washington Park Service office.
--USDA Forest Service.--$3.07 million to administer four trails and
$750,000 for portions of 13 trails managed through agreements
with the Park Service and Bureau of Land Management;
Construction: $1 million for the Continental Divide Trail,
$500,000 for the Florida Trail and $865,000 for the Pacific
Crest Trail.
--Bureau of Land Management.--To administer the Iditarod National
Historic Trail: $410,000, the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
National Historic Trail: $380,000, the Old Spanish National
Historic Trail: $100,00 and $2.78 million to manage portions of
9 trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest
Service; $385,000 for the Iditarod Trail interpretive center
feasibility study.
--We ask that you appropriate $9 million for the National Park
Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to earmark $5
million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-third
of the remaining $4 million (approximately $1,326,000) for the
other 17 national scenic and historic trails it administers.
--We ask that you appropriate $1.253 million to the National Park
Service National Center for Recreation and Conservation to
support the second year of an interagency pilot project to
develop a consistent system-wide Geographic Information System
(GIS) for the National Trails System.
We ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund:
--To the Forest Service.--$5 million to acquire land for the Pacific
Crest Trail, $5 million to acquire land for the Florida Trail,
$3 million to acquire land for the Appalachian Trail in
Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia;
--To the Bureau of Land Management.--$1 million to acquire land for
the Pacific Crest Trail, $2 million to acquire land for the
Oregon Trail in Oregon, $500,000 to acquire land for the Juan
Bautista de Anza Trail in Arizona;
--To the Park Service.--$4 million to grant to the State of Wisconsin
to match state funds to acquire land for the Ice Age Trail;
$1.5 million to grant to the States of Wisconsin, Michigan and
Ohio to match state funds to acquire land for the North Country
Trail.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
We request $1.253 million to fund the second year of a 5 year
interagency effort to develop a consistent GIS for all 23 national
scenic and historic trails. This initiative is described in the August
2001 report (requested by Congress in the fiscal year 2001
appropriation) ``GIS For The National Trails System'' and is built upon
work already underway on the Ice Age, Appalachian, Florida, Oregon,
California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony Express Trails to develop
consistent information and procedures that can be applied across the
National Trails System. The requested funding will be shared with the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
The $10.965 million we request for Park Service operations includes
increases for many of the trails to continue the progress and new
initiatives made possible by the $975,000 funding increase provided for
nine of the trails in fiscal year 2001. $124,000 of our requested
increase will finally provide significant operational support for the
Natchez Trace Trail, which currently receives only $26,000 in annual
operations funding. Another $381,000 will enable the Park Service to
begin managing the three new national historic trails--Ala Kahakai, El
Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and Old Spanish--the latter two
administered collaboratively with the Bureau of Land Management. These
funds will provide full-time management and support projects for each
of these trails.
We request an increase of $51,000 for the Overmountain Victory
Trail to enable the Overmountain Victory Trail Association to continue
and expand the first comprehensive survey of historically significant
sites along the trail and plan for their preservation. An increase of
$52,000 will fund interpretive projects and the trail corridor study
along the Potomac Heritage Trail in Washington, D.C.
We request an increase of $316,000 to continue and expand Park
Service efforts to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200
significant sites along the Santa Fe Trail and to fund public outreach
and educational programs of the Santa Fe Trail Association. We also
request an increase of $111,000 to expand cooperative interpretation
with schools and Latino communities along the Juan Bautista de Anza
Trail. An increase of $251,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable the
Park Service to work cooperatively with the Trail of Tears Association
to protect the Trail's critical historical and cultural heritage sites
and interpret them for visitors.
The $402,000 increase we request for the interagency Salt Lake City
Trails office will enable the Park Service to work with CALTRANS to
mark the California and Pony Express Trails auto routes and to develop
interpretive plans for wayside exhibits for these trails and the Oregon
and Mormon Pioneer Trails.
We request $2 million to fund the operation of ``Corps II,'' a
major component of the Federal government's commemoration of the
Bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. This interagency mobile
interpretive exhibit is designed to follow the route of the Lewis &
Clark Trail, stopping in communities along the way to provide state-of-
the art, interactive interpretation of the Lewis & Clark ``Corps of
Discovery.''
All of these trails are complicated undertakings, none more so than
the 4,000 mile North Country Trail. With more than 650 miles of Trail
across 7 national forests in 5 states there is good reason for close
collaboration between the Park Service and Forest Service to ensure
consistent management that provides high quality experiences for
hikers. Limited budgets for both agencies have severely hampered their
ability to practice this effective management procedure. The $840,000
we request will give them that ability for the first time while also
providing greater support for the local trail building and management
led by the North Country Trail Association, hastening the day when our
nation's longest national scenic trail will be fully opened for use.
The $1,001,000 we request will enable the Park Service to expand
the Geographic Information System (GIS) capability to more efficiently
plan resource protection, trail construction and maintenance to correct
unsafe conditions and better mark the 1,200 mile Ice Age Trail for
users. The funds will also provide assistance to the Ice Age Park &
Trail Foundation to better equip, train and support the volunteers who
build and maintain the Ice Age Trail and manage its resources. Some of
the funds will be used to develop an interpretive plan for the Trail.
The Challenge Cost Share program is one of the most effective and
efficient ways for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of
projects for public benefit while also sustaining partnerships
involving countless private citizens in doing public service work. The
Partnership requests that you appropriate $8.98 million in Challenge
Cost Share funding to the Park Service for fiscal year 2004 as a wise
investment of public money that will generate public benefits many
times greater than its sum. We ask you to continue to direct $5 million
for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-third of the other
$3.98 million for the national scenic and historic trails to continue
the steady progress toward making these trails fully available for
public enjoyment.
USDA--FOREST SERVICE
As you have done for several years, we ask that you provide
additional operations funding to the Forest Service for administering
three national scenic trails and one national historic trail, and
managing parts of 13 other trails. We ask you to appropriate $3.07
million as a separate budgetary item specifically for the Continental
Divide, Florida and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez
Perce National Historic Trail. Full-time managers have been assigned
for each of these trails by the Forest Service. Recognizing the on-the-
ground management responsibility the Forest Service has for 838 miles
of the Appalachian Trail, more than 650 miles of the North Country
Trail, and sections of the Ice Age, Anza, Lewis & Clark, California,
Iditarod, Mormon Pioneer, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express,
Trail of Tears and Santa Fe Trails, we ask you to appropriate $750,000
specifically for these trails.
Work is underway, supported by funds you provided for the past four
years, to close several major gaps in the Florida National Scenic
Trail. The Florida Trail Association is building Trail across Eglin Air
Force Base, in the Ocala National Forest, Big Cypress National Preserve
and along Lake Kissimmee and the Choctawahatchee River, adding about
100 miles to the completed Florida Trail. The Partnership requests an
additional $500,000 for trail construction in fiscal year 2004 by the
Forest Service on these and other segments of the Florida Trail.
The Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with Forest Service
assistance and funding from the outdoor recreation industry, surveyed
the entire 3,200 mile route of the Continental Divide Trail documenting
$10.3 million of construction projects needed to complete the Trail. To
continue new trail construction, begun with fiscal year 1998 funding,
we ask that you appropriate $1,050,000 to plan 383 miles of new trail
and $1 million to build or reconstruct 114 miles of the Continental
Divide Trail and 7 new trailheads in fiscal year 2004.
A Forest Service lands team is working with the Pacific Crest Trail
Association and the Park Service National Trail Land Resources Program
Center to map and acquire better routes for the 300 miles of the 2,650
mile Pacific Crest Trail located on 227 narrow easements across private
land or on the edge of dangerous highways. We request $200,000 to
continue the work of the fulltime Trail Manager and the lands team and
$100,000 for Optimal Location route planning. We also request $865,000
for new trail construction and reconstruction of fire-damaged bridges
along the PCT by the Forest Service and the Pacific Crest Trail
Association in fiscal year 2004.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
While the Bureau of Land Management has administrative authority
only for the Iditarod, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and the Old
Spanish National Historic Trails, it has on-the-ground management
responsibility for 641 miles of two scenic trails and 3,115 miles of
seven historic trails administered by the National Park Service and
U.S. Forest Service. The significance of these trails was recognized by
their inclusion in the National Landscape Conservation System and, for
the first time, in fiscal year 2002, by provision of specific funding
for each of them. The Partnership applauds the decision of the Bureau
of Land Management to include the national scenic and historic trails
in the NLCS and to budget specific funding for each of them. We ask
that you continue to support the funding for the National Landscape
Conservation System and that you appropriate for fiscal year 2004
$410,000 for the Iditarod National Historic Trail, $380,000 for El
Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, $100,000 for the
Old Spanish National Historic Trail and $2,780,000, as requested by the
Administration, for management of the portions of the nine other trails
under the care of the Bureau of Land Management. We also request $1
million for construction of the California Trail Interpretive Center in
Elko, Nevada, $100,000 for maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail, and
$385,000 for a feasibility study for the Iditarod Trail interpretive
center.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
The Partnership requests that you fully appropriate the $900
million annual authorized appropriation from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and that you make the specific appropriations for
national scenic and historic trails detailed at the beginning of this
statement and in Attachment #2. The funding we request for the Florida
and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails will continue acquisition
underway by the Forest Service. The first tracts to help close gaps in
the Florida Trail have been acquired with LWCF money provided in
previous years. Necessary Optimal Location Planning and appraisal work
have been completed and acquisition has begun in earnest along the
Pacific Crest Trail. The requested funding for the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail will help complete its protection in Tennessee, Georgia,
and Virginia.
The $2,500,000 requested for the Bureau of Land Management will
help protect important cultural resources along the Juan Bautista de
Anza National Historic Trail in Arizona and along the Oregon National
Historic Trail in Oregon.
The National Trails System Act encourages states to assist in the
conservation of the resources and development of the national scenic
and historic trails. Wisconsin has committed more than $10 million to
help conserve the resources of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. With
fiscal year 2000-2002 LWCF funding, matched more than 2:1 by State
funds, Wisconsin has purchased 12 parcels and now has another 12
parcels under appraisal or option to purchase. The requested $4 Million
Land and Water Conservation Fund grant to Wisconsin will continue this
very successful Federal/State partnership for protecting land for the
Ice Age Trail.
The essential funding requests to support the trails are detailed
in Attachment #2.
PRIVATE SECTOR SUPPORT FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public
agencies have been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its
inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the
Trails System and the trail communities that sustain it by combining
the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the
responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide a way to
enlist private financial support for public projects, usually resulting
in a greater than equal match of funds.
The private trail organizations commitment to the success of these
trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress' support for the
trails has grown. In 2002 the trail organizations channeled 662,429
hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $10,631,985 to help
sustain the national scenic and historic trails. This is a 6.5 percent
increase over the volunteer labor reported for 2001. The organizations
also applied private sector contributions of $6,850,214 to benefit the
trails. These contributions are documented in Attachment #1.
ATTACHMENT 1.--CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2002 TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM BY NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC
TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Volunteer value of Financial
Organization hours volunteer contributions
labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appalachian Trail Conference.................................... 184,216 $2,956,667 $4,100,000
Continental Divide Trail Society................................ \1\ 1,500 24,075 ..............
Continental Divide Trail Alliance............................... 22,256 357,209 319,242
Florida Trail Association....................................... 53,540 857,712 159,000
Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation................................. 73,440 1,178,712 550,705
Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc........................... \1\ 17,900 287,295 \1\ 75,000
Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza.................................. 422 6,773 ..............
Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona................................. 3,068 49,241 ..............
Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation......................... \1\ 40,000 642,000 313,395
Mormon Trails Association....................................... 7,956 127,694 \1\ 20,068
Iowa Mormon Trails Association.................................. \1\ 750 12,038 \1\ 1,000
Nebraska Mormon Trails Association.............................. 203 3,258 1,022
Natchez Trace Trail Conference.................................. 2,062 33,095 ..............
National Pony Express Association............................... 33,168 532,346 215,472
Pony Express Trail Association.................................. 3,444 55,276 51,140
Nez Perce Trail Foundation...................................... 1,457 23,385 5,244
North Country Trail Association................................. 5,986 577,575 195,413
Old Spanish Trail Association................................... 5,697 91,726 23,222
Oregon-California Trails Association............................ 72,725 1,167,236 264,553
Overmountain Victory Trail Association.......................... 6,005 96,380 29,138
Pacific Crest Trail Association................................. 44,100 707,805 395,600
Potomac Trail Council........................................... \1\ 4,800 77,040 1,700
Santa Fe Trail Association...................................... \1\ 19,000 304,950 69,000
Trail of Tears Association...................................... 28,816 462,497 60,300
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 662,429 10,631,985 6,850,214
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate.
ATTACHMENT 2.--PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2003 2004 Fiscal year
Agency/Trail congressional administration 2004 partners Project/programs possible with increased funding
appropriation request request
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARK SERVICE
Ala Kahakai................................. $181,000 $181,000 $181,000 Begin preparation of Comprehensive Management Plan for new trail;
Appalachian................................. 1,041,000 1,044,000 1,044,000 Operations of NPS A.T. Park Office; $300,000 of the total supports volunteer-based trail
maintenance and construction and land and resource management guided by ATC;
Natchez Trace............................... 26,000 26,000 150,000 Planning & building new trail & bridges; backlog maintenance with NTTC & SCA;
El Camino Real.............................. ............... ............... 100,000 Begin collaborative management of new trail with Bureau of Land Management;
California.................................. 200,000 200,000 351,000 Interpret more auto tour routes with CALTRANS; Enhance Four Trails GIS database;
Ice Age..................................... 498,000 501,000 1,001,000 Trail corridor planning; Coordinate land acquisition by agency partners and Trail maintenance
and resource management by IAP&TF; Develop Trail interpretive plan;
Juan Bautista de Anza....................... 189,000 189,000 300,000 Coordination of Trail site protection, interpretation & development projects with local
agencies & organizations; Outreach to schools and Latino communities;
Lewis & Clark............................... 1,707,000 1,712,000 3,734,000 Planning, coordination & support for local Bicentennial projects and ``Corps II'';
Mormon Pioneer.............................. 127,000 127,000 128,000 Enhance Four Trails GIS database; Interpret additional auto tour routes;
North Country............................... 547,000 547,000 840,000 Advance Trail construction, Trail route protection and support for volunteers and partners
through regional trail centers, greater technical assistance and route planning;
Old Spanish................................. ............... ............... 100,000 Collaborative administration with Bureau of Land Management;
Oregon...................................... 215,000 216,000 366,000 Update and upgrade Four Trails GIS database and mapping;
Overmountain Victory........................ 135,000 135,000 186,000 New route signs & interpretive exhibits; mapping Trail sites for protection inventory, and
archaeology in Cherokee County, North Carolina;
Pony Express................................ 180,000 181,000 281,000 Develop Interpretive Plan for wayside exhibits for Pony Express and California trails;
Potomac Heritage............................ 198,000 198,000 250,000 Assistance to local agencies & organizations for planning & educational projects;
Santa Fe.................................... \1\ 596,000 \1\ 603,000 919,000 Cultural resource preservation, design & distribute interpretive media with partners;
Selma to Montgomery......................... 260,000 261,000 261,000 Comprehensive management plan developed and trail interpretation begun in collaboration with
citizen support organizations & local agencies;
Trail of Tears.............................. 247,000 247,000 498,000 Preserve & interpret critical Trail sites & provide new visitor facilities with TOTA;
NTS-Washington Office....................... 217,000 218,000 275,000 Program coordination and special projects funding.
---------------------------------------------------
National Trails System................ 6,594,000 6,605,000 10,965,000 Total National Trails System operations funding.
===================================================
Challenge Cost Share........................ \2\ 6,980,000 \3\ 8,980,000 8,980,000 $5 M for Lewis & Clark; one-third of remaining $3.98 M for rest of National Trails System;
Interagency GIS Project..................... \4\ 1,000,000 ............... \5\ 1,253,000 Development of GIS for National Trails;
BLM
Iditarod Trail.............................. 330,000 160,000 410,000 Coordination and support for collaborative management with other Federal agencies, Iditarod
Trail organizations and State of Alaska; bridges and cabins;
El Camino Real.............................. 330,000 380,000 380,000 Collaborative administration and management with National Park Service;
Old Spanish................................. ............... 100,000 100,000 Collaborative administration and management with National Park Service;
Continental Divide.......................... 117,000 117,000 117,000 Marking 230 miles of CDT in Wyoming; Interagency management collaboration;
Pacific Crest............................... 190,000 90,000 90,000 PCT maintenance in California; Interagency management collaboration;
Juan Bautista de Anza....................... 80,000 80,000 80,000 Interpretive exhibits for Anza Trail at Painted Rock, Arizona;
California.................................. 136,000 151,000 151,000 California Trail resource inventories in Wyoming and California;
Lewis & Clark............................... 1,642,000 1,937,000 1,937,000 Lewis & Clark Bicentennial preparations in Idaho and Montana;
Mormon Pioneer.............................. 94,000 94,000 94,000 ...............................................................................................
Nez Perce................................... 33,000 33,000 33,000 Lewis & Clark Bicentennial preparations in Idaho and Montana;
Oregon...................................... 124,000 184,000 184,000 Interagency management collaboration;
Pony Express................................ 70,000 95,000 95,000 Archaeology at Little Sandy and Dry Sandy Pony Express Stations, Wyoming and marking 120 miles
of Pony Express Trail in Nevada;
---------------------------------------------------
National Trails System................ 3,146,000 3,421,000 3,671,000 Total National Trails System operations funding.
===================================================
Iditarod Trail.............................. ............... ............... 385,000 Feasibility study for Iditarod Trail Interpretive/visitor Center;
El Camino Real.............................. 172,000 ............... ............... Developing Comprehensive Management Plan with Park Service;
Construction of:
California Trail Interpretive Center--NV 1,000,000 ............... 1,000,000 Continued funding for construction of California National Historic Trail interpretive center in
Elko, Nevada;
Pacific Crest Trail..................... 100,000 ............... 100,000 Annual maintenance of sections of the Pacific Crest Trail on BLM land.
FOREST SERVICE
Continental Divide.......................... 655,000 ............... 1,350,000 Continued support for full administrative responsibility and leadership for consistent
interagency collaboration for each trail; support for consistent management with trail
organization and local agency partners; trail brochures, signs, project planning etc.; Also
$1,050,140 to plan 383 new miles of CDT; $200,000 to support work of full-time Trail
administrator and $100,000 for Optimal Location Planning for PCT and $70,000 to increase Trail
maintenance by volunteers coordinated by PCTA; $750,000 to continue collaborative work with
Florida Trail Association to inventory 500 miles of the Florida Trail and continue development
of Trail GIS;
Florida..................................... 556,000 ............... 750,000
Pacific Crest............................... 735,000 ............... 620,000
Nez Perce Trails............................ 536,000 ............... 350,000
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................. \6\ 2,482,000 1,000,000 3,070,000
===================================================
Appalachian, North Country, Ice Age, 746,000 350,000 750,000 Improved trail maintenance, marking, interpretation, archaeological studies, historic site
Iditarod , California, Juan Bautista de protection and trailhead facilities for trail segments in National Forests; $200,000 to
Anza, Lewis & Clark, Oregon, Mormon address deferred maintenance, make improvements and provide liaison for collaborative
Pioneer, Overmountain Victory, Pony management of the North Country Trail with National Park Service;
Express, Santa Fe, Trail of Tears.
Continental Divide Trail.................... 994,000 ............... 1,000,000 Trail construction projects along the Continental Divide Trail: 90 miles of new trail, 24 miles
of trail reconstruction and 7 new Trailheads;
Florida Trail............................... 497,000 ............... 500,000 Trail construction projects in Eglin Air Force Base, Ocala National Forest, Big Cypress
National Preserve and along the Choctawahatchee River;
Pacific Crest Trail......................... ............... ............... 865,000 Trail construction projects along the Pacific Crest Trail, including reconstruction of fire and
storm damaged bridges and structures in California and Washington; Fabrication and
installation of roadside interpretive signs at Trail highway crossings;
---------------------------------------------------
National Trails System................ 4,719,000 1,350,000 6,185,000 Total: National Trails System funding.
===================================================
Nat. Forest System Trail Maintenance........ 36,664,000 ............... ............... Trail maintenance throughout the National Forest System.
Nat. Forest System Trail Construction....... 33,015,000 ............... ............... New trail construction and trail re-construction throughout the National Forest System.
Nat. Forest System Capital Improvement & 69,679,000 ............... 100,000,000 Trail maintenance and new trail construction throughout the National Forest System.
Maintenance-- Trails.
LWCF FOR TRAILS
LWCF grant--FS Pacific Crest................ 3,000,000 ............... 5,000,000 USDA-Forest Service acquisition of lands in southern California, Oregon and southern Washington
to preserve the scenic integrity of the Pacific Crest Trail.
LWCF grant--FS Florida...................... 3,000,000 ............... 5,000,000 USDA-Forest Service acquisition of lands to protect 62 miles of threatened Florida Trail
corridor and connect trail segments across private land between National Forests, St. Marks
Wildlife Refuge & Eglin Air Base and in central Florida.
LWCF grant--FS Appalachian.................. 7,600,000 ............... 8,300,000 The total supports three USDA-Forest Service acquisition projects in the Georgia Mountains,
Tennessee Mountains, and Virginia Mountains. Of that total, about $3 million would acquire
Appalachian Trail-related tracts; the balance would acquire other significant inholdings
within the affected forests.
LWCF grant Ice Age--Wisconsin \7\........... 2,000,000 ............... 4,000,000 Assistance provided to State of Wisconsin to protect threatened Ice Age Trail corridor and
connect trail segments across private land in Dane, Chippewa, Columbia, Marathon, Polk,
Portage, Walworth, Washington, Waupaca and Waushara Counties. NPS will purchase one
interpretive site for the Ice Age Trail.
LWCF grant--NPS North Country--WI, MI \8\... ............... ............... 1,500,000 Assistance provided to States of Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio to acquire critical links in the
North Country Trail;
LWCF grant--BLM Pacific Crest............... ............... ............... 1,000,000 BLM acquisition of land along the Pacific Crest Trail in California.
LWCF grant--BLM Oregon...................... ............... 2,000,000 2,000,000 BLM acquisition of land along the Sandy River and the Snake River Rim in Oregon.
LWCF grant--BLM Juan Bautista de Anza....... 800,000 500,000 500,000 BLM acquisition of land at Sears Point Area of Critical Concern along the Juan Bautista de Anza
Trail in Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 16,400,000 2,500,000 27,300,000 ...............................................................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $261,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail.
\2\ Includes $5 million earmarked for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects. One-third of the remaining funds (about $664,000 of $1.987 million) are earmarked for National Trails System
projects.
\3\ Administration request does not allocate any funds for the National Trails System. The Congressional earmark is needed to accomplish this.
\4\ Congress tells NPS to report on progress of GIS development and future funding needed by January 31, 2001 and to request increased GIS funding for fiscal year 2002.
\5\ Funding request reflects budget detailed in Park Service GIS report delivered to Congress in January 2002.
\6\ Appropriation includes: $2.5 million for administration of the Continental Divide, Florida, and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, funding for
full-time administrators for each trail and land acquisition teams for the Florida and Pacific Crest Trails.
\7\ This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1.
\8\ These would be grants to the States of Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio to be matched at least 1:1.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
This statement is to share with the Subcommittee the views of the
National Recreation and Park Association on fiscal year 2004
appropriations for selected programs within its jurisdiction. We
appreciate the opportunity to comment on programs administered
principally by the National Park Service.
We recommend the following:
--Not less than $200,000,000 from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund for state assistance, and additional funds to meet the
highest land conservation priorities of eligible federal land
systems. Funds should be allocated to the states as authorized
by current law.
--$50,000,000 to address the most distressed urban recreation
resource conditions and deficiencies identified and aided
through the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program.
--Sufficient funds to enable the National Park Service, through
Federal Lands to Parks, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation (RTC)
and other programs to collaborate with state and local
recreation and park agencies and others on such matters as
conservation and use of excess surplus federal real property
and rivers and trails.
--Sufficient funds to support sustainable public recreation use of
national forests, parks, refuges, and public lands.
These recommendations, if enacted, will help address the national
imperative to improve physical and mental health, sustain the
environment, and stimulate economic growth.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE ASSISTANCE
We commend the Subcommittee's actions to build and sustain fiscal
partnerships with state and local recreation and park authorities. We
share with many legislators and advocates the disappointment that the
fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations act ultimately resulted in a
reduction of some $80 million in LWCF state assistance and the urban
park programs. Our request for fiscal year 2004 equals the
Administration's LWCF state assistance request for fiscal year 2003--
$200,000,000--absent restrictions that would have been imposed by the
``Cooperative Conservation Initiative.''
We also commend the President for his commitment to appropriations
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. However, we urge the
Administration in future budgets to more accurately affect actual
public needs and the basic authority of the LWCF act.
Recent (2000-2002) requests for LWCF assistance exceed $3.26
billion, according to applications submitted to state officials. This,
we believe, is a very conservative estimate of need. In general,
project priorities reflect a nationwide demand to increase the
recreation capacity of public systems.
We remain deeply concerned that the Administration's budget
proposes access to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for a number of
programs not presently authorized to do so. The LWCF act, while broad
in its application and diversity of projects, is very specific in its
policy objectives--provision of recreational opportunities to improve
public health and conservation of lands and waters for public
recreation. If the Subcommittee in its wisdom accepts the
Administration's interpretation of LWCF authority, then it should
specifically stipulate that state and local public recreation and park
entities are fully eligible to access these programs, and that assisted
resources be publicly accessible for appropriate forms of recreation.
Non-federal recreation and park resources are fundamentally
essential to quality recreation experiences for all people.
Collectively, these systems--with strong citizen support and executive
and management expertise--provide the majority of public recreation
destinations, services, and visitor experiences. While diverse and
widespread, until all people have appropriate access to recreation and
parks our collective missions will remain unfinished. Beyond our fiscal
year 2004 recommendation, we urge the Subcommittee to move quickly
toward annual full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM
The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program recognizes the
recreation values associated with conservation of the built
environment. We believe these values are of no less importance than
conservation of other recreation spaces and places of high ecological
and aesthetic value. Demand for Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Program assistance remains high. This interest is reflected in both the
number of requests for assistance and the quality and objectives of
projects. While no fiscal year 2003 funds were appropriated, the record
of interest expressed in previous fiscal years is revealing. For
example, in fiscal year 2000 ($2 million available) only 14 projects
were selected for assistance. In fiscal year 2001 187 local
jurisdictions applied ($28.8 million available), and 95 projects were
selected. Nearly 200 communities requested 2002 funds, and only 71 were
assisted with available funds. UPARR projects emphasize the national
importance of bringing quality recreation resources and services to
children and youth in more economically distressed cities and
neighborhoods. Our request for increased investment is based in part on
the ultimate loss of $30 million included in the fiscal year 2003
House-passed bill.
Despite a degree of fiscal stress impacting many state and local
governments as a direct or indirect result of terrorist activities,
``homeland security'' costs, or economic conditions there is no
information that suggests that our recommended LWCF assistance minimum
of $200 million and $50 million for urban parks will not be fully
utilized within allowable time frames.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program
We recommend $15,000,000 for the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation
Assistance Program administered by the National Park Service. This
amount is based in part on emerging interest in partnerships and
resource conservation strategies that often result in less than fee
title actions. The RTCA program illustrates the critical importance and
federal contribution to public/private partnerships for conservation of
natural and cultural resources, and public access for recreation. The
program provides technical assistance to local governments, citizen and
community organizations, and state agencies to consider recreation and
conservation strategies. The results include restoration of rivers,
planning and development of trails, conservation of open space and
greenways, among other types of projects.
Our proposed funding will allow the NPS RTCA program to assign
staff resources to initiatives in each state. It will leverage
additional funds and bring projects to completion earlier than might
otherwise be possible. Our request also recognizes that requests for
assistance outpace program capacity by about 4 to 1. That is, the
National Park Service annually receives about 400 requests for
assistance, but presently has the capacity to start about 100. Early
federal technical support is critical to the long-term success of
local, often citizen-driven initiatives. NPS anticipated that its
involvement will be relatively short term--1 to 2 years--and it does
not measure its contribution to a project until at least 5 years after
providing technical assistance. This ``delayed evaluation'' approach
enables NPS to more effectively assess the outcomes arising from early
organization and technical support. We urge the Subcommittee to resist
so called ``hard earmarks'' and instead rely on the relative quality of
proposals and conservation priorities to determine support.
Federal Lands to Parks Program
We recommend an appropriation of at least $1 million to support the
Federal Lands to Parks program administered by the National Park
Service. Our recommendation will address what we believe to be a long-
standing budget shortfall relative to program demands. The FLP program
is an exemplary partnership. It guides and assists in the conversion of
surplus federal properties to state and local governments for public
recreation and park use. Unfortunately, the program was downsized in
the early 1980s, and funding has remained essentially flat.
Concurrently, property potentially available for state and local parks
and demand for federal assistance has increased beyond the capacity of
program staff. A large part of this demand is the result of the closure
of military bases between 1988 and 1995. In fiscal year 2002, FLP
program staff assisted in the transfer of twenty-four properties valued
at nearly $30 million. Today, there is a backlog of some sixty pending
transfers, mostly resulting from the closure of military installations.
Local and state park systems are critical to the American people
and others who work and reside among us. With sufficient funds, more
recreation resources could become accessible. These resources address
the diverse public interests and our collective need for quality
recreation and associated services for children of working parents.
They host programs that serve millions of nutritious breakfasts,
lunches, snacks, and suppers to needy children, and help reduce crime
and delinquency, especially after school hours. Public recreation and
park mangers and sites recognize that at any given time perhaps 50
million people have a disability, and attempt to accommodate their
desire for recreation.
State and local agencies contribute importantly to plant and
wildlife diversity. Nationwide, over 5,000 local park systems, for
example, contain about 9 million acres. Hundreds of local systems have
more than 5,000 acres, with many systems in excess of 15,000 acres. An
estimated 80 to 85 percent of larger systems are typically undeveloped
and thus contribute to an array of conservation outcomes. Larger
systems also provide opportunities for environmental awareness and
experiential education.
The National Recreation and Park Association appreciates the
opportunity to comment. NRPA public policy director, Barry Tindall
(202-887-0290) is available to provide additional perspectives and to
respond to questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
My purpose in presenting this testimony is to support the State Side of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), and to respectfully
request an appropriation of $160 Million for fiscal year 2004. In
addition, I ask that you support the Urban Parks and Recreational
Recovery Program (UPARR), and I would resectfully request that this
program be restored, and funded in the amount of $50 Million for fiscal
year 2004.
As you know, your predecessors in Congress conceived a simple, but
powerfully effective idea in 1964: a pay-as-you-go program that takes a
small portion of the fees generated from oil & gas drilling on the
Outer Continental Shelf, the portion designated for state side funding
that is to support the creation, development, and enhancement of a wide
variety of community parks and recreational resources.
Those bodies promised the American people that, where on the one
hand we are generating billions of dollars in revenue by the depletion
of one non-renewable resource, we would invest in the environment by
dedicating a small portion of those funds to the acquisition,
preservation and development of recreational resources in states and
communities across America.
It is a program that works. From 1965 to 1995, NYS Parks, as
administrator for LWCF, directed 58 percent of the NYS allocation of
some $200 million to Municipal Park acquisition and development
projects, (33 percent to cities, 5 percent to counties, 14.5 to towns,
4.5 percent to villages). Since its inception, this program has
resulted in over 1,100 projects undertaken throughout New York State,
and LWCF projects exist in virtually every county in the state. These
projects have built and illuminated baseball and soccer fields, hiking
trails and camping facilities, and provided for open spaces for our
youth, adults and seniors.
Not all of our citizens realize that the State side of LWCF touches
the lives of every one of our residents and constituents.
Because grants may not exceed 50 percent of the total project
costs, the program is enormously successful in leveraging these federal
dollars, literally allowing communities to create parks and
recreational opportunities where none would otherwise exist. These
projects are so important because they provide close-to-home
opportunities for Americans to exercise, recreate, and simply get
outdoors and play with their children, and the development of
recreational facilities creates jobs.
From 1994 through 1999 stateside LWCF received no funding, and the
entire program simply disappeared. As a result of widespread support
from all around the country, stateside LWCF was restored by the 106th
Congress for fiscal year 2000, with an appropriation of $40 Million.
Funding gradually increased through fiscal year 2002, until the program
suffered substantial cuts in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Budget
Resolution.
As Commissioner for the New York State Agency responsible for the
administration of the program, I can report that since the year 2000
alone, approximately 60 projects have been funded throughout the state,
from eastern Long Island to the Niagara Frontier, to New York City, and
north to the Thousand Islands. These include 30 municipal projects in
22 counties, and 26 state park projects in communities throughout every
region of New York State. We have taken great care to balance our use
of these funds so that they benefit all residents of our state. I thank
the members of this committee for that support, and for keeping the
vision behind LWCF alive.
However, I must also report that even in fiscal year 2002, the best
year for LWCF funding thus far in my tenure, there were some 170
project applications that could not be funded, representing some $30
million in unmet needs. Precisely because this program reaches all
Americans where we live, the demand for recreational facilities close
to home continues to grow, and I must ask, on behalf of your
constituents, that you prevent the deterioration of one of the most
successful and cost-effective domestic programs at this critical time.
For fiscal year 2004 please support the state side LWCF by
providing the $160 million appropriation to this program that is
contained in the Administration's budget request, thereby preserving
the effectiveness of this program for this generation of Americans, who
were no less the recipients of the promise made by your predecessors
than their forbears.
The funding source for this program, fees generated from
exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf remains intact. The
financial commitment necessary to keep state side LWCF intact is a
small percentage of those fees realized. And yet, the cost in lost
opportunities will be great indeed, if this Congress fails to preserve
the program at the $160 million figure.
The other program that I would like to add my support to today is
the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, or UPARR.
UPARR is another program that seeks to improve recreational
facilities in neighborhoods throughout the country, with a special
focus on underserved communities. Similarly effective by the use of
leveraged matching grants, this program helps urban communities
rehabilitate existing but deteriorating facilities. This program will
suffer greatly this year by an elimination of funding. I strongly urge
you to restore this program by providing $50 million in funding for
fiscal year 2004.
By preserving these two complimentary programs, we can live up to
the promises made, and the commitment to our communities, our families,
our neighborhoods, and our children. Thank you for the opportunity to
present my views as New York State Parks Commissioner on a program that
I know works for New Yorkers, and for all Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of Preservation Action
Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2003, funding for Historic
Preservation Fund has been cut by 28 percent with the overall
appropriation dropping from $94 million to just $67 million. President
Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget proposes level funding for the program.
Preservation Action and its national membership of citizens dedicated
to historic preservation in their communities, respectfully requests
that funding be restored to the Historic Preservation Fund. We request
$50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices; $10 million for
Tribal Historic Preservation Offices; $30 million for Save America's
Treasures Grants; and $10 million to assist states to complete and
digitize their historic site surveys--totaling $100 million.
The national historic preservation program is unique among federal
initiatives because it does not rely on acquisition or federal
intervention to achieve its objective: to discover, celebrate and
protect America's rich architectural heritage. Rather, it gives
property owners and local citizens the tools they need to restore and
protect heritage resources for the benefit of the entire community. In
effect, the National Historic Preservation Act creates an extremely
effective partnership between the federal government, States, Tribes
and local governments as a way to deliver these tools to citizens,
property owners and developers. This partnership is underwritten by the
Historic Preservation Fund and matched by the State Historic
Preservation Officers, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and
Certified Local Governments. We ask that the federal government not
renege on its part of the bargain by under funding its financial
commitment to this important program.
DISCOVER
The number one priority of the national historic preservation
program at its inception was to survey and document the immensely rich
architectural and archaeological resources across this nation, from the
smallest town to the largest city. The survey was intended to serve as
the basis of federal, state, tribal, and local protection efforts. It
was also envisioned as a way to expedite the 106 review process,
mandated by federal law. Under funding has dramatically reduced the
number and scope of survey work. Indeed, most states have been forced
to turn their attention to ``demand'' responsibilities at the expense
of survey work. Lack of adequate surveys actually costs process. If
Congress had provided sufficient funding for the Historic Preservation
Fund over the past 15 years, historic site inventories would be
complete. Federal agency planners could access historic site
information including descriptions and photographs from the Internet on
their desktop computers and proceed with project planning in an
atmosphere of knowledge and forethought. Increased funding can help
States complete their survey work to the benefit of their historic
resources and federal agency planners.
CELEBRATE
Importantly, survey and subsequent nomination and listing on the
National Register were intended to offer a way to celebrate and promote
a community's heritage resources boosting pride, stimulating economic
investment and inviting heritage tourism. Unfortunately, it is
estimated that cuts to State Historic Preservation Offices between 2001
and 2003 have already reduced annual National Register nominations by
some 15,000 properties. That means that hundreds of communities are
unable to take advantage of restoration grants, commercial
rehabilitation tax credits, and heritage tourism plans that could help
them save and sustain their historic resources.
PROTECT
From our perspective, there is no component of the program that
better illustrates the power of the federal-State partnership than the
Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. This tax incentive program
leveraged more than $3.27 billion in private investment for historic
resources in 2002 and created 13,886 housing units, 5,673 of them for
low to moderate income individuals. On the ground these numbers
translate into comfortable high-quality places for people of average
means to live. They mean that boarded up and vacant buildings are
restored and re-opened as viable business enterprises and are put back
on the tax rolls for the benefit of the entire community. They mean
that the federal government, working with its partners, quadrupled its
investment, put people to work, and repaired the fabric of our
neighborhoods. The tax act program carries out the spirit of the
National Historic Preservation Act in concrete ways.
For this program to work, owners and developers must be able to
turn to State Historic Preservation Officers for National Register
nominations, for advice on project design and for timely review and
certification. Unfortunately, State Offices have been forced to cut
back on staff, slowing tax act reviews and seriously curtailing their
ability to partner with developers to save historic resources.
Similarly, when the Historic Preservation Fund appropriation
allows, State Offices offer grants to help restore National Register
properties. These grants are often the catalyst for additional public
and private investment. When restoration grants are not available,
historic buildings are allowed to deteriorate. For the first time since
the 1970's increased funding in fiscal year 2001 allowed substantial
disbursement of restoration grants, it also gave State Offices the
opportunity to invest in long overdue infrastructure improvements
(e.g., geographic information system upgrades). These investments
totaled nearly $11 million in fiscal year 2001. However, the cuts in
fiscal year 2002 reduced that investment to an estimated $3 million and
with the cuts in 2003 many states simply were unable to extend
restoration and project grants leaving untold thousands of projects
without the seed money they need to ensure there success.
CONCLUSION
We are a nation at war, facing a new and uncertain era. Our
citizens are turning to their neighborhoods, town centers and heritage
resources as a source of comfort. In small towns and big, rural, urban
and suburban areas, our history--embodied in the built environment--
gives context and meaning to the American experience. We must find a
way, even in difficult fiscal times, to discover, celebrate and protect
our heritage and to build a thriving future that does not compromise
our historic resources. Now, more than ever, historic preservation, as
defined and guided by the National Historic Preservation Act, must be
an integral part of how we do business in all our communities. This can
not happen without adequate funding for the Historic Preservation Fund.
Please approve funding for the Historic Preservation Fund at $100
million for fiscal year 2004.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geological
Institute's perspective on fiscal year 2004 appropriations for
geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The
president's budget requests significant cuts in the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS). If enacted, these reductions would hamper the Survey's
ability to carry out its important missions to ensure adequate natural
resources, monitor environmental conditions and reduce the nation's
vulnerability to natural hazards. Specifically, we ask the subcommittee
to restore funds to the USGS Mineral Resources, Advanced National
Seismic System, National Cooperative Geologic Mapping, and Toxic
Substances Hydrology programs. In addition, the president's request
would decimate the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy oil
and natural gas research programs, and we ask for restoration of those
to their fiscal year 2002 levels.
Geoscience activities are also found in a number of other agencies
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We ask the subcommittee to
provide adequate funds for geoscience activities in the Minerals
Management Service (MMS) Environmental Studies Program, the National
Park Service Geologic Resources Division and the U.S. Forest Service
Minerals and Geology Management Program, and to fully fund scientific
research programs at the Smithsonian Institution. MMS does important
work in energy resource assessment and collection of geoscience data.
Geoscience programs within the land management agencies provide a
scientific basis for land-use decisions, a role that they share with
the USGS. The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History plays a
dual role in communicating the excitement of the geosciences and
enhancing knowledge through research and preservation of geoscience
collections.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 40 geoscientific and professional
associations that represent more than 100,000 geologists,
geophysicists, and other earth scientists. The institute serves as a
voice for shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in
strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase public
awareness of the vital role that the geosciences play in society's use
of resources and interaction with the environment.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
For the third year in a row, the USGS faces substantial cuts in the
administration's request. AGI thanks the subcommittee for its record of
restoring cuts and recognizing the Survey's broad value to the nation.
This year, we urge the subcommittee to not only put back funds cut in
the president's request but also to provide enough additional support
to stop the ongoing erosion of the Survey's ability to carry out its
programs due to the rising costs of doing business. Uncontrollable
expenses, such as cost-of-living increases for salaries, should not cut
into the funds available to fulfill the agency's mission.
AGI has recently signed on as a charter member of the USGS
Coalition, a newly formed alliance of organizations united by a
commitment to the continued vitality of the unique combination of
biological, geological, hydrological and mapping programs of the U.S.
Geological Survey. The Coalition supports increased federal investment
in USGS programs that underpin responsible natural resource
stewardship, improve resilience to natural and human-induced hazards,
and contribute to the long-term health, security and prosperity of the
nation.
Virtually every American citizen and every federal, state, and
local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from USGS products
and services. As was made clear by the recent National Research Council
report Future Roles and Opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey,
the USGS's value to the nation goes well beyond the Department of the
Interior's stewardship mission for public lands. USGS information and
expertise address a wide range of important problems facing this
nation: earthquakes and floods, global environmental change, water
availability, waste disposal, and availability of energy and mineral
resources. Some of the most important activities of the Survey serve
the entire nation and often are most applicable to those non-federal
lands where the nation's citizens reside. At the same time, AGI
recognizes that the Survey does have a responsibility to provide
scientific support for its sister land management agencies at Interior,
an important mission that needs to be well executed if land management
decisions are to be made with the best available scientific
information. It is imperative that both these missions be recognized
and valued within the Department and the White House. AGI asks the
subcommittee to continue its efforts to help the administration better
understand the Survey's value to the nation as a whole
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program.--AGI urges the
subcommittee to reject the administration's requested cuts to the
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and to fund this
important program at the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. This
important partnership between the USGS, state geological surveys, and
universities provides the nation with fundamental data for addressing
natural hazard mitigation, environmental remediation, land-use
planning, and resource development.
Mineral Resources Program.--This highly regarded research program
is the nation's premier credible source for regional, national and
global mineral resource and mineral environmental assessments,
statistics and research critical for sound economic, mineral-supply,
land-use and environmental analysis, planning and decision making. AGI
urges the subcommittee to reject the administration's requested cuts to
this program and to fund it at the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level.
If additional funds are available to grow this program, we ask the
subcommittee to consider the Mineral Education and Research initiative
that would establish an external grant program to support university-
based applied mineral deposits research and training in mineral
resource issues. Such a program has been recommended by the National
Research Council as a means of improving cooperation between the
minerals industry, universities and government, and of arresting the
decline in geoscience faculty research expertise in minerals geology.
Advanced National Seismic System.--A key role for the USGS is
providing the research, monitoring, and assessment that are critically
needed to better prepare for and respond to natural hazards. When a
massive quake struck Alaska in December, a major economic and
environmental disaster was averted because the Trans Alaska Pipeline
System did not rupture where it crossed the fault. The pipeline's
resilience, despite the 14 feet of ground movement, was due to
stringent design specifications based on USGS geologic studies three
decades ago. To ensure future successes in hazard identification and
mitigation, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 1999
called for a significant federal investment in expansion and
modernization of existing seismic networks and for development of
ANSS--a nationwide network of shaking measurement systems centered on
urban areas. ANSS can provide real-time earthquake information to
emergency responders as well as building and ground shaking data for
engineers and scientists seeking to understand earthquake processes.
AGI urges the subcommittee to reject the administration's requested
cuts to this program and to fund it at the fiscal year 2003
appropriated level. If additional funds are available, this program
should grow toward its authorized levels of $35 million.
Hydrology Programs.--Although the administration has abandoned its
fiscal year 2003 proposal to transfer the Toxic Substances Hydrology
program to the National Science Foundation, it is still requesting a
significant cut. The Toxics program supports targeted, long-term
research on water resource contamination in both surface and
groundwater environments. Such problem-specific research in this area
is highly appropriate for USGS. The president's request also calls for
the termination of the Water Resources Research Institutes. AGI
strongly encourages the subcommittee to oppose these reductions and to
fully support these programs. AGI is pleased that the administration
has requested full funding for the National Water Quality Assessment
and National Streamflow Information programs, both of which make
important contributions to the nation.
Homeland Security.--Another troubling aspect of the president's
request that is not apparent from the budget documents is the lack of
funding for the USGS activities in support of homeland security and the
war on terrorism overseas. All four disciplines within the Survey have
made and continue to make significant contributions to these efforts,
but the fiscal year 2004 request does not provide any direct funding.
Instead, those costs must be absorbed in addition to the proposed cuts.
AGI encourages the subcommittee to recognize the Survey's important
role in homeland security and ensure adequate support for its newfound
responsibilities.
DOE FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AGI is very concerned by the significant reductions in the
President's budget request to the Oil Technology R&D and Natural Gas
R&D programs. The proposed 65 percent cut to oil research and 43
percent to natural gas research would decimate these programs. The cuts
to upstream exploration and production research are even more drastic,
reaching 96 percent in the case of upstream oil research. The research
dollars spent by these programs go largely to universities, state
geological surveys and research consortia to address critical issues
like enhanced recovery from known fields and unconventional sources
that are the future of natural gas supply. This money does not go into
corporate coffers, but it helps American businesses stay in business by
giving them a technological edge over their foreign competitors. AGI
strongly encourages the subcommittee to restore these funds and bring
these programs back to at least fiscal year 2002 levels.
Research funded by DOE leads to new technologies that improve the
efficiency and productivity of the domestic energy industry. Continued
research on fossil energy is critical to America's future and should be
a key component of any national energy strategy. The societal benefits
of fossil energy R&D extend to such areas as economic and national
security, job creation, capital investment, and reduction of the trade
deficit. The nation will remain dependent on petroleum as its principal
transportation fuel for the foreseeable future and natural gas is
growing in importance. It is critical that domestic production not be
allowed to prematurely decline at a time when tremendous advances are
being made in improving the technology with which these resources are
extracted. The recent spike in both oil and natural gas prices is a
reminder of the need to retain a vibrant domestic industry in the face
of uncertain sources overseas. Technological advances are key to
maintaining our resource base and ensuring this country's future energy
security.
The federal investment in energy R&D is particularly important when
it comes to longer-range research with broad benefits. In today's
competitive markets, the private sector focuses dwindling research
dollars on shorter-term results in highly applied areas such as
technical services. In this context, DOE's support of fossil energy
research is very significant both in magnitude and impact compared to
that done in the private sector. Without it, we risk losing our
technological edge with this global commodity.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
This venerable institution was established for ``the increase and
diffusion of knowledge.'' Those dual charges require that the
Smithsonian not only welcome visitors to its museums but also produce
new knowledge through scientific research. Earlier this year, a
specially appointed science commission released a report outlining the
role of research within the Smithsonian. The report noted that funding
erosion has placed the institution's world-class research facilities
and researchers in poor financial standing. The National Research
Council has released a report with similar findings. The message,
however, does not appear to have had a significant impact on the
president's fiscal year 2004 request, which calls for a 6 percent cut
in research funding. AGI asks the subcommittee to embrace the findings
of these reports and build up Smithsonian research.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
The national parks are very important to the geoscience community
as unique national treasures that showcase the geologic splendor of our
country and offer unparalleled opportunities for both geoscientific
research and education of our fellow citizens. The National Park
Services's Geologic Resources Division was established in 1995 to
provide park managers with geologic expertise. Working in conjunction
with USGS and other partners, the division helps ensure that
geoscientists are becoming part of an integrated approach to science-
based resource management in parks. AGI asks the subcommittee to fully
support the president's requested increase for the Natural Resources
Challenge. AGI would like to see additional support for the Volunteer
in the Park program and its associated partnerships as well as
additional geological staff positions to adequately address the
geologic resources in the national parks.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee. If you would like any additional information for the
record, please contact me at 703-379-2480, ext. 228 voice, 703-379-7563
fax, [email protected], or 4220 King Street, Alexandria VA 22302-
1502.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science organization in the world, comprised of more than 40,000
members, appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on
the fiscal year 2004 budget of $896 million for the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS). The ASM represents scientists who work in academic,
medical, governmental and industrial institutions worldwide and are
involved in research to improve human health and the environment.
The USGS is a world leader in the natural sciences and serves the
nation by furthering our understanding of the Earth and its ecosystems.
Through the management of water, biological, energy, and mineral
resources, USGS research is providing novel solutions to pressing
issues in the geological, hydrological, geographical, and biological
processes. USGS's ability to carry out large scale, multi-disciplinary
studies on a national scale are critical to advancing this knowledge.
Through its long-term monitoring and assessment programs of the
nation's natural resources, the USGS provides the impartial science
that federal, state and local governments need in order to respond to
changing environmental conditions.
The USGS's environmental monitoring capabilities also make it the
lead science provider for accessing information and facts necessary for
resolving complex natural science problems across the nation and around
the world. For instance, the USGS is collaborating with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
in order to better understand the west Nile Virus (WNV) and its effects
on humans and animals. This type of collaboration relies on USGS's
unique, nation-spanning monitoring systems that allow the USGS to track
and evaluate disease-causing vectors in an effort to protect human and
animal health. The USGS is also co-sponsoring with the National
Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation research on
the ecological changes that affect infectious diseases such as
biodiversity loss, habitat transformation, environmental contamination,
and climate change. This type of research can only be accomplished with
USGS's extensive environmental monitoring data and its expertise in
analyzing complex environmental phenomena.
The ASM is concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request
proposes cuts that will severely restrict the USGS's ability to provide
scientific support for the Department of Interior and other agency
research needs. The proposed cuts result in a decrease of $30 million
for the USGS, or 3 percent, to $895 million for fiscal year 2004.
Within the USGS budget, the Biological Resources Division (BRD) is
essentially level funded at $168 million; the Water Resources Division
is cut by 5 percent to $200 million and the Geologic Division is cut by
5 percent to $222 million. The ASM would like to submit the following
comments and recommendations for adequate funding levels for research
in the Water Resources Division and the BRD for fiscal year 2004.
NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Since 1991, USGS scientists with the National Water-Quality
Assessment Program (NAWQA) have been collecting and analyzing data and
information on more than 50 major river basins and aquifers across the
nation. Its efforts focus on long-term, independent water quality
research that is otherwise unavailable. NWQAP is made-up of 42 sites
nationwide, which provide quantitative information on: (1) long-term
trends in concentrations of nutrients, pesticides, and sediment that
enter the water system; (2) regional source areas of contaminants; and
(3) the effects of population and land use on the concentrations of
contaminants. Through NWQAP, the USGS is able to leverage its nation-
spanning environmental monitoring facilities to provide local
government, resource managers and industry the means to protect
drinking water and water ecosystems. NWQAP other partners for
responding to local, state, regional, and national efforts to protect,
improve, and manage water resources.
The Administration's budget proposes a $64 million budget for the
NWQAP, a 10 percent increase over fiscal year 2003, but level with
fiscal year 2002.--This level of funding will allow the program to
continue microbial sampling initiatives, which were singled out by the
National Academy of Science-National Research Council's (NRC) Water
Science and Technology Board (1999) as a priority.
The ASM applauds USGS's leadership in addressing existing and
future water quality needs through multidisciplinary research teams.
The ASM urges Congress to support this critical program that plays such
an important role in public health and safeguarding our water supply
from unexpected biological hazards.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES HYDROLOGY PROGRAM
The ASM is pleased to see the Administration has supported this
program in its fiscal year 2004 budget proposal.--The ASM recommends
that Congress meet or exceed the Administration's funding of $11
million. The Toxics program is a major resource in the nation's effort
to identify harmful pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic
wastewater contaminates in the water system. The ASM supports the focus
and mission of this program and its efforts to combat increasing levels
of toxic substances and water-borne pathogens in our drinking water
supplies.
The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program (Toxics) is conducting long-
term research to improve our understanding of the behavior of
contaminants in the nation's ground and surface waters. The Toxics
program is also an essential partner in the water-quality monitoring
and assessment programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other DOI
agencies. In 2004, the program will focus on identifying new
contaminants (e.g., hormones, animal-based pharmaceuticals), and
developing the analytical methods needed to protect the integrity of
our water resources, one of the most important issues of the 21st
century. For instance, the Toxics program is involved in research to
identify the factors that control where and when mercury accumulates to
toxic levels in the food chain. This research is an important component
in restoration efforts of the Florida Everglades ecosystem.
STATE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE PROGRAM
The ASM requests that Congress continue to fund this program
despite the Administration's plan to eliminate it in fiscal year 2004.
The funding level for the program in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year
2003 was $6 million. Therefore, the ASM highly recommends that the
Subcommittee allocate the necessary funds (at least $6 million) to
maintain program viability. The Water Resources Research Act of 1984
established the State Water Resources Research Institute Program
(SWRRIP) to coordinate State and federal research on water quality and
water supply problems. This program is also one of the federal
government's principal mechanisms for training the next-generation of
water scientists and engineers. For example, in 2002, the program
requested funding (USGS and University of Arizona scientists) to
examine the impact of agricultural chemicals as a major non-point
source of arsenic, by monitoring the microbial processes and
microorganisms responsible for the conversions of arsenic compounds.
Such water quality research is essential if the toxicity of
agriculturally based arsenic is to be determined and plans for
amelioration developed.
WILDLIFE DISEASE INITIATIVE
The Wildlife Disease Initiative (WDI) is currently an unfunded
program within the BRD. The USGS anticipates the cost of the program in
its first year, which would be fiscal year 2004, to be $10 million. The
ASM supports this level of funding for the WDI. The WDI would focus
research on the recent emergence of major diseases affecting wildlife,
such as, the West Nile virus (WNV), Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD),
bovine Tuberculosis (TB), and the potential introduction of Foot and
Mouth Disease (FMD). While several of these diseases (TB, CWD, and FMD)
can have a devastating effect on domestic animals, their potential
impact upon human health is less understood. However, it should be
noted that the agent of bovine Tuberculosis can cause TB in humans. The
WDI would allow the USGS to assist the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in bridging this
knowledge gap. Such a partnership would provide the critical wildlife
expertise necessary for studying the effects of these emerging diseases
on wildlife; improve our understanding of wildlife's role as
reservoirs; and improve our ability to prevent and control outbreaks.
No other agency has the capabilities or expertise to address
disease detection, control and prevention in wildlife. Therefore, the
ASM fully supports an integrative, inter-agency program that combines
animal and human health as elements of public health. Furthermore, the
ASM urges the Subcommittee to consider the importance of tracking and
responding to wildlife diseases, such as, WNV that can move freely
between animal host and humans.
CONCLUSION
Interactions between the environment, its biota and people are
highly complex and solutions require integrative, multidisciplinary
approaches and an adequately funded and staffed USGS. The ASM
encourages Congress to maintain its commitment to U.S. Geological
Survey research programs, which are vital to continued discovery of
geological, hydrological, geographical, and biological processes that
are so important to the well being of the environment and protecting
public health.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ground Water Protection Council
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
name is Tom Richmond and I am a member of the Board of Directors of the
Ground Water Protection Council and the Administrator of the Montana
Board of Oil & Gas Conservation. This agency is responsible for the
environmental safeguards related to oil and gas exploration and
production, including the re-injection of produced salt water into
geologic formations below underground source of drinking water. This
Underground Injection Control (UIC) program assures the safety of our
underground water supplies. My testimony today is submitted on behalf
of the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC).
The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) is responsible for the
development and operation of the nationally acclaimed Risk Based Data
Management System (RBDMS) system. GWPC has received DOE's Energy 100
Award for RBDMS. This recognizes RBDMS as one of the top 100 of all DOE
projects. Research indicates that agencies with data management systems
that provide access to oil and gas data experienced a conservative
estimated increase of 10 percent for new developments as a result of
the much improved data access. The GWPC is made up of state oil and gas
agencies, as well as, those that regulate ground water and other
underground injection control programs. Through the GWPC, the states
are all working together to protect ground water resources while
holding down the cost of environmental compliance.
We would like to thank the Committee for the previous support of
approximately $950,000 in the fiscal year 2003 budget. The funding has
given the states the opportunity to develop additional software and
management tools that enables states to make decisions that result in
the best possible balance of exploration and environmental
considerations. We, in turn share that information with the public and
companies we regulate, many of which are small businesses that would
not otherwise have the ability to access such accurate information. We
ask for continued support and assistance to state oil & gas agencies
and the independent oil & gas industry with continued funding of the
Risk Base Data Management Systems (RBDMS) and urge the Committee to
hold the funding for RBDMS at the same level ($950,000) for fiscal year
2004 so we can continue to expand the system to every oil and gas
producing state. The system is currently operational in Alaska,
Montana, Nebraska, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, New York,
Pennsylvania, Utah, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas,
Florida, Kansas, as well as the Osage Tribe in Oklahoma. In 03 we are
installing RBDMS in Nevada and California and we are beginning the
process in Oklahoma and Louisiana. Additional funding would allow each
remaining state to initiate the program as well. This funding will be
used to enhance the current capabilities of RBDMS to make it accessible
to both the public, local governmental agencies and the companies
through the Internet. We are learning that electronic commerce mutually
saves time and money for both the oil and gas industry and the
regulatory agencies. On-line permitting and reporting is cost effective
and saves industry time and money. One California operator estimated
that an automated permitting system for new drills and reworks could
increase production from one of its larger oil and gas fields by
500,000 barrels per year. Therefore, any delay in issuing a permit
caused by the inefficiencies of manual processes and analyses can have
a significant impact on production. This funding will provide the
smaller independent oil producers access to this environmental data
management system. Smaller producers are often the most in need of such
a system because high regulatory costs hit them the hardest.
I want to stress that states are dedicating their own financial
resources to RBDMS. For example Ohio, is using almost $600,000 in state
capital improvement and $400,000 of operations funding to implement
RBDMS. Every state currently using the system has also contributed to
building the system and I know all additional states are planning on
using state dollars as well as federal funds. But what the remaining
states need is a relatively small amount of start-up assistance after
which time they have shown they are willing to begin applying their own
resources. State match for federal funding exceeds 100 percent. We are
more than doubling the investment of federal dollars we receive.
With past assistance from the U.S. Department of Energy, the GWPC
assembled a project team with extensive knowledge and experience in
state oil and gas agency environmental data management to develop
RBDMS, the only comprehensive, fully relational, PC-based oil & gas
regulatory data management system in the country. By allowing the oil
and gas industry to participate in the next phase of development of the
system, we will assure that it will be useful and effective for them.
Continued funding at $950,000, the fiscal year 2004 level, will be
mutually beneficial to the private sector and the states by keeping
environmental compliance costs down.
RBDMS is one of the best examples we have seen of how the states,
working with the private sector, can improve both industry production
and environmental protection at the same time. Included with my
testimony within the ``RBDMS Annual Report'' are endorsement letters of
RBDMS as an alternative to costly command and control regulatory
policies. It is supported by both the regulated community and the
regulators themselves. Continuing to fund the states in this manner
allows us to tailor our regulatory program needs to the industry which
operate in our respective states. There is no federal alternative, or
``one size fits all'' national approach that would work as efficiently
as this cooperative multi-State effort.
In summary, the funding we are requesting will provide a means for
the successful expansion of the Risk Based Data Management System and
will provide the following benefits: (1) improve environmental
protection, (2) less regulatory and compliance costs for producers, (3)
better state enforcement of environmental regulations, (4) increased
exploration activity by small and independent operators and (5)
increased oil and gas production. The remainder of my testimony
provides a more detailed explanation of how we have used prior funds
and how we would use the requested increase. Due to its length, the
GWPC will submit it independently in the form of an ``RBDMS Annual
Report''.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DISCIPLINE, USGS
Since fiscal year 1994, the base level of funding for BRD has
lagged more than $30 million behind the rate of inflation, to say
nothing about the inability of BRD to realize substantial increases in
program funding to meet the basic research needs of the natural
resources community. The President's proposed fiscal year 2004 budget
continues to reflect an emphasis on meeting needs identified by
Department of the Interior land management bureaus, while biological
research needs for the remainder of the land area in the United States,
including that managed by the States, remains largely ignored.
The Association is disappointed that the biology component of the
fiscal year 2004 USGS budget request reflects a 1.2 percent reduction
from the fiscal year 2003 enacted. This reduction is due primarily to
the lack of continued funding for several Congressional Add-ons, most
of which are intended to provide critical, timely information to
improve natural resource management in the United States. We recommend
that Congress continue to fund the following projects in the BRD budget
for fiscal year 2004: Amphibians Research and Monitoring ($500,000),
Ballast Water Research ($499,000), Mark Twain National Forest Mining
Study ($750,000), Yukon River Chum Salmon ($180,000), Molecular Biology
Studies ($400,000), Pallid Sturgeon Study ($500,000), Diamondback
Terrapin Study ($100,000), Atlantic Salmon ($50,000), DNA Bear Sampling
in Montana ($1 million), Multidisc Water Resources--Leetown ($300,000),
Additional Work at Lake Tahoe ($500,000), Great Lakes Vessel Operations
($120,000), Two Additional Researchers--GLSC ($180,000), Genetic
Research at Wellsboro Lab ($500,000), and Cherokee National Forest
Inventory and Monitoring ($300,000). These projects are of particular
importance to State fish and wildlife agencies in providing necessary
information to address these local, regional and national needs.
Of particular concern in the fiscal year 2004 BRD budget request is
the reduction of support for continuation of the long-term Fire Science
initiative. These fire ecology studies represent collaborative efforts
with the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Bureau of
Land Management. These studies are intended to enhance our
understanding of the effects of fire, subsequent recovery of the
landscape, and improve our ability to manage burned landscapes. It is
the intent of USGS to rely on the Interagency Fire Science Fund for
continuation of this work. We do not believe this represents an
effective approach for long-term funding, as these funds must be
negotiated annually. Long term studies need stable and predictable
funding. The Association recommends that $2.8 million be restored by
Congress for this effort.
BRD is proposing to absorb approximately $1.9 million of $3.4
million in uncontrollable costs in the fiscal year 2004 budget. This
reduction will result in significant losses in operational funds. The
Association recommends that Congress provide $1.9 million of additional
funds to fully fund uncontrollable costs in BRD.
The Association is also concerned that BRD is disproportionably
allocating information technology (IT) reductions. It is vital that
these reductions be implemented in a manner that best preserves all
programs' viability. The Association recommends that the proposed IT
reductions be spread equitably among all BRD programs.
The Association applauds the Administration, DOI, and USGS for
their recognition of the value and growing importance of the Gap
Analysis Program and the National Biological Information Infrastructure
(NBII) and supports the $1 million increase in funding requests for
fiscal year 2004 for the latter. However, we also support Congressional
direction in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill to BRD to
further refine the objectives for NBII and clearly define a strategy
for achieving those objectives. As we have stated in the past, these
two programs are good examples of the results that may be derived from
placing an emphasis on partnerships with States and others, as long as
those partnerships are meaningful.
The Association has long supported GAP's inclusion of, and reliance
on, State agencies for GAP projects, and looks forward to the expansion
of States' roles in Aquatic GAP. The Association is nearing the
conclusion of its second year of close partnership with the NBII, and
has seen, with gratification, the growing number of States that are
beginning to reap the benefits of this liaison. Examples include sage
grouse conservation/sagebrush habitat, chronic wasting disease, West
Nile virus, and Internet access to Breeding Bird survey data. The
Association seeks to expand the relationship of the States with the
NBII Program, and recommends Congress increase the fiscal year 2004
budget for NBII by $2 million to support a pilot project designed to
fund States' data management needs through a grants award process to be
administered by the Association. Furthermore, the Association
recommends Congress increase NBII's fiscal year 2004 budget by an
additional $500,000 to fund the Northern Rockies Node at a level of
$500,000 (a $350,000 increase over what is proposed) and the Pacific
Northwest Node at a level of $350,000 (an increase of $150,000 over
what is proposed). The Association supports the proposed expansion of
the California Node and the proposed initiation of the Mid-Atlantic
Node in the fiscal year 2004 budget request, but also strongly believes
existing nodes must be adequately funded. Such is the case with the
Northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest nodes where demands far outstrip
the modest funding levels currently in place. This disparity should be
addressed in this budget cycle, in advance of other nodes scheduled for
initiation next year and beyond.
The Association applauds Congress' past efforts at fully funding
the Cooperative Research Units, thereby allowing Unit productivity to
rise to record levels. Since that was first achieved in fiscal year
2001--at $14 million--there has been some erosion of available fiscal
resources for the Units, principally due to uncontrollable costs. These
have been disproportionately high since 90 percent of the budget for
the Units is salaries. This first surfaced in the fiscal year 2002
enacted budget when the Units were $400,000 short. Because of the high
proportion of personnel costs, the burden was high, yet the budget
remained flat at $14 million. In the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget,
the Units were funded at $14.9 million. The President's proposed fiscal
year 2003 budget had actually left the budget flat, but funds were
added in markup as follows: $400,000 for operating costs for the new
Nebraska Cooperative research unit and $500,000 for uncontrollable
costs--although the $400,000 uncontrollable shortfall from fiscal year
2002 still remains. In the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request,
the Units would be funded flat, based on the President's fiscal year
2003 request. This means there would be no money for the Nebraska
Cooperative research Unit to operate in 2004, and there would be a
$600,000 shortfall in uncontrollables. Because of the flat budget, this
would mean a net uncontrollable cost shortfall for three consecutive
years. In short, the impact on the other Units would be significant.
To maintain full funding for the Cooperative Research Units, the
Association recommends Congress increase the fiscal year 2004 budget by
$1 million over the fiscal year 2003 enacted--to $15.9 million--in
order to maintain the new Nebraska Unit that Congress established in
fiscal year 2003, plus again cover uncontrollable costs as Congress did
in fiscal year 2003 enacted.
Three states have fisheries units only and 12 states have neither
fisheries nor wildlife units. Most states have expressed an interest in
entering into a partnership between the BRD, a State University and the
state fish and wildlife agency to bring one or both Cooperative
Research Units to their state. The Association is pleased that the
fiscal year 2003 Appropriations language directs BRD ``to develop a
priority system for expanding the current program.'' The Association
looks forward to participating in this strategic planning process and
we urge Congress to approve budget requests in subsequent years based
on this undertaking.
The Association strongly supports BRD's proposal to fund the
aquaculture chemical and drug registration effort. The continuation of
this cooperative project between BRD, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the state fish and
wildlife agencies is critically important to assure that approved,
effective and safe treatment measures are available to private, state
and federal aquaculture programs. Great progress has been made in
registration of drugs and chemicals for the treatment and prevention of
diseases in important aquaculture species but additional work remains
to increase and expand the treatment options that are available to
aquaculture managers. BRD is uniquely qualified for its leadership role
in this project and we recommend that Congress express its support for
BRD's continued participation in this cooperative effort.
A significant problem still exists with brucellosis, a disease that
affects domestic livestock and other animals, and is present in elk and
bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area, located within the states of
Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. The BRD has a key responsibility, working
with other agencies, to help resolve this issue, with the goal of
eliminating the disease from the region by 2010. Both the National Park
Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have contributed to a
brucellosis research program conducted and partially funded by BRD to
improve the vaccination program for brucellosis in elk and bison. These
commitments have been on an ``ability to pay'' basis. The Association
recommends that in addition to BRD's own $500,000 programmed for
ongoing brucellosis studies, the other USDI agencies cooperating in
this research be required to specifically identify the amount intended
for this purpose in their respective budgets, and then transfer that
amount to BRD's budget to allow the Division to meet its
responsibilities in resolving this issue. The Association strongly
supports this research endeavor, but encourages ongoing communications
and cooperation with the involved States.
Emerging disease issues, such as West Nile virus, chronic wasting
disease, foot-and-mouth disease, avian vacuolar myelinopathy, and
whirling disease represent significant threats to fish and wildlife.
The Association strongly recommends that Congress direct BRD to enhance
its ability to assist state fish and wildlife management agencies in
dealing with disease issues by increasing by an additional $500,000 the
funding of the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC). Further, the
Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS) provides vital
diagnostic services to the States and is the principal coordinating
entity between the State fish and wildlife agencies and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture with respect to epizootics that can affect
both domestic animals and wildlife. The funding of SCWDS has been
static since 1987 at $250,000 (minus $18,500 in administrative fees
paid to NWHC). Inflationary erosion has reduced the purchasing power of
the SCWDS appropriation to approximately 25 percent of its value at
inception in 1963 and an ever-expanding workload due to emerging
disease issues threatens to compromise the ability of SCWDS to continue
to provide all its state and federal supporters with the level of
service they have come to expect. The Association strongly recommends
that an additional $150,000 be appropriated to BRD for SCWDS to bring
the total to $400,000. The Association further strongly encourages BRD
to request incremental increases in future years in their budget
request to enable adequate funding of SCWDS. Additionally, the
Association recommends that BRD increase consultation and cooperation
with other wildlife resource, land management, agriculture, and human
health agencies to control diseases that threaten the health of the
Nation's wildlife.
The BRD was created to serve as the primary research arm for USDI
bureaus. This research function was solidified with the transfer of the
Cooperative Research Units from the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service to
BRD. However, the creation of, and continued expansion of, natural
resources research activities in the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies
Units (CESU) within the National Park Service has led to duplication of
efforts, confusion amongst cooperators, and significant expenditures of
limited resources. Because Congress intended that BRD be the research
arm of the USDI, the Association recommends Congress direct the
Secretary of the Department of the Interior to clearly and explicitly
identify the need for CESUs and articulate the distinction between
these entities. It is the Association's conclusion that, unless such a
distinction can be clearly articulated and the need clearly identified,
Congress should ultimately transfer the funding for NPS' CESUs to BRD
and have BRD assume the CESU's ecological research function.
The Association strongly supports BRD's requested funding increase
of $1 million to expand research on chronic wasting disease, a
progressively degenerative and ultimately fatal disease in deer and
elk; the $500,000 increase in amphibians research; and $4 million
increase to expand invasive species research and begin developing a
prototype model for a national early detection network for invasive
species in U.S. terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. At the same time,
however, the Association urges BRD and Congress not to diminish funding
directed at ongoing research needs that may not, at present, be
garnering the kind of public attention as those targeted here, but for
which there remain many unanswered questions and the consequences of
not continuing the research in earnest has dire consequences.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Council on Water Policy
The Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP), a national
organization representing state, local and interstate water resource
agencies, would like to take this opportunity to comment on the
Administration's proposed budget for the U.S. Geological Survey in
Federal fiscal year 2004.
ICWP is pleased to see that, in contrast to the past two years when
USGS water data collection programs faced severe cuts, the President's
2004 budget proposes to at least maintain stable funding for the U.S.
Geological Survey's Cooperative Water Program and National Streamflow
Information Program (NSIP). Stream-gaging has been the hallmark
function of the USGS for over a century. Water management involving
water supply, water quality protection, flood control and recreation
all require information on the flow condition of streams throughout the
United States. While the President's budget does hold the funding of
these programs steady, it does not keep up with the anticipated four
percent increase in costs typically seen annually in the stream-gaging
program. Therefore, loss of gages across the country is an inevitable
result of this budget.
ICWP has made the long-term stability and security of the nation's
stream-gaging program a priority concern. In 2001, ICWP convened four
regional workshops across the nation to discuss a national network of
stream gages, the purposes for such gages and the financial
responsibility of this network. Concurrently, USGS was implementing the
first stages of its National Streamflow Information Program to deal
with the erosion of national gage coverage in recent years. The ICWP
workshops also provided a forum for critiquing USGS's NSIP program.
This critique and recommendations for a national stream-gaging network
are contained in an ICWP report from February 2002, which is enclosed.
One of the basic tenets of building the national network of stream
gages has been the need to shore up the Cooperative Water Program. This
Co-op program matches state and local funds with a match from the USGS.
The program supports two main functions, data collection, such as
stream-gaging, and interpretive studies. Originally, the match between
non-federal cooperators and the USGS was 50:50. Over time, increased
requests by cooperators for USGS services, coupled with stagnant
federal funding has altered the proportion of funding within the Co-op
Program, such that, in 2002, there was $65 million of unmatched
cooperator funds supporting projects and gages. While there is
substantial support for the USGS to continue its NSIP initiative to
stabilize the national network of gages, there is an overwhelming need
by cooperators to see USGS rebuild its level of commitment to the
Cooperative Water Program and the gages supported by that program.
Based on the findings of the ICWP regarding stream-gaging in the
country, we would request Congress increase the federal investment in
gages managed and maintained under the NSIP and the Cooperative Water
Programs. To that end, ICWP requests Congress increase the
Administration's proposed 2004 USGS budget to add $2 million for NSIP
and $2 million to the Cooperative Water Program, earmarked specifically
for supporting stream gages with state and local cooperators. While
there are a number of other programs of USGS that deal with hydrologic
monitoring, assessment and research, ICWP believes that the paramount
concern of state and local water managers is the acquisition of
streamflow data. Without the provision of basic data from the nation's
rivers and streams, all other water resource information has marginal
utility. Increased funding over current levels for the NSIP and
Cooperative Water Program remains our first priority, and we believe it
should be the priority of the federal government as well.
As a side note, ICWP has become aware of Draft Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-76, which effectively limits state and local
governments' use of USGS expertise, unless they can demonstrate the
absence of a private sector vendor who can perform the same service. We
believe this limitation applies to both interpretive studies and basic
data collection. Given the over $65 million in unmatched funds directed
toward USGS through its Cooperative Water Program, it is small wonder
that the private sector would seek to re-direct those resources to
engineering and consulting firms. While there may be some opportunity
to utilize other investigators for interpretive analysis, ICWP believes
that the basic USGS data collection responsibilities should be immune
from this type of institutional approach. The value of having USGS,
rather than the private sector, collect water data is significant. It
ensures quality control by an impartial party, a factor that is often
critical in potentially controversial water allocation decisions or
litigation. We encourage your committee to examine the intent and
effect of the OMB Circular on acquisition of water resource
information.
ICWP recognizes ongoing budget struggles aggravated by the
hostilities in Iraq and need for Homeland Security, however, we would
observe that providing water supplies to communities and industries,
warning citizens to stay out of harm's way during flooding events and
protecting the nation's waters from the continual threat of pollution
are intrinsic to Homeland Security. Those functions of water management
must have reliable information upon which to act, thus increased
investment in acquiring that hydrologic intelligence is a reasonable
and prudent act on the part of the federal government.
ICWP appreciates your consideration of these remarks. Please feel
free to contact me at 785-296-6170 or ICWP Executive Director Susan
Gilson at 202-218-4133 to continue this discussion.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mineral Policy Center
On behalf of the Mineral Policy Center and its members around the
country, we appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on three key
hardrock minerals-related issues in the Interior Appropriations bill
that are vital to the public interest.
First, we urge the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to
provide full funding for United States Geological Survey (USGS), and in
particular, the Mineral Resources Program. Unfortunately, the
Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request would cut funding to
an unacceptable level for both of these programs. The President's
fiscal year 2004 budget request for the USGS is $895.5 million, a
decrease of $24 million or 2.6 percent relative to the fiscal year 2003
enacted level of $919.3 million. The Mineral Resources Program would
suffer even further--the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request is
$43.4 million, a decrease of $12.4 million or 22.2 percent from the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $55.8 million. Such cuts would make
it extremely difficult for the USGS to produce the same quality and
quantity of information that it has in the past, with the result that
the public's awareness of such information would also decline. It is
critical that the USGS be fully funded, with adequate levels for the
Mineral Resources program to research and produce national and
international information products.
The USGS and the Mineral Resources Program collect, analyze and
provide data that is of vital use to the public and to public interest
groups. For example, the Western Region Mineral Resources Project works
to assess the mineral resources and mineral related environmental
problems of the western region of the United States, focusing on
impacts to the environment and public health; sustainability and
societal need; the economy and public policy; and more. Other programs,
such as the Minerals Information Team, provide key data on the domestic
and international supply and demand for minerals via the Minerals
Yearbook and Mineral Commodity Summaries. Because of the often
devastating impacts that hardrock mining in the United States and
internationally can have on communities, water supplies, habitat and
other crucial natural resources, not to mention taxpayers and local
economies, such information is invaluable to for the public.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Mineral
Resources Program. As identified by the National Academy of Sciences
and others, those charged with administering U.S. minerals resources--
the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service--inadequately
document and/or publicize their mineral management activities and the
consequences of mineral activity under their management. If it weren't
for the USGS Mineral Resources Program, the public would know little
about mineral activity in the United States.
Additionally, the international aspect of the Mineral Resources
Program must not be overlooked--many hardrock mining companies are
active both here and abroad, and many are also foreign-owned. Data on
mining overseas can directly impact the situation on the ground here.
The USGS and its programs are the only source of minerals
information that is both readily available and affordable to ordinary
citizens and public interest groups. As such, this remains one of the
only ways that public interest groups and concerned members of the
public can check on the accuracy of information disseminated by the
hardrock mining industry itself.
In addition to full funding for the USGS, Mineral Policy Center
highly supports the retention in the Interior Appropriations bill
placing a moratorium on any new patent applications under the general
mining laws. This provision has been reinstated every year since 1994
and represents sound public policy. Prior to the enactment of this
moratorium, mining companies acting under the 1872 Mining Law purchased
public land equal in size to the state of Connecticut, containing
minerals worth more than $245 billion. In 1994, the Canadian company
Barrick Resources purchased the Goldstrike Mine in Nevada, which is
worth $10 billion, for about $9,765--literally a millionth of its
worth. Such a giveaway of public resources should never be allowed to
occur again.
Finally, we would like to praise the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee for its past efforts to keep many anti-environmental
riders out of the bill and urge that this bill be kept clean of any
such anti-environmental provisions this year.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Council for Science and the
Environment
SUMMARY
The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) urges
Congress to appropriate $959.7 million for the U.S. Geological Survey
in fiscal year 2004, an increase of 4.4 percent over the fiscal year
2003 enacted level of $919.3 million (Table 1). Our national interests
will be served if Congress provides adequate resources for the USGS to
fulfill its mission, including its critical role in homeland security.
NCSE supports increased federal investment in USGS programs that
underpin responsible natural resource stewardship, improve resilience
to natural and human-induced hazards, and contribute to the long-term
health, security, and prosperity of the nation. A 4.4 percent increase
in the USGS budget in fiscal year 2004 would provide new funding to
support the agency's responsibilities related to homeland security and
other priorities and support an adjustment that accounts for inflation
and uncontrollable costs.
NCSE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that has been working
since 1990 to improve the scientific basis for environmental
decisionmaking. Our work is endorsed by nearly 500 organizations,
ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the Sierra Club, including
the National Association of Attorneys General, National Association of
Counties, some 300 colleges and universities, and more than 80
scientific and professional societies. As a neutral science-based
organization, NCSE promotes science and its relationship with
decisionmaking but does not take positions on environmental issues
themselves.
The National Council for Science and the Environment thanks the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies for
the opportunity to provide testimony on the U.S. Geological Survey
budget request for fiscal year 2004.
FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN R&D
Federal investments in R&D and science education are essential to
the future well-being and prosperity of the nation and deserve the
highest priority of Congress. The long-term prosperity of the nation
and the maintenance of our quality of life depend on a steady and
growing commitment of federal resources to science and technology.
The U.S. Geological Survey is a critical component of the nation's
R&D portfolio. NCSE supports the continued vitality of the unique
combination of biological, geological, hydrological and mapping
programs of the U.S. Geological Survey. The USGS provides independent,
high-quality data, information, research support and assessments needed
by federal, state, local and tribal policymakers, resource and
emergency managers, engineers and planners, researchers and educators
and the public. NCSE supports increased federal investment in USGS
programs that underpin responsible natural resource stewardship,
improve resilience to natural and human-induced hazards, and contribute
to the long-term health, security and prosperity of the nation.
HOMELAND SECURITY AND THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
The USGS has tremendous strength in areas that are critical to
homeland security, such as protecting water resources and producing
digital maps that are needed for assessing terrorist threats and
responding to terrorist attacks. The significance of USGS research to
homeland security is reflected by the fact that its report on ``Source-
Area Characteristics of Large Public Surface-Water Supplies in the
Coterminous United States,'' has been withdrawn from approximately 300
federal depositories. FBI agents visited several libraries to ensure
that the document was truly removed from circulation.
After September 11, the USGS provided more than 100,000 topographic
maps as well as digital geospatial information and Landsat images to
emergency response, law enforcement, intelligence, and defense
agencies. The USGS has produced a set of 55,000 topographic maps that
provides the nation's only comprehensive coverage of the nation's
infrastructure, including highways, bridges, dams, power plants,
airports, railroads, and major buildings. The average age of the
topographic maps is 23 years. The USGS National Map program would bring
this asset into the 21st century. Accelerated investments in the
National Map--which involves partnerships with federal, state, and
local agencies and the private sector--will pay dividends to homeland
security, economic development, natural resource management, and many
other national needs.
Some of the proposed cuts in the USGS fiscal year 2004 budget
request are in areas related to homeland security, such as topographic
mapping and research on the dispersal of toxic substances in lakes,
streams, and aquifers. At a time when the federal government is
allocating tens of billions of dollars for homeland security, we urge
Congress to explore the role of the USGS in homeland security and
counterterrorism and to provide full funding for its responsibilities
in these critical areas.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
The National Council for Science and the Environment urges Congress
to appropriate $959.7 million for the U.S. Geological Survey in fiscal
year 2004, an increase of 4.4 percent over the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level of $919.3 million. Our national interests will be served if
Congress provides adequate resources for the USGS to fulfill its
mission. A 4.4 percent increase in the USGS budget in fiscal year 2004
would provide new funding to support the agency's responsibilities
related to homeland security and other priorities as well as an
adjustment that accounts for inflation and uncontrollable costs.
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget request would cut nearly
every line item in the USGS budget relative to the fiscal year 2003
enacted level (Table 1). The budget request would cut funding for
Biological Research by 0.6 percent, Geologic Hazards and Resources by
5.0 percent, Mapping, Remote Sensing and Geographic Investigations by
9.6 percent, and Water Resources by 3.4 percent. Total funding for the
USGS would decrease by $24 million or 2.6 percent.
The proposed cuts would have negative impacts related to homeland
security; natural hazards mitigation; water, energy, and mineral
resources; invasive species; the national spatial data infrastructure;
and other areas. For example, the Toxic Substances Hydrology program
would receive a disproportionate cut of 17.7 percent. USGS water
programs are essential for maintaining safe and secure water resources
for citizens of the United States.
NCSE greatly appreciates the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Interior and Related Agencies' sustained support for the U.S.
Geological Survey. We are especially grateful for the Subcommittee's
leadership in restoring past cuts in the USGS budget. Thank you very
much for your interest in improving the scientific basis for
environmental decisionmaking.
TABLE 1.--U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY APPROPRIATIONS
[Budget authority in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Authority Change from fiscal
--------------------------------- year 2003 enacted to
fiscal year 2004
USGS Activity/Subactivity Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal request
year year year 2004 ---------------------
actual enacted request Amount Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mapping, Remote Sensing, & Geog. Investigations.......... $133.1 $133.2 $120.5 -$12.7 -9.6
Cooperative Topographic Mapping...................... 81.0 81.1 74.1 -7.0 -8.6
Land Remote Sensing.................................. 35.8 35.7 34.0 -1.7 -4.7
Geographic Analysis and Monitoring................... 16.3 16.4 12.3 -4.0 -24.7
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes............... 232.6 233.2 221.6 -11.6 -5.0
Geologic Hazard Assessments.......................... 74.9 75.0 72.8 -2.2 -3.0
Geologic Landscape & Coastal Assessments............. 77.9 78.7 79.4 0.7 0.9
Geologic Resource Assessment......................... 79.7 79.5 69.4 -10.1 -12.7
Water Resources Investigations........................... 206.4 207.2 200.1 -7.1 -3.4
Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessm'ts & Research......... 136.1 136.8 135.6 -1.2 -0.9
Cooperative Water Program............................ 64.3 64.4 64.5 0.1 0.2
Water Resources Research Act Program................. 6.0 6.0 0.0 -6.0 -100.0
Biological Research...................................... 166.2 169.8 168.9 -0.9 -0.6
Biological Research and Monitoring................... 133.4 132.1 134.0 1.9 1.4
Biological Information Management & Delivery......... 18.9 22.8 20.7 -2.1 -9.2
Cooperative Research Units........................... 14.0 14.9 14.1 -0.8 -5.1
Science Support.......................................... 86.2 85.2 91.5 6.4 7.5
Facilities............................................... 89.4 90.8 92.9 2.2 2.4
------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 913.9 919.3 895.5 -23.8 -2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ``The Interior in Brief Fiscal Year 2004'' and USGS.
\1\ Included in the fiscal year 2002 Actual Column are: enacted funding ($914.0 million); Across-The-Board (ATB)
reduction (-$0.9 million); and transfer to Water for Cyprus Work ($0.8 million).
\2\ Included in the fiscal year 2003 Enacted column are: enacted funding ($925.3 million) and ATB reduction (-
$6.0 million)
______
Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources
I am Robert Ward, President of the National Institutes for Water
Resources and Director of the Colorado Water Resources Research
Institute at Colorado State University. My testimony requests the
Subcommittee to provide $8,775,000 to the U.S. Geological Survey for
the state water resources research institutes program.
First, I would like to thank you and this Subcommittee for the
strong support you have given to the state water resources research
institutes program in the past. You have recognized the importance of
local, state and federal government agencies cooperating with
universities to produce new the knowledge and understanding and also
well trained and educated water professionals who will design and
operate our increasingly sophisticated water systems in the future. In
addition, I want to acknowledge the leading role you and your
colleagues have played in efforts to ensure that the U.S. Geological
Survey provides the science needed to manage the nation's natural
resources.
As you know, Public Law 106-374, passed in 2000, reauthorizes
appropriations for The Water Resources Research Act through fiscal year
2005. In passing this reauthorization, Congress recognized that the
state water resources research institutes are meeting their mission
objectives as outlined in the Water Resources Research Act.
REQUEST
The National Institutes for Water Resources respectfully request
the addition of $8,775,000 in the U.S. Geological Survey's fiscal year
2004 budget for the state water resources research institutes program.
This recommendation is based on the following components:
--$7,000,000 in base grants for the water resources research
institutes as authorized by Section 104(b) of the Water
Resources Research Act, including state-based competitive
grants;
--$1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of
the Act, a national competitive grants program, and
--$275,000 for program administration.
This recommendation would provide a $125,000 base grant to support
the institutes that are located at land-grant universities in each of
the states, plus territories. Currently, this base grant is
approximately $84,000. In addition, it would provide for a modest
increase in the highly popular national competitive grants program.
JUSTIFICATION
Homeland security, drought, salinity control, TMDLs, and source
water protection are a few of the difficult water-related issues facing
communities across the U.S. today. Each issue has a scientific
foundation upon which local communities and state and federal agencies
base water management decisions. As our population grows and the
concern about environmental quality continues, unbiased knowledge and
insight are demanded to insure fair and equitable decision-making.
Furthermore, as new water-related problems emerge (such as those
surrounding forest fire cleanup in the West), gaps in the science that
underpins management decision-making are exposed. This, in turn, can
greatly complicate the decision-making process for not only water
managers, but also, in the case of the forest fires, forest managers.
The term ``sound science'' is often used to describe the sought after
knowledge and insight.
For more than 37 years the 54 state water resources research
institutes have served to link university scientists working in the
water quality and water quantity arenas with governments, business and
industry, and citizens in efforts to produce sound science to assist in
resolving difficult water issues at the local, state and national
levels. In addition, the water resources research institutes, in many
cases, are the means by which the search for new knowledge is joined,
in a collaborative manner, by local, state, federal and university
managers and scientists. The state water resources institutes represent
``sound science'', networked among levels of government and
universities.
The water resources research institute program is constantly
striving for efficiency in research administration and collaboration.
In cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey (which administers the
water resources research institute program), the water institutes are
developing and implementing modern electronic information technology to
manage their nationally networked water research programs. Proposals
for the national competition are submitted electronically, peer
reviewed electronically (by a list of scientists from across the United
States), and reported electronically. The water research management
system is now being employed by some of the state institutes to manage
state-based water research competitions. The resulting database of
current research plans and activities, as well as past results, are
increasingly being made readily available to the public and
professionals alike via the internet. Electronic administration of
water research assists in fostering research collaboration in ways not
dreamed of just 10 years ago. This is but one example of the value of a
national network of water institutes working together with local, state
and federal partners, particularly the U.S. Geological Survey.
State water resources research institutes take the relatively
modest amount of federal funding appropriated by this Subcommittee,
leverage it 2:1 with state matching funds and funding from other
sources, including local governments, and use it to put university
scientists to work finding solutions to the most pressing local and
state water problems that are of national importance. In fiscal year
2002, the institutes generated about $22.70 in support for each federal
dollar appropriated to them through this program and put three-quarters
of every dollar they received into research projects. The remainder
supports information transfer, training activities, etc. This program
does not provide any indirect costs to universities, unlike most
federal research programs. All of the funding goes to support the goals
set forth in the Water Resources Research Act.
Federal funding for the water resources research institute program
is therefore the catalyst that moves states to invest in university-
based research to address their own water management issues. The added
benefit is that often research to address state and local problems
helps solve problems that are of regional and national importance, as
well. Perhaps most important, the federal funding provides the driving
force of collaboration in water research and education among local,
state, federal and university water professionals.
How do water resources research institutes know they are working on
the most pressing water issues? Each institute brings together a local
advisory panel typically consisting of local, state, and federal agency
officials, representatives of business and industry, and representative
of non-governmental organizations. These panels identify the most
important water problems facing their states, establish priorities for
research, and rank proposals as to relevance.
The work of the water resources research institutes does not stop
with identifying needs and arranging for research to address the needs.
Once research is completed, institutes also see that the results are
transferred to federal, state, and local agencies and the general
public via publication of reports; newsletters; presentation of
seminars, workshops and conferences; maintenance of Internet sites, and
one-on-one contact with agency personnel. Many institutes collaborate
directly with Cooperative Extension in distributing water research
findings.
Institutes also help educate future water scientists. Quite often a
significant portion of a research grant goes to pay part of the stipend
of a master's or PhD student studying in such critical fields as
watershed hydrology, hydrogeology, aquatic ecology, toxicology,
sanitary engineering, and water resources engineering. In fiscal year
2002, institutes provided research support for more than 1,165
students. As you know, our scientific workforce is aging and a mass
exodus through retirements is expected in government, academia and
industry over the next decade. Supporting the education of new
scientists is a critical role of institutes that should be expanded.
In fiscal year 2002, water resources research institutes across the
nation funded 198 research projects from their base grants and 936
projects from additional research funds. Typically, institutes can fund
only one of every four or five proposals they receive in response to
solicitations based on their established priorities.
The state-based water research collaboration focus of the core
funding is complimented by a national water research competition
referred to as the national competitive grants program (or Section
104(g) grants). The national competitive grants program is administered
by USGS in collaboration with the National Institutes for Water
Resources. Priorities for this program are set jointly by USGS and the
institutes. This program received 75 proposals in fiscal year 2002 and
was able to fund only eight. Here again, regional and national research
needs are not being met. For instance, in much of the Southeast we are
suffering from a 3-year drought that some are now predicting to stretch
out another 7 years. There are many unanswered questions about the
effects of this drought not only on regional water supplies but also on
water quality and habitat. We should already be planning how to respond
to the potential for long-term drought, but there are many gaps in the
information base. An increase in the competitive grants funding could
catalyze additional research on regional problems such as effects of
drought in the same way that an increase in base grants would catalyze
research on local and state water resources problems.
There are many pressing needs for new knowledge in the water
resources area. For 37 years, the Water Resources Research Institute
program has been linking university scientists to government, business
and citizens to provide new knowledge and help solve problems. This is
a productive, useful, and valuable partnership that should be continued
and expanded.
Mr. Chairman, basing water quality and water quantity management on
sound science is worthy goal. But, we have to invest to produce sound
science. Congress must invest to catalyze states and states must invest
to address their own issues. You can rest assured that if you do your
part, the water resources research institutes will carry the challenge
to state and local governments, business and industry, foundations and
environmental groups to invest in sound science for water resources
management. The National Institutes for Water Resources respectfully
recommend this Subcommittee provide $8,775,000 to the USGS for the
state water resources research institutes program authorized by the
Water Resources Research Act. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Management Institute
The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is submitting these
comments regarding the fiscal year 2004 proposed budget for the U.S.
Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division (BRD). WMI is a
private, non-profit scientific and educational organization dedicated
to the conservation of wildlife through wise stewardship and management
of species and habitats. WMI consists of highly respected wildlife
professionals each with considerable experience with wildlife and
natural resources agencies prior to joining WMI. Our comments include
recommendations for the following increases over the Administration's
budget request: $1.4 million for Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Units; $1.9 million for uncontrollables; $2.8 million for the Fire
Science Initiative; $500,000 for the National Wildlife Health Center;
$150,000 for the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study; and
$3 million for the DOI Landscape Initiative.
The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRUs) are
fundamental to producing both the natural resources scientists needed
for the future and the science information needed by federal and state
land management agencies. In recent years, Congress has recognized the
need to support appropriations to fully staff the CRUs, and provided
consistent increases in funding to fill vacant positions. CRUs are
unique in that over 90 percent of their budget is for salaries.
However, OMB and Department of Interior budget guidance assumes that 50
percent of budgets are salaries. This discrepancy, added to the budget
guidance directing BRD to absorb more than half of the uncontrollables,
will result in significant shifts in costs just to cover salaries, and
will again jeopardize the ability of CRUs to fill vacancies. This is
exactly the situation Congress attempted to correct in the recent past
by adding additional funding to permit full staffing of the CRUs. In
addition, a new CRU was established in Nebraska in fiscal year 2003,
with $400,000 appropriated to fund that Unit. The dollars to fund that
Unit again in fiscal year 2004 are absent from the budget request. WMI
recommends that Congress add $900,000 to the CRU budget to provide the
$400,000 needed for continued funding of the new Nebraska CRU and an
additional $500,000 to fully cover the uncontrollables of CRUs and
correct the discrepancy between actual salary costs and those assumed
by OMB and DOI budget guidelines.
Three states have fisheries units only, and 12 states have neither
fisheries nor wildlife Units. Most states have expressed an interest in
entering into a partnership with BRD, a state university, the state
fish and wildlife agency, and the Wildlife Management Institute to
bring one or both CRUs to their state. An initiative is underway by
WMI, BRD, state fish and wildlife agencies and other stakeholders to
review the Research Unit program and to develop recommendations to
ensure that critical research needs are met in the future. We recommend
that Congress direct BRD to consider these recommendations and in
future years to develop appropriate budget requests consistent with
those recommendations.
Since fiscal year 1994, the base funding level for BRD has lagged
more than $30 million behind the rate of inflation, at a time when real
increases are needed to meet the basic research and information needs
of the natural resources community. We are especially concerned that
BRD is now being asked to absorb almost $1.9 million out of $3.4
million in uncontrollable costs. This will force significant reductions
in operational funds for critical programs. WMI recommends that
Congress fully fund uncontrollable costs by adding $1.9 million for
uncontrollables.
We are disappointed by the proposed reduction in support for the
long term Fire Science initiative. These fire ecology studies are
collaborative studies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management and are needed to enhance
understanding of the effects of fire and landscape recovery, and to
improve our ability to manage burned landscapes. WMI recommends that
$2.8 million be restored by Congress for this effort.
WMI strongly supports the proposed budget of $1.25 million for
studies of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) and the $4.05 million proposed
budget for studies of invasive species. Control of CWD is a major
concern to state and federal agencies and to sportsmen, and will
continue to be for some years. We are also concerned about the spread
of West Nile Virus (WNV) and its impacts on bird species throughout the
United States. WMI recommends that Congress fully fund the requested
$1.25 million for CWD and $4.05 million for invasive species, and we
further recommend that Congress add an additional $500,000 to the
funding of the National Wildlife Health Center and an additional
$150,000 to the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study to
conduct the research needed to cope with CWD, WNV, and other diseases.
WMI also is concerned about special research needs of other DOI
agencies, and BRD's ability to meet those needs. The Science on the DOI
Landscape initiative proposed budget includes $1.3 million for
biological research programs to meet regional priorities designated by
the DOI Bureaus. WMI recommends that Congress increase this research
support to $3 million for biological programs, and that Congress direct
that research should include sage grouse conservation needs, wildlife
impacts of energy exploration and development, and the population and
habitat surveys necessary to support waterfowl seasons and conservation
of other priority bird species.
Finally, I would just reiterate our concerns that the Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Units be fully funded and that 100 percent
of uncontrollable costs be included in that funding. These Units have a
lengthy history of partnerships and successes, and are vital to states
and others for providing answers needed for management of our nation's
fish and wildlife resources.
Thank you for considering our comments. We look forward to working
with you and your staff throughout the appropriations process. If you
or your staff would like to discuss our recommendations further, please
contact me or Terry Riley, Director of Conservation, at (202) 371-1808.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission
My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I am Executive Director of
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I appreciate the
opportunity to present this statement to the Subcommittee
regarding the views of the Compact's member states concerning
the fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the Office of Surface
Mining (OSM) within the U.S. Department of the Interior. In its
proposed budget, OSM is requesting $57.6 million to fund Title
V grants to states and Indian tribes for the implementation of
their regulatory programs and $126.5 million for state and
tribal Title IV abandoned mine land (AML) program grants. Our
statement will address both of these budgeted items.
The Compact is comprised of 20 states that together produce
some 60 percent of the Nation's coal as well as important
noncoal minerals. Participation in the Compact is gained
through the enactment of legislation by the member states
authorizing their entry into the Compact and they are
represented by their respective Governors who serve as
Commissioners. The Compact's purposes are to advance the
protection and restoration of land, water and other resources
affected by mining through the encouragement of programs in
each of the party states that will achieve comparable results
in protecting, conserving and improving the usefulness of
natural resources and to assist in achieving and maintaining an
efficient, productive and economically viable mining industry.
Over the past several years, the Commission has alerted the
Subcommittee to a potentially debilitating trend in Title V
grant funding. As you know, these grants support the
implementation of state regulatory programs under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as such are
essential to the full and effective operation of those
programs. Ever since fiscal year 1995, the appropriation for
these grants has either decreased or remained stagnant.
Following an encouraging increase by Congress in fiscal year
2001, OSM has failed to provide any increase for Title V grants
for fiscal year 2004, despite the states' projected need for
additional moneys to meet actual program expenses.
Each year, OSM requests and receives increases in its own
budget to meet ``uncontrollable costs'' (such as workers'
compensation, unemployment compensation, retirement costs and
pay rate increases) and ``fixed overhead costs''. In estimating
its projected program operating costs, the states face these
same annual increases, in addition to the costs associated with
the escalating cost of travel and replacement of equipment
(especially vehicles and computers). And yet, a trend has
emerged over recent federal fiscal years where states have
received no significant increases in the grants that are
intended to support their programs and address inflationary
concerns, with the notable exception of fiscal year 2001 when
the states received a much-needed and well justified $3 million
increase over OSM's proposed amount.
For fiscal year 2004, the states (and tribes) have
projected a need for $64.4 million for Title V grants based on
a new and improved budget forecasting methodology. This
represents a well-documented and well-justified increase of $3
million over our request of last year ($61.3 million) and yet
we are faced with an OSM proposal that does not provide for any
increase in funding for Title V grants in fiscal year 2004.
This is very discouraging and reflects either a lack of
appreciation for the states' Title V funding needs or a
misunderstanding of the Title V dilemma facing the states, and
ultimately, OSM.
It is essential that the states be made whole in fiscal
year 2004 and thus we are requesting Congress to appropriate
the full amount requested by the states and tribes of $64.4
million. If this does not occur, it likely will result in the
classic ``SMCRA Catch-22'' situation: where there is inadequate
funding to support state programs, some states will be faced
with either turning all or portions of their programs back to
OSM or, in other cases, will face lawsuits from environmental
groups for failing to fulfill mandatory duties in an effective
manner, not unlike the present situation in West Virginia and
what previously occurred in Kentucky and Oklahoma. Of course,
where a state does, in fact, turn all or part of its Title V
program over to OSM (or if OSM forces this issue based on an
OSM determination of ineffective state program implementation),
the state would be ineligible for Title IV funds to reclaim
abandoned mine lands. This would be the height of irony, since
the states have recently worked diligently to convince the
Interior Department, OMB and Congress about the need to
increase funding for state Title IV AML work.
OSM's own Budget Justification Document acknowledges the
likely outcome should states not receive adequate funding:
``Primacy States have the most direct and critical
responsibilities for conducting regulatory operations to
minimize the impact of coal extraction operations on people and
the environment. The States have the unique capabilities and
knowledge to regulate the lands within their borders. Providing
a 50 percent match of Federal funds to primacy States in the
form of Administration and Enforcement (A&E) Grants results in
the highest benefit and the lowest cost to the Federal
Government. If a State were to relinquish primacy, OSM would
have to hire sufficient numbers and types of Federal employees
to implement the program. The cost to the Federal Government
would be significantly higher.''----[OSM Budget Justification
Document, ``Environmental Protection,'' page 65.]
Some may argue that there are at least a handful of states
who either are unable to meet the 50 percent state match or are
unable to spend all of the federal funds allocated to them in a
particular grant year. This merely reflects the reality of the
significant fiscal challenges facing these states as they
attempt to balance record deficits with their desire and intent
to continue operating effective state regulatory programs.
Rather than focus on the occasional inability to match federal
dollars or the limited deobligation of year-end moneys, we
believe it is more critical to investigate the potential
mechanisms for assisting the states to meet their financial
requirements, either through increased overall grant funding
(as we propose) or through adjustments to the current funding
formula. This will become increasingly important as the federal
government is faced with the dilemma of either securing the
necessary funding for state programs or implementing those
programs (or portions thereof) themselves--at significantly
higher costs.
Suffice it to say that should our proposed increase not be
approved, one of the more distressing outcomes resulting from
inadequate Title V grant funding is that it will pit the states
and OSM against one another as they compete for limited funds.
Given the commitment of the states to their respective
regulatory programs, and their role as front-line regulatory
authorities under SMCRA, it is impossible for the states not to
urge full funding of their programs. We believe that there
should be a way for Congress to fund both OSM and the states,
thereby assuring that the mandates of SMCRA are met.
For years now, we have tried to impress upon OSM and your
Subcommittee the value and importance of the states' estimates
of program costs and the necessity of meeting the states'
funding needs. Under OSM's proposed fiscal year 2004 budget, it
will require all of the states' fiscal ingenuity and belt-
tightening efforts, together with some difficult trade-offs, to
manage our programs and resources in such a way that we can
achieve the same level of performance that has been expected
from us in the past. We are especially concerned about the
impacts of this funding crisis on OSM's evaluation of state
programs pursuant to federal oversight. How ironic it would be
for the states to receive something less than the high marks we
have consistently received from OSM due to insufficient grant
funding.
With regard to funding for state Title IV Abandoned Mine
Land (AML) program grants, OSM's proposed decrease of $17
million from last year's amount of $144 million for non-Clean
Streams/non-emergency state grants is very disheartening. In
recent years, OSM has been working with the states and Congress
toward full funding for the AML program, whereby the amount of
receipts paid into the Fund from reclamation fees by coal
operators each year is appropriated and then allocated to the
states and tribes to address the myriad problems remaining in
the AML inventory. Last year we saw the President's budget
propose a $17 million reduction for state AML grants, which
Congress ultimately (and thankfully) restored. This year, we
see a continued attempt to reverse the trend once again--
without justification or rational explanation. While we are
well aware of the Administration's efforts to reduce the
overall budget by some percentage in order to meet other
priorities related to Homeland Security and the War on
Terrorism, this is not the time or place to exercise such
reductions and back track on the promise to provide adequate
funding to the states to address AML problems.
As the states recently reiterated to Congressional staff,
OSM and OMB, significant progress has been made by the states
in remediating outstanding AML problems and sites. As of
September 30, 2002, the states have obligated 93 percent of all
funds received and $1.3 billion worth of priority 1 and 2
problems have been reclaimed. Another $319 million worth of
priority 3 problems have been funded or completed and $309
million worth of noncoal problems have been funded or
reclaimed. Of the $3.2 billion provided to the states in Title
IV grant moneys, $2.4 billion has been used for construction or
project costs and only an average of 15 percent of Title IV
moneys were spent on administrative costs. However, 45 percent
of priority 1 and 2 sites in the AML inventory remain to be
reclaimed and the cost of completing this reclamation now
approaches $6.6 billion. We would be pleased to present the
Subcommittee with more information and analysis regarding these
figures.
Suffice it to say that major AML problems remain to be
addressed and are only getting more expensive, and in some
cases more extensive, with the passage of time due to
inflation, deterioration of the sites and urban sprawl. The
health and safety of the public is also increasingly at risk.
It is absolutely critical to release additional moneys from the
AML Trust Fund now in order to allow the states to address
these problems today. The states are prepared to deliver the
expected benefits and services to our customers under the Title
IV AML program in a cost-effective and efficient manner and
welcome the new opportunities presented by increased AML
funding. In this regard, we are very encouraged by OSM's
statement of intent in its proposed budget to support extension
of the fee collection authority under Title IV of SMCRA, as
well as its intent to propose a mechanism whereby more receipts
from the Fund are targeted to abandoned mine reclamation, thus
increasing the pace of the overall reclamation program. This is
consistent with the position we have been advocating for the
past several years. We look forward to working with OSM, the
Congress and other affected parties to seek the expeditious
reauthorization of fee collection authority prior to the
expiration date of September 30, 2004. Please see the attached
resolution recently adopted by IMCC, which addresses AML
reauthorization.
In the meantime, we urge the Subcommittee to continue its
commitment to full funding for the AML program and to increase
OSM's budget by $37 million--a $20 million increase for state
Title IV (non-Clean Streams/non-emergency) grants over last
years's amount of $143 million, for a total of $163 million for
state/tribal grants in fiscal year 2004. This amount would
allow ``minimum program'' states to be funded at $2 million,
the authorized allocation level established by Congress for
these states in 1990, which we again urge the Subcommittee to
restore. Given the fact that receipts into the AML Fund this
year should average $285 million (exclusive of interest), we
believe the suggested increase is a modest and appropriate one,
and is clearly justified given the amount of AML work remaining
to be done.
We also urge the Subcommittee to support adequate funding
for OSM's training program, including moneys for state travel.
These programs are central to the effective implementation of
state regulatory programs as they provide necessary training
and continuing education for state agency personnel.
Additionally, the states are key players in OSM's training
program, providing instructors for many of the courses. IMCC
also urges the Subcommittee to support adequate funding for
TIPS and SOAP, two programs that directly benefit the states by
providing needed upgrades to computer software and hardware and
assistance to small operators in permit preparation.
Finally, IMCC requests continuing support for the Acid
Draining Technology Initiative (ADTI), a nationwide technology
development program with a guiding principle of building
consensus among Federal and State regulatory agencies,
universities and the coal industry to predict and remediate
acid drainage from active and inactive coal and metal mines.
This collaborative effort receives funding and other support
from industry and several federal agencies for specific
projects. OSM has provided ADTI $200,000 for the last three
fiscal years, which has been a consistent source of funding for
activities related to acid mine drainage from coal mines and
has been instrumental in accomplishing ADTI's goals. If each of
the Interior Department agencies involved (OSM, BLM, and USGS)
could commit $200,000 toward ADTI, together with other federal
agencies (such as EPA, DOE and the Corps of Engineers), about
$1 million would be available to support the work of this vital
initiative.
In conclusion, we want to reiterate that adequate Title V
grants are the lifeblood of effective state regulatory
programs. Should states be unable to operate these programs due
to funding constraints, the federal government will be faced
with the burden of operating regulatory programs at a
substantially increased cost (generally 30 to 50 percent more).
Further, without Title V programs in place, states are unable
to access Title IV funds. In the final analysis, it behooves
everyone--OSM, the Congress and the states--to commit the
resources necessary to assure strong and effective state
programs that will achieve the purposes and objectives of
SMCRA, thereby protecting the environment where active mining
operations occur and enhancing the environment through
remediation of past problems associated with abandoned mines.
------
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs
My name is Murray J. Balk, and I administer the State of Kansas'
Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Program as well as being this years'
President of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs
(Association). In my capacity as President of the Association, I would
like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit this
statement regarding the views of the Association concerning the U.S.
Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining's (OSM) fiscal year
2004 Budget Request to this subcommittee.
The Association is a 501(c)(6) tax exempt organization made up of
30 states and tribes, all with a history of coal mining and coal mine
related hazards. The states and tribes within the organization
administer Abandoned Mine Land Programs, funded and oversighted by OSM,
as provided for in Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87). The mission statement of
the Association is: (1) to provide a forum to address current issues,
discuss common problems, and share new technologies regarding the
reclamation of abandoned mine lands, (2) foster positive and productive
relationships between the states and tribes represented by the
Association and the federal government, (3) serve as an effective,
unified voice when presenting states'/tribes' common viewpoints, and
(4) coordinate, cooperate, and communicate with the Interstate Mining
Compact Commission, Western Interstate Energy Board, and all other
organizations dedicated to the wise use and restoration of our natural
resources.
The 30 Abandoned Mine Land Programs represented by the Association
have accomplished some very impressive reclamation which has remediated
serious hazards created by past coal mining. The states and tribes are
abating these hazards in a very cost effective and efficient manner.
Information presented to the Association by OSM indicates that the
states and tribes have obtained a 93 percent obligation rate as of
September 30, 2002. This is an outstanding number considering some of
the states and tribes do not begin their grant year until July 1, which
allows them only 3 months to get the funds encumbered.
This means that the states and tribes are utilizing the funding
provided by OSM in a very timely manner, and they have a number of
projects engineered, and ready to implement as soon as funding is
available. Besides having an outstanding obligation rate, the states
and tribes are doing a very good job of administering their programs by
keeping their administrative costs to a minimum. Of the $3.2 billion
given to the States and Tribes to conduct Title IV reclamation, only 15
percent of the these funds have been used to administer these AML
Programs. This indicates that the states and tribes are very successful
at running their programs without being top heavy in the area of
administration. With a 93 percent obligation rate and only 15 percent
of funds going to administration, it is apparent that the states and
tribes are quite capable of properly utilizing the funds given to them
through SMCRA.
What has been accomplished to date has made our country a safer
place, but due to the magnitude of the problems associated with past
coal mining, much more is needed. The following is a nationwide list as
of March 28, 2003, of Priority 1 and 2 inventory problems that still
need to be remediated including their cost:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem type Units \1\ Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clogged Streams (miles)........... 1,021 $59,016,880
Clogged Stream Lands (acres)...... 26,883 201,931,496
Dangerous Highwalls (feet)........ 4,335,947 665,168,960
Dangerous Impoundments (count).... 811 15,735,570
Dangerous Piles & Embankments 9,017 267,921,479
(acres)..........................
Dangerous Slides (acres).......... 4,649 69,089,199
Gases: Hazardous/Explosive (count) 86 2,775,001
Hazardous Equipment/Facilities 2,485 24,735,001
(count)..........................
Hazardous Water Body (count)...... 1,062 62,516,077
Industrial/Residential Waste 387 9,897,797
(acres)..........................
Portals (count)................... 8,925 29,697,601
Polluted Water: Agricultural/ 567 99,611,275
Industrial (count)...............
Polluted Water: Human Consumption 4,798 3,718,081,865
(count)..........................
Subsidence (acres)................ 9,040 484,626,549
Surface Burning (acres)........... 475 19,909,448
Underground Mine Fires (acres).... 4,198 857,501,301
Vertical Openings (count)......... 7,306 47,619,380
------------------
Total costs................. 6,635,834,879
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Count indicates individual incidences.
As can be seen from these figures taken directly from AMLIS, there
is over $6.6 billion in Priority 1 and 2 coal mine hazards left to
remediate before we can say our work is complete. This undeniably
demonstrates that there is much left to be done to correct the problems
caused by past coal mining. Because of the extreme hazards associated
with Priority 1 and 2 AML problems, the Association would encourage the
committee to release additional funds so the States and Tribes can
accelerate their AML work, helping to protect the population of this
country from the hazards created by past coal mining.
The Association encourages the committee to adopt a Title IV budget
for non-Clean Streams/non-Emergency AML grants of $163 million for
fiscal year 2004, an increase of $20 million over last years budget of
$143 million. A portion of this increase, $5 million, could then be
used to fund the ``underfunded states'' (or minimum program states) at
the minimum level of $2 million, as promised by Congress and provided
for in Section 402 (g)(8) of SMCRA. The remaining $15 million could
then be distributed among the remaining states to help alleviate more
hazards associated with Priority 1 and 2 AML problems. The projected
receipts collected through SMCRA entering the AML Fund this year,
exclusive of interest, will be approximately $285 million. This amount,
along with the $1.4 billion which remains unappropriated in the AML
Fund, will more than offset the amount requested, which is a very valid
request considering the amount of AML work that remains to be done in
this country.
The trend over the past few years has been to give the AML Programs
less and less funding. Since fiscal year 2001, which was funded at
$161,863,000, until fiscal year 2003 which was funded at $141,991,721,
we have seen around a $20 million decrease in the amount of funding
used for non-Clean Streams/non-Emergency AML projects. It is
unreasonable to believe that the States and Tribes can do more with the
same or even less funding. The States and Tribes are running very
efficient and effective AML Programs, but by decreasing funding or even
leaving funding at the status quo, we are jeopardizing the mission of
the AML Programs and the mandate of Congress to abate these hazards as
provided through SMCRA. Unless Congress acts quickly to remediate these
hazards it will cost even more in the future. Environmental conditions
at these AML sites continue to deteriorate over time, which means
increased costs to complete AML construction projects. Highwalls
continually erode closer to streets and homes, roofs on underground
mines deteriorate further causing more roof collapses, and as mine
fires burn, they cover larger and larger areas. These are just a few
examples of how time and weather related environmental degradation
create AML hazards that are more costly to abate. Also, inflation
affects the cost of reclamation making it more costly to abate AML
hazards as we postpone work on these AML sites. The Association would
urge the committee to act now, before these hazardous AML sites become
more expensive to remediate and the problem areas enlarge. The longer
the committee waits to allocate these appropriations, the bigger the
bite inflation and the weather will take out of the funds.
The Association asks the committee to continue funding the OSM
training program, which is one of the greatest benefits that OSM
provides to the States and Tribes. This program provides very
specialized training to AML staff which helps the States and Tribes
immensely in dealing with handling many aspects of the AML programs,
from NEPA requirements all the way through design and construction
management. It also provides a forum for the staff from states, tribes,
and OSM to stay up on all the new advances in reclamation technology.
Another benefit of this training program is that the States/Tribes and
OSM share the responsibility of developing and teaching the classes.
Through the effort of both team members these classes have become very
informational and help disseminate information useful in the field of
reclamation. Another OSM program that needs to have adequate funding is
the Technical Information Processing System (TIPS) program which
provides software and hardware of a very technical nature to the States
and Tribes. Through the TIPS program, software is shared among the
States and Tribes for the design of reclamation projects. For these
reasons, the Association would encourage adequate funding for the OSM
training program and the TIPS portion of the budget.
Finally, as the AML Trust Fund's 2004 expiration date approaches,
we need to ask the question, ``Is there a need for Title IV, a need for
AML programs across the country?'' I, along with the members of the
Association, believe the answer to this question is yes. Unless SMCRA
is extended with all funds generated being distributed to the states
and tribes, there is no way we can abate a majority of the hazards
associated with the AMLIS inventory. Even with all the work that has
been accomplished to date, there is still a national inventory of over
$6 billion for priority 1 and 2 AML hazards needing remediation. There
are many health and safety problems as well as environmental problems,
that need to be addressed by the Abandoned Mine Land Programs.
Therefore, the Association members believe the funds generated by SMCRA
are essential for protecting the people of this country from the
hazards and environmental problems associated with past coal mining and
SMCRA's ability to collect fees should be extended past 2004.
If I can be of any further help, or if you have any questions or
comments please feel free to contact me at (620) 231-8540.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Graduate Center
The American Indian Graduate Center (``AIGC'') of Albuquerque, New
Mexico, is pleased to present testimony on the needs of American Indian
and Alaska Native graduate students who are served by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs' (``BIA'') Special Higher Education Program for Graduate
Students. Our request for the 2003 academic year is for $2,000,000 from
the Continuing Education portion of the BIA budget.
The ATGC, a 501(c)(3) private non-profit organization, was
established in 1969 and incorporated in the state of New Mexico in
1971. AIGC has served the community for over 33 years, and has assisted
more than 9,500 American Indian and Alaska Native graduate students in
numerous fields of professional study. American Indians continue to be
the least represented of all minority groups in the country in fields
requiring advanced degrees. AIGC was founded to open the doors to
graduate education for American Indians, and to help tribes obtain the
educated Indian professionals they need to become more self-sufficient
and able to exercise their self-determination rights, and to meet the
duties and responsibilities that self-sufficiency and self-
determination entail. Since 1972, AIGC has administered the BIA's
Special Higher Education Program for Graduate Students and has
consistently maintained low overhead (less than 10 percent for several
years). AIGC recently received an ``A+'' and ``Open Book Credit'' from
the American Institute of Philanthropy (``AIP'' a.k.a.
CharityWatch.org), a nonprofit charity watchdog and information
service, for ``putting 75 percent or more towards program costs while
generally spending $25 or less to raise $100, and for willingly sending
the financial documents AIP requests.'' AIGC is proud of its record of
achievement, and has alumni professionals employed in a plethora of
fields at numerous tribal, public, and private sector entities, many of
which directly serve the American Indian community. This year, our 362
fellowship recipients, representing 112 tribes in 23 states, are
attending 170 colleges and universities in 44 states and the District
of Columbia.
STATISTICS AND NEED
For the 2003 academic year, AIGC received 1,800 requests for
applications and 426 completed applications for funding. AIGC awarded
fellowships to 362 (85 percent) applicants. The 2003 average award is
$2,700, a 7 percent decline from the 2002 average award of $2,916, and
a precipitous 42 percent decline from the 2001 average of $4,667. This
decline trend is extremely troubling, given that the cost of higher
education is forecast to rise 6 percent per year.
For the academic year ended 2002 (the most recent year for which
comprehensive statistics are compiled), 180 (50 percent) awardees were
enrolled in Master's programs, 175 (48 percent) in Doctorate, and 7 (2
percent) were pursuing dual degrees. 124 (34 percent) were enrolled in
Health and Counseling fields of study; 81 (22 percent) in Law; 34 (9
percent) in Education, 31 (9 percent) in Business; and 18 (5 percent)
in Psychology. The remaining 20 percent were enrolled in a variety of
fields of study, ranging from architecture to theology.
For the seven-year 1996-2003 period, total unmet need has averaged
$786,000 per year, with the average unmet need per applicant at
$17,000, a potentially insurmountable gap for a graduate student, given
that just one year of graduate school at a public school can cost in
excess of $18,000.
Our request of $2,000,000 was arrived at using the following
formula:
362 Awardees * $4,667 Award Goal * (110 percent Program Costs) * (106
percent Inflation)
Our goal is to reverse the slide in the average award per student
to ensure that every qualified applicant receives an increasingly
significant fellowship award.
SUMMARY
In summary, the American Indian Graduate Center requests $2,000,000
from the Continuing Education line item of the BIA budget for the
Special Higher Education Program for Graduate Students. AIGC has
successfully administered the program for 30 years, and has awarded
fellowships to over 9,500 students. Of the appropriated amount, AIGC
will award $1,800,000 in graduate fellowships, or $4,972 per student.
AIGC will use the remaining $200,000 for program costs.
The American Indian Graduate Center, and the communities it
dutifully serves, greatly appreciate your continued support and
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
REQUEST SUMMARY
On behalf of this nation's 34 Tribal Colleges and Universities
(TCUs), which comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
(AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2004
Appropriations requests for the 25 colleges currently funded under the
Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act (Tribal
College Act), and for our tribally controlled postsecondary vocational
institutions. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, administers these programs. While AIHEC ultimately seeks full
funding for all of the Tribal College Act's authorized programs, we
recognize that a focused approach with incremental increases is a way
to best meet that goal over time. In fiscal year 2004, we seek a total
of $52.2 million for Tribal College Act programs. Our first priority
within this request is to increase funding for our institutions' basic
operations under Titles I & II of the Act, we specifically request
$49,666,000; of which, $39,528,000 would be for Title I grants and
$10,138,000 would be allocated for Title II. This request is an
increase of $7,650,000 over the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level,
and $11,637,000 over the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request.
Additionally, we seek: $500,000 for technical assistance, an increase
of $386,000 over fiscal year 2003 and the President's request, to help
address ever emerging technical assistance needs and to gather and
analyze data necessary to comply with the Congressional request to
provide additional information on TCUs; and $2 million for endowments
under Title III of the Act. Additionally we support $4 million for
United Tribes Technical College; and a minimum of $1.2 million for
Crownpoint Institute of Technology; the fiscal year 2004 budget
recommendation eliminates funding for these two vocational
institutions.
AIHEC's membership also includes three other TCUs funded under
separate authorities within the Interior Appropriations Act, namely:
Haskell Indian Nations University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute; and The Institute for American Indian Arts. AIHEC supports
the independently submitted funding requests of these institutions.
BACKGROUND AND FUNDING DISPARITIES
In 1972, six tribally controlled colleges established AIHEC to
provide a support network for member institutions. Today, AIHEC
represents 34 Tribal Colleges and Universities in 12 states created
specifically to serve the higher education needs of American Indians.
Collectively, they serve 30,000 full- and part-time students from over
250 federally recognized tribes.
The vast majority of TCUs are accredited by independent, regional
accreditation agencies and like all institutions of higher education,
must undergo stringent performance reviews on a periodic basis. In
addition to college level programming, tribal colleges provide much
needed high school completion (GED), basic remediation, job training,
college preparatory courses, and adult education. Tribal colleges
fulfill additional roles within their respective communities
functioning as community centers, libraries, tribal archives, career
and business centers, economic development centers, public meeting
places, and childcare centers. An underlying goal of tribal colleges is
to improve the lives of students through higher education and to move
American Indians toward self-sufficiency.
Title I of the Tribal College Act authorizes funding for the basic
institutional operating budget of one qualifying institution per
federally recognized tribe based on a full-time American Indian student
enrollment formula. Despite a greatly appreciated increase of almost $2
million in fiscal year 2003, these tribal colleges are currently
operating at $3,908 per full-time Indian student count (ISC). This is a
decrease of $8 per ISC from the fiscal year 2002 level and still less
than two-thirds of the authorized level of $6,000 per ISC. This is not
simply a matter of appropriations falling short of an authorization; it
effectively impedes our institutions from having the necessary
resources available to provide the educational services afforded
students at mainstream institutions.
JUSTIFICATIONS
(a) Tribal colleges provide access to critical postsecondary
education opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach.--TCU
reservations are located in remote areas, and their populations are
among the poorest in the nation. On average, median household income
levels are only about half of the level for the U.S. population as a
whole. As a result, the cost of attending a mainstream institution,
which for many reservation communities is several hours away, is
prohibitively high, especially when tuition, travel, housing,
textbooks, and all other expenses are considered.
(b) Tribal colleges are producing a new generation of highly
trained American Indians as teachers, tribal government leaders,
engineers, nurses, computer programmers, and other much-needed
professionals.--By teaching the job skills most in demand on their
reservations, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for tribal economic
growth, with benefits for surrounding communities. In contrast to the
high rates of unemployment, 74 percent of recent tribal college
graduates are employed and using the skills gained through their
educational experiences. Of these graduates, a significant percentage
are employed in ``high need'' occupational areas such as elementary and
secondary school teachers, and nurses/health care providers. Just as
important, the overwhelming majority of tribal college graduates remain
in their tribal communities, applying their newly acquired skills and
knowledge where they are most needed.
(c) Tribal colleges meet the strict standards of mainstream
accreditation boards and offer top-quality academic programs.--Several
TCUs have attained a ten-year accreditation term, the longest term
granted for any higher education institution. The quality of the
colleges' programs is reflected in the high rates of satisfaction
reported by their graduates: 91 percent of TCU graduates surveyed
reported being very satisfied or satisfied with courses in their major
field of study and with overall instruction.
(d) Tribal colleges serve as highly effective bridges to four-year
postsecondary institutions.--While most TCUs are two-year institutions
offering associate's degrees and certificates, their transfer function
is significant. A survey of TCU graduates indicated that almost 50
percent continued their education during the year after graduation,
with more than 80 percent of those seeking a bachelor's degree. This
compared nationally to about 33 percent of other community college
graduates who enroll in further higher education the year after
receiving an associate's degree. The overwhelming majority of the
continuing TCU graduates felt that the programs at TCUs had prepared
them well for further education and greatly enhanced their success
rates.
SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS
(a) Enrollment Gains & New TCUs.--Compounding existing funding
disparities is the fact that although tribal college enrollments have
dramatically increased since 1981, appropriations have increased at a
disproportionately low rate. Title I tribal colleges have recorded a
remarkable 298 percent increase in enrollments from 1981 to 2002. In
fiscal year 2004, two new tribal colleges, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal
College, in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan and Tohono O'odham Community College
in Sells, Arizona will be eligible to receive funds under the Tribal
College Act. TCUs are in many ways victims of their own successes. The
dramatic enrollment increases, coupled with a growing number of
tribally chartered colleges, have forced Title I colleges to slice an
already inadequate pie into even smaller pieces. Our fiscal year 2004
funding request would increase Title I operating funds to $4,500 per
full-time equivalent Indian student, still just 75 percent of the
$6,000 authorized.
(b) The Absence of State Funds for Institutional Operations.--While
mainstream institutions have a foundation of stable state support, TCUs
must rely on the Federal government for their operating funds. Because
TCUs are located on Federal trust lands, states have no obligation to
fund them even for the non-Indian state-resident students who account
for approximately 20 percent of TCU enrollments. Yet, if these same
students attended any other public institution in the state, the state
would provide basic operating funds to the institution.
(c) Local Tax and Revenue Bases.--TCUs cannot rely on local tax
base revenue. Although tribes possess the sovereign authority to tax,
high reservation poverty rates, the trust status of reservation lands,
and the lack of strong reservation economies impede the creation of a
reservation tax base. In Indian Country, according to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, 50 percent of the eligible workforce is unemployed. In
comparison, the current national unemployment rate is 5.8 percent.
(d) Trust Responsibility.--The emergence of tribal colleges is a
direct result of the special relationship between American Indian
tribes and the Federal government. TCUs are founded and chartered by
their respective American Indian tribes, which hold a special legal
relationship with the Federal government, actualized by more than 400
treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior Congressional action,
and the ceding of more than one billion acres of land to the Federal
government. Beyond the trust responsibility, the fact remains that TCUs
are providing a public service to all American people that no other
institutions of higher education are willing to, or can, provide. We
are helping the Federal government fulfill its responsibility to the
American people, particularly in rural America. Despite the fact that
only Indian students are counted for the purpose of determining the
level of an institution's operating funds, TCUs have open enrollment
policies and do not discriminate based on race or ethnicity. They are
simply and effectively removing barriers that have long prevented equal
access to higher education for reservation community residents.
THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget recommends a $4 million cut
in already inadequate funding to operate our tribally chartered
reservation based colleges, and eliminates funding for our two
vocational colleges. Despite an almost $2 million increase in the
fiscal year 2003 Appropriation, the 24 colleges funded under Title I of
the Act will receive just $3,908 per full time equivalent Indian
student (ISC), a decrease of $8 per ISC, and still under two-thirds the
authorized level of $6,000 per ISC. The $4 million cut proposed in the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget, if enacted, would result in a loss
of $733 per ISC for Title I colleges, if Title II funding remained
level. This slashing of basic operating funds would cause some TCUs to
no longer be able to meet minimum requirements for stable funding
needed to pay overhead and faculty/staff salaries. This would not only
jeopardize their accreditation status but would most likely force some
of the colleges close their doors.
AIHEC'S APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
We respectfully request a total appropriation of $52.2 million for
our Tribal College Act programs. Of that amount our first priority is
$49,666,000 for Titles I and II of the Tribal College Act; of which,
$39,528,000 would be for Title I grants and $10,138,000 would be
allocated for Title II. This request is an increase of $7,650,000 over
the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level, and $11,637,000 over the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget request. This increase would bring
funding for the basic operations of our Title I colleges, including our
two new colleges, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College (Michigan) and Tohono
O'odham Community College (Arizona), to $4,500 per ISC, which still
represents just 75 percent of the $6,000 authorized. Additionally, we
seek $500,000 for technical assistance, an increase of $386,000 over
fiscal year 2003 and the President's request, to help address ever
emerging technical assistance needs and to fund data collection and
analysis necessary to comply with the Congressional requests for
additional information on TCU operations, and $2 million for endowments
under Title III of the Act.
For our two tribally controlled vocational institutions, we support
$4 million for United Tribes Technical College; and a minimum of $1.2
million for Crownpoint Institute of Technology, to restore and expand
the funding for these programs that the fiscal year 2004 budget
recommends eliminating.
CONCLUSION
Tribal colleges are bringing education to thousands of American
Indians. The modest Federal investment in the TCUs has paid great
dividends in terms of employment, education, and economic development,
and continuation of this investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense.
We very much need your help to sustain and grow our programs and
achieve our missions.
Thank you for your past and continued support of the nation's
Tribal Colleges and Universities and your consideration of our fiscal
year 2004 appropriations requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation
INTRODUCTION
The Fort Peck Tribes are pleased to present testimony on the fiscal
year 2004 BIA and IHS Budget.
TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATIONS
The Tribal Priority Allocations system is intended to give tribes
an additional measure of flexibility in determining how to use
available funds to best meet local needs. However, the Administration
has requested only a small increase of $2.1 million for programs under
TPA. While we support this request, it would still fall far short of
allowing the Fort Peck Tribes to meet the needs of our people in key
areas including, education, agriculture and tribal courts. We urge the
Congress to do all it can to increase TPA above the level requested by
the President.
In particular, we are very concerned with the Administration's
failure to restore last year's $4 million cut in General Assistance
funding. This cut is premised on a purported decline in caseloads. It
is difficult to believe this is in fact true on a national level, since
we at Fort Peck have experienced an increase in requests for General
Assistance. This increase is largely the result of the Welfare Reform
law and the strict work and benefit restrictions placed on individuals.
People, who have had the benefits terminated, are returning home to
take advantage of tribal work, educational and housing programs. As a
result, the GA shortfall at Fort Peck alone is $800,000. Thus, as
Congress seeks to reauthorize the Welfare Reform law we would urge the
Subcommittee not to cut GA, which is an important part of tribal
assistant programs.
EDUCATION
Higher Education
We urge the Committee to support the education needs of Indian
people. The President's budget requests $28 million for scholarships
for Indian students to attend accredited post-secondary schools.
Obtaining a degree in higher education--particularly for those
individuals from families that have not previously sent anyone to
college--takes courage and often considerable personal sacrifice. We
believe it is our responsibility to support the efforts of our people
to attend college. The Tribes provide scholarship funds available
through the BIA program. However, the current levels of funding are
already far too inadequate. For example, this year the Tribes have
identified 230 students who are eligible for scholarship benefits for
higher education but who cannot be served because of lack of funding.
The BIA itself reports that the level of unmet requests for
scholarships nationwide has increased steadily over the last three
years.
Tribal Colleges
We oppose the Administration's proposal to cut tribal colleges
funding by $4 million. The twenty-six tribal colleges are important
institutions in the remote tribal communities that they serve. On our
Reservation, we operate the Fort Peck Tribal College, a fully
accredited institution, offering Associate Degrees in arts, science and
applied sciences.
The College offers our students an opportunity to obtain a higher
education without having to leave their homes and families. This is
critical for many of our students, especially our single parent
students, who need family members to provide child care. These students
do not have the resources or the network to attend school in Billings
or Great Falls and if it weren't for our Tribal College they would have
no opportunity to improve their lives, through higher education.
We strongly urge the Subcommittee to increase funding for this
vital program that is improving the lives of Indian people.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
The President's budget requests a total of $3.6 billion for IHS
services and construction (including the $50 million funded through the
mandatory special diabetes program.) While this represents an increase
on paper, it will not translate into any program improvements or
expansions. This increase does not even keep pace with medical
inflation rates.
The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to provide health
care to Native Americans, an obligation that was paid with millions of
acres of land and resources. This Federal responsibility has been
reaffirmed through treaties, legislation, executive orders and policies
by Congress and Presidential Administrations. The Indian Health Service
budget must include consideration for medical inflation, population
increases and mandatory payroll increase. The IHS has adsorbed over one
billion dollars in mandatory cost increases over the past 10 years
causing the loss of purchasing power that has led to insufficient
funding for medical services putting lives and health of Native people
at risk. This is not acceptable. The same allowance given to federal
programs, Medicaid and Medicare, for inflation and population
adjustments should be applied to the IHS fiscal year 2004 Budget.
The health indicators in Indian communities consistently
demonstrate higher infant mortality, teenage suicide, accident,
alcoholism, diabetes, and heart disease rates among Indian people when
compared with other minorities and the general American population.
Yet, money directed to health care, especially preventative care, such
as routine checkups and health education, that clearly improve the
quality of life and help avoid more expensive health care costs in the
future is not included in the Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget
request. This is unacceptable.
Special Diabetes Study-$316,000 Request
Diabetes is an epidemic on the Fort Peck Reservation. The rate of
heart disease, amputations, blindness, kidney failure and other
diabetic related complications are growing at an accelerated rate,
while the age of onset becomes younger every year. The death rate for
Indian people from diabetes is nearly three times higher than non-
native people.
To begin to combat this problem that is threatening the future of
our community, the Fort Peck Tribes request an earmark of $316,000 to
implement the first year of a five year epidemiological study of the
impact of a more traditional diet on the diabetics. Preliminary studies
show that bison meat is a natural inducer of insulin production in the
body. In addition, bison meat is high in protein and low in fat, which
is the ideal diet choice for diabetics
The Tribes propose to establish a study population of 250 people--
125 would be diagnosed diabetics and 125 would be individuals with an
established diagnosis of Insulin Resistance Syndrome. All study
participants will be evaluated by a physician at a baseline and
thereafter quarterly. The Tribes propose to provide buffalo meat to
these individuals on a weekly basis. As a part of the study,
participants will receive an orientation other healthy benefits of
Bison meat, including how to prepare healthy bison dishes and how to
incorporate other healthy lifestyle changes to improve their condition
such as increased exercise, weight control and overall change of diet.
The study groups will be evaluated quarterly by a physician and receive
education by the nurse educator and dietitian for weight, waist to hip
ratio, comprehensive chemistry, magnesium levels, lipid profiles,
HgbAIC, fasting insulin levels, urinalysis, A/C ratios and aliquots.
The Tribes estimate that it will require 35 buffalo per year to
provide sufficient meat to the study participants. The initial term of
the study would be for five years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First year costs........................................ $316,000
Purchase of Bison Meat.............................. 95,000
Labs for controlled/Non-controlled Group............ 52,000
Data analysis....................................... 45,000
Office equipment.................................... 15,000
Equipment for processing meat....................... 20,000
Physician, Nurse Educator, Dietitian................ 35,000
Laboratory technician............................... 24,000
Administrative Coordinator.......................... 30,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Navajo Community Controlled
School Boards
SUMMARY OF ANCCSB'S REQUESTS, IN PRIORITY ORDER
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Cost Grants--continuing tribally-operated 61.5
schools...................................................
Administrative Cost Grants--first-year conversion schools.. 3.0
Student Transportation..................................... 55
Indian School Equalization Formula......................... ( \1\ )
Facilities Operations...................................... 70
Facilities Improvement and Repair.......................... 158
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $4,000/WSU for basic program--(net after special education costs).
This preliminary statement of the Association of Navajo
Community Controlled School Boards (ANCCSB) is submitted on
behalf of its 16 member school boards who operate BIA-funded
schools on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona and New Mexico
under contracts or grants from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We
will supplement our comments after the fiscal year 2004 BIA
detailed budget justification is released. The issues we
discuss below and on which we provide our recommendations are
presented in priority order.
Administrative Cost Grants.--We strongly supported the
NCLBA provision that requires the Bureau to create a separate
Administrative Cost (AC) Grants fund to cover the first-year AC
Grant needs of schools that newly convert to tribal operation.
The BIA budget recommends $3 million for this separate fund.
The amount requested for AC Grants for continuing tribally-
operated schools is, however, alarmingly inadequate to meet the
needs of these schools. The amount requested for these schools
is only $46,181,000. At this level, it will be impossible for
BIA to supply even 75 percent of the AC Grant needs of these
ongoing tribally-operated schools. This budget request is not
responsive to the increasing costs of annual financial audits,
liability insurance, and salaries for certified administrators
and business managers.
Recommendation.--We recommend that $61.5 million be
supplied to meet 100 percent of need for on-going tribally-
operated schools, and concur with the BIA's request for an
additional $3 million to cover the first-year costs of schools
who convert to tribal operation in SY 2004-2005. We also
recommend that Congress direct that any funds remaining from $3
million, will be transferred to and distributed to meet the AC
Grant needs of on-going contracts and grants.
Student Transportation.--We are extremely disappointed that
the Administration once again requests only a minimal increase
of $1.1 million for our school transportation system. According
to the most recent national report, the average expenditure for
public schools was $2.97/mile six years ago but, during SY
2002-2003, BIA schools received only $2.17/mile. The budget
request of $38.6 million, which will be used in SY 2004-2005,
will barely enable the BIA to pay at the $2.17/mile range when
increased fuel costs and vehicle maintenance costs are taken
into account.
There are a host of transportation costs our schools must
budget for that do not impact other school systems, such as (1)
approximately 90 percent of the roads on the Navajo reservation
are unimproved and unpaved--resulting in increased maintenance
and repair costs, and (2) oftentimes the authorized maintenance
and repair facilities are not located nearby, and in some
instances result in roundtrips of over 250 miles. We are also
experiencing rising fuel costs, which have recently averaged
$1.90-2.00/gallon. Furthermore, retaining CDL certified bus
drivers is always difficult due to our inability to offer
competitive, full-time positions.
Congress should be aware that the transportation formula
does not take into consideration mileage associated with extra-
curricular activities (athletics, educational field trips,
etc.), after-school activities, or trips for repairs and
maintenance. We must cover these expenses from our
instructional funds. The ``student transportation'' funds are
only used for the daily bus runs associated with getting
students to/from school, and, in fact, the amount we receive
for this purpose is so inadequate that we must subsidize bus
costs from instructional funds.
Recommendation.--We urge that Congress provide student
transportation funding at $3.00/mile which we believe will
require a $55 million appropriation. We also request that
Congress direct the BIA to amend the transportation formula to
include factors for isolation and mileage related to extra-
curricular activities.
Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF).--The ANCCSB
schools were alarmed to learn that only a small increase in
ISEF program funds is requested for fiscal year 2004. Coupled
with the Administration's rescission of more than $700,000 from
the ISEF in the fiscal year 2003 budget, the new budget request
will not even be sufficient for us to cover the inflation rate
or the additional costs such as School Board training mandated
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA).
ISEF is the primary source of funds for the instructional
and residential programs at the 185 schools and dormitories in
the BIA system. We face significant costs connected with
increasing instructional program costs, teacher recruitment,
and curriculum development just to maintain our current
programs, let alone cover the costs associated with the many
additional requirements of the NCLBA.
Under the NCLBA, we are required to hire only highly
qualified teachers and paraprofessionals, provide increased
professional development and parent involvement activities, and
ensure adequate yearly student progress--which is dependent
upon curriculum alignment, utilization of ``research-based''
materials and methods, and a host of other factors. Due to the
remoteness of many of our schools, staff recruitment and
retention remains a tremendous challenge. We cannot assure the
availability of professional staff with the required
certification, or paraprofessionals with AA degrees, unless we
have the financial resources to recruit/retain personnel with
these credentials. Our Indian schools must compete with public
school districts for highly qualified personnel, but we cannot
survive this competition unless we can offer competitive
salaries and benefits.
Important technical change regarding the ISEF ``weighted
student unit'' system!--It is essential that Congress be aware
that BIA changed the way student ``weights'' are counted under
the ISEF in SY 2002-2003. The fiscal year 2004 budget request
will be the first one impacted by this change, but we do not
know if BIA will fully describe what has taken place and the
additional calculations that are needed to enable Congress to
properly evaluate the fiscal year 2004 budget request for ISEF.
The key changes are these: BIA has eliminated from the ISEF
program any weights for special education students. Under the
previous system, schools received extra ISEF ``weights'' for
services they supply to special education students; these
weights generated funds for the school specifically for special
education services. In addition, BIA changed the weights
assigned to each grade level for students in the basic
instructional program and in the Gifted & Talented program.
In the past, we and Congress have been able to evaluate an
ISEF budget request by comparing the prior year's amount of
funding for each ``weighted student unit'' (WSU) with the WSU
amount that would be produced by the new proposed budget. Such
a comparison is no longer meaningful, however, since the
weighting factors have been altered.
Under the new system, BIA now requires that a school use 15
percent of its ISEF dollars to pay for special education
services. If its special education needs exceed this amount,
the school can apply for supplemental dollars under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Program. In the
past, the school applied for IDEA funds after using the ISEF
funds it attracted through the add-on weights under the ISEF.
This change will produce a different number of overall
``weighted student units'' in the BIA school system, and a
different relative value of each WSU. It is important to know
this so that Congress can determine whether the WSU base amount
is actually increasing at a rate needed to keep pace with
instructional costs in the BIA system. The BIA estimates that
the fiscal year 2004 amount requested will result in a $4,035
WSU for SY 2004-2005. However, if the BIA has not allowed for
the 15 percent reduction for special education services, the
actual amount would be $3,429/WSU. This amount would be $525
less than the SY 2003-2004 WSU amount.
Recommendation.--If our schools are to enhance the
educational programs to ensure our students make adequate
yearly progress and meet the requirements established in the No
Child Left Behind Act, we urge that Congress provide an amount
that would result in at least $4,000 per WSU for the basic
instructional program--that is, the amount of ISEF funds
devoted to basic instructional programs after the 15 percent
that must be devoted to special education services is taken off
the top.
Facilities Operations.--This account must cover the cost of
utilities, heating fuel, janitorial, communications, refuse
collection, water/sewer, fire protection, pest control, and
technology maintenance. Funding for this program is based on
the total square feet of education space.
The ANCCSB schools have several concerns regarding the
proposed $57.8 million requested for fiscal year 2004, which
represents only a $2 million increase over fiscal year 2003. It
is evident that fuel and other utility costs are steadily
increasing, yet funds for basic school operating costs have
only covered 60 percent to 70 percent of the actual costs the
schools incur. The BIA-requested $2 million increase will
barely enable schools to continue at their current level of
shortfall. Nearly half of all BIA schools are more than 30
years old, and nearly 15 percent are more than 50 years old,
which means it costs substantially more to operate and maintain
these outdated facilities. A recent GAO study \1\ confirmed
that BIA schools are generally in poorer physical condition,
have more unsatisfactory environmental factors, more often lack
key facilities requirements for education reform, and are less
able to support computer and communications technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ General Accounting Office, BIA and DOD Schools: Student
Achievement and Other Characteristics Often Differ from Public
Schools', GAO-01-934 (September 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The safety of our students and our desire to provide an
adequate learning environment are not the only reasons the
ANCCSB schools believe additional Facilities Operations funds
are necessary. One of our primary concerns is that in order to
meet the academic requirements of the NCLBA, ANCCSB schools
plan to implement year-round schooling or provide a summer
school session. The extended year will result in additional
maintenance, utilities, and staff costs. Other concerns include
the following: costs for utilities, propane, electricity,
sewage, and water purchased from the Navajo Tribal Utility
Authority has increased 3 percent in the past year; many of our
schools lack adequate fire protection but must rely on fire
trucks located 50-70 miles away; security costs have increased
due to the national security threat (requiring school security
to be on alert 24 hours/day) and the planned extended school
year. Also, under the NCLBA, the BIA is required to pass on to
the schools all funds appropriated for facilities operation and
maintenance, but we believe the agency is not generating the
information we need to assure that this directive is carried
out. In the past, despite Congressional orders to the contrary,
BIA has ``skimmed'' funds from the appropriation to support
federal bureaucrat salaries. Now that the NCLBA has expressly
prohibited this practice, schools and the Appropriations
Committees need a mechanism to assure that the law is being
followed. We ask the Appropriations Committees to obtain an
assurance from BIA that it has ceased to retain any facilities
operation and maintenance funds at the agency level.
Recommendation.--Please demand that the BIA supply
information on the amount that would be needed to fully fund
the formula used to calculate the amount of facilities
operation and maintenance funds needed by each school in the
system. Armed with this data, the Congress should then
appropriate that sum in order that these schools can be
properly operated and maintained.
Replacement Schools Construction.--The ANCCSB schools are
pleased that the BIA wants to start six replacement school
construction projects in fiscal year 2004. If this
recommendation is followed, nearly all schools on the existing
Priority List will have been funded.
Construction of new schools remains a critical need for the
BIA system, and particularly schools on the Navajo Reservation.
For example, the Lukachukai Community on the Navajo Reservation
continues to educate its children in dilapidated, unsafe
buildings that are 10+ years beyond their useful life, are not
in compliance with handicapped accessibility codes, are
overcrowded and lack the space needed to conform to the
dictates of the No Child Left Behind Act's instructional
minimums, and contain a variety of health/safety code
violations. We were therefore extremely disappointed that
Lukachukai was not included on the long-awaited Priority List
compiled from the applications filed some 18 months ago but
only recently finalized by the BIA.
Facilities Improvement & Repair Program.--We are deeply
concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request would reduce
the education Facilities Improvement & Repair (FI&R) Program by
over $16 million in light of the tremendous backlog of needed
school repairs--reported to be over $960 million in a recent
General Accounting Office report.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id. at page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA attempts to justify the cut in FI&R funding by
asserting that funding was transferred to the replacement
school construction account. Although additional funds for
replacement of unsafe schools is most welcome, it means that
$16 million worth of repair work needed at many schools will be
devoted to possibly constructing one additional school! While
the repair backlog remains high, it is equally important that
the students who attend schools throughout the system are
provided much-needed health, safety and environmental
improvements, utility upgrades, and additional classrooms.
Recommendation.--At a minimum, Congress should restore the
$16.2 million BIA proposes to cut from the FI&R program. To
properly fulfill its responsibility to Indian students, this
account should be increased by some $10 million in fiscal year
2004.
Negotiated Rulemaking.--Our final comment is related to the
recently enacted fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
The ANCCSB schools are disheartened by the inclusion of bill
language that would allow BIA to use the ISEP Contingency Funds
to pay the costs of the negotiated rulemaking to prepare
regulations required by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA).
This authority to re-direct much-needed funds for school
programs was not what was provided in the NCLBA. Instead, the
NCLBA requires the Secretary of the Interior to cover the costs
of the negotiated rulemaking process through the Department's
general administration funds. The ISEP Contingency Funds are
meant to be used only for school-related emergencies, and any
unused funds remaining at the end of the school year are to be
apportioned to the schools for use in instructional programs.
Allowing the Secretary to use the Contingency Funds in any
other manner not only violates the NCLBA but would also mean
less funds to purchase essential materials for our schools such
as textbooks and other school supplies.
Recommendation.--We request that Congress strongly urge the
Secretary to follow the mandate of the NCLBA and use funds from
the Department's general administration funds to pay the
expenses for negotiated rulemaking instead of the ISEP
Contingency Funds.
This statement of the Association of Navajo Community
Controlled School Board is sponsored by the following tribally-
operated member schools of the Navajo Nation:
1. Stanley Herrera, President Alamo Navajo School Board
2. Wilson Gilmore, President Black Mesa Community School,
Inc.
3. George Tolth, President Borrego Pass Community School,
Inc.
4. Beverly Becenti-Pigman, President Kayenta Community
School, Inc.
5. Marge Begay, President Lukachukai Community School, Inc.
6. Ross Smallcanyon, President Naa Tsis' Aan Community
School, Inc.
7. Edison Wauneka, President Navajo Preparatory School,
Inc.
8. Joseph Dedman, President Nazlini Community School, Inc.
9. Lorenzo Yazzie, President Pinon Community School, Inc.
10. Jamie Henio, President Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.
11. Johnny Decheeny, President Rock Point Community School,
Inc.
12. Betty Dailey, President Rough Rock Community School,
Inc.
13. Eva Stokely, President Shiprock Alternative Schools,
Inc.
14. William Lynch, President Wide Ruins Community School,
Inc.
15. Marie Brady, President Winslow Residential Hall, Inc.
16. Sarah J. Attakai, President Jeehdeez'a Academy, Inc.
------
Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this written testimony to
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related
Agencies. The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC), a non-
profit Alaska Native coalition for managing tribal natural resources,
with its seven member Tribes located in the Prince William Sound and
Lower Cook Inlet, respectfully requests as our first priority
restoration of its base funding of $350,000 from the fiscal year 2004
Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, Fish, Wildlife and Parks Program.
The Tribes of the Chugach Region, who make up the Chugach Regional
Resources Commission, appreciate the support of the Subcommittee in
reinstating our fiscal year 2003 funding which was zeroed out by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Unfortunately, the Administration has once
again zeroed out our funding of the President's proposed BIA fiscal
year 2004 budget. Therefore, we are respectfully requesting the support
of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related
Agencies to restore the $350,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs fiscal
year 2004 Fish, Wildlife and Parks budget earmarked for CRRC and add it
to the base budget as permanent funding. In addition, we are requesting
a $250,000 increase for the region-wide mariculture program and an
additional $250,000 increase for the education and training program
described below.
Until fiscal year 2003, this funding had been included in the BIA's
Fish, Wildlife and Parks budget for the past 13 years. The mission of
CRRC is to work with our seven member Tribes to promote and develop
sound economic resource based-projects and to work collectively to
address any natural resource and environmentally related issues that
affect the Native people of the Chugach Region.
This funding, over the past 13 years, has supported the development
and operation of many programs that have assisted communities in
providing meaningful employment opportunities as well as valuable
services and products to the people of the State of Alaska. If this
funding is not restored, 35 Native people in the Chugach Region will
lose their jobs. With the scarcity of employment opportunities in rural
Alaska, the impact of approximately six families per village losing
this income in a village with an average population of 100, strikes a
devastating blow to the local community economy. In addition, these 20
families will create a much larger burden on state and federal
financial resources as they will be forced to depend upon state and
federal welfare programs to provide funding for necessary living
expenses. This funding also supports the base operating expenses of
CRRC, and without it, our work will not be able to continue. A summary
of some of these programs supported by this funding is provided to give
you a better understanding of the integral role this funding plays in
Tribal community development.
The Port Graham Salmon Hatchery has been in operation since 1990,
and raises sockeye, pink, and coho salmon. CRRC provided Port Graham
with the technical and administrative assistance necessary to build the
hatchery program. The hatchery's goal is to rebuild local pink salmon
runs and provide economic opportunities for village residents. CRRC has
funded the hatchery operations for many years and employed the hatchery
staff consisting of 5-7 full time and seasonal employees.
The original hatchery was located in the net loft of the salmon
cannery building. This building was completely destroyed by a fire in
January of 1998. CRRC worked closely with the Port Graham Village
Council to obtain funding and help to build a new hatchery. The new
hatchery was completed in 2000 and is now in the process of bringing
salmon production to full capacity, which is 110 million pink salmon
eggs, 5 million sockeye salmon eggs and 2 million coho salmon eggs. The
hatchery currently produces local stock pink and coho salmon and
incubates sockeye salmon eggs for the nearby Native Village of
Nanwalek. The hatchery is expecting about 300,000 adult pink salmon to
return this year, which will be enough to fill it to capacity. Annual
adult returns are expected to increase to about 3 million pink salmon
beginning in 2004 and 100,000 to 200,000 sockeye salmon beginning in
2006. Reinstatement of the fiscal year 2004 funding will allow to
continue with its needed investment in the hatchery program and to help
develop a a value added processing component to the local processing
plant which is owned and operated by the Port Graham Corporation.
The Nanwalek Sockeye Enhancement Program (NSEP) was also initiated
in 1990. CRRC provided funding and technical and administrative
assistance to develop a sockeye smolt stocking program that would
supplement wild production and help rebuild the depleted English Bay
sockeye run. The Nanwalek IRA Council operates the project with
administration and support coming from CRRC. It is the only program of
its kind currently permitted in the State of Alaska and employs one
full time and ten seasonal workers. The heart of the project consists
of rearing Port Graham hatchery produced fry to smolt size in English
Bay Lakes and releasing them in the lakes to migrate out to sea and
return as adults. Rearing operations commenced in 1991 and have
occurred annually since that time. Over two and a half million sockeye
smolts have been released into the English Bay Lakes since project
inception. This has produced over 220,000 adult sockeye salmon that
have returned to the English Bay River and associated fisheries. Fish
from this project allowed for the reopening of the subsistence fishery
in 1996 and a limited commercial fishery in 1997.
This important program is expected to reach a peak production of
about 150,000 adult sockeye salmon returning every year beginning in
2007. English Bay River sockeye salmon are a principal source of
subsistence food and commercial fishing income for the Nanwalek and the
nearby Port Graham villages. CRRC continues to provide consulting and
technical assistance for this project that will help provide a
sustainable economic base for the village of Nanwalek.
The Qutekcak Shellfish Hatchery in Seward has been a major
accomplishment for both the Qutekcak Native Tribe and CRRC. The
operation began in a small pilot hatchery with funding provided from
CRRC BIA funds, and is now operating out of a new state-of-the-art
facility, spawning, hatching, and rearing littleneck clams, Pacific
oysters and geoducks for sale to shellfish farms in Alaska and
elsewhere. This hatchery is now operated by the Tribe under a contract
with the City of Seward, and employs 4 full time employees. This is the
only shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska, and has the capacity to
serve all shellfish farms in the state. The Tribal hatchery staff is
currently conducting research on the culture techniques of Purple-
hinged Rock Scallops and Cockles. CRRC has helped fund hatchery
research and development, which would be sharply curtailed without this
support. This would devastate not only the Tribal hatchery, but the
shellfish farmers in Alaska as well who depend upon seed for their own
operations. One condition of the hatchery operating contract stipulated
that the Tribe put up $100,000 bond to cover the cost of mothballing
the hatchery should the Tribe pull out and no one else found to take
its place. Operating costs are approximately $340,000 per year for the
hatchery. Without the BIA funding, hatchery operations would have to be
cut back. This would reduce seed production that, in turn, would reduce
income. This likely would force the Tribe to back out of its operating
contract. This would mean that some or all of its $100,000 bond would
be forfeited if no one else could be found to take over hatchery
operations. Closing the hatchery would also doom the state's
mariculture industry; reducing it to a very small number of farmers
supplying oysters to the tourists.
The Tatitlek IRA Council has operated the Alutiiq Pride Oyster Farm
since 1992 and is one of those farms that depend upon seed from the
Qutekcak Shellfish Hatchery for their operation. The oyster farm has
produced some of the best oysters in the country and is well known
throughout Alaska. The operation sells their product primarily in
Anchorage at this time, marketing approximately 200-300 dozen per week.
Funding for this project is slowly being phased out as their profit
margin increases. Sales currently account for about $80,000 of its
$145,000 budget. About $35,000 of the remainder comes from the CRRC's
BIA natural resources program and the rest from village funding
sources. This is one of the bigger mariculture operations in the state,
providing 3 full time and several part time employment opportunities
for Tribal members. The Tribe recently completed construction of a
processing facility to process the oysters and prepare them for
shipping. Losing the BIA funding would likely result in a reduction in
employment and production, and possibly the end of the program. This in
turn would hurt the Qutekcak shellfish hatchery since Tatitlek is one
of the hatchery's bigger customers.
In a related project, the Chenega IRA Council operates the Chenega
Floating Nursery System for oysters and other shellfish in Chenega Bay.
With this nursery system, they are able to raise shellfish to a size
larger than what can legally be imported into Alaska. The ability to
purchase larger seed means shorter grow-out time, and higher
profitability for the shellfish farms. So, this program fills a niche
in the shellfish market that did not exist anywhere in the state prior
to its inception. This program employs one full time community member.
In addition to these projects, this funding has also supported the
development of Tribal Natural Resource Programs in the region in an
effort to be more meaningfully involved in the natural resource
management projects and decisions that affect the Tribes' traditional
subsistence lifestyle. We request an increase of $250,000 per year for
the next four years, to develop a model technical education and
training in natural resource management to allow for increased and
meaningful tribal involvement in the management of subsistence
resources in cooperation with federal and state management agencies.
Active participation by the Tribes in such current initiatives as
the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council's Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring Program
and the federal subsistence fisheries management projects occurring in
traditional use areas is vital to the overall success of each of these
programs. Funding from this initial appropriation also supports the
base operations of the organization, such as salaries, travel,
telephone, office space, office supplies, and professional biological
assistance, which are vital to the CRRC's very existence. We have been
very successful at utilizing these funds to use as match for other
grants as well, oftentimes doubling or even tripling the initial
investment.
As you can see, this funding has played an integral role in
allowing CRRC to develop and implement important community-based
programs such as those described above. The over 35 Native people
employed under this funding, the majority of which are located in the
villages, will lose their jobs if this funding is not restored; CRRC
will be without operating funds, thus unable to facilitate the
development of local community economies, and Tribes will no longer
have a collective voice to address the environmental and resource
issues that affect their lives.
We are respectfully requesting the Committee's support to restore
the original amount of $350,000 to the BIA Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Budget for the Chugach Regional Resources Commission and make it part
of the recurring base budget. Due to the magnitude of this program to
the people of the Chugach, as well as its far reaching impacts and high
cost to benefit ratio, we are also requesting that this funding be
included in the budget as part of the permanent base. We believe that
making our funding a part of the permanent base will alleviate the need
for us to spend what little funding we have on getting our BIA funding
restored rather than on meaningful projects that will benefit the
communities. We also ask for the Committee's support for our requested
increase of $500,000 to enhance our programs.
In a related matter, we also support the restoration of funds to
other Tribal fish and wildlife programs that were cut from the BIA
budget, including $100,000 to the Alaska Sea Otter and Stellar Sea Lion
Commission, $454,000 to the Bison Restoration Program, $593,000 in
Wetlands/Waterfowl Management, and $320,000 in Unresolved Hunting and
Fishing Rights for Tribal management of shellfish resources and
associated treaty harvest in the Northwest Region.
Once again, we ask the Committee to restore these funds in behalf
of the Native people of the Chugach Region and thank you for your
support of our programs, as well as this opportunity to provide our
written testimony. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at 907/284-2212 or Patty Brown-Schwalenberg, Executive
Director, at 907/562-6647.
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
Community of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, I am Cheryle A. Kennedy, Tribal Council Chairwoman of
the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon. I
hereby submit this testimony regarding Bureau of Indian Affairs fiscal
year 2004 appropriations to the House Appropriations Subcommittee for
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations with the following
requests:
(1) Restore BIA Endangered Species Act funding to $3.1 million and
direct that $1.7 million of the funds be utilized among Northwest
tribes, as they were in fiscal year 2002, to manage for ESA listed
species, including the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and
steelhead.
(2) Add $115,000 to BIA Other Recurring Programs, Natural
Resources, Wildlife and Parks, for a Grand Ronde study of the decline
of Roosevelt Elk and its habitat on and around our Reservation.
The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde were restored to federal
recognition by Act of Congress in 1983. Today, we have close to 4,800
members centered in the Oregon community of Grand Ronde is western Polk
County, but also dispersed throughout the United States. In the
adjacent hills of Oregon's Coast Range of Mountains is our 10,052 acres
of Reservation timberland, established by a separate 1988 Act of
Congress.
(1) Restore BIA Endangered Species funding (in Non-Recurring
Programs, Resources Management) to $3.1 million and direct that $1.7
million of the funds be utilized among Northwest tribes, as they were
in fiscal year 2002, to manage for ESA listed species, including the
northern spotted owl, the marbled Murrelet, and steelhead.
In fiscal year 1992, at the request of Grand Ronde and other
Northwest tribes, Congress added $1.4 million to the BIA Forestry
budget for management of the northern spotted owl, with had become
listed under the Endangered Species Act. In subsequent years, BIA--over
the objections of tribes--combined the northern spotted owl funding
with other funds to reintroduce the Black Footed Ferret on the Northern
Cheyenne Reservation and established a separate ESA line item. By
fiscal year 2002, this ESA line item totaled $3 million, including $1.6
million for Northwest tribes affected by the northern spotted owl and
$1.3 million for the ferret. In fiscal year 2003, BIA proposed to
eliminate all of these funds except for $197,000, which they proposed
to keep for Central Office staff. Responding to tribal objections,
Congress restored the ESA line item to about $2,697,000. At this point,
we do not know what we will receive under this fiscal year 2003
funding. For fiscal year 2004, the BIA reportedly is requesting
$2,198,000 for the ESA line item. Again, at this point, we do not know
how the BIA is proposing to spend the $2,198,000. However, we are
concerned that for both fiscal year 2003 and for fiscal year 2004,
funding for the Grand Ronde Tribe's ESA compliance program will fall,
imperiling our ability to meet the ESA's management requirements.
To maintain the Grand Ronde Tribe's goal of complying with the
Endangered Species Act, our Tribe will need to continue surveys for 13
listed species that can, or do, occur in the region of our Reservation.
Our participation in the ESA program, in the fiscal year 2002 amount of
$68,600, will be used to pay for 128 hours of staff time for the survey
and monitoring of marbled murrelets, 120 hours for the survey and
monitoring of the northern spotted owl, 966 hours of monitoring for
steelhead trout, and 224 hours for the survey and monitoring of
Nelson's checkermallow. It will also construct an adult steelhead
monitoring station, conduct RADAR survey for marbled murrelets, and
conduct filed inspections for other listed species.
The loss or reduction of these funds will directly and immediately
hinder our ability to comply with the Endangered Species Act, which in
turn could threaten our ability to manage our forest, including the
commercial harvest upon which we depend. We urge the Committee not to
let this happen by maintaining these funds and their purpose. It was
the affected Northwest tribes, including our Tribe, that initially
secured these funds, not the BIA. Further, BIA has never sought any
other funds for Endangered Species management, which makes BIA's
unilateral efforts to either eliminate these funds or divert them to
some other use particularly troubling. Accordingly, we ask that the
Committee not allow this to happen, and that you fully restore the ESA
item funding to $3.1 million, with $1.7 million dedicated to affected
Northwest tribes.
(2) Add $115,000 to BIA Other Recurring Programs, Natural
Resources, Wildlife and Parks, for a Grand Ronde study of the decline
of Roosevelt Elk and its habitat on and around our Reservation.
The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
requests your support of the addition of $115,000.00 to Wildlife and
Parks in the BIA's Other Recurring Programs, Natural Resources budget
to study the habitat use and distribution of Roosevelt Elk on and
around our Reservation lands. Elk are an important cultural, natural,
and subsistence resource for members of the Grand Ronde Tribes. Tribal
members are authorized by the Tribal government, the State of Oregon,
and the federal government to hunt elk on and around Reservation lands
within the Trask Wildlife Management Unit.
Elk populations in the Trask Unit are below state management
objectives and tribal harvest rates have declined over the last 10
years. Approximately 46 percent of the Trask Unit is public land and
there is a perception among many hunters that these lands are not
providing quality elk habitat due to changes in management policies.
The Tribes would like to gather data on elk distribution and use of
habitat to learn how the available habitat is affecting elk
populations. Information learned from the study would allow the Tribes,
the State of Oregon, and other land managers and owners to make
informed decisions regarding management of elk habitats and
populations, with the goal of improving elk habitat to allow for
sustainable harvest of elk for current and future generations. While
there is clear need for research and data, no other agencies, state or
federal, are currently conducting elk research on or near the
Reservation.
The Tribe's Natural Resources Division would manage the project,
track the collared elk for two years, and analyze the data. The funding
requested would be used to obtain GPS (global positioning system)
tracking collars, tracking equipment, and to capture (using a
helicopter) and collar the elk. For this undertaking, we request
$115,000.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our fiscal year 2004 testimony. We
hope the Committee will be able to accommodate our requests. If you
have any questions, please let us know.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation
Mr. Chairman, I, Olney Patt, Jr., Chairman of the Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, hereby submit this
fiscal year 2004 testimony regarding Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
Office of the Special Trustee, and Indian Health Service funding for
fiscal year 2004. In summary, the Warm Springs requests are:
(1) Add $2 million to BIA TPA Forestry designated for Warm Springs
(BIA Tribal Priority Allocations, Resources Management).
(2) Restore BIA ESA funding to $3.1 million, with $1.8 million for
Northwest tribal ESA compliance activities, including $300,000 for Warm
Springs (BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources Management).
(3) Provide $500,000 for a Warm Springs Water Settlement
Implementation Plan (BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources Management,
Water Management, Planning, and Pre-Development).
(4) Within BIA Law Enforcement, add $500,000 for Warm Springs (BIA
Special Programs and Pooled Overhead, Public Safety and Justice).
(5) In IHS Hospitals and Clinics, add $1.75 million for the Warm
Springs Joint Venture Pilot Project (Indian Health Services Hospitals
and Health Clinics).
(6) Increase BIA and IHS contract support funding to 100 percent
(BIA Tribal Priority Allocations, Tribal Government, Contract Support,
Indian Health Services, Contract Support Costs).
(7) On trust reform, Office of Special Trustee funding increases
must not come out of existing tribal programs, and BIA's reorganization
should be deferred until the Trust Officers idea can be examined and
clarified and the ``As Is/To Be'' study is completed.
Mr. Chairman, my Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs,
has a 1,000 square mile Reservation in north Central Oregon that is
home to most of our 4,200+ members. Over the past several years, the
two long-time mainstays of our Reservation economy, timber and
hydroelectric revenues, have been steadily declining. Our available
timber harvest has fallen by half, and softwood lumber prices are low.
Electricity prices, after years of strong fluctuation, have also gone
substantially down. Unfortunately, these conditions are projected to
continue for at least several years into the future. We are
aggressively pursuing other economic development initiatives, but as I
am sure you know, economic development does not come easily to most of
Indian Country. We are trying, but at present, not making much headway.
In the past, when our tribal revenues were comparatively strong, we
were able to significantly contribute to the federal government's
provision of services for Warm Springs. But that is not the case today,
and we now find we must ask the federal government to more fully abide
by its obligations to our Tribe. Accordingly, we hereby present our
list of particulars to the U.S. Congress, and ask that you do all you
can to honor them and uphold the unique and solemn obligations the
United States has pledged to the Warm Springs Tribes.
(1) Add $2 million to BIA TPA Forestry designated for Warm Springs (BIA
Tribal Priority Allocations, Resources Management)
The $2 million increase for Warm Springs is necessary for the BIA
to fulfill, as a trustee, its legal duties and obligations to properly
manage the Tribe's forest resources. BIA funding for management of our
350,000 acre forest is $1,843,000, or $5.26 an acre. With cost of
living adjustments, this is in keeping with the 1993 findings of the
Congressionally authorized independent Indian Forest Management
Assessment Team (IFMAT) that BIA funding per acre was $4.14 at that
time, compared to $11.69 per acre for National Forests (roughly one-
third the annual funding for National Forests on a per acre basis).
This gross inequity continues to hamper the proper management of our
forest, and has reaped consequences accordingly: the Tribe has recently
prevailed in a forest mismanagement suit against BIA. Yet the BIA has
failed to provide any increased resources to correct its deficiencies
at Warm Springs. To begin to rectify these inadequacies, we request
that a $2 million increase be specified for Warm Springs Forestry the
BIA's Tribal Priority Allocation budget, which we estimate will still
only bring Warm Springs to approximately two-thirds of parity with
National Forests.
We note, and support, the $1.5 million national increase
recommended by the Administration for Tribal Priority Allocation
Forestry in its fiscal year 2004 request. The Administration
recommended a like increase for 2003 that was the first outright
increase in Forestry funding since it was slashed by nearly 20 percent
in fiscal year 1996.
(2) Restore BIA ESA funding to $3.1 million, with $1.8 million for
Northwest tribal ESA compliance activities, including $300,000
for Warm Springs (BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources
Management)
In fiscal year 1991, Northwest tribes, including Warm Springs,
asked Congress to initiate northern spotted owl compliance funding. In
fiscal year 1995, $1.7 million for NW tribes was combined with $1.3
million for a Northern Cheyenne prairie project. In fiscal year 2003,
BIA proposed to defund almost all the program, but Congress restored
$2,697,000 of the $3,000,000. For fiscal year 2004, BIA now proposes
$2,198,000, all of which will reportedly go to set-up Regional ESA
offices for BIA--none will go to tribes for on-the-ground activities.
We request that, for fiscal year 2004, the funding and purpose of the
program be restored with $3.1 million, of which $1.8 million is for
Northwest tribes, including $300,000 designated for Warm Springs.
(3) Provide $500,000 for a Warm Springs Water Settlement Implementation
Plan (BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources Management, Water
Management, Planning, and Pre-Development)
In 1997, the Warm Springs Tribes reached a water settlement with
the United States and the State of Oregon which left most of the water
in the Metolius and Deschutes Rivers and does not now require the
expensive water development legislation that normally accompanies
tribal water settlements. However, $500,000 in BIA financial support is
still needed to develop a Comprehensive Warm Springs Water Development
Plan, to conduct water quality modeling for the Deschutes River Basin,
and to examine potential energy development options. The Warm Springs
federal water settlement took years to negotiate, and at the time of
its completion was the first settlement achieved by Interior in four or
five years. The settlement is now bringing greater water certainty to
the Deschutes Basin, but the Tribe now needs Interior's assistance in
planning how we may best put our water rights to use.
(4) Within BIA Law Enforcement, add $500,000 for Warm Springs (BIA
Special Programs and Pooled Overhead, Public Safety and
Justice)
Law enforcement and public safety remain a very high priority at
Warm Springs. In the past three years, Tribal leaders have worked to
improve law enforcement capability on the Reservation by augmenting
Tribally-funded police officers, corrections officers, investigators
and fire medics with additional personnel and equipment supported in
part by BIA law enforcement funds. For fiscal year 2004, we note that
the President's request for BIA Law Enforcement Services (LES) includes
a funding increase of $10,110,000 to $168,774,000. Most of the BIA's
LES funding goes to support BIA staffed (direct operations) law
enforcement activities on a limited number of reservations while other
locations, including Warm Springs, have been left to largely fend for
themselves. The Warm Springs Tribal Police Department is the only law
enforcement agency responsible for our 1,000 square mile Reservation,
as well as numerous off-Reservation trust parcels. With our own Tribal
budget declining, and with the Department of Justice COPS program being
discontinued at our Reservation, it is essential that BIA law
enforcement share its steadily increased funding will all locations,
including those such as Warm Springs where BIA has largely abandoned
its public safety responsibilities. To restore a measure of balance and
fairness to BIA law enforcement, we ask that $500,000 be added for Warm
Springs. For fiscal year 2004, the Warm Springs Tribe will contribute
$2,600,000 for public safety, and BIA will contribute an estimated
$590,000. With the increase of $500,000, the fiscal year 2004 BIA total
would still be less than one third of the public safety budget at Warm
Springs.
(5) In IHS Hospitals and Clinics, add $1.75 million for the Warm
Springs Joint Venture Pilot Project (Indian Health Services
Hospitals and Health Clinics).
In 1991, the Congress, Indian Health Service (IHS), and the Warm
Springs Tribe entered into an innovative ``Joint Venture Pilot
Project'' to improve health care facilities and services at Warm
Springs. The Tribe financed and constructed a new clinic to federal
standards and the Congress and IHS agreed to fully fund and staff the
enhanced health care program in the new facility. However, the federal
funding actually provided has been far short of the promise. Moreover,
for the last several years inadequately funded federal mandates have
further diminished health services at Warm Springs. We request a $1.75
million increase in funding IHS Hospitals and Clinics to provide full
direct services for the Warm Springs Joint Venture.
(6) Increase BIA and IHS contract support funding to 100 percent (BIA
Tribal Priority Allocations, Tribal Government, Contract
Support, Indian Health Services, Contract Support Costs)
Since 1975, Tribal Self-Determination pursuant to Public Law 93-638
has been the keystone of Federal Indian policy, in which tribes either
contract or compact to take over the operation and management of
programs otherwise run by the BIA and the IHS. In taking over these
activities, tribes incur various unavoidable administrative costs over
and above the federal program and program administration costs,
including such things as audit and administrative costs for the
contract itself (in contrast to the direct administrative costs for a
particular program). Lest these unavoidable tribal contract support
costs become a disincentive to the tribal assumption of BIA and IHS
programs, Public Law 93-638 provides that tribes are to negotiate these
costs with the respective Department's Inspector General. The contract
support costs are expressed as a percentage of a tribe's amount under
contract. Public Law 93-638 then authorizes payment of contract support
costs to reimburse the tribe's contract support expenses.
Unfortunately, BIA and IHS budgets have failed to completely
reimburse tribes for these unavoidable expenses. In fiscal year 2003,
for instance, BIA only reimbursed about 92 percent of tribal contract
support costs, leaving tribes to shoulder the remaining 8 percent.
Please bear in mind these are costs the tribe would not incur if it
were not contracting a program. For fiscal year 2004, we project the
BIA and IHS contract support amounts, once again, will only be enough
to reimburse 92 percent or 93 percent of tribal contract support costs.
Here at Warm Springs, where we have about $17 million under BIA and IHS
Public Law 93-638 contracts, the unreimbursed amount we must shoulder
is substantial, and with our tribal revenues declining, we are less
able to contribute that amount toward the implementation of a federal
policy. Accordingly, we request that BIA and IHS contract support be
funded at 100 percent for fiscal year 2004, or about $145 million and
$283 million respectively.
(7) On trust reform, Office of Special Trustee funding increases must
not come out of existing tribal programs, and BIA's
reorganization should be deferred until the Trust Officers idea
can be examined and clarified and the ``As Is/To Be'' study is
completed
The BIA budget request includes a significant increase for trust
management within the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee (OST). A
$123 million increase for OST--to $275 million--is partially offset by
a $63 million cut to the BIA Construction and an $8 million cut to
Indian Water and Claims Settlements. Education Construction will lose
$32 million--despite a terrible backlog of new school construction.
Tribal leaders have repeatedly emphasized that funding needed to
correct deficiencies in DOI trust management must not come from
existing BIA programs or administrative monies. Instead, it is
essential that DOI's trust reform funding increases be provided by
Congress rather than depleting already insufficient BIA programs.
We are also concerned by Interior's unilateral approach to trust
reorganization and their request for significant increased funding for
that reorganization with no clear provision for accountability.
Increased funding for the OST is potentially an empty promise without
clear accountability in place or plans to work with the impacted tribes
and individuals. Organizational charts show the establishment of newly
created Trust officers, likely placed at every BIA Agency and Regional
Office, which may cause significant conflict with the authority held by
the BIA Agency Superintendents. Before we create a mini-bureaucracy we
would like a detailed examination of the financial and operative impact
by both the Congress and impacted the Tribal governments. Moreover,
before implementation, the authority and role of the proposed Trust
Officers need to be much more clearly defined.
Finally, trust reform should not be carried out until the
corrective ``To Be'' portion of the ``As Is/To Be'' study of BIA is
completed. A rush to trust reform before ``To Be'' completion will
squander millions of dollars and significant tribal contributions, and
only help perpetuate BIA's past mistakes in trust management.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT)
This testimony CIT requests $1.5 Million for fiscal year 2004 and
continuation of Contract Support language under U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Activity: Special Programs and
Pooled Overhead. It is CIT understanding that tribal postsecondary
vocational institutions under this program are being internally
transferred in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Office of
Postsecondary Education.
On behalf of the Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT), I thank
this Subcommittee for appropriating critically needed operational
funds, the use of which is described below in quantitative detail. In
addition, CIT expresses its deepest gratitude to the Subcommittee for
its guidance to the Department on the issue of contract support.
Funding for CIT is authorized under Public Law 84-959, ``Vocational
Training for Adult Indians.''
CIT is the only postsecondary vocational educational institution on
the Navajo Nation reservation. For academic year 2002-03, CIT's
enrollment is 517 Full Time Equivalency or Indian Student Count (FTE/
ISC).
The population of the Navajo Nation is 225,298 (U.S. Census 2000).
The Navajo Nation is one of the very few tribes with an extant native
language. Nearly all Navajo citizens raised on the reservation not only
speak the Navajo language but also use it in their daily lives. On
trust land alone, 106,432 Navajo citizens are age 18 and over. The
median Native American population age is 27.4 years, eight years
younger than the median age for mainstream America. Approximately
10,000 Navajo students graduate from area high schools each year. The
average CIT student age is 26, with the actual age range being 18 to
64.
The Navajo reservation is an immense and remote 26,897 square miles
extending into three States: Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. This
reservation is 2,810 square miles larger than the State of West
Virginia. The driving distance across the reservation is approximately
nine hours. Although distant from major towns, Crownpoint is a major
reservation activity center. CIT students come from throughout the
reservation, as well as from the towns of Gallup, Cruet, Continental
Divide, Fruitland, Kirtland, Mentmore, Rehoboth (all in New Mexico),
Durango, Colorado, White Mesa, Utah and the Tohono O'odham and Hopi
Reservations in Arizona. Approximately 30 percent of CIT students are
from the Arizona side of the Reservation.
It is important that appropriators understand the immense
population difference that exists among Indian tribes. One typical
comparison is the fifteen tribes in the States of Montana, North Dakota
and South Dakota which have a combined population of 72,835 (U.S.
Census 2000). The Navajo Nation population is more than three-fold this
population. These fifteen tribes have sixteen tribal colleges, each on
significantly smaller land bases. These distances are more commutable,
and most do not require boarding facilities as CIT does. The Navajo
Nation has only one other college, Dine', based in Tsaile, Arizona with
eight small branch campuses throughout the reservation. Of the entire
Navajo population, only 4.66 percent of high school graduates go on to
achieve a bachelor's degree. Only 2 percent achieve Masters degrees,
and less than one-half percent earn doctorates. CIT has proven to offer
a realistic educational alternative that equips young adults with
meaningful employment skills as well as placing graduates in career
track employment.
In order to achieve these goals, CIT has broader infrastructure
responsibilities. CIT is campus-based with 153,468 square feet of
facilities. The CIT campus includes state of the art classrooms and
Veterinary Clinic, modular administrative buildings, library,
dormitory, efficiency apartments, married student housing and
cafeteria. CIT has no recreation facility. CIT students has a higher
proportion with development educational needs, and longer distances
travel to school daily. Despite many challenges, CIT earns
achievements. In 2003, CIT received a Center for National Excellence
award from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the second time for
sincere commitment to student outcomes, one of only eight such awards
nationally. Also in 2003, the CIT Culinary Arts Program students won
the Hilton Hotels-sponsored creative culinary art award.
CIT continues to increase its student housing capacity with
assistance from the Navajo Nation HUD. CIT does not use BIA funding for
construction. In 2003, another sixteen married and family student units
were completed under Navajo Nation HUD funding. Students with dependant
families are among those most in need of acquiring employment skills.
CIT opened a new 75 unit efficiency housing for 150 students, but at
the same time had to temporarily close its 110 unit dormitory for
safety-related repairs to be completed in a year. Each year, CIT has
averaged a waiting list of approximately 200 otherwise qualified
students due to residential hosing limitations. Rental housing is
scarce in the town of Crownpoint. Daily commuting from most parts of
the reservation is hindered by poor roads, harsh weather and vast
distance, although some students do commute daily up to 70 miles each
way. CIT has an eight-year average student retention rate of 95
percent. Due to increased enrollments and funding shortages in
Placement personnel, the average job placement has dropped from 86
percent to 75 percent.
CIT is fully-accredited by North Central Association of Colleges
and Schools as a vocational educational institution. CIT offers two-
year Associate of Applied Science degrees in seven disciplines:
Accounting, Administrative Assistant, Applied Computer Technology,
Environmental Technology and Natural Resources, Law Advocate, Legal
Assistant and Veterinary Technician. CIT offers sixteen vocational
certificate programs: Accounting, Administrative Assistant, Applied
Computer Technology, Automotive Technology, Building Maintenance,
Carpentry, Culinary Arts, Electrical Trades, Environmental Technology
and Natural Resources, Law Advocate, Legal Assistant, Nursing
Assistant, Veterinary Assistant, Small Business Development (new),
Commercial Drivers License and Computer Aided Drafting. In the upcoming
year, CIT is ready to offer Alternative Energy to assist the many
reservation areas that still do not have access to electricity and
possibly never will.
In May 2002, CIT graduated 208 students. This reflects an increase
of 25 percent in the number of graduates over the previous year, which
was 167 graduates. Approximately 80 percent of CIT completions not
continuing their educations had secured employment placement by the
time they graduated. Of this number, 86 percent secured full-time
employment with the remaining 14 percent accepting seasonal jobs. 54
percent secured employment on-reservation and 46 percent off-
reservation. In addition, the region's economy is comprised
significantly of self-employed ranchers who by definition are not
placed in employment. Several CIT Veterinary students are self-employed
ranchers who improve their livelihoods through knowledge and skills
learned in the CIT Veterinary Program. Students continuing their
educations are considered positive terminations.
Of the above graduating classes (375 students), the CIT Placement
Office successfully tracked and job placed 82 percent (308). 92 CIT
graduates (30 percent) continued their educations. Funding limitations
inhibit the capability of the CIT Placement Office to track and place
100 percent, but indicators over time are that some graduates who do
not maintain contact with the Placement Office after graduation may do
so because they have no need for job placement services. In other
words, they find employment on their own. Of those graduates utilizing
CIT placement services the following were placed in jobs or continued
their education: Accounting 10 of 10 (100 percent): Administrative
Assistant 30 of 43 (70 percent): Applied Computer technology 24 of 44
(55 percent): Automotive Technology 19 of 20 (95 percent): Building
Maintenance 15 of 18 (83 percent): Carpentry 17 of 20 (85 percent):
Culinary Arts 9 of 12 (75 percent): Electrical Trades 20 of 22 (91
percent): Environmental Technology and Natural Resources 17 of 23 (74
percent): Legal Assistant 5 of 5 (100 percent): Law Advocate 5 of 8 (63
percent): Nursing Assistant 34 of 52 (65 percent): Veterinary Assistant
10 of 13 (77 percent): Commercial Drivers License 16 of 18 (89
percent). Other variables affect employment success rates. For example,
Nursing Assistants are in high demand. However, due to housing scarcity
and transportation obstacles, several CIT Nursing Assistant graduates
were unable to accept jobs offered.
Of all CIT graduates, the average entry level wage is $17,160 per
annum. CIT's Commercial Drivers License (CDL) program graduates earn
the highest wage at $16 to $18 an hour, or $33,280 to $37,440 annually
if employment remains stable. The next highest paid entry-level wages
average by vocational program are: Veterinary Technician/Assistant
$23,920: Legal Advocate/Assistant $21,320: Electrical Trades $20,280:
Automotive and Environmental Technology, both at $19,760. Even the
modest entry-level wages can be deceiving as to the wage once
established in that profession. For example, an electrical apprentice
will start at $9/$11 hourly. This wage will more than double to $22/$28
hourly in 3\1/2\ to 4 years.
For Associate degree students continuing their educations, CIT has
articulation agreements with University of New Mexico Albuquerque and
Gallup, New Mexico State, Ft. Lewis College, University of Arizona and
Northern Arizona University. The University of Pennsylvania and Iowa
State University interns participate in CIT's Elk Management Program.
In addition, CIT partners this program with the Tohono O'odham Tribe of
Arizona where livestock is critical to subsistence. In the Tohono
O'odham partnership, CIT addresses the very real problem of migratory
livestock disease transmission from across the Mexico border.
Partnering with Iowa State and Colorado State Universities, CIT offers
an elk and cattle artificial insemination program for the region's
ranchers. In response to overgrazing, the Elk Management Program has
proven to be a viable alternative livestock offering a three-fold
return over traditional livestock.
In an average lifetime of employment, CIT graduates will return to
the Federal Government the cost of its investment many times over. Each
employed graduate pays an average of $2,576 of their earnings to
federal taxes in the first year of employment alone. Actual taxes paid
differ according to a number of variables, but wage earnings and
resultant tax contributions will generally continue over at least
thirty years. 62 percent of tracked graduates are employed in private
industry and do not rely directly or indirectly on federal
appropriations for jobs.
As is prevalent throughout the economically disadvantaged in Native
America, many high school graduates are not equipped with skills
necessary to enter postsecondary education. To rectify this deficiency
among some CIT applicants, CIT will hold its first summer session of
Developmental Studies in 2003 for 150 entering students.
CIT continually strives to strengthen its programs. In 2003 CIT
will enhance articulation agreements with San Juan and Dine Colleges
through standardization of course offerings, particularly in the math
and sciences. Through such measures CIT can more effectively ascertain
student achievement and modify course offerings as necessary. CIT will
require additional resources to retain adjunct faculty in order to
achieve this goal.
On behalf of all the CIT students whose quality of life has been
immensely improved by Interior appropriations, I thank this
Subcommittee for all of its assistance. CIT still faces the challenges
described above, and will deeply appreciate and maximally benefit from
the modest increase requested from this Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes
The Wind River Reservation in central Wyoming is home to the
Eastern Shoshone Tribe and the Northern Band of the Arapaho, as well as
approximately 25,000 non-Indians. The majority of these residents are
cattle ranchers, working small ranches to support a modest lifestyle.
The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho respectfully request $3.35
million for the fiscal year 2004, fiscal year 2005, and fiscal year
2006 appropriations cycles to begin the repair and rehabilitation of
the Wind River Irrigation Project, which provides vital water to these
ranchers.
NEED FOR AN APPROPRIATION
Irrigation on the Wind River Indian Reservation dates back to the
early 1860's, prior to the Reservation's establishment in 1868. In
1905, Congress enacted legislation providing, in part, for the
construction of an irrigation system to serve Indian lands on the Wind
River Reservation. This system, the Wind River Irrigation Project, was
never completed, and unfortunately, is in exceptionally poor condition.
During the 1960's, a report completed on the status of the project
indicated that 74 percent of the 3,820 structures along the 420 miles
of the canal were in dire need of repair. Regardless, restorative
efforts were not taken and instead, these structures have continued to
deteriorate.
Currently the project encompasses 77,000 acres, of which only
40,000 acres are irrigable. Three major structures are in imminent
danger of failure, with only enough emergency funds on hand to repair
one such failure. Canals and diversion structures are of inadequate
size, canals and laterals have eroded, and extensive seepage is evident
along delivery canals and laterals. (Full reports of the deficiencies
are available for congressional review.)
Various evaluations by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the
Tribes, and other entities, have shown that the system is in critical
condition and in need of immediate attention to maintain the current
economic conditions of the Wind River Reservation. The Project Engineer
estimates that major head gate structures will begin failing soon,
rendering much of the project unserviceable. One engineering firm
suggests that, without action, the Wind River Irrigation Project has a
maximum life of seven (7) years. Because 25 percent of the irrigable
acreage is idle and lacks an adequate water delivery system, these
Indian and non-Indian landowners are denied the ability to make their
lands productive.
Further exacerbating the situation, Wyoming is in the midst of its
worst drought in more than a century. Failure of the Irrigation Project
will devastate these Indian and non-Indian ranchers, and a local
economy where agriculture income is key.
ISSUE OF EQUITY
The Wind River Reservation is also home to similar projects, such
as the Midvale Irrigation Project. Aimed at providing water to non-
Indians residing on the reservation, the Midvale Project has received
federal assistance of approximately $1,000/acre for water delivery
enhancements and improvements. By comparison, the Wind River Irrigation
project has received approximately $100/acre.
It is inequitable for the United States to have funded the non-
Indian federal project on the reservation at a level of 90 percent more
than the Indian project. The Tribes are simply asking to be provided
equitable treatment with other irrigators. The inequities of the past
have contributed to 53 percent of our population living below the
poverty level, a 49 percent unemployment rate, and the inability to put
our land to productive use.
USE OF APPROPRIATIONS
The requested appropriations will be used to begin the
rehabilitation process. Specifically, steps will be taken to replace or
repair, and correctly size, approximately 11 major headgates; install 2
sand traps; reconfigure, repair, and install pipe on 9.5 miles of
lateral; install or repair 14 check and headgate structures; and repair
and clean 5 laterals. This work is the initial part of the overall
rehabilitation of the project.
In summary the irrigation project is in dire need of federal
funding to stabilize and reverse the continuing deterioration of the
system. The Eastern Shoshone and the Northern Arapaho Tribes are
seeking Congressional appropriations to begin the repair and
rehabilitation of the Wind River Irrigation Project. We respectfully
request that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and
related agencies support the Tribe's request of $3.35 million for each
of the fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the Committee
on this urgent matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
I, Robert B. Peacock, Chairman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa would like to thank you for this opportunity to
present written testimony on fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the
Department of Interior. The Fond du Lac Reservation was established by
Treaty with the United States on September 30, 1854 and encompasses
100,000 acres of land in northeastern Minnesota. There is a population
of 6,500 Indian people that live within the service area of the
Reservation with the Band providing employment or services to most of
them. On behalf of the Fond du Lac Band, I am asking that you increase
the bands funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs by $9 million for
fiscal year 2004 to develop the infrastructure necessary to continue to
serve and protect the resources of the band. I also request that
$915,000 be provided for the Circle of Flight program under the BIA's
Other Recurring Programs--Resource Management line item. The Dept. of
Interior's Tribal Wildlife Grant Program was funded at $5 million, and
I request that this Grant Program be funded at this level for fiscal
year 2004.
We strongly support the Administration's request of additional
funding under the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. In 1997
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that certain traffic regulations
including, speeding, driving without a license, and driving with no
insurance were ``civil-regulatory'' in nature and under Public Law 280
are unenforceable by state police officers on the Reservation. The
ruling known as the Stone decision, left a jurisdictional void with
regard to law enforcement on the roads within Indian Reservations in
the State. In order to fill this void, the Band has undertaken the
establishment of it's own Tribal police force through the Community
Oriented Policing Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal funds.
In addition, the Band has worked with all local law enforcement
agencies to establish a cross deputization agreement that ensures
maximum law enforcement protection for the Reservation and it's
citizens by allowing all law enforcement agencies within the
Reservation boundaries to enforce each other's laws. However, because
of the short-term, limited financial resources available, there are
significant unmet needs in this area. At Fond du Lac, we need long term
funding to pay for staff and equipment to adequately ensure the safety
of the Reservation population. In light of the Stone decision, we ask
this committee to support the Administration's request for investment
in strengthening Indian Country's Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice
System and ask that this committee consider placing these initiatives
into the BIA's permanent base budget. The Band currently employs seven
police officers, six conservation officers, one records clerk, one
prosecuting attorney, one clerk of court, one part time court recorder,
and one part time judge. All of these staff positions are located
within the Resource Management division. Along with this staff, are
thirty other permanent full time staff and fifteen full time seasonal
staff housed in a building that was designed to house twenty. With the
increased responsibility assumed by the Band there is an ever
increasing need to expand the staff and it's capabilities. With this in
mind, we request a one time allocation of $6 million to the Band for
expansion of the office space for the Resource Management Division. We
are also requesting that $1.5 million be added to our base budget to
continue to implement and staff the court and enforcement systems for
the Band.
Under Treaties with the United States made in 1837 and 1854 the
Fond du Lac Band reserved the right to hunt, fish and gather on the
lands ceded, a large portion of central and northeastern Minnesota, to
the United States. The Band's rights under these treaties have been
recognized and upheld by the federal courts--most recently the United
States Supreme Court. On March 24, 1999 the Supreme Court issued a
decision expressly re-affirming the Band's hunting and fishing rights
in the 1837 Ceded Territory. Under established Band conservation law,
the exercise of these off-reservation treaty rights require that the
Band take the steps necessary to ensure proper use and management of
the natural resources. This means the Band is responsible for member's
hunting, fishing and gathering activities over approximately 8,000,000
acres of land. The Band has adopted, along with the federal courts, a
code and a resource management plan that protects the exercise of
treaty reserved rights and the resources. It is very essential that the
Band continues to manage it's on-reservation resources in order to meet
the demands of an increasing population. Established by the Treaty of
1854 with the United States, the home of the Band is 100,000 acres in
northeastern Minnesota. The waters, wildlife, wild rice and the forest
resources of the reservation are vitally important to it's members as
these resources provide the foundation for our culture, subsistence,
employment and recreation. The Fond du Lac Reservation includes some
3,200 acres of lakes, 1,900 acres of wild rice lakes and associated
wetlands, 66 miles of cool water streams, and 17,500 acres of forest
with the remaining acres being used by individual land owner for
housing and development. The increasing resident population and
development are placing all resources under great stress. The loss of
wild rice acres, wildlife habitat, and the decline of our forest are of
great concern to the Band. Therefore, we are seeking an additional $1.5
million be added to the Band's base budget for the Fond du Lac Resource
Management Division, for it's natural resource programs, that will
enable us to protect these resources for the future generations on Fond
du Lac.
In the $1.5 million request, we seek an additional $100,000
increase to the base budget of the Fond du Lac Natural Resources
Program. The Fond du Lac Natural Resources program carries out the
essential fisheries, wildlife and wild rice programs on the Fond du Lac
Reservation. This Program is restoring over 1,000 acres of wild rice on
our Reservation's wild rice lakes, and is also conducting a long term
project to restore the lake sturgeon to the upper St. Louis River. The
funds for this program have not been increased since 1991 and the cost
of conducting these resource management programs has increased
substantially.
Another important resource management need is to obtain funds to
address the threat of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), which has recently
infected white tailed deer in our region. CWD poses a very serious
threat to the health of the white tailed deer herds and potentially to
the moose population in northern Minnesota. Where it has been found,
the only known treatment is eradication of captive herds and great
reduction in the wild deer herds. The impacts of CWD on human health
are currently unknown, but warrant further investigation. The potential
harm to the deer population in this region has serious implications for
Native Americans, because for a majority of Fond du Lac Band Members,
deer comprise 25-30 percent of their diet. Therefore, we urgently
request $75,000 in base program funds for our Conservation Enforcement
Program. The long term funding of this project is necessary for our
Conservation Enforcement and Wildlife staff to collect the samples from
hunters for analysis, in order to identify the frequency and range of
infected deer in Northeastern Minnesota. This is the area in which our
Band Members frequently hunt for deer and moose. If infected animals
are found, a program of deer harvesting to thin the local herd is
essential in order to prevent or limit the expansion of this disease.
We ask that the House Appropriations Committee support the Fond du
Lac Band in behalf of the Fond du Lac Ojibwe Schools to support all
Bureau of Indian Affairs requests for education programs.
The Circle of Flight.--Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Enhancement
Initiative program, under the BIA's Other Recurring Programs category,
was again eliminated in President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget
request. The Circle of Flight program has been one of Interior's top
trust resource protection programs for 10 years. Since fiscal year
1991, Great Lakes tribes and other partners have restored or enhanced
more than 66,000 wetland, wild rice, grassland and native prairie
acres, and installed thousands of waterfowl nest structures. Wild rice
lakes provide high quality forage for migratory waterfowl as well as
waterfowl nesting habitat. The Circle of Flight program enabled the
Great Lakes tribes to become key partners with federal, state, and
local government units, as well as private organizations such as Ducks
Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy. The Circle of Flight program has
invested more than $6 million in habitat projects, and has leveraged
these dollars for an additional $18 million in federal, state, private,
and tribal funding, yielding and impressive match ratio of 3 to 1. The
elimination of the Circle of Flight program would cripple the Great
Lakes tribe's ability to continue these successful partnerships, which
have benefited a diverse array of wildlife species and their associated
habitats. I ask that you restore the Circle of Flight program to the
BIA's fiscal year 2004 budget to at least the fiscal year 2003 level of
$594,000, and to consider providing the fiscal year 2004 requested
amount of $915,000.
I thank the Committee for the new $5 million Tribal Wildlife Grants
program in the Interior Conservation Spending category in fiscal year
2002 and 2003. Even though this amount represents only .28 percent of
this Title, whereas tribes are directly responsible for protecting at
least 2.35 percent of the land area of the United States, it represents
a good start at helping to address the massive unmet need tribes have
in meeting their conservation responsibilities. I ask that you consider
increasing the Tribal Wildlife Grant program to $10 million in fiscal
year 2004.
In conclusion, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian
Country remain massive. Your support to preserve the current BIA
funding request is critical to maintain current program levels. Your
consideration for our additional funding requests will enable us to
improve the delivery of services to Band members and help ensure that
we enter the 21st Century with a renewed sense of hope.
Miigwech. Thank you.
______
Letter From the Fremont County, WY Legislative Delegation and Members
of the Select Committee on Tribal Relations
April 11, 2003.
Re Support for Funding to Rehabilitate the Wind River Irrigation
Project.
Hon. Conrad Burns,
Chairman, Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Burns: We, the Fremont County, Wyoming legislative
delegation and members of the Select Committee on Tribal Relations, are
writing this letter to express our support for the Eastern Shoshone
Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe's fiscal year 2004 appropriations
request to begin rehabilitation of the Wind River Irrigation Project.
The Tribes are in significant need of water development funding.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs-administered Wind River Irrigation
Project is in a condition of severe disrepair, with over $50 million in
deferred maintenance. The recent drought has highlighted the
inefficiency of water delivery on the Wind River Irrigation Project. In
addition, many of the essential delivery structures arc in danger of
failing. If rehabilitation does not occur soon, the system will become
inoperable.
During Wyoming's last legislative session we worked closely with
the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes to develop and pass
legislation which will enable the Tribes to act as sponsors of water
development projects through the Wyoming Water Development Program. Due
to the poor condition of water delivery infrastructure on the WRIR, a
combination of federal and state funds will likely be needed to meet
all the water development needs of the Tribes. A federal appropriation
for irrigation rehabilitation on the WRIR for fiscal year 2004 will
encourage favorable consideration by the Wyoming legislature for the
Tribal request for Wyoming Water Development funding during the next
legislative session.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at our
respective addresses and phone numbers. We respectfully ask that you
support this much needed appropriation.
Sincerely,
Senator Cale Case,
Lander, WY.
Senator Bob Peck,
Riverton, WY.
Representative Harry Tipton,
Lander, WY.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
BIA Treaty Rights Protection/Implementation: $3,966,000 (enacted
fiscal year 2003).--Operation of Indian Programs, Other Recurring
Programs, Resources Management, Rights Protection/Implementation, Great
Lakes Area Resource Management.
GLIFWC seeks to maintain the base budget that Congress has provided
for the past two years. The ``Green Book'' is not yet available for
fiscal year 2004, but GLIFWC presumes that, as with previous budget
proposals, the Administration will propose funding at $300,000 below
the enacted fiscal year 2003 amount. Since GLIFWC's inception in 1984,
Congress consistently has recognized the need to maintain GLIFWC's core
natural resource conservation and law enforcement programs. For
example, Congress provided funds in fiscal year 2002 to restore GLIFWC
program cuts caused by chronic underfunding. And, in fiscal year 2003,
Congress restored the Administration's proposed cut of nearly $300,000
from GLIFWC's enacted fiscal year 2002 funding.
The requested fiscal year 2004 funds would allow GLIFWC to maintain
its programs that fulfill important federal obligations to its 11
member Ojibwe Tribes and that provide a wide range of associated public
benefits. With full base funding, GLIFWC's will be able to meet its
duties under a number of federal court decisions. And, it can remain a
viable conservation and public safety partner in Wisconsin, Michigan
and Minnesota at a time when many surrounding agencies have been hit
hard by the call to active military duty.
BIA Contract Support Costs.--GLIFWC also seeks full funding of its
contract support costs, as it has experienced a $250,000 shortfall
since 1995. This shortfall cuts into program funding, and the lack of
funding certainty throughout the year further compounds its effect.
GLIFWC's indirect cost rate has always been below 15.25 percent, and
was 14.2 percent in fiscal year 2002. Such a low rate is difficult to
maintain when actual funding is not known until the end of the fiscal
year.
BIA ``Circle of Flight'' Program.--GLIFWC supports funding to
Operation of Indian Programs, Other Recurring Programs, Resources
Management, Tribal Management Development Programs, Wetlands/Waterfowl
Management. In fiscal year 2003, the Administration proposed to
eliminate this long-standing tribal contribution to the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan. Congress disagreed, and restored the
necessary funding. Over the past 11 years, the roughly $7 million
provided to Tribes, including to GLIFWC and its member Tribes, has
leveraged over $18 million--a 2.5 to 1 ratio--in matching federal,
state, private, and other tribal funding for cooperative wetland
enhancement projects.
Ceded Territory Treaty Rights and GLIFWC'S Role.--GLIFWC was
established in 1984 as a ``tribal organization'' within the meaning of
the Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638) to assist its
member Tribes in:
--securing and implementing treaty guaranteed rights to hunt, fish,
and gather in Chippewa treaty ceded territories; and
--cooperatively managing and protecting ceded territory natural
resources and their habitats.
It exercises authority delegated by its member Tribes to implement
federal court orders and various interjurisdictional agreements related
to their treaty rights. It serves as a cost efficient agency to
conserve natural resources, to effectively regulate harvests of natural
resources shared among treaty signatory Tribes, and to develop
cooperative partnerships with other government agencies, educational
institutions, and non-governmental organizations.
Congress has funded GLIFWC for the past 17 years to meet specific
federal obligations under: (a) a number of U.S./Chippewa treaties; (b)
the federal trust responsibility; (c) the Indian Self-Determination
Act; and (d) various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme
Court case, affirming the treaty rights of GLIFWC's member Tribes.
Under the direction of its member Tribes, GLIFWC operates a ceded
territory hunting, fishing, and gathering rights protection/
implementation program through its staff of biologists, technicians,
conservation enforcement officers, and public information specialists.
Its activities include: natural resource population assessments and
studies; harvest monitoring and reporting; enforcement of tribal
conservation codes into tribal courts; funding for tribal courts and
tribal registration/permit stations; development of natural resource
management plans and tribal regulations; negotiation and implementation
of agreements with state, federal and local agencies; invasive species
eradication and control projects; biological and scientific research;
and development and dissemination of public information materials.
Why GLIFWC'S Funding Base Needs to be Maintained.--A $300,000 cut
in GLIFWC's base funding will threaten a number of its core programs.
This is best illustrated by how the restored funding in fiscal year
2003 was used: to reinstitute fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys
at previous levels; to restore tribal court and registration station
funding cuts; to restore Lake Superior lamprey control and whitefish
assessment programs; to restore GLIFWC's share in cooperative wildlife
and wild rice enhancement projects; to replace ageing equipment; to
meet expanding harvest monitoring needs; and to meet uncontrollable
increases in employee benefit costs (particularly health and other
insurance).
In addition, a continued base funding level will ensure GLIFWC's
participation in regional emergency services networks at a time when
many personnel of surrounding agencies have been called to active
military duty. GLIFWC's officers are integral partners with surrounding
emergency responders. They not only enforce the Tribes' conservation
codes, but also work cooperatively with surrounding authorities in
detecting violations of state or federal criminal and conservation
laws. Moreover, they are certified medical emergency first responders,
including in CPR and in the use of defibrillators, and are trained in
search and rescue.
GLIFWC has worked hard to streamline its programs and institute
other cost-saving options. Specifically, it has: (i) cut staff; (ii)
teamed up with its partners to maximize the cost efficiency of
cooperative projects; (iii) obtained separate contract support funding
from the BIA; and (iv) diversified its funding from non-BIA sources to
build upon its Self-Determination Act funding and to undertake special
projects.
How the Restored Base Funding Would be Used.--The $300,000 would be
used the same in fiscal year 2004 as it was in fiscal year 2003--(1)
Restore Cut or Reduced Programs ($160,000) \1\; (2) Replace Ageing
Vehicles and Field Equipment ($100,000) \2\; and (3) Meet Increased
Personnel and Fringe Costs ($40,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $100,000 to restore fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys
to previous levels; $30,000 to restore tribal court and registration
station funding cuts; $10,500 to restore Lake Superior lamprey control
and whitefish assessment programs; $15,000 to meet harvest monitoring
obligations; and $4,500 to restore GLIFWC's share in cooperative
wildlife and wild rice enhancement projects with state and federal
agencies, as well as with non-profit conservation organizations and
other partners.
\2\ With fiscal year 2003 funds, GLIFWC replenished a $100,000
vehicle/equipment replacement capital fund and replaced a number of its
oldest vehicles and equipment that had become obsolete or economically
inefficient to operate and maintain. This fund would be replenished
again with fiscal year 2004 funds to cover some of the over $200,000 in
other vehicle/equipment replacement needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Benefits From GLIFWC's Funding.--With the requested funds,
GLIFWC will:
1. Remain a constructive, stabilizing natural resource management
and public safety institution.--GLIFWC provides continuity and
stability in interagency relationships and among its member Tribes, and
contributes to social stability in the ceded territory in the context
of treaty rights issues. It is a recognized and valued partner in
natural resource management, in emergency services networks, and in
providing accurate information to the public.
2. Retain an Experienced Professional Staff.--In many instances,
GLIFWC staff experience matches or exceeds that of their counterparts
in other agencies when it comes to treaty rights issues and to ceded
territory natural resource management and enforcement.
3. Maintain cooperative, cost-effective partnerships.--GLIFWC has
built partnerships with:
--Federal, state, and local government agencies (e.g. State DNR's,
USFWS, USDA-FS, USDA-NRCS, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, US
Coast Guard, EPA, ATSDR, HHS-ANA, and Canadian federal and
provincial governments);
--Schools and Universities (e.g. University of Wisconsin-Madison,
University of Wisconsin-Superior, Northland College, University
of Minnesota, and Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe Community
College); and
--Conservation groups (e.g. Ducks Unlimited, the Sharp-Tail Grouse
Society, the Natural Resources Foundation, the Nature
Conservancy, and local lake associations).
Through these partnerships, the parties have achieved public
benefits that no one partner could have achieved alone by:
--Identifying mutual natural resource concerns, and implementing
joint conservation and enhancement projects (e.g. wild rice
restoration, waterfowl habitat restoration and improvement
projects, and exotic species control projects);
--Providing accurate information on state and tribal harvests and on
the status of natural resource populations (e.g. joint fishery
assessment activities and jointly prepared reports);
--Maximizing financial resources to avoid duplication of effort and
costs (e.g. coordinating annual fishery assessment schedules
and sharing personnel/equipment);
--Contributing scientific research and data regarding natural
resources and public health (e.g. furbearer/predator research,
fish consumption/human health studies, and other fish
contaminant research particularly regarding mercury); and
--Engendering cooperation rather than competition (e.g. cooperative
law enforcement and emergency response, joint training
sessions, mutual aid emergency services arrangements, and
cross-credential agreements).
______
Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Tribe of California
The Hoopa Tribe respectfully submits this written testimony
regarding the fiscal year 2004 budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
A summary of my requests are as follows:
--Request support for the California Trust Reform Pilot Project
--$319,000 for Forest Development Add-On.
--$546,000 for Timber Sale Preparation and Administration.
--$228,000 for Forest Program Management.
--$194,000 for Forest Inventories and Plans.
--$435,000 for Road Maintenance and Improvements.
NARRATIVE OF REQUEST
California Trust Reform Pilot Project.--In 1997, the Hoopa, Karuk,
Redding Rancheria, Yurok, Big Lagoon, Cabazon Tribes formed the
California Trust Reform Consortium. The Guidiville Indian Rancheria
joined in 2002. The purpose of the Consortium is to work with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Regional Office (PRO) to improve
management of trust activities being performed by the Federal
Government and member Tribes. A part of the Consortium's efforts has
been to work with the PRO to identify problem areas related to
management and protection of trust assets, identify and resolve funding
and staffing shortages and address policy and regulatory conflicts that
arise during tribal and BIA management of trust resources. The ongoing
working relationship between the member tribes and the PRO has provided
a meaningful way for the tribes and the PRO to identify trust issues as
they arise and effectively resolve them before a legal or breach of
trust issue can develop between the parties.
The California Trust Reform Pilot Project has been tremendously
successful for both the BIA and Tribes. Further, the ongoing working
relationship has created new opportunities to begin working on trust
issues that were never before been addressed and has facilitated a
positive environment to emerge to support economic development and
enhance tribal management and infrastructure. Therefore, the California
Trust Reform Consortium requests that the Subcommittee provide language
in the Appropriations Report that continues the support for this
important and successful effort.
Forest Development--$319,000.--The current Forest Development
budget for Hoopa is used for the salary of one person whose sole
responsibility is to lay out pre-commercial thinning projects for the
Hoopa Reservation. In addition, Tribal funds are used to pay for one-
half of the salary of the certified silviculturist who oversees
projects as they are carried out by local Indian contractors. To date,
the Tribe has implemented over 5,000 acres of thin and release projects
on the Reservation, which has generated more than 100 man years of work
during the past ten years. Pre-commercial thin and release projects are
designed to remove competition from non-commercial vegetation of forest
lands and to remove brush that has historically contributed to wildland
fires. This funding increase will allow the Tribe to carry out this
important trust responsibility activity at a level to keep up with non-
commercial vegetation growth by increasing the ``on- the -ground'' work
that is needed for proper for management of Indian trust assets. These
funds would allow the Tribe to thin and release an additional 1,000
acres of newer second growth timber stands that have not thinned since
1970 due to the lack of funding. In addition, this funding would allow
the Tribe to hire another one full time employee that is critically
needed to carry out these efforts.
Timber Sale Layout and Administration--$546,000.--This program is
responsible for overseeing the preparation, layout, documentation in
FOR's and contracts, and for administering of timber sale contracts
used to harvest approximately $8 million of annual tribal timber sales.
The program provides timber sale layout, administration, scaling, and
small sales for Indian allotments. The Tribe currently funds nearly all
of the layout and small sales work with tribal funds, including timber
sales for individual Indian allottees. These funds would allow the
Tribe to hire a timber management officer, two sale administrators and
two scaling technician, which compose the minimal trust oversight
obligations for these responsibilities. In addition, the funding
requested would allow the Tribe to establish the necessary staffing and
resources needed to carry out timber sales activities in accordance
with federal timber statutes and regulations.
Forest Program Management--$228,000.--This program pays for the
central administrative staff that is necessary to oversee all Tribal
and individual Indian timber sales, management of timber trust assets
and provide technical assistance where needed relating to forest and
timber land activities to the Tribe and Indian allottees. The funding
request would not only support the administrative functions of the
Hoopa Forestry Department but would also provide funds for a personnel
clerk for the 70 Forestry Department staff and for a grants and
contracts personnel, neither of which are not presently funded by the
BIA. These funds would also allow the Forestry Administration to
properly manage contracts for Forest development projects and conduct
proper oversight functions for timber sale site pre-preparation,
prescribed burning activities, reforestation and grubbing, as well as
other activities, such as NEPA, botany surveys and Endangered Species
oversight.
Forest Management Planning and Inventories--$194,000.--Forest
Management Planning and Inventories is responsible for all initial
project planning including the development and approval of
Environmental Assessments (EA) for all projects. Approximately three to
five EA's are produced annually, including timber sale project EA's and
road development. Presently, this important component of the Tribal
Forestry Department is not funded by the BIA.
Roads Maintenance and Improvements--$435,000.--There are 450 miles
of system roads on the Hoopa Reservation, of which only 130 miles are
on the BIA road maintenance schedule. There are an additional 100 miles
of roads that are in very poor condition that continuously contribute
to fishery stream sedimentation due to winter landslides and blown out
culverts, as well as create wildland fire hazards due to brush
overgrowth and allow trespass and illegal wood cutting by outsiders.
The present funding level of the BIA Road maintenance Program for only
the 130 miles of roads that are on the BIA maintenance schedule for the
Reservation is $132,000, which is 11.59 percent of need. In 1992, the
Tribe hired an engineering firm to assess the road conditions and
establish an adequate maintenance budget and schedule. The firm's
analysis determined that an annual additional operating budget of
$435,000 would be required to properly manage Reservation roads.
CONCLUSION
The California Trust Reform Pilot Project has been a proven success
in improving the management of trust assets and improving the working
relationship between the member tribes and the BIA. We request the
Subcommittee's support for continuing this Pilot Project. With respect
to Forest Management and Road Maintenance, the BIA's budget is
significantly short of demonstrated need. The Tribe will have an
extremely difficult time continuing to carry out these federal trust
responsibility activities without the funding requested.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at (530) 625-4211 ext. 102 or via email at [email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA)
The management of multi-jurisdictional fish, wildlife and outdoor
recreation resources on Indian reservations and in treaty-ceded areas
is a complex process requiring the implementation of comprehensive
programs comparable to those conducted by State and Federal fish and
wildlife agencies. The shared status of many fish and wildlife
resources and the roles and responsibilities of many Tribal governments
as resource co-managers require close coordination with State, Federal
and other resource management authorities. Effective Tribal
participation promotes and facilitates fish and wildlife conservation
for the benefit of Tribal and non-Tribal communities alike. For these
reasons, the Association continues to be concerned by the woefully
inadequate Wildlife and Parks budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The base request for fiscal year 2004 of $24.2 million is virtually
identical to the fiscal year 2003 request and is more than a $7 million
(23 percent) reduction from the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget for
this program. This is an inappropriate and inadequate response to the
needs on Tribal lands. The Association encourages Congress to restore
these cuts and subsequently appropriate additional funds to begin to
address long-standing resource needs on Tribal lands.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $434,000 for fish
hatchery maintenance, an amount that mirrors the current year's budget,
which barely recognizes the more than $25 million backlog in required
hatchery maintenance. This amounts to approximately $3,600 per year for
each of the 120 currently operating Tribal hatcheries and rearing
facilities across the country, and falls far short of addressing even
minor maintenance requirements. The Association strongly recommends a
significantly increased funding level for fiscal year 2004 and out
years with the objective of eliminating the fish hatchery maintenance
backlog by fiscal year 2010.
The Association has, in the past, strongly supported the agency's
request for fish hatchery rehabilitation to rehabilitate Tribal fish
hatcheries and replace capitalized equipment for the highest priority
projects. Not since fiscal year 1995 has Congress appropriated money
for such rehabilitation. The Association strongly recommends that
Congress reestablish the fiscal year 1995 funding base of $1.5 million
to replace failing systems and modernize Tribal fish hatcheries to
enable them to optimize fish production. This funding would help
satisfy vital Tribal fishery needs.
The Association believes that Tribal lands are integral to the
maintenance and recovery of threatened and endangered species.
Presently, the majority of Tribes are unable to be parties to candidate
species studies and conservation agreements due principally to lack of
funding. The Association strongly recommends an increase of $900,000 to
the fish hatchery operations line-item for the Tribes to participate in
all phases of the endangered species recovery process. This would
enable Tribes to begin to address listed species needs and recovery of
species from which all Americans benefit.
The Association is concerned about the funding being requested for
endangered species activities within the non-recurring portion of the
budget request. The $2.19 million being requested for this function is
a considerable improvement over the President's 2003 budget request of
$197,000, but still falls short of addressing nearly $70 million in
identified needs for this program area. While important work related to
monitoring spotted owls and marbled murrelets in the Pacific Northwest
and the range management improvements related to black-tailed prairie
dogs and black-footed ferrets in South Dakota will be allowed to
continue, funding is below the level needed. The Association,
therefore, recommends an increase of $.8 million to the fiscal year
2004 Tribal endangered species budget category to fully fund the
aforementioned projects and significantly increased funding in the out
years with the objective of addressing the backlog of needed endangered
species conservation efforts by fiscal year 2010.
The fiscal year 2002 budget ceased listing the funds for Alaska
Subsistence as a separate line-item and placed the funding for this
purpose in the Tribal Management/Development Program, and that practice
continues in the fiscal year 2004 budget. Given that provisions for
subsistence in Alaska are not specific to Tribes, the Association
recommends that this program be identified as a separate line-item in
the same fashion as other Interior agencies.
The Association opposes the elimination of $2.85 million from the
base budget of Wildlife and Parks. The six programs being eliminated in
Tribal Management/Development programs are:
1. The Chugach Regional Resources Commission. The Commission, which
encourages and oversees Native resource development programs for five
Native Villages along the northern rim of the Gulf of Alaska, has been
funded since fiscal year 1991. The Association supports the
reinstatement of the full $347,000 to fund this important project in
the coming fiscal year.
2. The Alaska Sea Otter Commission. This Tribal consortium promotes
Native participation in resource policy decisions pertaining to the sea
otter and has been funded since fiscal year 1993. The Association
supports the reinstatement of the full $69,000 to fund this important
project in the coming fiscal year.
3. The Bering Sea Fisherman's Association. This association has
been funded since fiscal year 1994 and supports the involvement of
Alaska Native tribes and organizations in salmon research and
monitoring projects in the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim region of Alaska. The
Association supports the reinstatement of the full $803,000 to fund
this important project in the coming fiscal year.
4. The Lake Roosevelt Management Project in Washington State.
Funding has been provided in the past through negotiated contracts with
the Confederated Colville Tribes and the Spokane Tribe. Funds are used
to implement a cooperative management agreement between the Tribes and
the Department of the Interior for managing outdoor recreation in and
around Lake Roosevelt. Funds support Tribal programs focusing on the
management, planning and regulation of fishing, boating, camping and
related public use activities occurring within the Reservation Zone of
the Lake Roosevelt Recreation Area. Funding from this account also
supports the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Management Council. The
Association supports the reinstatement of the full $630,000 to fund
this important project in the coming fiscal year.
5. Upper Columbia United Tribes. These funds have been provided
since fiscal year 1988 to the Kalispell, Kootenai, Spokane, and Coeur
d'Alene Tribes to protect tribal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights
and conservation projects in the Upper Columbia River Basin. The
Association supports the reinstatement of the full $418,000 to fund
this important project in the coming fiscal year.
6. Wetlands/Waterfowl Management. Tribes in Minnesota, Michigan,
and Wisconsin have been provided vital funding, since fiscal year 1991,
for wetland rehabilitation and enhancement in cooperation with the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, designed to add tens of
thousands of ducks and geese to spring and fall migrations. The
Association supports the reinstatement of the full $600,000 to fund
this important project in the coming fiscal year.
While the Association is opposed to diversion of Sport Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Program funds for Tribal use, it is committed to
adequate federal funding to provide for professional management of
Tribal fish and wildlife resources. The Association believes that
Native American Tribes have identified legitimate funding needs for
fish and wildlife on millions of acres of Tribal lands. Adequate
funding preserves and enhances the cultural heritage of Native American
Tribes, while providing positive economic benefits, and ensuring the
conservation of significant fish and wildlife resources.
______
Prepared Statement of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
My name is Ervin Carlson, a Tribal Council member of the Blackfeet
Tribe. I am President of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC). On
behalf of our 51 member Tribes, I would like to thank the honorable
members of the committee for this opportunity to provide written
testimony. On behalf of ITBC, I would like to address the following
issues: (1) Request an appropriation of $3,000,000 for fiscal year
2004, which is an increase of $1,250,000 over last year's
appropriation, (2) Explain to the committee ITBC's unmet funding need
of $19.4 million, and (3) Update the committee on ITBC's present
initiatives.
The InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC), located in Rapid City,
South Dakota, is a Native American non-profit organization composed of
51 federally recognized Indian Tribes within a 17 state region. ITBC is
dedicated to the development and restoration of buffalo on Indian lands
for the economic, agricultural, environmental, spiritual and cultural
purposes of Indian Nations. Additionally, ITBC acts as an informal
guardian of the buffalo to promote, protect and preserve buffalo
traditions within the United States.
In 1992, ITBC was created as an initiative of the Bush
Administration. The organization intended to promote development of
Indian reservation lands that could not sustain other successful
economic or agricultural projects. Often, Indian reservation lands were
of a poor quality and not able to sustain any sort of farm, wildlife or
livestock projects. Since buffalo had occupied these lands for
centuries before they were hunted to near extinction in the 1800's,
ITBC believed buffalo could once again thrive successfully on
reservation land.
Buffalo provided subsistence to the Native people. In the Plains
Indian culture, the buffalo provided food, housing, materials and tools
used in daily life, and a philosophic and cultural basis for everyday
life. Originally, ITBC was organized to preserve the sacred
relationship between Indian tribes and the buffalo. Tribal buffalo
operations are a logical extension of an historic way of life and also
serve as a source of economic opportunities on tribal lands. Restoring
these animals is critical to the health of Indian nations. Indian
Tribes approach buffalo herd development with a seriousness and respect
that other economic development projects may not receive.
Today, as a result of federal appropriations and ITBC's efforts,
buffalo are once again thriving on tribal lands. ITBC has played a
significant role in this restoration and is now making every effort to
assure that the Tribal buffalo projects are economically sustainable.
FUNDING REQUEST
The InterTribal Bison Cooperative respectfully requests an
appropriation for fiscal year 2004 in the amount of $3,000,000. This
amount is $1,250,000 above the fiscal year 2003 appropriation for ITBC
and is greatly needed to maintain last years funding level and to help
build economic sustainability to the Tribal projects.
FUNDING SHORTFALL & UNMET NEED
In fiscal year 2003, the ITBC and its member tribes were funded
through appropriations at $1,746,000. The President's budget for fiscal
year 2004 recommends a funding amount of $1,146,000 which is a decrease
of $600,000 at a time when the current market price for buffalo is only
10 percent of the price three years ago.
At the current level of funding, many of our member tribes cannot
receive adequate technical assistance, product and resource
development, nor do they receive funding for start-up or maintenance
costs.
ITBC is a cooperative with 100 percent of the appropriated funds
going toward the support and development of Tribal buffalo herds and
buffalo product business ventures. ITBC funding is distributed among
all ITBC member Tribes. In fact, an important aspect of ITBC is the
cooperative agreement that member Tribes have reached in regard to the
sharing of ITBC funding.
Each year, ITBC surveys all its member tribes to determine their
unmet project needs. The current unmet need for ITBC tribal projects to
fully develop is $19,378,367. I have attached the Tribal Bison Project
Proposal summaries for your review, which details each of ITBC member
tribe's projects and financial need.
ITBC GOALS & INITIATIVES
The immediate goal of ITBC is the restoration of the buffalo on
Indian lands through the development of Tribal buffalo herds and
related economic development projects. The ultimate goal is for Tribal
buffalo herds to reach a point of self-sufficiency and once again
become an economic cornerstone throughout Indian country.
Economic Development.
In 1991, seven Indian tribes had small buffalo herds, with a
combined total of 1,500 animals. Little or no economic development was
taking place with the buffalo. ITBC has proven its success in
restoration of tribal buffalo herds during its relatively short 10-year
history. Today, with the support and technical assistance of ITBC, over
35 Indian Tribes are engaged in raising buffalo. There are
approximately 15,000 animals owned and managed by these Tribes. Many of
these Tribal buffalo programs are on the verge of becoming fully self-
sufficient and successful operations. Most important for the Tribal
economies, a new industry has been born where previously none existed.
Hundreds of direct and indirect jobs relating to the tribal buffalo
industry have been created. The positive impact to Indian country has
been unmistakable.
However, in order to become fully self sufficient and sustainable
the Tribes must be able to build a solid foundation for this new
industry. ITBC provides critical assistance to member Tribes who must
have sustainable management plans, infrastructure growth and
development plans, training for the new jobs being created, and as the
herds grow and develop, marketing plans as well. Therefore, in order to
provide the necessary assistance ITBC is ready to begin a marketing
initiative.
Tribal Buffalo Marketing Initiative
When the tribal buffalo are finally, ready for market, ITBC member
tribes face yet another obstacle to economic success. Few meat
processing plants exist that can process buffalo. The geographic
isolation that is common to most of our Tribes, further compounds the
problem by increasing operating costs and reduces the quality of the
meat by introducing unnecessary and harmful stress to the animals.
Because the Tribal buffalo are range fed many existing plants will not
allow them to be processed. Therefore, ITBC supports the development of
tribally owned processing facilities that will accept range fed buffalo
and assure product identity and quality control.
Currently, there is only one Indian-owned, USDA approved, meat-
processing plant. This plant is located in Malta, Montana and was only
recently acquired by the Ft. Belknap Tribe. The Tribe has requested the
assistance of ITBC to build a sound infrastructure and to coordinate
with other Tribes to process their buffalo, and help build a
cooperative market for the Tribally produced range fed buffalo. ITBC is
anxious to launch its marketing initiative by providing critical
support to the Ft. Belknap Tribe in Montana. This project will begin
the necessary infrastructure development that is so critical to
sustainability. ITBC will assist with training for meat processing,
cold storage facility development, help plan and upgrade the plant for
buffalo, develop a distribution plan and system for Buffalo meat and
by-products, and develop a cooperative brand name with standards and
labeling guarantees, similar to the Kosher Beef brand. The development
of the Ft. Belknap plant will serve as a model for other Tribal
processing plants that are on the verge of achieving USDA approval. The
primary benefits of tribally owned buffalo processing plants is to
maintain the integrity of the Tribally owned buffalo meat as a health
benefit, to develop a culturally appropriate processing schedule and to
provide sustainability to the Tribal buffalo projects.
Preventive Health Care Initiative
Another important aspect of ITBC's economic development effort is
to provide buffalo meat to reservation families and to re-educate
tribal members to the health benefits of including buffalo meat in
their diets. ITBC is working to provide better ways for reservation
families to have easier access to purchase buffalo meat. In most cases,
buffalo meat is not sold in small quantities at the grocery stores and
convenience stores located on Indian reservations. When Native families
purchase meat, often the only choice of meat available to them is the
high fat, and high cholesterol, processed meats that most reservation
stores stock.
Current research indicates that the diet of most Indian families on
the reservations, includes large amounts of high fat, processed meats,
which contributes to diabetes and heart disease and other diet related
health problems.
ITBC is working on a health care initiative that will provide
easier access to buffalo meat on the reservations, target those
individuals with the greatest need, and to educate more Indian families
of the health benefits of including range fed buffalo meat in their
daily diets.
SUPPORT FOR TRIBAL INITIATIVE
ITBC support for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the
Flathead Reservation in their effort to assume management of buffalo in
the National Bison Range as a compactable federal function under the
1994 Self-Governance Act.
Tribal management of the National Bison Range would restore the
relationship of buffalo with the Tribe on their ancestral land, allows
the Tribe to assume management of their resources and save the
government a significant amount of funding for the current management
expenses.
CONCLUSION
ITBC has demonstrated success over the years by assisting its
member tribes with the restoration of buffalo to their native lands for
cultural purposes and economic development. ITBC will continue to
provide technical assistance and funding to its member tribes in order
that they can restore and maintain tribal buffalo herds.
Through the efforts of ITBC and its member tribes, new jobs have
been created in the tribal buffalo industry resulting in new money for
tribal economies. In addition, ITBC continues to support methods to
market buffalo meat by providing easy access on the reservation and
education efforts to the health benefits of buffalo meat in the Native
diet.
ITBC and its member tribes are appreciative of past and current
support from the Congress and the Administration. I urge the committee
to consider an increase to ITBC fiscal year 2004 appropriation so that
the important work of restoring buffalo herds can continue without
interruption, and so ITBC can help it's member Tribes achieve
sustainability. I would like to thank this Committee for the
opportunity to present testimony regarding ITBC's buffalo restoration
efforts and resulting economic development opportunities. We invite the
members of the Committee and their staff to visit one or more of the
Tribal buffalo projects and to witness first hand their success.
Questions and/or comments regarding any of the issues presented
within this testimony may be directed to Mr. Ervin Carlson, President
or to Mr. Fred DuBray, Executive Director at (605) 394-9730.
______
Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Timber Council
SUMMARY
Mr. Chairman, I am Nolan Colegrove, Sr., President of the
Intertribal Timber Council. I hereby submit the following requests for
fiscal year 2004 BIA and U.S. Forest Service appropriations:
(1) Provide a total increase of $7.5 million in BIA T.P.A Forestry,
(2) Restore Endangered Species in Resources Management, Non-
Recurring Programs to $3,035,000, and add $3 million for unfunded ESA
mandates,
(3) In Forestry under Resources Management, Non-Recurring
Programs--
--Add $25 million for Forest Development backlog elimination,
--Add $6 million for Inventories and Plans to provide current
management plans for all trust forest land,
--Add $500,000 for Woodlands management, and
--Support the $1 million increase for Integrated Resource Management
Plans,
(4) Add $1 million to Environmental Management in Non-Recurring
Trust Services for cultural resources surveys,
(5) Add $8 million to Cadastral Surveys in Non-Recurring Programs
Real Estate Services, and add $1.5 million to Regional Office
Operations Land Titles and Records,
(6) Within Wildland Fire funding in the Bureau of Land Management,
direct BIA to develop a Native American fire crew leadership training
program, and
(7) In the U.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestry budget,
create a line item for the expanded ``Office of Tribal Relations'' and
add $1 million for its support.
INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL BACKGROUND
The Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) is a twenty-seven year old
organization of seventy forest owning tribes and Alaska Native
organizations that collectively possess more than 90 percent of the 7.6
million timberland acres and a significant portion of the 9.5 million
woodland acres that are under BIA trust management. These lands provide
vitally important habitat, cultural and spiritual sites, recreation and
subsistence uses, and through commercial forestry, income for the
tribes and jobs for their members. In Alaska, the forests of Native
corporations and thousands of individual allotments are equally
important to their owners. To all our membership, our forests and
woodlands are essential to our physical, cultural, and economic well-
being, and their proper management is our foremost concern.
(1) Provide a Total Increase of $7.5 million in BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation Forestry
The ITC appreciates the addition of $1,500,000 to the Tribal
Priority Allocation Forestry budget approved by the Committee for
fiscal year 2003. This was the first program increase since fiscal year
1995. For fiscal year 2004, we urge the Committee to increase the
Forestry appropriation by $7.5 million to reflect a cumulative 31.9
percent cost of living adjustment since fiscal year 1992 and a 7.5
percent increase in trust forest land acres. The resulting funding
level of $37.3 million will only restore the BIA TPA Forestry program
to the current equivalent of its fiscal year 1992 status, at which time
the IFMAT report documented BIA Forestry funding as being grossly
insufficient, with Indian forests receiving only 63 percent of the
funding for timber production on National Forests, and only 35 percent
of that for coordinated resources management. Adequate funding must be
provided to enable the Department to fulfill its trust responsibilities
for managing Indian forests.
(2) Restore Endangered Species in Resources Management, Non-Recurring
Programs, to $3,035,000 and add $3 million to Begin Fulfilling
the Unfunded ESA Mandates
We request that the Endangered Species item in the BIA's Non-
Recurring Programs Natural Resources budget be provided $6,035,000.
This amount restores the northern spotted owl/marbled murrelet (NSO/MM)
and Cheyenne River ferret programs back to their fiscal year 2002 level
of $3 million ($1.6 million for the owl, $1.4 million for the ferret),
plus $35,000 for cost of living adjustments, and then adds another $3
million to begin addressing unfunded tribal/BIA endangered species
mandates. Congress started the NSO/MM program in 1991 to enable the BIA
to fulfill its obligations after the owl and murrelet were listed under
the ESA. BIA subsequently combined the NSO/MM with the ferret program.
In fiscal year 2003, the Administration proposed eliminating both
activities, but Congress partially restored the funding to $2,697,000.
(As of this writing, we do not know how that amount will be distributed
between the NSO/MM and ferret programs.) For fiscal year 2004, the
Administration is requesting $2,198,000 for ESA activities, but we do
not know how those funds are proposed to be spent. It is essential that
funding to support ESA activities be restored. They are the only funds
that have ever been specifically provided in the BIA's budget for
addressing the NSO/MM listings. Elimination of these funds would
threaten ESA compliance activities and could potentially restrict or
shut-down the timber harvesting that is essential to the economies of
tribal communities.
We request that ESA funding be fully restored for the NSO/MM and
ferret programs to inflation adjusted levels provided for fiscal year
2002. We also request a further $3 million increase in the ESA budget
item for management of other ESA-listed species throughout Indian
Country.
(3) In Forestry under Resources Management, Non-Recurring Programs--
Add $25 million for Forest Development backlog elimination
Forest Development, one of four components in Non-Recurring
Forestry, provides for thinning and planting on the 6 million acres of
commercial trust forest land. As in fiscal year 2003, the fiscal year
2004 Forest Development request of approximately $9.6 million will only
provide treatment on 50,000 acres, which is about the annual accrual of
commercial forest acres in need of thinning and planting. The
Administration's budget requests nothing for reducing the backlog of
1.3 million acres. Some 22 percent of the trust commercial forest land
base is now in need of thinning and planting. These acres are either
underproductive or out of production altogether. To fulfill the federal
government's fiduciary obligation to ensure that all trust commercial
forest land is productively utilized, we request an fiscal year 2004
increase of $25 million to treat 130,000 backlog acres as a start on
eliminating the backlog.
Add $6 million for Inventories and Plans to provide current
management plans for all trust forest land
Forest Management Inventory and Planning (FMI&P), another component
of Non-Recurring Forestry, covers the costs of preparing forest
inventories and plans that are required for the management of trust
forests. According to the most recent BIA information, only 43 percent
of all Indian trust forest lands, including woodlands, have current
management plans. A November 13, 1998 Interior Solicitors' Opinion
holds that ``Indian timber may not be harvested until an approved
forest management plan has been established.'' The absence of current
management plans for more than half of all Indian trust forest land
could damage the resources that comprise the trust corpus or even
foreclose harvest on those lands. The consequences of the failure of
the trustee to meet its fiduciary obligations would fall on Indian
beneficiaries in terms of lost tribal jobs and increased stress on
already scarce resources necessary to meet the financial, health,
economic, education, and subsistence needs of tribal communities. To
prevent such occurrences and for the U.S. to fulfill its trust
responsibilities, we request that $6 million be added to the
approximately $2 million fiscal year 2004 FMI&P request to begin
providing current management plans for all trust forest lands.
Add $500,000 for Woodlands management
We request the addition of $500,000 for Woodlands Management,
another component of Non-Recurring Forestry. Funding for the 9.4
million acres of Indian Woodlands has not changed since the program's
start in 1988. The current funding level only provides three woodlands
managers in the Southwest and a very few on-the-ground projects. Just
one quarter of these lands, often vital for subsistence purposes, are
covered by management plans, and less than one half have resource
inventories. An addition of $500,000 would increase staff for improved
management and oversight, and enable badly needed management projects
to be undertaken.
Support the $1 million increase for Integrated Resources
Management Plans
The ITC supports the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2004 $1
million increase for Integrated Resource Management Plans (IRMPs) for
reservations. IRMPs are an essential element in modern natural resource
management planning for BIA's 56 million total acres in trust,
including the 17.1 million forest land acres. We support the
Administration's request for a $1 million increase as an initial step
towards supporting the development of IRMPs, although we believe the
true needs for funding far exceed this amount.
(4) Add $1 million to Environmental Management in Non-Recurring Trust
Services for cultural resources surveys
Indian lands are rich in historic artifacts and sensitive sites,
and various federal laws, such as the Historic Preservation Act,
NAGPRA, and NEPA, impose exacting requirements on land and resource
managers. Cultural surveys generate the data that is essential for
forest and other resource management plans, but BIA has never requested
any funding to help meet those federal mandates. Accordingly, like last
year, we request that $1 million be added to Environmental Management
in Non-Recurring Trust Resources for cultural resource surveys.
(5) Add $8 million to Cadastral Surveys in Non-Recurring Programs Real
Estate Services, and add $1.5 million to Regional Office
Operations Land Titles and Records
Reliable and accurate boundaries and clear, current title are
essential for the management of Indian trust lands and resources.
Without these two elements, the land's use and management are clouded,
its income subject to question, and its protection jeopardized. But
Interior funding for these two critical elements has not been
sufficient. A new BIA cadastral survey ranking system identified $30
million just in ``priority'' projects. To begin to address this
problem, we suggest doubling the BIA's fiscal year 2004 request to $16
million. We also ask that BLM, which for years has shirked its
statutory responsibility to provide cadastral surveys for trust land,
be directed to institute such a program as part of its baseline
responsibilities.
For Land Titles and Records, we ask an increase of $1.5 million, to
renew the commitment started several years ago to improve the BIA's
ability to produce timely and accurate titles. Currently, BIA has
150,000 title documents that need to be recorded, and this case load is
growing as demand continues to outstrip the BIA's capacity.
Accordingly, we ask that funding be increased by $1.5 million.
(6) Within Wildland Fire funding in the Bureau of Land Management,
direct BIA to develop a Native American fire crew leadership
training program
There is an increasing need for fire crew leadership training that,
if not addressed, could endanger the safety and hinder the deployment
of otherwise fully trained and able tribal fire crews. Native American
crews constitute about 25 percent of the line fire fighter work force
and a crew leadership training program in the BIA is essential to
improve their safety and effectiveness. To help address this need, we
ask that the BIA be directed to develop a Native American fire crew
leadership training program.
(7) In the U.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestry budget,
create a line item for the ``Office of Tribal Relations'' and
add $1 million for its support
Last mid-December, after several years of work by a USFS National
Tribal Relations Program Task Force and its Implementation Team, the
U.S. Forest Service decided to enhance its Office of Tribal Relations.
The job announcement for the Office's Director was issued March 18 and
the Office will ultimately be staffed by six positions. We ask that $1
million be added to State and Private Forestry to fund the Tribal
Relations Office. Tribes and the Forest Service share thousands of
miles of common border. Tribes also have rights and interests on
hundreds of thousands of Forest Service acres, and must confront
numerous trans-boundary resource issues, including forest management
and health, watershed, and wildlife. Yet, in the past, tribes and the
Forest Service have failed to adequately coordinate their management
approaches. Today, with new pressures on America's resource base, and
with emphasis on cohesive resource management strategies that transcend
man-made boundaries, we are pleased that the Forest Service is actively
reaching out to its tribal neighbors with an enhanced Office of Tribal
Relations. We fully support the Tribal Relations Office, and ask
Congress to support it as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
This testimony is submitted by the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
regarding our funding priorities and requests on the fiscal year 2004
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets.
TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION PRIORITY
$150,000 adjustment for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe for Fisheries
Management in the Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) for the BIA
fiscal year 2004 Budget.
LOCAL/REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes
of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
SELF-GOVERNANCE AND OTHER NATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
2. Provide $5 million increase for BIA and $98 million for IHS to
fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC);
3. Provide $4.5 million increase to the Indian Health Service (IHS)
Office of Tribal Self-Governance;
4. Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase to maintain existing health care services; and,
5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board.
TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION JUSTIFICATION
For the last 25 years Western Washington tribes have struggled to
meet our responsibilities for proper fisheries management which we
incurred following the affirmation of our treaty fishing rights in the
U.S. v. Washington Supreme Court decision. Following the Boldt Decision
in the late 1970's, PNPTC was formed by the Port Gamble S'Klallam,
Lower Elwha Klallam and Skokomish tribes to conduct a professional
biological and enforcement program, thereby insuring that the tribes
could manage their fisheries activities responsibly and more
efficiently through a consortium.
Following our Tribal recognition in 1981, we joined the PNPTC
consortium and requested funding from the BIA. PNPTC was then operating
on behalf of the other three tribes at a funding level of $692,500 for
fisheries services. Due to funding limitations, the BIA made the
decision that adding Jamestown to the consortium could be accomplished
without adding an equivalent share to PNPTC's funding. The addition to
services for Jamestown should have been a level of one-third of PNPTC's
budget, or $230,833. The BIA only added $133,000, a grossly deficient
amount to meet our Treaty obligations.
Currently, PNPTC is struggling to keep basic operations funded.
Staff and other overall reductions in work hours have been necessary.
These cuts greatly inhibit the tribes' ability to meet our fisheries
management obligations. A total of $150,000 increase is needed in order
to bring Jamestown's pass-thru funding up to the level equivalent to
the other Tribes and to address the additional new responsibilities due
to shellfish management and ESA obligations in the last 9 years. We are
requesting a recurring base funding adjustment to our Self-Governance
Funding Agreement to alleviate the funding pass-through inequity now
experienced by the PNPTC member tribes. This will help to address the
significant inter-tribal friction, as well as support hiring essential
staff to operate our Iribal programs.
LOCAL/REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the
collective Tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and
recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission.
SELF-GOVERNANCE AND OTHER NATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustments.--This is the fifth
year in a row that the Administration's request contains no general
increase for TPA. This activity includes the majority of the funds used
to support on-going services at the local Tribal level including such
programs as housing, education, natural resources management and Tribal
government services. A Congressional Research Service Report on Indian-
related federal spending trends for fiscal year 1975-fiscal year 2000
finds that increases in the combined BIA/Office of Special Trustee
``current'' dollars averaged $46 million per year. But as ``constant''
dollars (adjusted for inflation), there has actually been a decline of
approximately $6 million per year. Over this 25-year period, the total
is $150 million! At a minimum, the requested amount will provide for a
modest 3.5 percent inflation adjustment for existing Tribal programs
and services.
Increase BIA and IHS Contract Support Cost (CSC) Funds to address
documented need.--CSC funds are required for Tribes to successfully
manage their own programs. While the Administration's budget request
for fiscal year 2004 includes a modest increase for CSC, an additional
$98 million is needed in IHS and an additional $5 million increase is
needed in BIA to fully fund CSC. This shortfall continues to penalize
Tribes which elect to operate BIA and IHS programs under the self-
determination policy. Further, this shortfall threatens to pit tribe
against tribe as mature contractors are asked to absorb all
inflationary increases in order to fund new contractors. Additional CSC
appropriations are needed to implement the self-determination and self-
governance policy as supported by Congress. We urge the Subcommittee to
fully fund CSC for Tribes similar to how other contractors are funded
within the federal government.
Provide $4.5 million increase to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
Governance.--In fiscal year 2003, a total of $4.2 million was
eliminated from the Office of Tribal Self-Governance within the IHS
budget. We believe that this decrease will severely impact IHS's
ability to fully implement the provisions of Title V of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended. The IHS
Office of Tribal Self-Governance was established in 1996 to advocate
and implement the Self-Governance initiative within IHS. There are
currently 285 Tribes (51.1 percent of all federally-recognized Tribes)
implementing Self-Governance agreements. While the number of Self-
Governance Tribes has and continues to increase, the staff and
organizational capacity of OTSG has not. Additional funding is needed
to increase the OTSG's organizational capacity to meet the legal
requirements of Title V and to protect and advance the Self-Governance
initiative.
Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase needed to maintain existing health care services.--The
Administration's request of $40 million in fiscal year 2004 is far
short of the $360 million needed just to maintain current health care
services. These costs are unavoidable and include medical and general
inflation, pay costs and staff for recently constructed facilities. IHS
and Tribal programs simply cannot afford to continue to lose real
resources. Mandatories should be the first consideration in budget
formulation. If unfunded, these cost increases will result in further
health service reductions in our Tribal communities.
In conclusion, we recognize that the Administration and Congress
has placed a major priority on fighting the war against terrorism and
protecting our homeland. However, the treaties and legislation, that
tribal governments have fought so hard to achieve with the United
States government, remain the basic foundation of our unique
governmental relationship. We strongly urge this Subcommittee to honor
these commitments and that tribal government operations be afforded the
highest priority in your appropriation decisions.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
As Chairman of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians, located in Wisconsin, I am pleased to submit this written
testimony which reflects the needs, concerns and issues of the Tribal
membership arising from the President's fiscal year 2004 Bureau of
Indian Affairs and National Park Service Budget request.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs Scholarships................... $250,000
Bureau of Indian Affairs Johnson O'Malley............... 93,000
Bureau of Indian Affairs Wetlands Waterfowl/Circle of 593,000
Flight.................................................
Bureau of Indian Affairs Wildlife and Parks............. 200,000
Bureau of Indian Affairs Forestry....................... 188,000
National Park Service Historic Preservation............. 275,000
Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement................ 800,000
BIA-TPA Tribal Courts................................... 762,122
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDIAN EDUCATION
Education of our tribal youth still continues to be the Band's
number one priority and we look to Congress to support us on this
issue. In the past we have supported the President's BIA budget on
Indian Education, but this year most of the increases are associated
with school construction ($292.7 million) and operation ($567 million).
The Band is and has been requesting increased funding through the
Administration's Tribal Priority Allocation planning process in higher
education and Johnson O'Malley, but has not been successful. So again,
we are asking Congress to address this funding short-fall through the
legislative process.
The Band's specific concern is the funding levels associated with
higher education programs. There has not been an increase in the BIA's
higher education funding for seven (7) years. In the last three (3)
years, the Band had 130 tribal members, who were not able to receive
funding for college due to shortfalls. To fully support our eligible
students, an additional $250,000.00 of funding for Lac du Flambeau is
required. It should be noted to the members of this Committee, that
like many other states, Wisconsin is having financial problems.
Wisconsin's financial woes are driving the cost of college tuition even
higher, making our request of additional funding even more important.
The Johnson O'Malley program has been under funded through the
Tribal Priority allocation process and the Band has identified a
funding shortfall. Our Education Program receives $55,967.00 to operate
the JOM program in which we concentrate all our efforts and funding to
high school students. We have 520 students in grade school that cannot
be served by Johnson O'Malley because of the shortfall. To fully fund
this program at Lac du Flambeau, an additional $93,000.00 would be
required.
NATURAL RESOURCES
The Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation is located in northern
Wisconsin and is in the heart of the north woods and lakes area. The
reservation is 86,000 acres with 46,000 acres of forested land, 20,000
surface acres of water and 14,000 acres of wetland. The land, air and
water resources and associated fish, wildlife and plants are very
important to the well-being of the Band. Our wildlife and plant
resources support a subsistence way of life, which is an integral part
of our culture as well as our economy. The comprehensive Department
includes the following programs: Fish Culture, Fisheries Management,
Wildlife, Water Resources, Environmental Protection, Forestry,
Conservation Law Enforcement, Land Management and Tribal Historic
Preservation. The primary goal of all the programs is to assure that
the natural and cultural resources; the Band's most precious assets,
are protected and preserved. The following lists our funding needs.
Circle of Flight-Great Lakes Wetland/Water Fowl Management Program
We strongly urge the Committee to restore $593,000.00 for the Great
Lakes Wetland/Water Fowl Management Program (Circle of Flight) that the
Administration proposes eliminating entirely again this year. The 107th
Congress restored this important funding last year and the Lac du
Flambeau Band would like to thank the Committee for understanding how
important this program is in restoring and preserving our Nation's
wetlands and waterfowl populations. This program also gives Congress,
the Great Lakes Region Tribes, States, USFWS, USDA, Ducks Unlimited and
other private sector groups an opportunity to work cooperatively in
projects that provide wetland protection, flood control, clean water
and recreation in the Great Lakes Region. Your strong support of this
program is required again.
Wildlife and Parks
The Band has a comprehensive Natural Resource Department and
dedicated staff with considerable expertise in natural resource and
land management. Our activities include raising fish for stocking,
conservation law enforcement, data collection on water and air quality,
developing well head protection plans, conducting wildlife surveys, and
administering timber stand improvement projects on the 86,000 acre
reservation. We urge this Committee to increase the Wildlife and Parks
budget and set aside $200,000 for Lac du Flambeau ($100,000 for Tribal
Fish Hatchery Operations and $100,000 for Tribal Management and
Development). The Wildlife and Parks budget has not increased
significantly since 1990. An increase will ensure we can maintain our
current staff and critical natural resource programs.
Forestry
Within the 86,000-acre reservation, we have 46,000 acres of
forested land that supports hunting and gathering opportunities for
tribal members as well as logging. Proper management of the forest is
essential to sustain our subsistence lifestyle, but also to provide
economic growth for the Band. The Forestry Program, consisting of two
(2) foresters and two (2) technicians, undertakes a broad range of
management activities including tree planting, prescribed burning,
timber road design and maintenance and timber sale administration. The
Forestry Program is funded through the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA)
within the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, which has been historically
under funded. The Band supports the Administration request of $1.5
million but wants Congress to understand that at the Tribal level, the
$1.8 million increase last year only equaled $4,000.00 for our Forestry
Department. Through the TPA planning process, the Band identified an
unmet need of $107,000.00 just to support the current program. In order
to increase forest development, timber sale management and wildfire
control activities we urge the Committee to not only support the
President's budget but to earmark $188,000.00 for the Lac du Flambeau
Forestry Department. This program has not received any substantial
funding increases since 1991.
TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The Lac du Flambeau Band is asking Congress to provide $9.9 million
to be allocated within the Tribal Historic Preservation Fund. This
would provide $275,000.00 per Tribal Historic Preservation Office, a
dollar amount almost, but less than, a state's share.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COURTS
At Lac du Flambeau we are fortunate to have a police department
that is able to ensure a safe community for our members. For instance
in 2002, the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Police Department logged 26,687
man-hours answering 4,018 complaints. The 12, member Police Department
consists of 11 full time officers and one (1) administrative assistant
responding to calls ranging from domestic violence to juvenile cases
including runaways, burglary, fraud, battery and vandalism. The Lac du
Flambeau Tribal Police not only respond to tribal complaints, but also
provides services to the non-Indian community as well.
The Lac du Flambeau Tribal Police Department is in dire need of
space. Currently, a 50-year-old converted hardware store is housing the
Tribal Court System, Tribal Attorney's Office, Probation and Parole
Department, Child Support Agency, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and
Wildlife Commission Wardens and Tribal Police. The cramped conditions
do not allow our police officers to conduct private interviews without
compromising confidentiality. The lack of an interview area jeopardizes
the officer's ability to solve cases and is time consuming, because not
more than one person can be interviewed at a time. The Lac du Flambeau
Band needs a new Police Department building. It is estimated that the
new building will cost $800,000.00 and we respectfully request Congress
to help us in our effort to provide adequate space for the Police
Department.
Our Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court System includes a Chief Judge, two
(2) Associated Judges, Tribal Attorney/Prosecutor, Clerk of Courts,
Deputy Clerk and Truancy Officer. In fiscal year 2002, our Court System
had 1,148 cases filed and conducted 2,355 hearings. Cases ranged from
Children and Family cases to on and off reservation conservation/
natural resource violations. Throughout Indian country, tribal courts
are severely under funded and yet continue to fulfill a critical role
in bringing justice to our communities. It is vital that these courts
start to receive the funding that they need. Currently, the Band is
receiving $77,000.00 from the BIA to support our court system. This
only represents 9 percent of the total Tribal Court operating budget.
Thus, the Band respectfully requests Congress to support the
President's proposed fiscal year 2004 Budget of $17 million for Tribal
Courts. Any additional Congressional funding support would be greatly
appreciated as well. It should be noted that Lac du Flambeau did not
receive an increase in fiscal year 2003 even though there was $17
million allocated.
TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATION
The Band supports the $2.1 million increase, but urges the
Committee to consider additional increases for these vital programs,
since at the tribal level we are not realizing any significant funding
increases.
GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
The Band supports the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission request of $3.966 million, to meet the needs in the
Commission's testimony submitted to the Committee.
INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM
We would urge the Committee to support the $21 million increase the
Administration proposes. We suggest that in order to improve upon the
implementation of this Project, Congress allow tribes to administer the
project through a Public Law 93-638 contract or some other cooperative
agreement. We believe the Tribes can more efficiently implement this
vital program.
STATE TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANT AND LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM
We strongly support the continuation of State and Tribal Wildlife
Grant and program ($5 million tribal set-aside) and the Landowner
Incentive Program (overall $50 million).
______
Prepared Statement of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe submits this written statement to
request funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
Service in the fiscal year 2004 Appropriations bill.
First and foremost, we would like to express our sensitivity to the
tasks that you are currently under taking. While addressing the matters
associated with the United States being at war, you must continue to
conduct the business of the domestic agenda as well. You have our
blessings and are in our prayers during these most turbulent times.
TRIBAL REQUESTS
Request $19.5 Million for Elwha River Restoration to the National
Park Service Account; and,
Request $4 Million for Land Acquisition authorized in Public Law
102-495 to the Office of Trust Responsibility's Realty Office Account.
REGIONAL REQUESTS
Restore $320,000 to the Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights
account;
Restore $550,000 for Western Washington tribal shellfish management
and enforcement;
$6.3 million to implement tribal treaty rights in tribal shellfish
programs;
$22 million for federal contribution of Tribal/Growers shellfish
settlement;
Restore $3.0 million Forest Development, Woodland Management,
Northwest Forest Plan, Jobs in the Woods and Wild Stock Restoration
Initiative;
Restore $3.1 million for the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Forest and Fish
Report; $1.0 million Increase for Timber-Fish-Wildlife ESA Obligations
under new state and private forest practices rules and regulations;
Increase Hatchery Cyclical Maintenance/Rehabilitation funding to
$2.5 million with language; and,
Support the requests of the Point-No-Point Treaty Council,
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, and the Northwest Portland Area
Indian Health Board.
NATIONAL REQUESTS
The BIA and IHS are preparing to re-organize. We are concerned that
this will come at the expense of diminishing tribal programs and the
delivery of tribal services. Therefore, we ask that the Subcommittee
include language directing both the BIA and IHS not to reduce funds
appropriated by this Subcommittee to offset Departmental or agency
shortfalls, to support reorganization plans, or trust reform
initiatives without consulting with Tribal Leadership. This language
should be included in future appropriations bills for these agencies;
Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
(TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
Provide $5 million increase for BIA and $98 million for IHS to
support 100 percent funding of Contract Support Cost (CSC);
Restore $4.5 million increase to the Indian Health Service (IHS)
Office of Tribal Self-Governance;
Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase to maintain existing health care services; and,
Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress
of American Indians and National Indian Health Board.
SPECIFIC TRIBAL REQUESTS JUSTICATION
$19.95 million (+$7 million more than President's Budget)
In the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget package, there was a
request of $12.95 million for the Lower Elwha Tribe River Restoration
Project. We are requesting an additional $7 million to support the
timelines identified in the project design.
The Administration's requested funding level will not allow the
Project to proceed on schedule and this will require additional cost.
The current project has been budgeted for $19.95 million and delays
will subject this amount to inflation and other cost increases
associated with construction projects. The Tribe and the National Park
Service have reviewed the Restoration Project budget throughout the
preliminary stages. In order to alleviate the likelihood that
additional requests for funds to support the conduct of tasks
identified for this phase of the project, we encourage the Subcommittee
to fund the project at the increased level of $19.95 million in fiscal
year 2004.
There are many functions included in the Project such as the
required modifications to the Army Corp of Engineer's flood control
levy, designing our water supply system and the design and construction
of our hatchery, flood protection assessments, identifying and
designing a septic system & wastewater alternatives for homes on the
reservation, resources for habitat restoration, performing a coast line
assessment and designing a plan to restore aquatic life. These are but
a few of the many tasks to be performed within a timeframe that
supports the overall conduct of this Project.
$4 million for Land Acquisition as Authorized in Public Law 102-495
In Public Law 102-495, to restore Olympic National Park and the
Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries in the State of Washington, there
was an authorized amount of $4 million for land acquisition for the
Tribe. It has been more than a decade since this law was enacted and
the Tribe is consistently requested these funds.
This acquisition is yet another component of this major River
Restoration Project. We request that the Subcommittee appropriates the
$4 million for land acquisition to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office
of Trust Responsibility, Division of Reality Services.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lower Lake Rancheria Koi Nation
The Lower Lake Rancheria Koi Nation (``Tribe'') in California, is a
federally-recognized Indian Tribe, located in Northern California.
Through administrative error and neglect by the Federal Government, for
many years, our Tribe was wrongly omitted from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' (BIA) listing of federally-recognized Indian tribes.
After years of intensive efforts, the error was acknowledged and
our Tribe's federally-recognized status was reaffirmed. On December 29,
2000, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs ordered that our Tribe
be returned to the official list of federally-recognized Indian Tribes.
Even so, it was not until a year and a half later--July 12, 2002--that
our Tribe was once again included on the official list.
During the time our Tribe was erroneously omitted from the listing,
we were ineligible for federal funding, such as basic health care
services from the Indian Health Services, and deprived of our
Government-to-Government relationship with the Federal government. Once
the error was acknowledged and our Tribe was added to the list, the
Department of the Interior informed us that we would be included in the
funding for ``New Tribes.'' Because the fiscal year 2002 budget had
already been prepared, however, we were told we would have to wait
until fiscal year 2003. Nonetheless, for unknown reasons, the
Department zeroed-out funding for ``New Tribes'' in both the fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 budgets.
Historically, the Department of the Interior has funded newly
recognized and restored Indian Tribes under the ``New Tribes'' line
item of their budget. ``New Tribes'' have been provided a baseline of
$160,000 a year to support basic governmental operations. While an
almost insignificant amount in relation to the Department's overall
budget, this funding is vitally important to the newly restored Tribes
and will be vital to our Tribe's goal of providing basic governmental
services, such as health care, housing, and educational assistance, to
our members.
Funding is needed for basic governmental purposes as the Tribe
transitions to the BIA's annual Tribal Priority Allocation funding. As
a federally-recognized Indian tribe, the Lower Lake Rancheria Koi
Nation enjoys a government-to-government relationship with the United
States. The Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs' reaffirmation of the
Tribe's federally-recognized status, and our addition to the official
listing of federally-recognized Tribes, makes the Tribe eligible for
federal funding, such as ``New Tribes'' money. Provision of such
funding is in furtherance of the federal government's trust
responsibility to Indian tribes.
REQUESTED APPROPRIATION
In accordance with the commitments made by the Department of the
Interior, the Lower Lake Rancheria respectfully requests $320,000 (to
cover $160,000 in baseline funding for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
2004) to support its governmental operations under the ``New Tribes''
funding in the Interior Appropriations Bill.
In addition to the Lower Lake Rancheria, five other Tribes: the
Graton Rancheria of California, the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the King
Salmon Tribe and the Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak, both from Alaska, and
the Cowlitz Tribe of Washington, were added to the 2002 listing of
federally recognized Indian Tribes. The Lower Lake Rancheria also urges
restoration of funding for these similarly situated Tribes.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee
on this important matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lummi Nation
My name is Darrell Hillaire, Chairman of the Lummi Nation and I
would like to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present
written testimony. The Lummi Nation, is located on the northern
coastline of Washington State, and is the third largest tribe in
Washington State serving a population of over 5,200.
On behalf of the Lummi Nation I want to thank you and the members
of the Committee for their kind attention and assistance provided to
the Lummi Nation in the past and the opportunity to express our
concerns and requests regarding the fiscal year 2004 BIA, IHS
appropriation allocations and special earmarks. The following written
testimony presents the Lummi Nation funding priorities, as well as
regional and national concerns and recommendations for your
consideration.
The Lummi Nation desires to strengthen our long-standing
government-to-government relationship with federal officials to work
through the consultation process and/or formal hearings for policy
decisions impacting the Lummi people. Further, the Lummi Nation
strongly opposes any bill, language or legislative riders that
undermine tribal sovereignty or restrict tribal governments from
protecting or exercising treaty rights.
TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION PRIORITIES
1. +$750,000 Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning & Engineering.--
Provide the Lummi Nation with an earmarked allocation of funds from the
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction program or USDA Rural
Development program to support the planning and engineering of water
and sewage system infrastructure improvements. The tribe's current
water and sewer system is nearing threshold operational capacity and
utilizes dated industrial technology' that is over 25 years old. Future
tribal community development and economic growth is jeopardized without
this financing.
2. +$1,150,000 BIA Economic Development Program.--Lummi Nation is
requesting resources to establish a Small Business Development Office
to provide over 500 ``dislocated'' fisherman with economic and business
assistance services from: technical assistance, support services,
training services, business planning, and loan services.
3. +$140,000 BIA-Office of Indian Education Programs, Facility
Management and Construction Contract (FMCC) for provision of
``Quarters''.--Lummi Nation seeks funds to cover planning and
construction costs for development of school based housing units
through the BIA-FMCC ``Quarters program'' that remains an unbudgeted
need.
4. +$1,500,000 Semiahmah Memorial Park and Heritage Center.--
Provide the Lummi Nation with National Park Service, Conservation and
Historical Preservation construction program funds. Provide the Lummi
Nation with initial planning and design phase funding for a Semiahmah
Memorial Park and Heritage Center preserve ancestral burial grounds
that were desecrated by non-Indian officials in 1999 and to commemorate
this traditional village encampment.
5. +$700,000 Increase to Lummi Nation Shellfish Hatchery
Operation.--Provide support to the development of the tribal shellfish
hatchery to address identified weather related market access problems
that have effectively stopped the development of the shellfish
hatchery. The Hatchery is critical the ability of Tribal fishers to
generate family income from the harvest of shellfish, as provided in
the Pt. Elliot Treaty, the right to harvest and manage shellfish
resources.
6. +$740,000 Support Realty.--Provide the Lummi Nation with funding
to ensure the major elements such as land consolidation, land records
management, tribal probate, and training services are available to
effectively manage tribal realty resources.
7. +500,000 Lummi Youth Safe House.--Provide Lummi Nation with
funds to design and construct a youth ``safe-house'' for the provision
of emergency ``holistic'' care, shelter and/or wrap-around social and
health services for youth living in the Lummi community.
8. +$1,300,000 BIA Tribal Government Services--Water
Negotiations.--Provide for the following water negotiation costs:
$300,000 for attorney fees, $400,000 for on-Reservation technical
studies, and $600,000 for Nooksack River Basin technical studies.
9. +$1,076,000 BIA-Financial and Social Service ``General
Assistance'' program.--Funds for the Lummi Nation to effectively
respond to a critical need for tribal fisherman to receive disaster
relief assistance. This aids the tribe and fisherman to recover from
the cumulative impact (1999-2001) of unrealized revenue from the local
commercial fishing industry.
TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION SUMMARIES, JUSTIFICATION
1. Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning & Engineering--+$750,000
The Lummi Reservation supports a population of nearly 5,200
persons, which has pushed water and sewer system capacities to their
limit. Additional capacity must be obtained now to support the existing
population. In the short-term, water and sewer systems redesign and
upgrades will handle the problem. However, the long-term solution must
include additional treatment capacity and water source location and
development. Public Works infrastructure development and investments
like these require substantial planning. The Lummi Nation is not able
to undertake this level of planning without the assistance requested
herein. Lummi Nation recommends the IHS Sanitation Facilities
Construction Program to receive earmarked funds to support tribal
planning of water delivery and sewage treatment system infrastructure
for the existing and projected population of the Lummi Indian
Reservation.
2. BIA Economic Development Program--+$1,150,000
Lummi Nation is seeking funds to create a tribal Small Business
Development Office to provide fisherman with economic and business
training technical assistance services. Approximately $250,000 is
requested to establish the Small Business Development Office with the
goal of aiding fisherman to maximize profits horizontally within the
fish marketing industry and/or create new small businesses to sustain
self-sufficiency. Another $900,000 is requested form the BIA Credit
Services program to enable the Lummi Nation to establish a fisherman
revolving loan fund to enable participants to access development
capital to support their small business plans.
3. BIA-Office of Indian Education Programs, Facility Management and
Construction Contracts (FMCC) for provision of ``Quarters''--
+$140,000
Lummi Nation seeks additional finances to cover planning and
construction costs for development housing units through the BIA-FMCC
Quarters program that remains an unbudgeted need. Lummi Nation new
school facility exists in a rural area and is eligible to receive
construction revenue for housing units for administrative and security
staffing needs. No funds are allocated to fulfill the Lummi Nation need
for the provision of staff quarters.
4. Semiahmoo Memorial Park and Heritage Center--+$1,500,000
Provide the Lummi Nation with National Park Service, Conservation
and Historical Preservation construction program funds. Provide the
Lummi Nation with initial planning and design phase one funding for
construction of a Memorial Park and Heritage Center to commemorate and
preserve ancestral burial grounds that were desecrated by non-Indian
officials in 1999. The National Park Service, National Registry of
Historic Places, lists the site. The desecration of over 100 human
remains and graves was primarily due to the expansion of a local sewage
treatment plant financed with federal funds and permitted by the state.
The Lummi Nation has created a Memorandum of Agreement that possesses
terms to relocate the existing non-Indian treatment plant. The Memorial
Park is to be constructed on the existing site as a unique tribute to
promote regional education of the traditional Indian encampments
reflecting the culture and lifestyle of the Coastal Salish people in
Northwest America. Planning and design of a Heritage Center is
envisioned to house social, economic and educational events and
meetings.
5. BIA Office of Indian Education Programs--+$2,000,000
Lummi Nation seeks increased school operational revenue to cover
increased expenditures for the new tribal school in fiscal year 2004.
The new school is projected to house 750 students that is over three
times the current Lummi Tribal School student population. The Lummi
Nation anticipates that the new school shall need increased funds to
cover expanded operational expenses in the areas of: Administrative
Cost Grants, Maintenance and Improvement funds, Transportation
services; Special Education funds; High School and Tribal school
operational funds. The Lummi Nation is reporting that this large school
facility requires additional revenue to provide quality educational
services.
6. Lummi Nation Shellfish Hatchery Operation--+$700,000
The thirty-year old hatchery supplies oyster and clam seeds to a
majority Northwest Washington Indian tribes and growers. The need to
provide both the treaty and non-treaty growers for oyster seed, clam
seed, enhancement projects. These projects benefit both the tribal
government and Washington State. The Lummi Nation recommends that
$350,000 increase be earmarked to Lummi Nation through the BIA Hatchery
Operational program and an additional $350,000 be provided through the
BIA Economic Development Program to support planning, development and
constructing covered all weather loading, unloading and staging areas
and access road improvements from the Hatchery to the State Highway.
7. Support Realty--+$740,000
The Lummi Nation has a multi-year plan to address the realty
tribulations. The major elements include land consolidation, land
records management, tribal probate process, revision of realty
procedures, backlog elimination, and training. Land consolidation
requires untangling the heir ship disarray by conducting research to
land titles, appraisals, surveys, subdivision and other technical work.
Land records management requires development of a tribal land database
with electronic connection to BIA databases. Existing process of tribal
probates is time consuming and a contributive factor land is so
fractionated. Development of an on-site process using Lummi Tribal
Court is needed to shorten the processing time.
8. Lummi Youth Safe House--+$500,000
Provide the Lummi Nation with a Family-centered Youth Facility to
provide a continuum of care to ``At-risk'', Homeless and/or Runaway
adolescents. The primary components of this continuum are screening,
intervention, substance prevention, respite and after-care services
consistent to youth needs. Participating youth are supported through
center-based continuum and wrap around social/health services' to
overcome barriers to achieve their goals. Lummi youth entering and/or
completing treatment successfully make the transition to return to
daily life through a traditional holistic' approach towards recovery
involving family members and dependency counselors.
9. Water Negotiations--+$1,300,000
The Lummi Nation signed an Agreement in Principle with the Federal
Government and the State of Washington on January 27, 1998. This
agreement is a stepping stone toward a final settlement of the ``on''-
reservation water rights conflict, which were and still are,
attributable to the non-Indians disregard for treaty-reserved water and
fishing rights in the Nooksack River Watershed. Many difficult issues
remain to be resolved which require significant technical studies and
legal consultation before a final agreement may be produced and signed.
To complete this work the Lummi Nation is requesting $1.3 million
during fiscal year 2003: $300,000 to defray legal consultation costs,
$400,000 for on-reservation technical studies, and $600,000 for
technical studies in the Nooksack River Basin. Lummi Nation recommends
BIA provide the tribe with special earmark to support the increase in
the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation, Attorney fees and technical
studies.
10. BIA-Financial and Social Service ``Disaster Assistance'' program--
+$1,076,000
Lummi Nation seeks disaster relief assistance to 500 fishermen to
meet their basic needs for housing, food and clothing assistance. These
funds enable the tribe to fulfill a critical need of tribal fisherman
to receive disaster assistance in response to unrealized revenue. The
Lummi Nation has historically relied upon the salmon resource that
possesses a cultural and economic value to the tribal membership, which
is irreplaceable. The Lummi tribe and U.S. Department of Commerce
declared the sockeye commercial fishery as a fishery resource disaster
under the Magnuson Stevens Act.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mescalero Apache Tribe
APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
The Mescalero Apache Tribe (``Tribe'') is seeking $250,000 for
operational funding in fiscal year 2004 for the Mescalero Fish
Hatchery. The Hatchery will provide fish to more than a dozen Indian
Tribes in the Southwest for stocking Tribal lakes and restoring native
fish, and serves as an important economic development engine for our
Tribe as well as for those served by the facility.
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 1964, the Tribe entered into a lease with the United
States Fish & Wildlife Service (``FWS'') for the operation of the
Mescalero National Fish Hatchery (NFH) on the Mescalero Apache
Reservation in the south central part of the State of New Mexico. On
October 1, 1965, the Service commenced operations at the Mescalero NFH.
For over thirty-five (35) years, the hatchery served as a primary
economic engine for many tribal recreational and tourism programs
providing stockable fish to fourteen (14) Indian Tribes and Pueblos in
New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern Colorado.
For the past fifty (50) years, the primary policy goal of the
Department of the Interior has been to ensure maximum participation of
the Indian Tribes including the eventual transfer of the fishery
facilities to Tribes. Yet, the Department has struggled with how to
implement its policy supporting the stocking of fish in Tribal waters
and providing the associated technical assistance to the Tribal
Governments. FWS has budgeted for the stocking of fish in Tribal waters
and related technical assistance since the 1950's. In the mid-1970's,
FWS began phasing out these programs, and during the late 1970's and
early 1980's, it adopted a policy of requiring full reimbursement for
services delivered to Indian Tribes, terminated many of its tribal
assistance operations, and submitted budgets proposing to close
numerous fish hatcheries and fisheries assistance office that had long
served Tribal needs. Evidently, the evolution of FWS policy emphasizing
the recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act and the
restoration of native species have become FWS priorities that have
outweighed the need to adequately support Tribal fisheries programs.
In the midst of FWS downsizing and funding shortfalls for the
national fish hatchery system, the BIA created the Division of Fish,
Wildlife and Recreation in 1982, which focused on contracting fish and
wildlife resource operations directly with Indian Tribes, rather than
trying to duplicate the assistance program that FWS had been providing.
To prevent the closure of key FWS fish hatchery serving Tribes,
including the Mescalero NFH, BIA's Division of Fish, Wildlife and
Recreation entered into annual memorandums of agreement (MOA) with the
FWS for the continued operation of these hatcheries. Through the MOA,
BIA provided in fiscal year 1987 $1.3 million and 29 FTEs to the FWS
for ten facilities, including $211,000 and 5 FTEs for the Mescalero
NFH. In 1988, Congress transferred to FWS funds from BIA for 6 of the
10 facilities covered by the MOA, and directed FWS to contract with the
affected Tribes served by each facility, when so requested, and to work
with the Tribes in moving toward tribal control of the program as
quickly as possible. Similar report language was included in the fiscal
year 1989 and fiscal year 1990 appropriations.
In the fiscal year 1996 budget, FWS again proposed the closure of
the Mescalero NFH or to transfer operations to the State of New Mexico
as part of a broader effort to redirect funding to meet otherwise
``higher priority'' federal responsibilities of the NFH system. In
response BIA proposed that FWS transfer funding for the Mescalero NFH
to BIA for the purpose of the BIA sustaining operations of the facility
until a contract transferring the facility to the Mescalero Apache
Tribe could be finalized. However, at Congressional direction, the FWS
continued to operate the facility.
In 1999, a fire burned the watershed above the Mescalero NFH
resulting in flooding and mudslides causing damage to the hatchery
grounds, and killing many trout. In addition, FWS lack of adequate
operational and maintenance funding over the years caused certain
physical problems such as high radon levels in the hatchery buildings,
high nitrogen levels in the water, hard water that resulted in
formation of kidney stones in older fish, and cracking raceways and
buildings caused by unstable soil.
At the request of FWS, the Mescalero Apache Tribal Council agreed
to FWS's proposal ``to temporarily suspend operations'' of the facility
so that the FWS could address these deteriorating conditions. In
November 2000, FWS suspended operations at the Mescalero NFH, but
rather the repairing the facility as it had pledged to do, FWS decided
to permanently close the hatchery. FWS stripped the facility of all
equipment and most of the fixtures, reassigned personnel and
reprogrammed $392,400 appropriated specifically for the Mescalero NFH
to address other Service program priorities.
The Tribe has since terminated the lease with the FWS and has been
working to resume operations of the facility under Tribal control and
management, in a concerted effort with the affected Southwest Indian
Tribes that had received fish from the Mescalero NFH. Specifically, our
Tribe along with the other affected Tribes in the Southwest have
organized the Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission (SWTFC) as a long-
term approach and strategy for assuming primary authority and
responsibility for stocking and managing Tribal waters in the
Southwest. Our Tribe entered into a Public Law 93-638 self-
determination contract with the BIA to organize the SWTFC., This
approach fulfills the congressional goal of Tribal contracting of
related resource management functions, operations and programs without
diminishing the Department's responsibility to protect the resources
and sovereignty of the affected Tribes.
The combined efforts of the Southwest Tribes through the SWTFC with
the goal of economic self-sufficiency supports the diversification of
tribal economies, an endeavor that will not only benefit the
reservations but also the surrounding regions and the entire state. A
key component to the Tribes efforts through the SWTFC is the successful
operation of the Mescalero fish hatchery, and the Williams Creek/
Alchesay program on the White Mountain Apache Reservation.
CURRENT STATUS
The Tribe secured a grant from the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) in the Department of Commerce to develop a
business plan for the operation and construction of the hatchery. New
Mexico State University (NMSU) College of Business Administration is
assisting the Tribe with this business plan. The Tribe's fisheries
consultant, FishPro, Inc., based in Santa Fe, New Mexico is providing
the technical and scientific expertise in this process. The business
plan will include the goals and objectives of the project and the study
will provide an in-depth analysis of the facility, the water supply,
permitting requirements, schematic design work and estimated
construction costs. The study will also provide an examination and
analysis of the marketing conditions as well as financial, accounting
and management plans. In this process, the Tribe is working with the
SWTFC to ensure that the needs of the affected Southwest Tribes are
included in the planning and development process.
The business plan is scheduled to be completed by the end of August
2003 and will be the justification to obtain construction funding from
the EDA. The Tribe will complete the final design work and may proceed
with a design/build-out approach. The Tribe is aiming for early Spring
2004 to beginning raising fish and resuming operations at the facility.
USE OF APPROPRIATIONS
Based on our current course, the Tribe estimates that we will need
$250,000 to cover operational costs for the remaining part of fiscal
year 2004 after the construction is completed. The Tribe will use the
funds for hiring and training of staff prior to commencement of
operations, as well as purchasing of supplies, equipment, and
conducting ``dry runs'' in preparation for operations. The Tribe will
also be working with NMSU, SWTFC, FWS, and BIA to increase our capacity
and ensure the success of this project.
CONCLUSION
In the past, Congress vested funding for these endeavors with the
BIA, and then with the FWS. Due to competing policies and funding
priorities, the Mescalero NFH fell into disrepair and eventually closed
causing hardship to the Mescalero Apache Tribe and the many other
Tribes that relied on the facility. By contrast, our Tribe has a long
record of economic success and management capability, and we are
prepared to assume the primary role in the management and control of
the facility, as intended by Congress. In accordance with the
Government-to-Government relationship the Tribes have with the Federal
Government, we will also be working with the federal agencies on
building our capacity to conduct these activities. To assist us in
achieving our goals of Tribal economic development and self-
sufficiency, we need the funding to resume operations of this important
facility.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this written testimony.
For additional information contact: Sara Misquez, President, Mescalero
Apache Tribe at (505) 464-9969 or the Tribe's Washington D.C. counsel
Shenan Atcitty at (202) 457-7128.
______
Prepared Statement of the Narragansett Indian Tribe
As Chief Sachem, Matthew Thomas, of the Narragansett Indian Tribe,
located near Charlestown, Rhode Island, I would like to submit these
written remarks concerning the fiscal year 2004 BIA and IHS
Appropriations. Our tribe operates more than a dozen BIA-funded
programs serving our more than 2,600 members as well as a comprehensive
health program funded by the IHS including a 5,000 square foot
outpatient health clinic. We are proud of the accomplishments we have
made over the years and look forward to a day when we are less
dependent on Federal appropriations to finance the basic governmental
services we provide. Despite many efforts, we lack reliable alternate
resources to finance the growing needs of our Tribe. Federal
appropriations remain critical to the health and well being of our
members. We seek increases to the IHS appropriation, the BIA's Indian
Country Law Enforcement Initiative, and the BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA), which funds our tribally operated programs which we
perform under a Public Law 93-638 self-determination contract.
We seek increased appropriations for law enforcement, education, a
daycare center, and social services.
LAW ENFORCEMENT--($559,000 INCREASE SOUGHT)
The Narragansett Indian Tribe seeks to hire four more patrol
officers and one dispatcher to provide quality law enforcement services
to the tribe and funds to cover a 10 40 trailer which presently
houses our police department. At the present time our goal is to
provide 24-hour law enforcement services to the reservation. Due to
lack of manpower, vacations and sick leave, it is not being
accomplished. Through a Justice Department COPS grant and reprogramming
of our TPA funds we have a law enforcement department of 1 Police
Chief, 1 Lieutenant, 1 Sergeant, 1 dispatcher and 5 tribal police
officers. All Tribal Officers are also commissioned Deputy Special
Officers of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Narragansett Indian Tribal Police patrol approximately 1,944
acres of Trust and Reservation land and another 399 acres of fee land
all of which has buildings plus living quarters and other facilities on
the same. Presently, there are five tribal occupied houses on the
reservation. Within the next few months there will be another five
units. HUD has also approved the renovation of another 12 units, plus
the addition of 38 more units within the next three years. These units
will house approximately 180-200 tribal elders and members. This
project is all on Narragansett Indian land, which will require
additional Tribal Police coverage during renovation and construction.
Furthermore, the location of the Tribe's land in the midst of a densely
populated area creates unique enforcement and safety issues that are
not common elsewhere. History has shown all too clearly that the Tribe
cannot rely on the local communities to place a priority on
safeguarding the interest of Tribal members or Tribal lands.
At the present time, the Narragansett Tribal Police has one
dispatcher to cover the busy daytime hours. In 1999, the Narragansett
Tribal Police handled 91 incidents; in 2002 the Department handled 376
incidents. This number represents a 300 percent increase. Therefore,
another dispatcher is needed for the evening hours.
Despite a concerted effort by the Tribe, the State Police and the
Town of Charlestown have not agreed to enter into a MOU (Memorandum of
Understanding) concerning public safety issues, which place a greater
burden on our existing Tribal Police Department.
Congress has long recognized that if Indian Tribes are to improve
reservation conditions they must first have in place the necessary
infrastructures which include adequate law enforcement services, basic
human services, roads, safe water and waste disposal systems. Congress
has long recognized that only when these are in place are tribes ``in
the best position to implement economic development plans, taking into
account the available natural resources, labor force, financial
resources and markets''. S. Rep. 274, 100th Cong, 4 (1987) we encourage
congress to put teeth behind these words by supporting increases in BIA
Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative in a manner that will assist
us to increase our ranks to a more appropriate level. The three-year
costs of the 4 officers with uniform and equipment will be $480,000 and
the dispatcher for a three year period with uniform will be $79,000 for
a total of $559,000.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
The education department is comprised of the following bureau
programs; Adult Education, Higher Education and Johnson O'Malley
Program.
ADULT EDUCATION--($78,971.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)
The objective of the adult education program is to provide the
adult Tribal members with the opportunity to become employable,
productive and self-sufficient by attaining a higher level of
education. This objective can be obtained by collaborating with other
Tribal programs such as Adult Vocational Training, Social Services, and
Higher Education. To date, the funds provided assist with
administrative costs, ABE/GED assistance, educational enhancement and
cultural preservation, which include language, dance and history
classes. Ideally, the cultural component of this program would thrive
with its own budget. Due to the level of funding received we are only
meeting 25 percent of the Tribal community needs at best. We would like
to double our existing budget to better meet the needs of our ever-
growing Tribal community and to enhance the services provided and
enrich lives.
HIGHER EDUCATION--($81,150.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)
The objective of the higher education program is to provide
assistance to the Narragansett Indian students in the attainment of a
college degree at the bachelors and graduate level (based on the unmet
financial need of each student). The department received 46 requests
for financial assistance during the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003
semesters. The unmet financial need for these terms was $196,00.00. To
date, bachelor students have received minimal assistance and graduate
students cannot be assisted because we lack the necessary funds. We
estimate that this program is meeting roughly 25 percent of our
students' need. We would like to double the budget for this program to
address the unmet need and to provide greater opportunities for our
members to fulfill their higher education goals.
JOHNSON O'MALLEY--($58,094.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)
The Johnson O'Malley program provides services to meet the unique
and special needs of the Narragansett Indian Children, which are not
met by schools and or other departments/agencies. The department
presently operates a reservation based homework center and will be
employing two (2) part-time tutors and one (1) cultural coordinator.
These positions are being advertised based on responses from the 2002
JOM Needs Assessment. To date, the funding received makes it impossible
to meet the needs of our 768 eligible students and the goals and
objectives of the contract. Our overall goal is to afford the children
of the Tribe with opportunity to receive a quality education. We would
like to double the budget for this program.
DAYCARE CENTER--($48,868.00-DISCRETIONARY; $52,307-MANDATORY, TOTALING
$101,175.00)
The Narragansett Indian Tribe is anticipating a Summer 2003 opening
for its Hand in Hand Day Care Center. The Center will be able to serve
31 Tribal Children and the activities and projects will be child
directed and culturally based to enhance their learning environment.
The Tribe continues to receive a Child Care Development Fund grant
annually. To date, the funding received will barely support the
operational costs. We will need more funding to qualify for State
licensure. We plan to meet or exceed State requirements in order to be
certain that our children are in a quality childcare center. We would
like to double our budget for this important program.
NARRAGANSETT INDIAN HEALTH CENTER--($403,603.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)
The Narragansett Indian Health Center (NIHC) has been in operation
for six years. NIHC provides both direct onsite clinical services and
Contract Health Services through local area providers. Our patient
demographics remain the same as last year. Many members are unemployed,
underemployed, or seasonally employed. As a result, most do not have
the means for private insurance or are not eligible for state and
federal insurance programs. This limits third-party billing revenue
that could be used to supplement the budget.
The center employs one full-time Physician, an internist placed
here through an MOA with IHS. The full-time Nurse Practitioner position
is still vacant, despite numerous attempts to hire a qualified
candidate and we are still advertising to fill vacated nursing
positions. Lack of funding has made it difficult to recruit for and
staff many of these vacancies. The result is significant unmet need,
particularly, in the areas of pediatric care, OB/GYN services. Further,
insufficient staff and limited services add to tribal program expenses,
since we must contract out for services that we could otherwise provide
on-site with additional space.
To address some of our unmet needs, the center needs a full-time
Medical Social Worker, a part-time Clinical Psychologist, two
additional full-time Outreach Workers, a part-time Podiatrist, Lab
Technician, X-ray Technician, and a part-time Dental Hygienist.
Further, we need funds to provide minimum optometry services, dental
services, and other specialty clinic care on an in-house subcontracted
basis.
In fiscal year 2001, NIHC applied for the Small Ambulatory Program
(SAP) Grant but we were not awarded the funding. Our application for
the fiscal year 2002 SAP, also, was not awarded. It was our
understanding that Congress intended the grant to fund small tribes;
however, only large tribes have received funding, to date. Please note
that while no eastern area tribes have been funded, we just received a
letter from IHS officials asking if we intend to resubmit our
application for the fiscal year 2003 SAP. We are responding
affirmatively.
The Narragansett Indian Tribe applied for the grant as a means to
offer our community a ``one stop shopping'' concept for its health care
needs-providing all services under one umbrella of a centralized health
and human services facility. The existing building is too small to
house the health programs currently offered and leaves no room for the
future expansion of services that are necessary to meet tribal needs.
An example of this occurred during a recent emergency when it became
clear that stretchers could not fit around hallway corners. Further,
there is no place for doing emergency Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation
(CPR) other than a conference room table or the floor. Exam rooms are
too small to accommodate three people comfortably and staff office
space is crammed. The current space limitations also do not allow for
the incorporation of the Indian Child Welfare and Social Services
Departments into our concept of a centralized health and human service
facility. This results in unnecessary transportation hardships on many
of our tribal members, as they have to travel to another town to access
these services. Since there are currently no funds appropriated for the
SAP grant in fiscal year 2004, we urgently request your support of our
application for the fiscal year 2003 grant.
In addition to the funding necessary to replace or expand our
existing facility, we are requesting an increase in our IHS program
funds of $403,603.00. Among other obstacles, Contract Support Costs
shortfalls and insufficient funding continue to impact program
operations. The Tribe will use additional funds to hire the necessary
staff to provide a range of services that are severely lacking in our
community.
SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT--($385,000 INCREASE SOUGHT)
The Social Service Department operates a number of programs to
provide services for eligible tribal members who reside in Washington
County, Rhode Island, the designated service delivery area for the
Narragansett Indian Tribe. Services provided include General
Assistance, Child Welfare Assistance, Adult Care, Miscellaneous
Assistance, Family/Community Services, Emergency Assistance-food,
clothing, housing/shelter-Heating Assistance, and referrals to and
assistance with alternate resource agencies, when necessary. The
objective of the Social Services Department is to assist in the
enhancement of everyday living for eligible tribal members and to help
build and strengthen the dignity and self worth of the tribal members
so they can obtain self-sufficiency.
To date, the Social Services Department remains understaffed. Two
full-time caseworkers and an administrative assistant staff the
department. Under the oversight of the Director of Heath and Human
Services, the staff is responsible to deliver all aspects of social
welfare programs for more than 1300 tribal members residing in
Washington County. Insufficient staff and funding result in much unmet
need among our tribal members, since those factors restrict outreach
efforts and make proactive activities essentially nonexistent. With out
additional full-time caseworkers, the tribe can better address the
tribal community's unmet needs. The tribe seeks $150,000 additional
recurring program dollars to hire staff and to expand program services.
The Tribe needs an additional $235,000 to incorporate the Indian
Child Welfare and Social Services Departments into the Narragansett
Indian Health Center. This is in our efforts to provide ``one-stop
shopping'', centralized health and human services facility for our
tribal community. That will decrease the transportation burdens placed
on both tribal members and tribal programs' transportation services.
Our efforts to increase funding for the Social Services Department,
through grant writing and other means have been unsuccessful. It has
come to our attention that funding for that BIA program is based on the
number in the tribal population and the poverty index. Our current
funding is based on population figures taken from the 1990 census. The
Tribe needs Congress to authorize the use of the 2000 census figures as
a means to determine funding levels, which will reflect more closely
the appropriations needed to fulfill our social services obligations to
our tribal community.
______
Prepared Statement of the National American Indian Court Judges
Association
On behalf of the National American Indian Court Judges Association
(NAICJA), I am pleased to submit this testimony on the fiscal year 2004
budget for the Interior Department's funding for the Indian Tribal
Justice Act and Tribal Courts (under the Tribal Priority Allocations).
We request $73.4 million for Tribal Courts.
The National American Indian Court Judges Association (NAICJA),
www.naicja.com, was incorporated in 1969. NAICJA is the largest
organization representing Tribal Judges and Tribal Courts in the United
States. The mission of NAICJA is to strengthen and enhance all Tribal
justice systems through improvement and development of Tribal Courts
and Tribal Court Judges.
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT FUNDING INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE ACT AND TRIBAL COURT
FUNDING
Full Funding for the Indian Tribal Justice Act; $58.4 million.--
NAICJA respectfully requests that, for the first time, Congress
appropriate full funding for Indian Tribal Justice Act: NAICJA
recommends a funding level of $58.4 million. On December 21, 2000, the
106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to provide this
increased funding for tribal justice systems when it re-authorized the
Indian Tribal Justice Act for seven more years of funding at a level of
$58.4 million per year (see Public Law 106-559, section 202). NAICJA
strongly supports FULL FUNDING of the Indian Tribal Justice Act as
promised in 1993. NAICJA requests funding at a much higher rate since
the number of tribal courts and their needs have substantially
increased since the Act was entered into law in 1993--nearly ten years
ago.
Tribal Courts--an additional $15 million (under the Tribal Priority
Allocations Account).--NAICJA strongly supports increased funding for
Tribal Courts to a level of $15 million under the Tribal Priority
Allocations (TPA). This minimal increase represents only a minimal
first step towards meeting the vital needs of tribal justice systems.
It is important to note that funding has steadily decreased since the
passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act. The needs (as recognized by
Congress in the enactment of Public Law 103-176 and re-affirmed with
the enactment of Public Law 106-559), however, have only been
compounded with the passage of time, the increase in tribal courts (170
to approximately 300), the increase of caseloads, population growth,
and rise in crime rate in Indian country.
Tribal Courts must deal with a wide range of difficult criminal and
civil justice problems on a daily basis, including the following:
--The crime rate, especially the violent crime rate, has increased
substantially in Indian Country. (At the same time, it has been
declining nationally.) Tribal court systems are grossly under-
funded to deal with increasing criminal justice problems.
--Number/complexity of tribal civil caseloads have also been rapidly
expanding. Tribal Courts are expected to deal with the same
complex civil cases as state and Federal Courts with grossly
less funding.
--Congress acknowledged the need for better funded Tribal Court
systems when it enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Act in 1993.
Congress specifically found that ``tribal justice systems are
an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important
forums for ensuring public health and safety and the political
integrity of tribal governments'' and ``tribal justice systems
are inadequately funded, and the lack of adequate funding
impairs their operation.''
--The Indian Tribal Justice Act promised more than $58 million per
year in additional funding for Tribal Court systems starting in
fiscal year 1994. Tribal Courts have yet to see ANY funding
under this Act.
--Since Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the needs of
Tribal Court systems have continued to increase, but there has
been no corresponding increase in funding for Tribal Court
systems. In fact, the Bureau of Indian Affairs funding for
Tribal Courts has actually decreased substantially since the
Indian Tribal justice Act was enacted in 1993.
The vast majority of the approximately 300 Tribal court systems are
located in rural communities. These Tribal justice systems face many of
the same difficulties faced by other isolated communities, but these
problems are greatly magnified by the many other complex problems that
are unique to Indian country. In addition to the previously mentioned
problems, Tribal justice systems;
--lack sufficient jurisdiction over non-Indians
--have complex jurisdictional relationships with Federal and state
criminal justice systems
--have inadequate staffing for law enforcement
--tend to be a great distance from the few existing resources outside
of the Tribe
--face a lack of detention facilities
--have a limitation of sentencing or disposition alternatives
--lack of access to advanced technology
--lack substance abuse testing and treatment options
In most Tribal justice systems, 80-90 percent of the cases are
criminal in nature and 90 percent of these cases involve the difficult
problems of alcohol and/or substance abuse.
IMPORTANCE OF TRIBAL COURTS
Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
institutions for maintaining order in Tribal communities.
``Tribal courts constitute the frontline tribal institutions that
most often confront issues of self-determination and sovereignty, while
at the same time they are charged with providing reliable and equitable
adjudication in the many and increasingly diverse matters that come
before them. In addition, they constitute a key tribal entity for
advancing and protecting the rights of self-government. . . . Tribal
courts are of growing significance in Indian Country.'' (Frank
Pommersheim, Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary
Tribal Law 57 (1995)).
Tribal Courts must deal with the very same issues state and Federal
courts confront in the criminal context, including, child sexual abuse,
alcohol and substance abuse, gang violence and violence against women.
Tribal Courts, however, must address these complex issues with far
fewer financial resources than their Federal and state counterparts.
Judicial training that addresses the existing problems in Indian
Country, while also being culturally sensitive, is essential for Tribal
Courts to be effective in deterring and solving crime in Indian
communities.
INADEQUATE FUNDING OF TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS
There is no question that Tribal justice systems are, and
historically have been, under-funded. The 1991 United States Civil
Rights Commission found that ``the failure of the United States
Government to provide proper funding for the operation of tribal
judicial systems . . . has continued for more than 20 years.'' The
Indian Civil Rights Act: A Report of the United States Civil Rights
Commission, June 1991, p. 71. The Commission also noted that
``[f]unding for tribal judicial systems may be further hampered in some
instances by the pressures of competing priorities within a tribe.''
Moreover, they opined that ``If the United States Government is to live
up to its trust obligations, it must assist tribal governments in their
development . . .'' More than ten years ago, the Commission ``strongly
support[ed] the pending and proposed congressional initiatives to
authorize funding of tribal courts in an amount equal to that of an
equivalent State court'' and was ``hopeful that this increased funding
[would] allow for much needed increases in salaries for judges, the
retention of law clerks for tribal judges, the funding of public
defenders/defense counsel, and increased access to legal authorities.''
With the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C.
Sec. 3601 et seq. (the ``Act''), Congress found that ``[T]ribal justice
systems are an essential part of tribal governments and serve as
important forums for ensuring public health, safety and the political
integrity of tribal governments.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3601(5). Congress
found that ``tribal justice systems are inadequately funded, and the
lack of adequate funding impairs their operation.'' 25 U.S.C.
Sec. 3601(8). In order to remedy this lack of funding, the Act
authorized appropriation of base funding support for tribal justice
systems in the amount of $50 million for each of the fiscal years 1994
through 2000. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 3621(b). An additional $500,000 for each
of the same fiscal years was authorized to be appropriated for the
administration of Tribal Judicial Conferences for the ``development,
enhancement and continuing operation of tribal justice systems . . .''
25 U.S.C. Sec. 3614.
Nine years after the Act was enacted into law, and even after
reauthorization, no funding has been appropriated. Only minimal funds,
at best, have been requested. Yet, even these minimal requests were
deleted prior to passage. Even more appalling is the fact that BIA
funding for Tribal Courts has actually substantially decreased
following the enactment of the Indian Tribal Justice Act in 1993.
CONCLUSION
Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities. They are key
to tribal economic development and self-sufficiency. Any serious
attempt to fulfill the federal government's trust responsibility to
Indian Nations must include increased funding and enhancement of Tribal
justice systems. We respectfully request that Congress consider the
funding increases.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Interior Department's
fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the Indian Tribal Justice Act and
Tribal Courts (under the Tribal Priority Allocations).
Please contact Judge Eugene White-Fish, President, NAICJA at (715)
478-7255, or NAICJA Executive Director Chuck Robertson, at (605) 342-
4804 or [email protected] with questions or comments. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Navajo Nation
The Navajo Nation welcomes this opportunity to provide
recommendations on the proposed federal fiscal year 2004 budget for the
Interior, including the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs requested budgets. The Navajo Nation requests that:
The Appropriation Subcommittee not appropriate funding for the
Department of the Interior's proposed BIA Reorganization.--The Navajo
Nation is opposed to the Interior's proposal due to lack of tribal
consultation. The Interior has yet to submit a formal proposal to
Congress, the Navajo Nation or Indian tribes to consult and comment on.
The Appropriation Subcommittee not appropriate funding for the
Proposed BIA ``Privatization'' School Initiative.--In the President's
budget, increased funds were requested to make BIA schools attractive
for private educational companies, yet the Navajo Nation and other
tribes have repeatedly asked the BIA to increase funds for its BIA
schools but have been constantly denied. The BIA has yet to have
consultation to fully discuss tribal education plans.
The Navajo Nation requests fiscal year 2004 appropriations in the
amount of:
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP).--$30,000,000. The Navajo
Nation requests full funding for NIIP. NIIP construction is a legal
obligation of the federal government based on statute.
Navajo Southwest Judicial Complex.--$20,000,000. Current court
facilities built in the 1950's are dilapidated. This funding would
enhance self-determination and encourage economic self-sufficiency.
Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT).--$1,500,000. CIT is a
critically important educational institution that reduces unemployment
and attracts businesses to the Navajo Nation.
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI).--$5,730,000. SIPI
is one of two fully accredited universities in the Bureau's education
system.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
Contract Support Cost Grants.--$20,000,000. Contract support costs
are necessary to fund the Navajo Nation's self-administered healthcare
to the Nation's approximately 250,000 citizens.
Facilities.--The Navajo Nation supports the President's request for
$4,000,000 for Fort Defiance Hospital Staff Quarters; $21,573,000 for
the Pinon Health Center; and $30,000,000 for the Red Mesa Health
Center.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
BIA Roads Maintenance.--$32,100,000. Tribes are in need of solid
infrastructure and the funds to maintain existing roads and new road
construction.
Law Enforcement.--$172,663,760. The Navajo ratio of 0.3 police
officers per 1,000 population is dangerously below the necessary
minimum rural-setting ratio of 3 officers per 1,000 population.
Indian Police Academy.--$2,545,530. The Indian Police Academy
provides basic and advanced law enforcement training for Bureau law
enforcement and detention officers.
Justice Systems.--$10,000,000. Congress passed the Indian Tribal
Justice Act of 1993, but has never provided appropriations for adequate
based funding for tribal courts.
Tribal Courts.--$18,292,720. Tribal courts have long been under
funded and under developed. The Navajo Nation is focusing on
strengthening its courts as a means for creating safe communities and
building infrastructure for economic development.
Tribal Education Department (TEDs).--$1,000,000. Congress
authorized appropriations for the development of TEDs in Public Law 95-
561, but has never appropriated this initiative.
School Construction.--$131,400,000. The Navajo Nation's request
supports a serious commitment to building Indian schools, of which the
Navajo Nation has a majority of BIA schools slated for replacement.
Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R).--$165,000,000. The Navajo
Nation supports funding that will eliminate this backlog of repairs at
these schools.
Education Facilities Operations.--$74,900,000. The Navajo Nation
does not support the President's request of $57,687,000. If the
Administration requested full funding, then schools would not have to
cover operations from funds appropriated for instruction.
Minor Improvement and Repair (MI&R).--$17,747,491, of which the
Navajo Nation requests $3,000,000 for the Navajo Area. The Navajo
Nation has the majority of BIA education facilities to maintain.
Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP).--$361,000,000. This
amount will at least cover the required pay cost adjustments and
prevent actual declines in the instructional program. However, since
education is a priority of the President and the Congress, it is
disappointing that there is not a significant increase in this line
item.
ISEP-Pro Ajustments.--$6,072,250. This amount would allow tribes to
plan and assume greater control of their educational programs.
Administrative Cost Grants (ACG).--$61,400,000. The Navajo Nation's
request is consistent with the BIA's stated initiative to encourage
tribes to contract/grant the remaining BIA schools.
Student Transportation.--$55,000,000. Navajo Nation's request would
help to fully implement President Bush's education policies, as funds
for Indian student transportation is a must.
Family and Child Education Expansion (FACE)--$15,800,000. The
Navajo Nation supports the FACE program as it has done much to
facilitate learning on the Navajo Nation.
New Schools and Program Expansion.--The Navajo Nation requests that
the Appropriations Committee lift the 1992 Appropriation Act moratorium
on BIA program expansion and new BIA schools so that the Navajo Nation
may better serve its students.
Johnson O'Malley Program (JOM).--$18,310,910. The JOM Program
provides funds to supplement the regular school program. JOM programs
are used for tutoring, academic support, cultural activities, summer
education programs and after school activities. Navajo Nation provides
supplemental funding to provide special services to meet the unique and
specialized needs of over 52,000 Native American students through 36
subcontracts in public schools on or near the Navajo reservation in the
states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
Scholarship Funding.--$30,000,000, of which, $1,223,397 should be
directly allocated to the BIA Navajo Area. The Navajo Nation supports
President Bush's committed to education, and asks for a strong
commitment to assist Indian.students in Higher Education.
Adult Education Scholarships.--$3,210,000. While the Administration
may emphasize elementary and secondary education, the Navajo Nation
still believes in including all of its citizens to gain education
opportunities.
Special Higher Education Scholarships.--$1,605,000. There must be
an emphasis on adults achieving higher education. BIA Scholarship
provides supplemental financial assistance to Indians for graduate
level study.
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges (TCCCs).--$44,940,000 of
which, $40,029,000 would be for Operating Grants. TCCCs encourage
tribal members to attend school, obtain new skills and a better quality
of life.
Environmental Projects/Assessments/Inspections/Abatement.--
$12,466,570. Many BIA schools have asbestos in their facilities and a
reduction in this area does not show commitment to have healthy
environments for children. Navajo has schools listed on the BIA
priority list.
Social Services under Tribal Priority Allocations.--$33,299,390.
Indian Child Welfare Act.--$12,460,150. Protecting Navajo children
is a duty for creating healthy families and strong communities.
Reducing these funds does neither.
Housing Improvement Program (HIP).--$35,310,000. The Navajo Nation
strongly encourages full funding of HIP to maintain safe living
environments for Indian people living in harsh and economic deprived
environments.
Public Safety Minor Improvement and Repair (MI&R).--$857,070. The
Navajo Area has many facilities that need immediate repair to keep its
Public Safety facilities safe. The Navajo Area receives the lowest of
the BIA regions and is requested at only $50,000.
Bennett Freeze Area Rehabilitation.--$20,000,000. As a result of
the Bennett Freeze, construction and development in the western portion
of the Navajo Nation has been impossible for nearly 40 years. During
these 40 years, Navajo families living in the Bennett Freeze area could
not take advantage of federal, state or tribal programs. The area is in
severe need of these development funds.
Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation.--$30,000,000. ONHIR received
$15 million in fiscal year 2001 and again in fiscal year 2002. Many
Navajos continue to wait to receive housing and other promised benefits
under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. In order to accelerate the
provision of such benefits, the Navajo Nation requests that this
federal agency's budget be doubled to $30 million.
Relocation Act Study.--$1,000,000. The relocation. law has resulted
in the dislocation of 10,000 Navajos, dramatically impacted local
Navajo and non-Indian communities, and cost the federal government
approximately $400 million. The time has come for a comprehensive study
of the effects of the relocation law, with a focus on long-term impacts
that may have to be mitigated over the next 20 years.
HPL Community Center.--$1,000,000. Due to construction and
development freezes, Navajo families who reside on the Hopi Partitioned
Lands, have never had any facilities developed to support their
community. This funding would facilitate badly needed community
services.
Water Management, Planning, and Pre-Development--$8,615,640. To
assist the Navajo Nation in effectively managing its water, especially
during these times of drought in order to stabilize water usage in the
west.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (BOR)--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION EFFICIENCY
INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project.--$500,000. This amount would
enable the BOR to complete the planning report and the environmental
impact statement to continue this Project. The Project will create the
infrastructure necessary to provide critically needed water to tribal
and non-tribal communities in New Mexico.
Ganado Water Conservation and Management Project.--$350,000. This
amount will allow irrigators to have access to water from the Ganado
Reservoir.
Navajo Nation Drought Relief Within New Mexico--$1,340,000. This
would allow BOR Emergency Drought Relief Act funds for Spencer Valley
(Manuelito Chapter) for a conveyance line ($90,000); at Torreon Chapter
for a new water source ($450,000); and at Baca/Haystack Chapter for
water source and storage ($800,000).
Navajo Nation Drought Relief Within Arizona.--$2,000,000. BOR
Emergency Drought Relief Act funds for Teec Nos Pos Chapter for a new
water source ($470,000); Fort Defiance Chapter for a replacement well
and storage ($250,000); Tuba City Chapter for water source and storage
($380,000); and Cameron-Grey Mountain for water source and storage
($900,000).
Navajo Mountain Public Water System.--$4,000,000. The Navajo
Mountain Public Water System is inadequate to provide for the needs of
the community and its schools as it depends on springs that are
unreliable during dry periods. Last year the Navajo Nation had to
resort to hauling water more than 40 miles to provide drinking water
for the community and resulted in the closing of the schools during the
summer months. The proposed project would cost approximately $6
million. Programmatic funding committed through the U.S. EPA and BIA
totals $2 million.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)
Dine Power Authority (DPA).--$1,500,000. This would allow DPA to
complete archaeological, biological and cultural studies, and related
mitigation measures, within the right of way corridor on Navajo lands
for the Navajo Transmission Project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
The Nez Perce Tribe requests the following funding amounts for
fiscal year 2004, which are specific to the Nez Perce Tribe:
--$100,000 through the United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Program to support
its fisheries efforts relating to consultation on hydrosystem
operations, Endangered Species restoration, harvest monitoring,
conservation enforcement, and program administration.
--$600,000 (request includes $450,000 as appropriated in fiscal year
2003, for continuing efforts plus $150,000 increase for
expanded needs as part of an overall fiscal year 2004 program
request of $1.16 million appropriation request) through the
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Threatened and Endangered Species Program for
continued operation of the Nez Perce Tribes gray wolf recovery,
monitoring, research and outreach programs in Idaho. This
$600,000 request is part of a larger appropriation package
totaling $1.16 million, prepared by the Nez Perce Tribe after
initial discussions with the State of Idaho Office of Species
Conservation, in order to create a wolf recovery program in the
state of Idaho, that anticipates probable delisting of wolves
from the Endangered Species list, by adequately funding the
coordinated and shared responsibilities of the Nez Perce Tribe,
State of Idaho, and Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Tribe urges support for the full and adequate funding of tribal
programs through the Department of Interior fiscal year 2004 budget,
with the specific requests discussed below.
NEZ PERCE TRIBE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FUNDING:
BIA, $100,000
The Nez Perce Tribe requests $100,000 be added to its Bureau of
Indian Affairs Public Law 93-638 contract for enhanced capabilities in
its fish recovery effort.
The Nez Perce Tribe has one of the largest and most successful
tribal fisheries management programs in the United States. We take our
challenge of restoring the fisheries resources in Idaho, northeast
Oregon, and southeast Washington very seriously. The Tribe has brought
back coho salmon from extinction, is utilizing hatchery supplementation
to return ESA listed spring, summer, and fall Chinook and restore these
populations to harvestable levels, and is the single-most active
habitat restoration entity in the Snake River Basin. We employ 150 to
200 people, most of which are tribal members, and maintain four offices
in Oregon and Idaho. Principle program areas include Administration,
Research, Habitat, Conservation Enforcement, Resident Fish, Harvest,
and Production. The Tribe's Fisheries Management program is focused on
restoring and maintaining an abundance of fish populations within the
Tribe's treaty lands in order to provide for environmental and cultural
health and meet recreational, commercial and subsistence fishing needs.
The Nez Perce Tribe's Fisheries Management Program is built upon
the extremely strong treaty rights retained by the Tribe. Among other
things, the treaties guarantee the right of the Tribe to harvest fish
at virtually every single river and stream flowing through the lands
ceded to the United States and at all usual and accustomed areas. The
Tribe's ceded lands sit astride the largest and best salmon habitats
remaining in the northwest--the Snake River Basin. This is the
``breadbasket'' of the Columbia, although now, most salmon runs
returning here are listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Rather than continuing with this status
quo, and having the actualization of treaty rights depend upon what the
federal and state fisheries managers could provide, the Tribe initiated
its own program.
The Fisheries Program relies on a host of funding sources,
including the Lower Snake River Compensation Program, Bonneville Power
Administration's Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Program, and the Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund initiative. In addition, the Tribe has
sought opportunities to utilize its contracts as matching funds with
various federal and private partners. However, these funding sources
are very project specific and short-lived. The addition of appropriated
dollars through the BIA is critical to funding overall management
activities required for Program Administration, Harvest Monitoring and
Conservation Enforcement. These programs are central to the Tribe's
fisheries management responsibilities as established in the treaties
and further delineated in litigation regarding implementation of
hunting and fishing treaty rights.
An increase in funding through the BIA is required to deal with
these core management actions. For several years the salmon runs have
returned in larger numbers and to many more streams than have occurred
in the past. These larger returns are due to a number of factors, but
importantly have responded to the Tribe's supplementation efforts using
hatchery fish. As a result of the larger returns, tribal commercial and
subsistence harvest activities and harvest opportunities for sportsmen
are occurring over a much broader area of the ceded lands and the usual
and accustomed fishing areas, and for longer periods of time.
Consequently, costs associated with the central administration,
enforcement, and harvest monitoring actions are similarly increasing.
With increasing success come increasing responsibilities.
Additionally, Tribes have never had access to federal aid in
fisheries work through the Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and
Wallop-Breaux Acts. These funds are derived from a federal tax paid on
outdoor and sporting equipment. States are provided these funds to
supplement their fish and wildlife programs for just such needs as
identified in the Tribe's appropriation request. While tribal members
pay taxes on the sale of certain sporting goods items, tribal
governments do not receive any of the federal tax revenue.
The requested fiscal year 2004 funding would support two staff
positions in Administration, six in Harvest Monitoring and ten in
Conservation Enforcement. Although the jobs are located in Idaho, work
conducted by the positions occurs primarily in Idaho, but also in
Washington and Oregon.
The Nez Perce Tribe urges Congress to appropriate $100,000 through
the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Fish and Wildlife Program to support the fisheries efforts of the Nez
Perce Tribe.
NEZ PERCE TRIBE'S CENTRAL IDAHO GRAY WOLF RECOVERY PROGRAM FUNDING:
USFWS, $600,000
The Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe) requests that Congress direct the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to allocate $600,000 for wolf
recovery efforts by the Tribe, for tasks identified in a cooperative
agreement between the Tribe and Service. The Tribe's fiscal year 2003
appropriation for wolf recovery was $450,000. The Tribe is requesting
an additional $150,000 above the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level of
$450,000 for a total fiscal year 2004 program budget of $600,000. The
Tribe anticipates using the additional funds to expand efforts of
previous years to retain more staff; increase on-the-ground presence
especially in areas of new or recent wolf activity; update the
monitoring program to enable the Tribe to develop a methodology to
continue to produce accurate estimates of population size using less
intensive monitoring techniques; expand field operations especially
focusing on documenting and radio collaring new packs and maintaining
radio-collars in existing packs; acquire equipment; increase continuing
reporting and information dissemination activities; hold informational
public meetings in affected communities; document new packs; establish
a system of special effort to notify landowners, grazing permittees,
agencies, and others who have particular needs for the information
gathered; and develop and deliver all maps and reports due per the
existing cooperative agreement with the Service.
The Nez Perce Tribe and the USDA APHIS Wildlife Service staff have
been the primary entities responsible for the day-to-day recovery and
management of wolves in Idaho. The Tribe has provided such services as
monitoring wolves; providing information to agencies, organizations and
the public; working with affected and interested parties to address
concerns supporting the implementation of directed wolf research;
assisting with resolution of wolf-livestock conflicts; and assisting
Service's Law Enforcement personnel when requested. Yet, more effort is
needed. The Idaho wolf population is growing in numbers and expanding
into new geographic areas. Additional funding is needed to continue
providing Recovery Program services to newly affected communities with
the geographic expansion of the wolf population.
The Tribe and the State of Idaho as represented by the Idaho Office
of Species Conservation (OSC) submitted a joint appropriation request
for fiscal year 2003 including $600,000 for the Tribe, $460,000 for OSC
and $100,000 for the Service. The Tribe anticipated filing a similar
joint federal appropriation request with the OSC for fiscal year 2004,
but opted not to do so when the OSC asked the Tribe to limit its fiscal
year 2004 request to only $400,000 this year, which is $50,000 less
than the Tribe received in fiscal year 2003 and $200,00 less than the
Tribe and OSC requested for the Tribe in fiscal year 2003. The OSC is
requesting an increase of nearly $200,000 over fiscal year 2003
appropriated levels, which would equal the $460,000 amount previously
requested by OSC in fiscal year 2003. The Tribe supports the State of
Idaho in its fiscal year 2004 request for increased federal
appropriations for planned wolf management efforts as long as it is not
at the expense of the Tribe's request for $600,000. To that end the
Tribe has included a request for $460,000 for the OSC in the Tribe's
fiscal year 2004 appropriation request package of $1.16 million. As
respective fiscal year 2004 workloads between the Tribe and OSC have
not changed considerably from fiscal year 2003, as outlined in the
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 appropriations requests, the
Tribe feels strongly justified in requesting funding needs similar to
those requested in fiscal year 2003, as does OSC.
The Nez Perce Tribe continues to hold legal and contracted
obligations to recover and manage wolves in Idaho pursuant to a
cooperative agreement with the Service and a Service approved Tribal
wolf management plan. Until such time as the tribal contractual
obligations are changed through consensual efforts between the Tribe,
OSC and Service, the Tribe needs full funding to carry out its
contractual obligations. The OSC and the Tribe have agreed to continue
with negotiations to develop and adopt an MOA outlining respective
roles and responsibilities for coordinated wolf management after wolf
management shifts from the Federal Government to the State and Tribe.
We hope to conclude those discussions before the final appropriations
are decided late this summer. The Tribe believes this MOA and
subsequent additionally required MOA's coordinated between the OSC and
the Tribe and the Service are the appropriate vehicles for
reapportioning respective roles and responsibilities, legal contractual
obligations and funding among the parties. Funding levels should be
closely tied to and follow agreed to workloads identified in the MOA
between the Tribe and Service and the MOA's between the Service and
Tribe and OSC and Tribe. The Tribe feels strongly that reapportioning
funding levels prior to reallocation of respective roles and
responsibilities through the MOA's is premature, as the Tribe continues
to hold full legal obligations for the entire Recovery Program as
outlined in our current cooperative agreement with the Service.
The Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress support wolf recovery in
Idaho by fully funding the Tribe's total wolf recovery appropriation
request package which seeks appropriations for the Nez Perce Tribe, the
Idaho State Office of Species Conservation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Snake River Basin Office. At a minimum, however, the Nez
Perce Tribe requests that Congress appropriate $600,000 specifically to
the Nez Perce Tribe which is necessary for the Tribe to adequately
monitor the expanding wolf population in Idaho and provide
accountability to local affected rural communities and Idaho citizens.
Thank you for your continued support of the Nez Perce Tribe's fish
and wolf recovery efforts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
On behalf of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission member
tribes, I want to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present
this written testimony on our fiscal year 2004 fisheries and habitat
management needs. Funds for these programs should be directed to the
Fish, Wildlife and Parks Account within the Bureau of Indian.
summary of fiscal year 2004 appropriations request
The NWIFC generally supports the enacted fiscal year 2003
appropriation levels. We request funding and direction which will
achieve the following for fiscal year 2004:
--Restore $320,000 to the Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights
account
--Restore $550,000 for Western Washington tribal shellfish management
and enforcement
--$6.3 million to implement tribal treaty rights in tribal shellfish
programs
--$22 million for federal contribution of Tribal/Growers shellfish
settlement
--Restore $3.0 million Forest Development, Woodland Management,
Northwest Forest Plan, Jobs in the Woods and Wild Stock
Restoration Initiative
--Restore $3.1 million for the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Forest and Fish
Report
--$1.0 million Increase for Timber-Fish-Wildlife ESA Obligations
under new state and private forest practices rules and
regulations
--Increase Hatchery Cyclical Maintenance/Rehabilitation funding to
$2.5 million with language
--Support existing funding levels within the BIA for Trust
Responsibility, TPA, and Self Governance for Fisheries
Management/U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon at fiscal year 2003
levels
--Include Committee Language directing the BIA to include Shellfish,
Forest and Fish Report and Unresolved Hunting and Fishing in
the fiscal year 2005 Budget
--Fully fund CSC at levels necessary for existing and emerging
programs
TRIBAL AND NWIFC BASE PROGRAMS NEED CONTINUED SUPPORT
Tribes have made great strides in institutionalizing management
consistent with tribal values, treaty rights and federal court
decisions. Tribes have developed great professional capabilities and
policy respect, and are efficient and effective, but find ourselves far
short of where we would like to be in our capabilities. And, while we
have efficiently organized our tasks and assigned responsibilities
between our tribal communities to extend our collective efforts, the
management obligations are many. New and highly difficult complexities
abound, many are precipitated by the demands of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Treaty rights to harvest
shellfish are thwarted due to pollution in marine waters. To meet this
challenge, we will need all of our existing funding and additional new
resources.
Over the past decade, tribes have been able to secure new monies
for additional responsibilities. However, over the same time, tribes
have seen other monies they once received for other duties diminish,
either through inflation or through the elimination of program and
support funding. And in this process, Indian natural resource
management capacity has been unfairly affected. Therefore, we strongly
urge the Subcommittee to guard against any further diminishment of the
tribal program funding base, and do all it can to strengthen and
enhance the Bureau's Trust, Tribal Priority Allocation and Self-
Governance Program funding. We ask that the Subcommittee ensure that
the Western Washington-Boldt Implementation and the Pacific Salmon
Treaty base budgets be fully funded as was included in last year's
appropriation. We note with concern the reduction of $320,000 from the
Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights line item, and ask that it be
restored. Tribes are using these monies to develop in-common and co-
management databases, population assessments and other activities with
the state of Washington.
SHELLFISH MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE
For centuries, members of Puget Sound and Coastal Treaty Tribes
have harvested shellfish for their commercial, ceremonial and
subsistence needs. Hard shell and razor clams and oysters were
collected from shoreline areas. Other shellfish species, such as crab
and shrimp, were also gathered for subsistence and commercial uses.
Shellfish harvesting was as important to tribal traditional life and
commerce, as was fishing for salmon and steelhead.
Tribes signed treaties with the United States in the mid-1850s,
that included guaranteed tribal rights to gather shellfish. However,
over the course of the past century and a half, conflicts arose, and
the tribal right to harvest these resources was diminished. As a
result, tribes were forced to seek a reaffirmation of their rights
through the federal courts system. In 1999, the Supreme Court denied
cert. and let stand the favorable decision of the 9th Circuit Court.
Tribes have steadily moved forward during this time in implementing
their treaty rights to harvest their share of the resource. However,
Tribes need monies to implement this right, in much the same way as
they did after the original U.S. v. Washington case was decided.
Several dozen regional shellfish management plans have been
successfully negotiated with tribal and state agencies, and tribes have
redirected efforts to conduct the minimum management needed for their
fisheries. Agreements and processes to access private tidelands have
also been proceeding peacefully. Without new resources this success
will be short-lived.
During the course of the court case, tribal and state attorneys
were able to negotiate a consent decree regarding shellfish sanitation.
This agreement establishes shellfish sanitation programs designed to
protect the public health. The implementation of the decree has
revealed that the presence of biotoxins in shellfish is dangerously
unacceptable, and threatens the viability of both the state and tribal
fisheries. Additional research and monitoring of this biotoxin is
necessary to prevent illness and death that may result from consuming
toxic shellfish. The significant value of deep-water shellfish
fisheries has increased illegal harvesting and enforcement is
inadequate. Tribes and state enforcement agencies are addressing
problems by coordinating patrols, but additional monitoring of harvest
is needed.
It is clear that more needs to be done to adequately address
resource concerns for the benefit of all fisheries, Indian and non-
Indian alike. The Western Washington tribes request the Subcommittee to
restore last years funding of $550,000, and add an additional $6.3
million to tribal fishery management contracts as part of the permanent
base.
We are also asking the Committee for its help in funding a final
settlement decree between treaty tribes and a number of private
shellfish growers. This settlement will allow tribes to shift their
treaty reserved rights from harvesting of grower owned land-to-land
acquired under the terms of this settlement. The entire cost of this
settlement will be $33 million, with the cost split two-thirds-one-
third between the federal and state governments.
WILDSTOCK RESTORATION INITIATIVE, WATERSHED RESTORATION, NORTHWEST
FOREST PLAN, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IMPLEMENTATION
In 1999, a number of species of Pacific Salmon were listed by the
National Marine Fisheries Service as threatened under the terms of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Last year, the Bull Trout was listed as
threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This ESA listing
process is triggering a cascading chain of events, and will culminate
in significant changes to harvest, hatchery and habitat practices for
the region and its inhabitants.
Tribes are affected by this federal process. As fisherman, the
listing raises serious questions about the status of the stocks and
poses a threat to the individual's opportunity to continue to harvest
this salmon, a treaty-secured resource. As governments, the ESA process
places inordinate demands upon the tribes as co-managers of the
resource. Biological Reviews, Listing Decisions, Assessments, Opinions,
Consultation, and Recovery Planning are just a few of the processes
tribes will now be forced to participate in just to ensure their treaty
protected fisheries. The tribes harvest opportunity and management are
being placed in severe jeopardy by these actions without additional
funds to manage through the risks imposed by this federal mandate.
We are requesting that the Subcommittee continue to provide
$400,000 for the Wild Stock Restoration Initiative from the $3.0
million Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest Development, Woodland
Management and the Northwest Forest Plan ``Jobs in the Woods''
Initiative line item. The WSRI is essential to developing a habitat
inventory base from which restoration efforts can begin. The remaining
$2.6 million from this initiative will allow tribes throughout the
Pacific Northwest to continue to conduct watershed analysis and
watershed restoration within their Usual and Accustomed Areas. This
approach is identical to last year's request, which the Subcommittee
supported.
TIMBER-FISH-WILDLIFE/FOREST AND FISH REPORT
We are supporting the restoration of Funding to tribes for the
Timber-Fish-Wildlife/Forest and Fish Report that cooperatively and
collaboratively allows tribes to actively participate in state forest
practice rules and regulations that have an affect on listed salmon
populations. Tribes, as a result of their co-management status, are
deeply involved in this management forum. The negotiations leading up
to the development of the TFW Forest and Fish Report were exceedingly
contentious. However, most agreed that the only way to actually resolve
these issues is for a strong monitoring and adaptive monitoring process
be put in place, which will require additional funding.
Tribes are using the funds provided last year by the Committee in a
very organized fashion. Tribes have a strong central and regional
coordination component and are focusing implementation efforts at their
local watersheds. The strategy calls for two tracks. One is aimed at
supporting the development of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
development process at TFW. A second track supports tribal
participation in TFW in a continuing effort to shape and steer forest
management practices toward greater fish protection.
For fiscal year 2004, we are again requesting $3.1 million be
restored plus an additional $1.0 million to further develop tribal
participation in the TFW Forest and Fish effort. For each of our
requests to restore funding, we ask the Committee to include language
directing the Bureau of Indian Affairs to include these funding amounts
in their fiscal year 2005 budget request.
HATCHERY CYCLICAL MAINTENANCE/REHABILITATION
Tribes operate extensive salmon and steelhead hatchery facilities
that produce fish for tribal and non-tribal use. These facilities are
located throughout the western Washington U.S. v. Washington Case Area.
Many of these facilities were built with federal funding and were
intended to partially fulfill federal trust responsibilities to off-set
loss of fishing opportunities and fish habitat due to non-Indian action
and developments.
Hatchery operations are reviewed through the Hatchery Reform
Project Initiative funded through the Fish and Wildlife Service. Not
unexpectedly, one of the outcomes from this rigorous scientific review
process is to make physical changes to facilities that bring them in
line with the scientific review recommendations.
Tribes will need about $2.5 million to do necessary work to ensure
that their facilities are ESA certified. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
has a small line item that could be amended to include this kind of
work. Such funding would complement state of Washington funding through
their capital construction budget, and ensure that tribal facilities
are improved at the same pace as state owned and operated hatcheries.
Direction would need to be given to the Bureau to ensure that tribal
facilities in western Washington are recipients to these monies.
CONTRACT SUPPORT FUNDING IS ESSENTIAL TO TRIBAL PROGRAMS
We continue to have concerns that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
failed to fully request Contract Support Funds for tribal programs. We
are also concerned that Congress has not fully appropriated the
necessary funds. An artificial cap upon the funding pool for indirect
cost reimbursements places a huge burden on tribal fisheries programs.
We have been, and will be forced to continue to reduce our programs to
cover these costs as mandated by law. Such a burden cannot be borne by
tribal programs again this year or into the future without onerous
results.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the Subcommittee's continued support for the tribes
and the NWIFC as we implement co-management responsibilities. It takes
funding resources to make our management system work, but the returns
to our efforts are many. The challenges are great, and we must continue
our effort with renewed vigor. We thank you for your attention to our
needs. We have provided the subcommittee staff with additional
supporting documentation for our requests. We are available to meet
with you and your staff at your leisure.
______
Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Sterud, Puyallup Tribal Chairman. We
thank the Committee for past support of many tribal issues and in your
interest today. We share our concerns and request assistance in
reaching objectives of significance to the Congress, the Tribe, and to
32,000+ Indians (constituents) in our Urban Service Area.
U.S. Department of Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs.--The
Puyallup Tribe has analyzed the President's fiscal year 2004 budget and
submit the following detailed written testimony to the House Interior
Subcommittee on the proposed funding bill for the Dept. of Interior and
Related Agencies. In the fiscal year 2003 budget process, the Puyallup
Tribe supported actions of Congress to restore the base level funding
for various programs including the Timber-Fish-Wildlife program in the
amount of $3.1 million along with $550,000 for Shellfish management. We
look forward to working with the 108th Congress to insure that funding
levels for programs necessary for the Puyallup Tribe to carry-out our
sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for
the benefit of Puyallup tribal members and the members from
approximately 435 federally recognized Tribes who utilize our services
are included in the fiscal year 2004 budget.
The following provides a brief review of the Puyallup Tribe's
priorities and special appropriation requests for fiscal year 2004;
Chief Leshci School--Auditorium Completion & Athletic Facilities
Development.--The Puyallup Tribal education support began in 1972 as
the ``Hawthorne School'', a teen drop-in prevention program established
in cooperation with Tacoma Schools on the site of the present Tacoma
Dome. An Elementary School was constructed on the main tribal campus in
1978 through funding from the Economic Development Administration. The
Elementary School was relocated to the Tribal Headquarters and the K-12
offerings became the new Chief Leschi School, which was designated as a
tribal school through a ``638 contract'' with the BIA. A combination of
school population and weakness in the school buildings structural
integrity caused the school to relocate educational services to various
sites. This initiated a request to the BIA for a new school facility.
This request was realized in 1996 with the completion of the new
Chief Leshci School pre-K through 12. As of February 2003, enrollment
of Native American children is 702. This enrollment figure represents
native children from 65 federally recognized tribes through-out the
country. As with many construction projects, limited funding and cost
increases had a significant impact on the final design of Chief Leschi
Schools. This is evident in the lack of an Auditorium and Athletic
Facilities. Although construction on the Auditorium was started, it was
not completed due to lack of funding. We feel that the completion of
the Auditorium and Athletic Facilities will significantly enhance the
activities and services that Chief Leschi Schools is able to offer to
the school community and our Tribe. We will request your support for
the fiscal year 2004 BIA budget for the following;
--$1,554,989 for the completion of the Chief Leschi School
Auditorium; and
--$2,903,020 for design and construction of the Chief Leschi School
Athletic Facilities Development.
Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement.--The Puyallup Reservation is
located in the urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of
Washington. The 18,061 acre reservation and related urban service area
contains 17,000+ Native Americans from over 200 Tribes and Alaskan
Villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division currently has
fifteen (15) commissioned officers to cover 40 square miles of
reservation in addition to the usual and accustomed areas. The officers
are charged with the service and protection of the Puyallup Reservation
seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. We currently operate with
outdated equipment, patrol vehicles requiring constant repair and
insufficient staff levels. With the continuing increase in population,
increase in gang related activities on the Puyallup Reservation and the
impact of the increase in manufacturing of meth amphetamines in the
region, the services of the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division
are exceeding maximum levels.
A major area of concern is the status of the Tribe's Regional
Incarceration Facility. Due to damages from the February 2001 Nisqually
earthquake, we have had to relocate to modular/temporary facilities. As
a regional detention facility, the relocation to the modular facility
not only impacts the Tribe's ability to house detainee's but also the
approximately 173 native inmates that were incarcerated at the Puyallup
Incarceration facility during the period of 2001-2002. Relocation to
the modular facility has also impacted the Tribes ability to house
juvenile detainees. With no juvenile facilities, Native American youth
are sent to non-native facilities.
We respectfully request congressional support to fund the BIA Law
Enforcement program at levels adequate to operated law enforcement
services at a safe and effective method and to fund the Department of
Justice--Detention Facilities Construction program for fiscal year
2004. The following list is a brief summary of law enforcement needs of
the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement programs:
--Juvenile Incarceration Facility--$1,000,000 (est.);
--Staffing for Juvenile Facility--8 employees @ $320,600;
--Adult Incarceration Facility--$2,500,000 (est);
--Additional staff for dispatching center--3 employees @ $120,800;
--Additional Officers--4 @ $225,900;
--Equipment; firearms, radios and equipment--$30,000;
--Technologies, hardware and software--$80,000;
--Patrol vehicles--2 @ $60,000;
--Training--$30,000.
Fisheries & Natural Resources Management.--The Puyallup Tribe as
steward for land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish and
shellfish areas has treaty and Governmental obligations and
responsibilities to manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the
regional community. Despite our diligent program efforts, the fisheries
resource is degrading and economic losses are incurred by Indian and
Non-Indian fisherman, and surrounding communities. Our Resource
Management responsibilities cover thousands of square miles in the
Puget Sound region of the State of Washington with an obligation to
manage production of anadromous, non-anadromous fish and shellfish
resources. Existing levels of support are inadequate to reverse the
trend of resource/habitat degradation. Resource management is
constrained due to funding shortfalls. We seek support and endorsement
in the following areas:
--Tribal Fisheries Resource Management, Hatchery Operation and
Maintenance funding via Public Law 93-638 contracts have not
increased substantially since establishment of base budgets in
1984. The demand on Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Program has grown
exponential since the eighties and is currently faced by
Endangered Species Act listings on Bull Trout and Chinook
Salmon which is in an highly urbanized setting more so than any
other Pacific Northwest Tribe. We request Committee support to
increase base contract funding in the amount of $150,000.00 for
additional fisheries staff.
--Western Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program--The TFW Program
has allowed for the expansion of tribal participation in the
state forest practice rules and regulations that have an affect
on listed salmon populations. In fiscal year 2003 Congress
restored TFW base funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
However, this base funding increase is being proposed to be
discontinued in the fiscal year 2004 budget. Continued funding
in this area is essential to facilitate tribal participation in
monitoring, research, data analysis and adaptive management
processes that are a cornerstone to the TFW process. We request
Committee support for base funding level of $3,555,000 to the
TFW fiscal year 2004 budget.
Tribal Priority Allocation & Contract Support Costs.--The
President's fiscal year 2004 budget calls for $2.3 billion to be
allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is an increase of
$65,900,000 over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. This request
includes $777,000,000 for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), a
$2,100,000 increase over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. Although
the increases are a positive commitment by the Administration, they
still fall short of providing adequate funding for critically needed
tribal programs supported by TPA funding. TPA budget activity includes
the majority of funding used to support on-going services at the
``local tribal'' level, including; law enforcement, natural resources
management (fisheries), child welfare, housing, tribal courts and other
tribal governmental services. TPA has not received adequate funding to
allow tribes the resources to fully exercise self-determination and
self-governance. Further, the small increases TPA has received over the
past few years has not been adequate to keep pace with inflation. At a
minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the following;
--Support by Congress of the President's fiscal year 2004 request for
TPA increase of $2,100,000, for a total request of $777,000,000
for fiscal year 2004 TPA funding
Another concern the Puyallup Tribe has with the fiscal year 2004
budget request is the on-going issue of contract support costs. The
President's fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $135,300,000 to
address the Bureau of Indian Affairs continuing contract support costs
and $0 for the Indian Self-Determination Fund to address the needs of
tribes taking on new Bureau of Indian Affairs programs. At a minimum,
we request your support and endorsement in the following;
--Support by Congress of the President's fiscal year 2004 request for
an increase in contract support cost funding of $135,300,000,
and include a $3,000,000 request for the Indian Self-
Determination Fund for new Bureau of Indian Affairs programs
contracted by tribes. Full funding of Contract Support is a
mandate towards the full realization of Self-determination and
Self-governance.
DHHS Indian Health Service.--Funding for the Indian Health Service
fails to meet the needs of health services for Native Americans. The
Puyallup Tribe has been operating their health care programs since 1976
through the Indian Self-determination Act, Public Law 93-638. The
Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) is a successful ambulatory
program that provides comprehensive ambulatory medical dental, mental
health, drug and alcohol treatment services to an expanding population
in Tacoma and Pierce County, Washington. In fiscal year 2002 it was the
most productive Indian health program in the tri-state areas of
Washington, Oregon and Idaho.
Adequate funding for the continued operations and delivery of
quality care is essential. PTHA, like most IHS facilities, is being
asked to do more with less. The cost of supplies and staff increases as
does the eligible population increases, yet funding has not kept pace.
IHS has lost $1.9 Billion in purchasing power since 1992. Unlike
private practice counterparts, we can not raise fees, negotiate higher
reimbursement from insurance companies or restrict the population we
serve. Preserving purchasing power and ensuring that medical needs are
met must be paramount to IHS and HHS.
Highlights of the IHS Budget request include an increase of $73
million or a 2.5 percent increase. The Budget Request also factors in
approximately $31 million in cost savings from administrative
reductions. The fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the IHS continues
to fall short of the $250 million to just maintain current services.
The Puyallup Tribe will submit detailed written testimony to Congress
on the fiscal year 2004 IHS Budget.
We request congressional support for the fiscal year 2004 IHS
budget in the following areas:
--Fund medical and general inflation costs, which have again reached
double digits;
--Fund the increased expenses due to population growth. Although AI/
NApopulation has a 2.1 percent growth rate, growth has not been
funded for 11 years;
--Index Contract Care to population growth and the medical inflation
rate. Contract care is most vulnerable to inflation since
services are provided by vendors constrained by IHS guidelines.
There are no IHS hospitals in the Pacific Northwest which makes
our clinic dependent on Contract Care for necessary specialty
referrals and hospital care.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe
The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe (Tribe) of Washington State has 200
members. We see ourselves as a small and disadvantaged tribe. The
Tribes remote location at the foot of the Cascade Range coupled with
its small size places it in a position where it is unable to compete
with larger and more affluent tribes for scarce federal resources.
Sauk-Suiattle does not operate a casino and because of its location
will never have that opportunity. In the 1940's and 1950's, Senators
Jackson and Magnuson worked unsuccessfully to ensure the Sauk-Suiattle
Indian Tribe a reservation land base within its homeland. Following the
Land Allotment era in the United States there were still millions of
unclaimed acres within the Tribes' traditional areas in Washington
State. These lands were eventually transferred to other federal
agencies and to Washington State; Sauk-Suiattle was left out and
remained landless until 1980. In 1980 the Tribe purchased 23 acres of
land with grant funding to provide essential housing for Tribal
members. As a small Tribe, our needs are magnified, and competition for
resources is fierce. All Tribal operational costs are funded under
grants and contracts, which provide less than 70 percent of need. The
Tribe requests $10.276 Million from the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies' appropriations for fiscal year 2004 to support the
following priorities:
1. +$100,000 for Homeland Security to protect our Tribal
communities.
2. +$250,000 to Tribal Budget Base for Aid to Tribal Government
operations, in the Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Priority Allocation
line item including 100 percent Contract Support Costs.
3. +$100,000 to Education in the BIA Education Program Account.
4. +$450,000 to study the Mountain Goat herds depletion in the
Northern Cascades including a 3 year study on the causes and action
needed to correct the decline.
5. +$200,000 to BIA Law Enforcement, for additional program
operations, salary increases, equipment, training, and jail contract
funds. To be added to the BIA TPA, Public Safety and Justice, Law
Enforcement Tribal Agency Account.
6. +$100,000 to restore and enhance the Sauk-Suiattle cemetery
damaged by the United States Navy training in 1997.
7. +$1.301 million. For the Northwest Intertribal Court System to
provide court related services to nine tribes and for a regional
appellate court system.
Other requests.--+$100,000 to conduct a Comprehensive Needs
Assessment of the Sauk-Suiattle membership. This is requested as a one-
time non-recurring cost to TPA, BIA. +$350,000 for Cultural Research
funding for anthropological and archaeological studies specific to
Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. No research studies, published or
unpublished, exist on the Sauk-Suiattle. This is needed to preserve
Tribal history, cultural preservation, documentation and protection of
historical and sacred sites, identification of burial grounds, and to
restore language. +$575,000 to develop economic enterprises for the
Tribe with funding to be added to BIA Tribal Government Account;
+$100,000 to Tribal Base for Indian Child Welfare for additional staff,
program enhancements, program resources, and the development of a much
needed short term emergency placement home for foster children, added
in the BIA, TPA for Human Services, ICWA Account. +$50,000 to Tribal
Housing Base Budget for HIP and administrative management. +$100,000 to
finally establish title, responsibility and ownership of tribal
allotments, Tenas Creek Cemetery, and Suiattle Cemetery; and, then to
place those allotments that are Tribal property under Tribal management
through Public Law 93-638. The multiple jurisdiction and joint
responsibilities that currently exists between the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe,
the U.S. Forest Service and the BIA, need to be clarified. (Mitigating
settlement has not yet been achieved from damages caused by the US
Navy's use of the Suiattle Cemetery for training maneuvers in 1997).
+$5.5 Mil for planning and acquisition of lands and the construction of
homes and to protect the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribes' Natural
Resources, Gathering, Hunting and Fishing Areas. To maintain access to
all Rights without infringements.
PRIORITY REQUESTS-NARRATIVE
1. Homeland Security.--Tribes are not funded to provide essential
homeland security measures, including protection of drinking water
sources, public safety, and emergency planning. Current funding is
allocated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the
Department of Defense, with no allocation to Tribal governments. We
request $100,000 new funding for this initiative.
2. Increase in Core Tribal Government Infrastructure.--Sauk-
Suiattle currently receives a paltry $160,000 in recurring funding to
conduct all aspects of Tribal government, including the Legislative
Body, Natural Resources, Tribal Court and all Social Services and
Education programs. The Tribe requests an additional $250,000
appropriation increase above the $160,000 allocated to the Sauk-
Suiattle Indian Tribe through the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations,
Tribal Government, Other Aid to Tribal Government Budget Base. To
strengthen its position to maintain a stable government, these
additional funds would employ or purchase legal assistance, a grant &
contracts manager, and a business planner & developer, to assist in the
protection of the Tribes' natural resources, increase Tribal court
capacity beyond the current four (4) hours per month, and employ staff
support for Tribal governmental activities. This includes the
replacement of federal excess property, government office equipment and
furnishings that the Tribe has been using since the 1970's. The Tribe
is requesting funding of the Contract Support Costs at 100 percent.
3. Education.--The Tribes' current funding from the BIA includes
less than $4,000 for higher education. This funding is totally
inadequate and provides for very little educational assistance to the
Tribal members. The Tribe requests that BIA Education funding be
increased by $100,000 to provide educational opportunities to our Sauk-
Suiattle Tribal members, so that we do not leave anyone behind.
4. Mountain Goat Herd Study.--For the restoration of the mountain
goat herds which have been depleted in the Northern Cascades. The
mountain goat is integral to the cultural heritage of the Tribe. It is
a Tribal resource providing for the unique mountain heritage of the
Tribes' culture. It is a source for food, cultural and ceremonial
objects, and the origin of our cultural belief system. The last hunt by
Tribal members was 7 years ago due to the scarcity of the mountain goat
stock. The $450,000 requested would provide funds to conduct a three-
year study of the goats in the Northern Cascades range, and to develop
preservation and protection plans of this tribal resource.
5. BIA Law Enforcement.--The Tribe continues to have inadequate law
enforcement funding, especially in respect to Homeland Security issues.
The Tribe needs to keep pace with current events and technology within
its law enforcement department and is requesting $200,000 funding to
ensure access to 911 across the nation, a minimum of one full-time law
enforcement officer on per shift, twenty-four hours each day. Currently
the Tribe has two forty-hour a week officers under its BIA contract.
The Police Department requests additional funding for officer's
salaries after the 3-year grant funding expires. This should include
funding for all Indirect Costs to the Tribe. We just recently separated
some functions from a joint organization and we request funding for a
complete Fisheries Enforcement program.
6. Suiattle Cemetery Reparation.--In 1997 the Navy destroyed the
Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribes' cemetery. At issue here is the destruction
of the headstone grave markers, foliage, and sentiments that were
damaged during the training maneuvers. The grave markers were displaced
and proper location cannot be reestablished. The title ownership and
responsibility of this cemetery must finally be resolved.
7. Northwest Intertribal Court System.--The ``Circuit Court ``
System provides judicial, prosecutorial services to nine member tribes
judicial process. The System operated on $597,584 last year with an
unmet need of $1,300,997. Tribal courts are essential for tribal
sovereignty & providing due process to individuals within tribal
jurisdiction.
OTHER REQUESTS
a. Needs Assessment.--For a Comprehensive Needs Assessment of the
Tribal community population to determine social, economic, education,
housing, environmental, and cultural preservation needs. The Assessment
will provide information for short and long term Tribal planning to
enhance the delivery of coordinated services to Tribal community
members. This request of $100,000 is for a one-time, non-recurring
cost.
b. Cultural Research.--$350,000 is requested to conduct formal
archaeological studies on identified sites, including the recording of
tribal history and culture through an anthropological study, a
recording of our unique language, and restoration of the language. No
formal studies exist on the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. Knowledge about
a Tribes' past is necessary to better understand the scale of progress,
or lack thereof. And, in the case of the Sauk-Suiattle people we have
defied the odds of extinction by surviving and retaining our
traditional and cultural ways.
c. Land Acquisition.--The Sauk-Suiattle Tribe has 200 members, 20
houses on the reservation, one community building, and no vacant
sustainable land to develop a Tribal economy. The Tribal unemployment
rate is more than 65 percent. Over 80 percent of our employed tribal
members make less than $7,000 a year. The Tribe would provide
employment, generate Tribal revenue, decrease dependency on federal
funds, and enable our members to return to their ancestral homelands
with the increased land base. The Tribe is looking to protect their
natural resources, hunting, fishing and gathering rights. We request a
special appropriation of $5.5 million for the Tribe to purchase land.
d. Increase Economic Development Enterprise.--The Sauk-Suiattle
Indian Tribe is focused on developing economic self-sufficiency. Since
these efforts require dedicated time to expedite results, the Tribe
requires a stable economic incubation period of three years for funding
in order to: (1) Hire a business manager/planner to focus on the
effort, (2) Develop business plans, (3) Developing business codes, and
(4) Initiate a viable financial enterprise(s). The Tribe has calculated
a three-year cost of $575,000 for this project.
e. Increase in BIA Indian Child Welfare.--Requests that $100,000 in
appropriations be added to the Tribes' base budget of $50,000 through
the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations, Human Services, Indian Child
Welfare Act account for ICW program development or enhancements. The
increased funds will go towards: (1) A proposed Emergency-Crisis
Placement Home, (2) To develop a training program for the non-Native
foster families serving the Tribe to better understand the Tribes'
culture; and (3) Develop a Family Reunification program that will
provide resources and training for families ready to reassume their
roles as parents or are at risk of losing their families. Of our 200
tribal members, 80 are under the age of eighteen.
f. Housing.--Addition to the Housing Improvement Program (HIP) to
repair and improve current houses of the Tribal members. Plus, provide
for administrative costs to manage the housing program. The $50,000
requested would provide the funds to cover these costs.
g. Allotments.--There are several thousand acres of unresolved
Tribal allotments that should be factored into study. These lands
(5,000+ acres) were allotted to Tribal members and then taken without
compensation in 1897 when the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest was
created. Tribal cemeteries are located within the area of the allotted
lands. The cemetery sites are sacred sites and need protection. We need
documents from the U.S. Forest Service that indicate that the United
States Government is holding these sites in trust for the Sauk-Suiattle
Indian Tribe. This proposal is to initiate the Public Law 93-638
management of these sites by the Tribe under the BIA trust status. This
will address and clarify the issue of ownership.
Regional American Indian Appropriations Priorities.--The Sauk-
Suiattle Indian Tribe supports the following regional requests from the
following Indian consortiums and organizations: Skagit System
Cooperative, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, Northwest
Indian Fisheries Commission, Western Washington Indian Employment and
Training Programs, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, and the
Small Tribes of Western Washington organization. Plus, the U.S. Forest
Service funding request to protect, study and manage Mountain Goat
habitat.
National American Indian Appropriations Priorities.--We urge that
funding for tribes, their programs and their developments be given the
highest priority.
We urge your consideration of our request and appreciate the
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
regarding the Tribe's fiscal year 2004 request for funding from
programs in the Department of the Interior (DOI). The Tribe requests
that Congress:
--Continue to provide $396,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
water quality and quantity studies by the Seminole Tribe of
Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, to be equally
divided between the Tribes; and
--Provide $864,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Water Management
Planning and Pre-Development account for the Seminole Tribe for
water quality studies and other ecosystem restoration studies,
as a part of the Seminole Tribe's Everglades restoration
efforts.
The Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative is a comprehensive
water conservation system designed to improve the water quality and
natural hydropatterns in the Big Cypress Basin. The Initiative, as
implemented on the Big Cypress Reservation, is designed to mitigate the
degradation the ecosystem has suffered through decades of flood control
projects and urban and agricultural use. It will also provide an
important public benefit: a new system to convey excess water from the
western basins to the Big Cypress National Preserve, where water is
vitally needed for rehydration and restoration of lands within the
Preserve. This Initiative will contribute to the overall success of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as authorized by the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000).
Department of Interior funding has helped the Tribe develop
restoration programs and projects and ultimately define its role in the
overall South Florida Ecosystem effort. The Seminole Tribe continues to
make significant contributions to the restoration effort and looks
forward to a continued partnership with DOI toward achieving our common
goals.
The Seminole Tribe reviewed many federal programs in search of
funding opportunities for the design, engineering, and construction of
the projects that compose the Everglades Restoration Initiative. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) programs have been identified as
appropriate matches for the Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative.
The Tribe and the Corps initiated an agreement for design and
construction of the western portion of the Big Cypress Reservation,
along with a canal that transverses the Reservation, as a Critical
Project under the authority of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999. Initial construction activities on this project are nearly
complete and the detailed planning activity for the balance of the
project. The NRCS has identified a number of Farm Bill programs and the
Small Watersheds Program as suitable for funding the design, planning,
and construction of the project on the eastern portion of the
Reservation.
The funds provided by the DOI have made it possible for the Tribe
to initiate the research necessary to allow the Corps and NRCS to
complete final project designs. The Tribe continues to spend Tribal
funds to advance the research and design and is prepared to provide the
required cost share payments as required by the different federal
programs. In addition, the results of studies the Tribe helps pay for
with both the Critical Ecosystem Study Initiative (CESI) funds from NPS
and the BIA funds will be applicable to other CERP projects.
FUNDING HISTORY
The DOI, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), has provided
the Seminole Tribe with $199,500 in each of the fiscal years 1994
through 2002, half of the $399,000 line item. In fiscal year 2003,
$396,000 was appropriated. The Tribe has used this BIA funding to
complete studies and water quality and quantity monitoring that has
proven critical to the Tribe's leading role in Everglades restoration.
Through the NPS's CESI program, Interior provided the Tribe with
$390,000 in fiscal year 1997, $920,000 in fiscal year 1998, $684,125 in
fiscal year 1999, $230,000 in fiscal year 2000, and $220,000 in fiscal
year 2001. The Tribe did not receive any fiscal year 2002 CESI funds.
The Seminole Tribe uses CESI funds to monitor and analyze the quality
and quantity of water coming onto and leaving the Reservation and to
conduct scientific studies to determine nutrient impacts. For example,
the Tribe studied the assimilative capacity of the C&SF canals for
nutrients, phosphorus in particular. The results of such monitoring and
studies will be available to others studying ecosystem degradation and
developing plans to arrest the harm.
DETAIL ON FISCAL YEAR 2004 FUNDING REQUEST
Continued funding at an increased level is necessary for the Tribe
to complete a number of studies that will support the design,
construction, and operation of the Big Cypress water conservation
project. Funding through the BIA budget is also necessary because the
source of supplemental funding in prior fiscal years (the NPS CESI
account) has become so low as to not support the studies originally
funded with the CESI funds.
Specific studies that would be supported through the increased
level of BIA funding include the following:
--Forested Wetland Nutrient Uptake Research designed to address how
to restore and maintain wetland communities of plants and
animals weakened by the adverse impact of poor water quality
and desiccation by re-establishing natural hydrology and water
quality;
--Seminole Tribe Data Collection and Monitoring designed to access
ecosystem damage and explore methods to restore and enhance
natural habitats; and
--Early Detection and Management of the Invasion of the Big Cypress
Reservation by the Exotic Climbing Fern designed to prevent
this invasive species from negating the restoration and
preservation of native wetland communities.
Most of this research is likely to be applicable to most areas of
the Big Cypress Basin where similar forested wetland bio-regions exist.
CONCLUSION
The Tribe understands that the President's government-wide
management plan issued in August 2001 directed the Energy Department to
align its applied-research projects to performance goals. We also
understand that, eventually, the results of the Energy Department's
efforts will be used as a model for examining the effectiveness of
research and development programs throughout the government. The
Tribe's research projects for which this testimony requests funding
support the performance goals of the ecosystem restoration projects the
Tribe is building with other federal agencies. Further, the results of
the applied research for which the Tribe seeks funding will enhance the
effectiveness of the physical projects.
Improving the water quality of the basins feeding into the Big
Cypress National Preserve and the Everglades National Park is vital to
restoring the Everglades for future generations. By granting this
appropriation request, the federal government will be taking a
substantive step towards improving the quality of the surface water
that flows over the Big Cypress Reservation and on into the delicate
Everglades ecosystem. Such responsible action with regard to the Big
Cypress Reservation, which is federal land held in trust for the Tribe,
will send a clear message that the federal government is committed to
Everglades restoration, and the Tribe's role in this historic ecosystem
restoration effort.
The Seminole Tribe is working hard to realize the environmental
benefits the Reservation and the surrounding ecosystem need. The Tribe
is making substantial commitments, including the dedication of over
9,000 acres of land for water management improvements. However, as the
Tribe moves forward with its contribution to the restoration of the
South Florida ecosystem, a substantially higher level of federal
financial assistance is needed as well.
The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the
Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the federal
government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not
just the Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians dependent on a reliable
supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all
Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the
Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Tribe will provide additional
information upon request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission
APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
The Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission (SWTFC) respectfully
requests a Congressional appropriation of $150,000.00 for fiscal year
2004. The funds will be used toward achieving the goals of the SWTFC:
(1) support the professional development and sustainable funding of
Tribal fisheries resource management and conservation capabilities, (2)
restore and expand Southwest (SW) tribal recreational fishing programs
to promote economic development and conservation capacity building on
tribal lands by providing enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities,
and (3) build meaningful, well-coordinated partnerships with tribal,
state, federal and local interests on issues of common concern that
generate regional benefits.
BACKGROUND OF SWTFC
The SWTFC is a non-profit organization formed in September 2002
(using a $91,000.00 base-funding contract through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs) to assist Indian Tribes in the southwestern United States to
develop and organize a more comprehensive and collaborative approach to
securing the futures of their respective fisheries management programs,
and to generally support tribal capacity building. The SWTFC purpose is
to mobilize Tribes to work in a more coordinated and strategic fashion
to secure underlying recreational fishing programs and to advance
meaningful resource management projects/initiatives that strike a
sustainable balance between economic development and resource
conservation on tribal lands.
The Southwestern Tribes served by the SWTFC (presently, those
Tribes and Pueblos within the states of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado,
Utah, Nevada and Southern California) hold significant lands and
natural resources, and have become important contributors to the
development of regional recreation economies and resource conservation
efforts. Many of these tribes have developed and relied heavily upon
economies that are natural resource and recreation based, with
recreational fishing programs evolving into important components of
tribal social fabric and economic viability. Furthermore, with tribes
being ineligible for long established Federal-Aid conservation funding
programs such as Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and Wallup/Breaux,
tribal recreational programs provide critical revenue sources that
enable many Tribes to fund important conservation work on their lands.
In addition to providing high quality regional recreational fishing
opportunities, SW tribal resources/programs also play significant roles
in regional conservation efforts, with a number of Tribes having been
at the forefront in the development of successful native-fish
conservation and recovery programs for species such as the Apache
trout, Colorado River Cutthroat trout, Rio Grande Cutthroat trout, Gila
topminnow, Gila chub, Bonytail chub, Razorback sucker and Silvery
minnow, to name a few.
In developing these core enterprises and conservation programs over
many decades, SW Indian Tribes have worked closely with the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and have become completely reliant upon the
network of National Fish Hatcheries (NFH) located on Indian lands to
support their fisheries programs. A steady shift of USFWS policy and
budget priorities through recent decades has led to a gradual
deterioration of tribal recreational fishing programs and the fish
hatchery facilities upon which these programs depend. The recent (2000)
closure of the Mescalero NFH on the Mescalero Apache Reservation (NM),
together with increasing unmet demands for both sport and native fish
management resources on Indian lands throughout the southwest provide
clear evidence of this decline. These trends and challenges have
mobilized Tribes to organize their efforts in a more strategic and
results-oriented fashion, through the SWTFC, with state, federal and
local partners to preserve the integrity/viability of their recreation
and conservation programs.
The SWTFC seeks to develop and foster these working relationships,
while further serving as a ``capacity-building'' resource to Tribes in
helping them to plan and develop projects and programs that, through
time, strike a sustainable balance between recreation/resource-based
economic development and scientifically sound conservation. In pursuing
this ``capacity-building'' objective, the SWTFC will seek to secure the
economic/financial underpinnings of Tribal fisheries programs while
jointly cooperating, as appropriate, with federal, state, tribal and
local partners to enhance professional management capabilities on
tribal lands.
The SWTFC will further serve as a regional ``conduit'' among its
member-tribes and state, federal and local partners to encourage the
development of cooperative inter-agency conservation efforts using a
``landscape'' approach to maximize benefits. The SWTFC intends to
establish professional steering Committees, comprised of regional
tribal/non-tribal experts, to formulate management standards and
protocols that assist Tribes in developing sustainable programs and
otherwise guide ongoing research and administrative actions. Non-tribal
partners, like the USFWS, will benefit from the approach of having the
SWTFC providing a vehicle to improve coordination with tribal
governments on a regional basis, which will, in turn, result in more
efficient and effective allocation of outside agency resources on
programs of mutual concern.
The SWTFC is currently complimenting and leverage existing USFWS
technical assistance programs. With the help of USFWS, the SWTFC is
assessing recreational/native fish management needs and contributions
of SW Tribes. In addition, the SWTFC expects to assist with resource
and business planning, identifying and developing feasible fish
hatchery/rearing capabilities (including those for native-fish), and
establishing a regional/watershed approach to developing and executing
more effective regional conservation efforts.
ORGANIZATION, MANAGEMENT & BUDGET OF THE SWTFC
The SWTFC is comprised of member Tribes who have designated tribal
representatives to the Commission. SWTFC is governed by Officers, all
experienced in tribal resource conservation and/or business management,
who are duly elected from member-tribe representatives. Officers and
management of the SWTFC will be supported by key representatives from
regional partner agencies or interests to conduct appropriate program/
project reviews and otherwise provide management recommendations to the
Board.
SWTFC operations are managed by an Executive Director who is
experienced in both business and conservation management (B.S. Wildlife
Ecology and M.B.A.), is a former Director of a prominent southwestern
tribal fish & wildlife organization (White Mountain Apache Tribe, AZ),
and has extensive hands-on experience managing tribal programs and
working with various government agencies and private interests. At its
inception, the SWTFC will also employ a full-time Administrative
Assistant and a Biologist/Project Manager. The complete operating
budget for the SWTFC (salaries, office, project support, travel,
supplies, etc.) is projected to be $250,000.00.
CONCLUSION
The SWTFC and the Mescalero Apache Tribe are taking the lead in
rehabilitating the fish hatchery to transform it into a viable tribal
economic enterprise in the Southwest. Again, the SWTFC and Mescalero
respectfully request your support. Thank you for the opportunity to
submit written testimony before the Committee. If you have any
questions, please contact our Washington, DC counsel Shenan Atcitty at
202-457-7128 or John Cooley, SWTFC Executive Director, can be reached
at 928-368-5492.
______
Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
Thank you, distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, for
accepting written testimony from the Squaxin Island Tribe on the fiscal
year 2004 Budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian
Health Service (IHS).
The Squaxin Island Tribe, a signatory of the 1854 Medicine Creek
Treaty, has a 2002 year-end enrollment of 736 and an on-reservation
population of 400 living in 103 homes (18 new homes will be occupied in
2003). Squaxin has an estimated service area population of 2,747, a
growth rate of about 10 percent, and an unemployment rate of about 30
percent, according to the BIA Labor Force Report. According to the
Mason County Economic Development Council, Squaxin is the fourth
largest employer in Mason County.
The BIA and IHS are preparing to re-organize. We are concerned that
this will come at the expense of diminishing tribal programs and the
delivery of tribal services. Therefore, we ask that the Subcommittee
include language directing both the BIA and IHS not to reduce funds
appropriated by this Subcommittee to offset Departmental or agency
shortfalls, to support reorganization plans, or trust reform
initiatives without consulting with Tribal Leadership. This language
should be included in future appropriations bills for these agencies.
TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS
--$5.42 million for Tribal Infrastructure Improvements
--$250,000 to support the design and construction of new fire station
--$940,000 for Public Safety and Justice Department
REGIONAL REQUESTS
Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes
of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
SELF-GOVERNANCE AND NATIONAL REQUESTS
1. Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment;
2. Provide $5 million increase for BIA and $98 million for IHS to
fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC);
3. Provide $4.5 million increase to the Indian Health Service (IHS)
Office of Tribal Self-Governance;
4. Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase to maintain existing health care services; and,
5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board.
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS--$5.42 MILLION
ESTIMATED COSTS OF SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE'S INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improvement Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of potable water infrastructure lost to road $773,000
realignment............................................
Additional potable water storage--housing and government 784,000
area...................................................
Additional potable water distribution lines for new 396,000
housing................................................
Enhance potable water system-economic development zone.. 761,720
New wastewater treatment plant-economic development zone 2,004,000
Wastewater collection system-economic development zone.. 700,000
---------------
Total Infrastructure Project Estimated Costs...... 5,418,720
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Mason County, Washington is reconstructing the access
road to the Squaxin Island Tribe's main housing areas. A critical water
supply main and water pumping station is in this right-of way and must
be replaced due to the road realignment. Funding must be secured for
this portion of the overall infrastructure improvement project by
January 2004.
REGIONAL PLAN
The Tribe is working with the Indian Health Service and a private
engineering firm to complete a regional infrastructure plan. We are
partnering with local agencies and surrounding landowners to ensure
that the plan supports both the Tribe's and its neighbors' current and
future needs.
WASTEWATER
The topography of the Tribe's land base dictates two separate
wastewater collection and treatment systems--one serving the housing
and government area and one serving the economic development zone. We
have just completed a new wastewater treatment plant that supports the
housing and government area. Using funds from USDA, IHS, and NAHASDA,
the new plant, a Sequencing Batch Reactor, has the capacity to handle
forecasted demand for the next twenty years. The economic zone,
however, needs a new treatment facility to support both immediate and
long-term growth.
DRINKING WATER
The overall scarcity of safe drinking water points toward combining
the Tribe's three separate water systems. Three existing wells in the
housing and government area continue to produce only marginal
quantities of water. Research indicates that we will have to depend on
water from the economic zone for most of our future needs. The
preliminary plan calls for connecting all of the Tribe's existing wells
and up to three new wells.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 4--$250,000
The Squaxin Island Tribe, in a joint effort with Mason County Fire
Protection District 4, is developing a $1.0 million multi-bay manned
facility to be located in the Kamilche area (about five miles South of
Shelton, Washington in the 35th Legislative District and 6th
Congressional District) to provide citizens with improved fire
protection and emergency medical services. This current station serves
a rural area of 52 square miles, approximate 6,700 residents and 2,500
homes and farm homes. The new fire station will have quarters for up to
six resident firefighters, training facilities for 100 students, room
for four emergency vehicles, and administrative offices. It could
eventually become the headquarters for Fire District 4.
Fire District 4 has committed to contribute $250,000 cash toward
construction costs, as well as waive the fire protection fees, that
were previously paid by the Tribe, for the next 25 years.
The Tribe has committed to contribute $750,000 in cash ($500,000
Tribal funds are available) toward the design and construction of the
new fire station, to contribute the land for the new facility, and to
contribute $40,000 a year to Fire District 4 for operating costs.
We are seeking $250,000 in appropriations to complete the funding
for this project.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE REQUEST--$940,000
The Squaxin Island Tribal Public Safety and Justice Department is
dedicated to protecting lives, maintaining peace and ensuring that the
property and resources of the Squaxin Island Tribe are protected
through the enforcement of the Laws and Regulations set forth by the
Squaxin Island Tribal Council. Over the past few years, the number of
caseloads and calls have continued to increase placing a higher demand
on the level of services needed in order to provide a program suitable
to the needs of the growing community.
The Squaxin Island Tribe is seeking $939,159 in additional funds to
address the critical need to improve the services of the Squaxin Island
Public Safety and Justice Department. The Squaxin Island Tribe is
located in Kamilche, Washington in SE Mason County. The Squaxin Island
Public Safety and Justice Department has continued to operate on
funding levels insufficient to meet the needs of the department and
community. This has resulted in operating a program at minimum capacity
which has placed a negative impact on the service level provided to the
Squaxin Island Community. Over the next few years the Tribe will be
enhancing the shellfish habitat and production programs which will
increase the demand on the water enforcement program to address issues
of illegal harvesting. It is vitally important to ensure that natural
resources are protected.
The Department is in need of two (2) additional FTE officers for
24-hour coverage in order to ensure the safety of the community is
being met. The process of protecting the public is hampered by lack of
officers to provide the 24-hour coverage, which is very critical in
life and death situations. Additional funds are also needed for the
Justice program to fund a Public Defender whom the Tribe contracts with
to provide legal representation to the community members. The Public
Defender funding level is inadequate to meet the increasing need of the
Squaxin Island Community. The graph below demonstrates the increasing
caseload over the past few years. Also listed below is a budget which
lists the additional funds that the Tribe needs to effectively meet the
increasing service level demand.
The Public Safety enhancements will benefit the Squaxin Island
Tribe by providing the Department with sufficient funds to operate a
full-fledged program providing the 24-hour coverage needed to ensure
that the community, property and resources are being protected
effectively.
The Squaxin Island Tribe envisions a culturally and economically
strong community of self-governing, resilient people, united by shared
values and traditions--by protecting life and maintaining the peace,
protecting tribal property and resources, serving in a reasonable and
prudent manner, and carrying out these responsibilities diligently,
courteously, and with pride.
______
Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College
For thirty four years, United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has
been providing postsecondary vocational education, job training and
family services to Indian students from throughout the nation. We have
received funding through the Bureau of Indian Affairs every year since
1981, and were shocked at the Administration's request of zero funding
for UTTC in the fiscal year 2004 Department of Interior Budget.
The request by the United Tribes Technical College Board for the
fiscal year 2004 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget is:
--$4 million in BIA funds for UTTC, which is $1 million over the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level minus a .65 percent cut.
--$4 million in BIA funds for phase one of student housing
construction, a need identified in the 2000 Department of
Education study.
--Requirement that the BIA place more emphasis on funding and
administrative support for job training and vocational/
technical education. The Adult Vocational Training program,
funded at $9 million in fiscal year 2003 is but a shadow of its
former self. There is no BIA leadership or advocacy for job
training or vocational/technical education at the central or
area levels.
United Tribes Technical College: Unique Inter-tribal Educational
Organization.--Incorporated in 1969, United Tribes Technical College is
the only inter-tribally controlled campus-based, postsecondary
vocational institution for Indian people. UTTC is chartered by the five
tribes in North Dakota and operate under an Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act contract with the BIA. This year UTTC
enrolled 645 students from 44 tribes and 17 states. The majority of our
students are from the Great Plains states, an area that, according to
the 1999 BIA Labor Force Report, has an Indian reservation jobless rate
of 71 percent. UTTC is proud that we have an annual placement rate
(placement in jobs or in higher education) of 90 percent. We hope to
enroll 2000 adult students by 2008.
In addition, we serve 147 children in our pre-school programs and
148 children in our Theodore Jamerson Elementary school, bringing the
population for whom we provide direct services to 940.
UTTC Course Offerings and Partnerships with Other Educational
Institutions.--UTTC offers 14 vocational/technical programs and awards
a total of 24 two-year degree and one-year certificates. The North
Central Association of Colleges and Schools is the accrediting body for
UTTC. UTTC was accredited again in 2001 for the longest period of time
allowable--ten years or until 2011--and with no stipulations.
We are very excited about the recent additions to our course
offerings, and the particular relevance they hold for Indian
communities. These new programs are:
--Injury Prevention
--On-Line Education
--Nutrition and Food Services
--Tribal Government Management
--Tourism
--Injury Prevention.--Through our Injury Prevention Program we are
addressing the injury death rate among Indians, which is 2.8 times that
of the total U.S. population We received assistance through Indian
Health Service to establish the only degree granting Injury Prevention
program in the nation. Injuries are the number one cause of mortality
among Native people for ages 1-44 and the third for overall death
rates. IHS spends more than $150 million annually for the treatment of
non-fatal injuries and treatment of injuries is the largest expenditure
of IHS contract health funds. (IHS fiscal year 2004 Budget
Justification).
--On-Line Education.--We are bridging the ``digital divide'' by
providing web-based education and Interactive Video Network courses
from our North Dakota campus to American Indians residing at other
remote sites, including the Denver Indian community, and plan to serve
rural-based Indian Tribes. Training is currently provided in the areas
of Early Childhood Education and Computer Literacy. By the year 2005,
students will be able to access full degree programs in Computer
Technology, Injury Prevention, Health Information Technology, Early
Childhood Education, and Office Technology, and others from these
remote sites.
High Demand exists for computer technicians. In the first year of
implementation, the Computer Support Technician program is at maximum
student capacity. In order to keep up with student demand, UTTC will
need more classroom space, computers and associated equipment and
instructors. Our program includes all of the Microsoft Systems
certifications that translate into higher income earning potential for
graduates.
--Nutrition and Food Services.--UTTC will meet the challenge of
fighting diabetes in Indian Country through education. As this
Subcommittee knows, the rate of diabetes is very high in Indian
Country, with some tribal areas experiencing the highest incidence of
diabetes in the world. About half of Indian adults have diabetes
(Diabetes in American Indians and Alaska Natives, NIH Publication 99-
4567, October, 1999)
The College currently offers a Nutrition and Food Services
Associate of Applied Science degree to increase the number of American
Indians with expertise in human nutrition and dietetics. Currently,
there are only a handful of Indian professionals in the country with
training in these areas. Future improvement plans include offering a
Nutrition and Food Services degree with a strong emphasis on diabetes
education and traditional food preparation.
We have also established the United Tribes Diabetes Education
Center to assist local tribal communities and UTTC students and staff
in decreasing the prevalence of diabetes by providing diabetes
educational programs, materials and training. UTTC has published and
made available tribal food guides to our on-campus community and to
tribes.
--Tribal Government Management/Tourism.--Another of our new
programs is tribal government management designed to help tribal
leaders be more effective administrators. We continue to refine our
curricula for this program.
A newly-established education program is tribal tourism management.
UTTC has researched and developed core curricula for the tourism
program and are partnering with three other tribal colleges (Sitting
Bull, Fort Berthold, and Turtle Mountain) in this offering. The
development of the tribal tourism program was well timed to coincide
with the national Lewis and Clark Bicentennial this year. As you may
know, Lewis and Clark and their party spent one quarter of their
journey in North Dakota. UTTC art students were commissioned by the
Thomas Jefferson Foundation to create historically accurate
reproductions of Lewis and Clark-era Indian objects using traditional
methods and natural materials. Our students had partners in this
project including the National Park Services and the Peabody Museum at
Harvard University. The objects made by our students are now part of a
major exhibition in the Great Hall at Monticello about the Lewis and
Clark expedition.
Job Training and Economic Development.--UTTC is a designated
Minority Business Center serving Montana, South Dakota and North
Dakota. We also administer a Workforce Investment Act program and an
internship program with private employers.
Economic Development Administration funding was made available to
open a ``University Center.'' The Center is used to help create
economic development opportunities in tribal communities. While most
states have such centers, this center is the first ever tribal center.
Department of Education Study Documents our Facility/Housing
Needs.--The 1998 Vocational Education and Applied Technology Act
required the U.S. Department of Education to study the facilities,
housing and training needs of our institution. That report, conducted
for the Department by the American Institutes for Research was
published in November 2000 (``Assessment of Training and Housing Needs
within Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions,
November 2000, American Institute of Research'') The report identified
the need for $16,575,300 for the renovation of existing housing and
instructional buildings ($8 million if some existing facilities are
converted to student housing) and $30,475,000 for the construction of
housing and instructional facilities.
UTTC continues to identify housing as its greatest need. We have a
huge waiting list of students some who wait from one to three years for
admittance. New housing must be built to accommodate those on the
waiting list as well as to increase enrollment. Enrollment for the
2002-2003 academic year has increased by 31 percent. In order to
accommodate the enrollment increase, UTTC partnered with local renters
and the Burleigh County Housing Authority. Approximately 40 students
and their dependents were housed off campus. The demand for additional
housing also presents challenges for transportation, cafeteria,
maintenance and other services.
UTTC is building a new 86-bed single-student dormitory on campus.
UTTC formed a unique strategic alliance with the U.S. Department of
Education, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the American Indian
College Fund, the Shakopee Mdwekanton Sioux Tribe and other sources to
build the dormitory. The new dorm will help UTTC address its housing
shortage. It will however create new challenges such as shortages in
classroom, office and other support facility space.
Existing housing must be renovated to meet local, state, and
federal safety codes. In the very near future, some homes will have to
be condemned which will mean lower enrollments and fewer opportunities
for those seeking a quality education.
Classroom and office space is at a premium. The College has
literally run out of space. This means that the UTTC cannot expand its
course offerings to keep up with job market demands. Most offices and
classrooms that are being used are quite old and are not adequate for
student learning and success. We were able to piece together three
sources of funds (EDA, USDA, DOEd) to raise $1 million to renovate a
building to create a new student life and technology center.
Thank you for your consideration of our request. We cannot survive
without he basic vocational education funds that come through the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wind River Irrigation Project in Wyoming
Construction of Bureau of Indian Affairs-administered Wind River
Irrigation Project (WRIP) began in 1905 as authorized by congressional
legislation. Although construction continued off and on for over 50
years, the project was never completed. Currently, the WRIP is in a
condition of extreme disrepair. Very little maintenance has been
performed on the WRIP in the years since construction ceased. Studies
commissioned by both the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes
(Tribes) and the State of Wyoming, as well as BIA reports show that the
WRIP has over $50 million in deferred maintenance.
As the result of decades of neglect, many essential water delivery
structures in the WRIP are in immediate danger of failing. As these
structures fail, large portions of the WRIP will be left without water.
Such failure will have a huge impact not just on the livelihoods of
agricultural producers left without water, but also on the entire
Fremont County economy. A study conducted in 2000 concluded that the
WRIP has a maximum life of 5 to 10 years if a large-scale
rehabilitation effort is not undertaken.
The poor overall condition of the WRIP results in extremely
inefficient use of water. Irrigation efficiencies in the WRIP range
from 45 percent to as low as 27 percent. The inefficiency of the WRIP
results in water shortages, even during normal or wet years. Water
supply modeling done as part of a recent basin-wide planning effort
undertaken by the State of Wyoming showed that the WRIP has one of the
largest unmet needs of any irrigation project in the Wind River basin,
even during wet years. During the past three years of drought, water
shortages in the WRIP have been especially severe.
The poor condition and water delivery in the WRIP leaves farmers in
the WRIP at a competitive disadvantage with other farmers in the region
who irrigate in nearby, better-funded irrigation districts (Midvale
Irrigation District, Riverton Valley Irrigation District, and Leclair
Irrigation District).
To solve the problems on the Wind River Irrigation Project, a
large-scale rehabilitation effort must be undertaken. The Tribes have
completed numerous studies on WRIP rehabilitation, much of the
engineering work has been done, and all that remains is to secure
funding. The total cost of WRIP rehabilitation, based on studies that
are several years old, is over $50 million. This cost is currently
being updated. Completing a rehabilitation project of this magnitude
will likely require a combination of federal and state funding. During
the past legislative session, the Tribes worked closely with Wyoming
legislators to pass into law a bill that will allow the Tribes to
receive funding for water projects through the Wyoming Water
Development Commission. In the months since the passage of this bill,
the Wyoming Water Development Commission has been working closely with
the Tribes to prepare an application for funds to help rehabilitate the
WRIP.
We sincerely hope that Congress will be able to appropriate funds
in the amount of $3.5 million per year over a three year period on a
non-reimbursable basis for rehabilitation of the Wind River Irrigation
Project--to begin initial and emergency rehabilitation. These funds
should be in addition to funds normally allocated to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs for their irrigation projects. With a combination of
federal and state funding, the WRIP can be rehabilitated for the
benefit of everyone in the Wind River Basin.
______
Prepared Statement of the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee: Thank
you for providing this opportunity to the people of Enewetak to
describe issues that relate to our ability to live on Enewetak Atoll.
Of immediate concern is increased funding of Enewetak Food and
Agriculture Program. Consequently, this statement includes a request to
increase the funding of the Department of Interior funded Enewetak Food
and Agriculture Program by $309,000 from $1.391 million to $1.7
million.
Other issues that relate to our ability to live on Enewetak Atoll
are: Funding of the health care program; funding of the just
compensation award issued by the Nuclear Claims Tribunal; resettlement
of the Enjebi people on their home island of Enjebi; monitoring of the
our people for radiation exposure; continued monitoring of the
environment to determine current radiation levels; and, monitoring of
the Runit dome.
We would first like to address the continuing challenges that life
on Enewetak presents. These challenges are the result of the severe
damage inflicted on our atoll by the U.S. Nuclear Testing Program. This
committee has helped us meet some of these challenges by funding the
Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program.
CONTINUED AND INCREASED FUNDING OF THE ENEWETAK FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
PROGRAM
This program is necessary because over one-half of Enewetak remains
contaminated by radiation. The remaining fifty percent of the land was
turned into a desert-like wasteland in the course of the nuclear
testing program. As a result of such activities, there is insufficient
food and other resources on Enewetak atoll to support the people.
Congress recognized the predicament of the Enewetak people and in
Section 103(h) of the Compact of Free Association Act of 1985, Public
Law 99-239, authorized funding for the Enewetak Food and Agriculture
Program. Such funding provides imported food, an agriculture
rehabilitation program, and the operation of a vessel.
Much progress has occurred over the past several years with regard
to the agriculture rehabilitation effort. In addition, we have become
more and more involved with the soil rehabilitation effort and the
planting and maintenance of food bearing plants. Increase in the
funding from $1.1 million to approximately $1.4 million these past 2
years has helped the program keep up with inflation and has created a
momentum that we would like to maintain.
However, the increasing population, much improved agriculture
rehabilitation techniques, and transportation expenses has increased
the costs to the program. These costs are the costs of the necessary
food imports; transportation costs for food imports; transportation
costs of equipment, material, supplies, and fuel for the agriculture
rehabilitation program; and labor costs for the accelerated agriculture
effort. To meet these increased costs, the program needs to be
increased to the sum of $1.7 million in fiscal year 2003. The $1.7
million is broken down as follows: Food and cooking fuel costs,
$550,000; agriculture costs (labor, equipment, material, supplies,
fuel, operations and maintenance), $850,000; transportation costs
(labor, fuel, operations and maintenance), $300,000. Included in the
three foregoing categories is the cost of administration of the
program. Due to the foregoing, we respectfully request that this
committee increase the amount requested by the Administration for this
program for fiscal year 2003 by the amount of $309,00, for a total of
$1.7 million.
We would now like to describe the award of $386 million made to us
by the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal for damages we suffered
as a result of the U.S. Nuclear Testing Program. We will briefly
describe this development and then describe the necessity of resettling
the Enjebi island members of our community on their home island,
radiation monitoring of our people and the environment, and the
background of the food and agriculture program and its components.
FUNDING OF THE JUST COMPENSATION AWARD ISSUED BY THE NUCLEAR CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL
The issue most important to us is the funding of the $386 million
award for just compensation made to the Enewetak people by the Nuclear
Claims Tribunal. Enewetak was the site for forty-three of the sixty-
seven nuclear bombs detonated by the United States in the Marshall
Islands. The damages of the U.S. Nuclear Testing Program affect us to
this day. It is important to remember that in 1947, prior to the
removal of our people from Enewetak, the United States promised us that
we would have all constitutional rights accruing to U.S. citizens, that
we would be taken care of during our exile to Ujelang, and that we
would not be exposed to any greater danger than the people of the
United States.
The constitutional rights to which we are entitled include the
right to be justly compensated for the damages we suffered as a result
of the U.S. nuclear testing program. In addition to the well documented
promises made to us, the United States in the Compact (1) accepted
responsibility for the just compensation owing for loss or damage
resulting from its nuclear testing program and (2) agreed that the
Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal (``Tribunal'') make a final
determination of the amount that would satisfy the constitutional
requirement of just compensation.
The Tribunal, following well established U.S. constitutional,
legal, and regulatory principles, determined that the just compensation
to be provided to us was an amount of $386 million in addition to what
we received or will be received under the Compact. The funding of this
amount by the United States would satisfy its constitutional obligation
to us. This funding could be provided through the Changed Circumstances
Petition process that has been presented to the U.S. Congress.
Alternatively, the Congress could direct the U.S. Court of Appeal for
the Federal Circuit to review and certify, or to reject in whole or in
part, the award of the Tribunal similar to an existing Congressional
provision that deals with judgments of the Marshall Islands courts
against the U.S. arising from its administration of the Marshall
Islands under the U.N. Trusteeship.
It is important to note that this funding would provide us with the
resources to rid our land of radiological contamination, rehabilitate
the soil, revegetate the land, resettle the Enjebi people on their home
island, and provide the means by which we could establish a local
economy in the fishing and tourism sectors. The foregoing would permit
us to once again become self-reliant and self-sufficient. Until this
funding materializes, we require continued and increased funding of the
Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program.
RESETTLEMENT OF THE ENJEBI PEOPLE ON THEIR HOME ISLAND OF ENJEBI
We, the Enewetak people, consist of two groups: The people of the
southern part of the atoll, the Enewetak group; and, the people of the
northern part of the atoll, the Enjebi group. The Enjebi people have
been exiled from their home island for a period of over 56 years. They
have not been able to resettle their home island because it remains
contaminated. As a result, the Enjebi people need to share the limited
land and resources with the other Enewetak people on the islands of
Enewetak, Medren and Japtan. As the populations grow, this is becoming
an increasingly difficult situation. Yet Enjebi cannot be resettled in
the near term because insufficient funding exists for the cleanup and
resettlement.
The situation at Enjebi is difficult since Enjebi Island was ground
zero for a number of tests. In addition, it underwent bulldozing,
scrapping and soil removal during the 1977-80 partial cleanup
activities. In order to make the island habitable again, radiological
remediation and soil and plant rehabilitation are required. As
determined by the experts, the cost for the radiological remediation
and soil and plant rehabilitation is approximately $118 million, which
includes the cleanup and rehabilitation of the other northern islands
which are part of the Enjebi people's resources for food from land and
marine areas. These costs are part of the just compensation award made
to the Enewetak people by the Tribunal.
In addition, the people require the housing, infrastructure, and
other buildings necessary to permit them to live on the island while
the rehabilitation is ongoing. These costs are estimated at $30
million.
In short, the cleanup and resettlement of Enjebi is projected to
cost $148 million. The best solution is for the funding of the Tribunal
award which would provide the funding for the cleanup and
rehabilitation of all the northern islands including Enjebi, and which
would provide the funding for the housing and other necessary
infrastructure at Enjebi.
radiation monitoring of the people, the environment, and the runit dome
Because of the residual radiation contamination at Enewetak Atoll,
we and our environment need to be monitored. The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) and the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council have
reached an agreement on an appropriate whole body counting and
plutonium detection regime. The DOE responsibilities under such a
regime need to continue until Enewetak is radiologically remediated. In
addition, the Runit Dome (Cactus Crater Containment Site) contains over
110,000 cubic yards of material including plutonium and other
radioactive debris. This site needs to be monitored to assure the
integrity of the structure and to assure that no health risks from the
radioactive waste site are suffered by us. To effect the foregoing, a
long-term stewardship program of the Runit Dome needs to be implemented
by the United States.
FUNDING OF THE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
In Section 102 of Public Law 96-205, the U.S. Congress, authorized
a program of medical care and treatment for the peoples of the atolls
of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap, Utrik and other Marshallese determined
to be affected as a result of the U.S. Nuclear Testing Program in the
Marshall Islands. The funding for such program continued, in an amount
of $2 million annually for 15 years, under the terms of Article II
Section 1(a) of the Agreement Between the Government of the United
States and the Government of the Marshall Islands for the
Implementation of Section 177 of the Compact of Free Association,
Public Law 99-239. The funding for such medical care and treatment
program expired as of October 21, 2001. The RMI has provided funding
for the continuation of this program from the Section 177 trust fund.
However, that fund is now so depleted that the RMI cannot fund the
program in the future. The Congress in Section 104 of Public Law 96-
205, intended such medical care and treatment program to continue
unless terminated by the express approval of the Congress. Congress has
not approved termination. The program needs to continue and the funding
needs to be increased to $4 million annually to provide a medical
safety net for the people of the 4 atolls and other Marshallese
determined to have been affected by nuclear testing. Even at the $4
million level, the program will only be able to expend $28 per person
per month for the program costs. The $4 million should include an
inflation factor by being tied to the U.S. medical CPI.
We would now like to describe the food and agriculture program:
ENEWETAK FOOD AND AGRICULTURE PROGRAM
The Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program enables us to live on
Enewetak. It provides funding for imported food, continued agriculture
rehabilitation, operation of a motor vessel that brings us the imported
food, and an operation and maintenance component conducted out of a
facility on Enewetak known as the field station.
Efforts made to increase food production.--The most significant
aspects of the agriculture rehabilitation program are the infusion of
nutrients into the soil and the planting of buffer plants along the
island's shore to protect the interior plants from salt spray. The
infusion of nutrients into the soil is accomplished by digging trenches
and placing organic material in the trenches along with a compost
mixture of copra cake and chicken manure. This activity is extremely
labor intensive and required the importation of copra cake and chicken
manure. Although the work is progressing, additional funding is
required to provide greater manpower and the necessary equipment,
materials and supplies.
Importation of food.--Imported food is required because of the poor
soil condition of the land available to us and the radiation
contamination of other lands. Imported food is now approximately
$500,000 of the program budget and is expected to increase because of
the increase in food costs and because of our growing population. These
issues further illustrate the need to increase the program to $1.7
million.
Vessel.--In 1999, we purchased, repaired, and refitted a 104-foot
motor-vessel as a replacement vessel for our 54-foot motor-sailer,
which sank. This replacement vessel, named the KAWEWA, has greater
capacity for cargo and passengers than the previous vessel. The KAWEWA
permits us to transport machinery, equipment, supplies and other
necessary cargo. It also provides transportation to members of our
community. Both the transport of cargo and people has become extremely
difficult in the Marshall Islands because of the lack of transport
vessels and aircraft. The KAWEWA provides the necessary lifeline for
goods, materials, and transportation for our community.
Field Station.--Operation and maintenance of the entire program is
conducted out of a facility referred to as the Field Station. Field
Station personnel provide all the required agricultural work; maintain,
service, and operate the equipment required by the various components
of the program; make payments and maintain books of accounts; and
coordinate the procurement of food, material and equipment.
CONCLUSION
We thank the Congress for its past support and its consideration of
the items described above.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center
Our organization provides the following recommendation and input
for the fiscal year 2004 Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill. Our Center is cognizant of the need for
public land acquisition in our local region and the priorities that are
important, given limited funding. This letter provides our fiscal year
2004 funding recommendations for Land and Water Conservation Fund
projects and the Conservation Trust Fund. We urge that $450 million be
allocated to the Federal LWCF program in fiscal year 2004. We
specifically recommend $3.7 million for the National Park Service to
fund the acquisition of the unique Ackerson Meadow property and to also
acquire the Hazel Green property, and $2 million to purchase Mojave
National Preserve inholdings. We recommend $2.5 million for the U.S.
Forest Service to acquire wilderness inholdings in Northern California.
We recommend $2 million for the Bureau of Land Management to purchase
wilderness inholdings in the desert lands under their management. As
other groups have endorsed, we also agree that the Conservation Trust
Fund should be funded at its dedicated amount of roughly $2 billion in
fiscal year 2004.
As you are aware, the LWCF is critically important for protecting
important lands and at-risk resources in California and elsewhere. For
example, in our local region, there is a 400-acre parcel of land
(called the Ackerson Meadow property) that lies directly adjacent to
Yosemite National Park. The forest on the Ackerson Meadow property
contains nesting pairs of rare Great Gray Owls, and amazingly, the
Ackerson Meadow property also contains riparian breeding habitat for
the threatened Willow Flycatcher. The meadow system is both a wet and
dry meadow complex that supports abundant wildflowers, ferns, and
groundcovers, and the stream system of the property may contain rare
Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs. All of this is currently at risk as the
property owners have placed the land on the open market, which could
lead to its development and the permanent loss of an opportunity to add
this unique and critical wildlife habitat to either Yosemite Park or
the Stanislaus National Forest (which also abuts the property). This
Ackerson Meadow parcel is representative of other precious, vitally
important parcels that have national significance. Once they are
developed or altered, the resource values that could last for countless
generations could be forever lost.
The following is a list of specific areas, including Ackerson
Meadow, that deserve high priority consideration for immediate funding:
Ackerson Meadow
Out of the entire region that lies west and northwest of Yosemite
National Park, there is no other public or private that provides as
much important diversity and unique value as Ackerson Meadow. More than
100 bird species have been documented to use the property. Rare Great
Gray Owls nest along the meadow edge. Willow Flycatchers breed along
one section of the stream. There are Native American sites, one old
homestead building, and many outstanding scenic values. The property is
currently listed for sale to any interested buyers, and the potential
for it to be developed or converted into a cattle ranch makes the
priority for purchase extremely high. In addition, the current property
owner has discussed logging the property if no buyer steps forward
soon. Such logging would directly affect the nest stands needed by the
Great Gray Owls. These 400 acres of spectacular meadow and forest could
be purchased for $2,500,000 from the present owners and managed by the
National Park Service for its outstanding wildlife values. If the
property, instead, sold to developers or as a cattle ranch, the
potential for any public land purchase would plummet, while any future
purchase price would correspondingly climb dramatically.
Wilderness Inholdings on Forest Service Land within California
Each year, numerous private parcels that are inholdings within
designated Wilderness are offered for sale by the landowner. For fiscal
year 2004, we request $2,5000,000 to purchase available inholdings now
available, including two properties in the Trinity Alps Wilderness area
and in the Marble Mountains Wilderness Area. Both wilderness areas
provide important habitat for wildlife and recreational opportunities
to the public. The Pacific Crest Trail runs through both wilderness
areas. The Trinity Alps wilderness is especially popular with hikers,
offering numerous loop trails extending off the Pacific Crest Trail.
The Marble Mountains Wilderness Area is known for its diverse forests
of tanbark oak, madrone, Douglas fir, foxtail pine, and mountain
hemlock. The private lands in the Trinity Alps and Marble Mountain
areas represent only a small fraction of the California Forest
inholdings that will be put on the market for sale in the coming years.
Annual funding allocated specifically for critical forest inholdings
would allow the Forest Service to purchase land on a prioritized need
basis to prevent development of lands and protect areas of significant
ecological value.
Wilderness Inholdings on BLM lands within the Desert Region of
California
In southern California, the BLM Desert District manages 65
individual wilderness areas throughout the California desert. Hundreds
of land acquisition opportunities exist among the 65 wilderness areas
the BLM manages. Due to the numerous important ecosystems and habitats
of these areas, the BLM would like an annual appropriation of
$2,000,000 to purchase critical inholdings. For every $1,000,000
allocated, 1,500 acres of land can be acquired and protected. New
opportunities arise each year as landowners place their property on the
market. Some properties have more urgent funding needs and some
properties are of greater ecological significance. With an annual
funding allocation for critical inholdings, the BLM will be able to
acquire and protect the most sensitive lands in the wilderness areas
each year.
Mojave National Preserve Inholdings
The Mojave National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service,
is a diverse ecosystem that contains sand dunes, Joshua tree forests,
desert washes, dry lakes, and mile-high mountains. The landscape
provides habitat to a wide variety of animals including bighorn sheep,
coyotes, iguanas, wild burros, and the threatened desert tortoise.
Numerous private inholdings exist within the National Preserve, some of
which have proposed development by the owners in the past. As these
inholdings become available for purchase it is essential that they be
acquired for preservation to prevent development and critical habitat
loss. The purchase of critical inholdings within the Mojave National
Preserve is an ongoing project and we request funding of $2,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004. Funding will be used to secure the most urgent
properties first.
Hazel Green Property--adjacent to Yosemite National Park
Yosemite, made famous by its spectacular mountain and valley
scenery and its groves of giant Sequoia trees, is one of America's
oldest and best-loved national parks. The Hazel Green property, located
on the western boundary of the park, is targeted for hotel development.
Acquiring the Hazel Green property will help realize the transportation
components of the Yosemite Valley plan, which is to reduce traffic
congestion and crowding. The property will be listed with a local real
estate agent shortly so funding of $1,200,000 for fiscal year 2004 is
needed to acquire these lands.
All of the properties described above provide important values that
should be maintained in public ownership. Prices will never be lower in
the future, and the threats to many of these areas make acquisition
especially timely.
______
Prepared Statement of Audubon New York
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of
Audubon New York, the State program of the National Audubon Society. My
name is David J. Miller, the Executive Director of the organization
that promotes the protection and proper management of birds, other
wildlife and their habitats through advocacy and education. I am
testifying in support of the Conservation Trust Fund, which should be
fully funded at its dedicated level for fiscal year 2004, $2.08
billion. My primary reason for submitting this testimony is to
respectfully request an allocation of $200 million for the stateside
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and $125 million for State
Wildlife Grants.
Your predecessors in the Congress had a simple, but brilliant, idea
in the mid-1960's. They recognized that non-renewable resources, oil
and gas, were being depleted on the Outer Continental Shelf, and
billions of dollars of revenue were being realized by the Federal
government through leases authorizing the exploration and removal of
these commodities. About this time, a report had been issued by the
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, chaired by Laurence
Rockefeller, which documented the need for quality and accessible
outdoor recreation and recommended a funding source be identified so
that other non-renewable resources could be safeguarded for their
natural attributes and/or for their recreational value. A bi-partisan
effort resulted in the creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
in 1964.
The LWCF is one of the components of the Conservation Trust Fund
and has two basic elements: a federal program and a stateside matching
grant program. The federal side provides funds to acquire land and
water resources for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and other
public land. These are important purposes and we support the continued
availability of money for federal use. As important, however, is the
stateside program, which provides 50 percent matching grants to states
and localities for the planning, acquisition, development and
improvement of parks and recreational facilities. These are enormously
important because they provide close-to-home opportunities for people
to refresh their spirit, to interact with family and friends and to
enjoy the healthful attributes of the great outdoors. The funds
supplied by the federal government to this program are most efficient
since they are matched by state and local dollars. Since its inception
in 1964, more than 38,000 projects have been funded and the LWCF has
touched the lives of most every U.S. citizen in one way or another,
whether they realize it are not.
The fund is authorized at $900 million annually. Originally, the
formula between federal and stateside funding provided that not less
than 60 percent of the annual appropriation was to go to stateside
projects. In the early 1980's, the formula was changed to allow not
more than 40 percent for the stateside program. Obviously, this was a
substantial change and resulted in a further strain on stateside
projects. Stateside funding trickled in from that time until 1995, when
the funding dried up completely.
Recognizing the importance of the funding, New York State carried
the ball authorizing bond acts and other funding mechanisms to continue
state projects and 50 percent matching grants to municipalities for the
same purposes authorized in the LWCF. The demand for these funds
greatly exceeded their availability and in 1998 Governor George E.
Pataki called for the creation of an Empire State Task Force for Land
and Water Conservation Funding. Ironically, Laurence Rockefeller agreed
to serve as the Honorary Chair since he continues to believe in the
importance of close-to-home recreational opportunities. Audubon New
York, and an incredible number of diverse and concerned organizations,
responded to the Governor's call and under the direction of Parks
Commissioner Bernadette Castro, and then Environmental Conservation
Commissioner John Cahill, mobilized a massive grassroots campaign to
revitalize the stateside LWCF. The result was unanimous and bipartisan
support for the Fund by the New York Congressional delegation.
As a result of the vocal support heard all around this Country,
monies once more started to flow. New York received almost $2 million
in fiscal year 2000, more than $4.5 million in fiscal year 2001 and
more than $7 million in fiscal year 2002, and it looked like we were
trending in the right direction. Even though the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act (CARA) was not passed, there was a good feeling about
the Conservation Trust Fund, which was authorized for 6 years, starting
at $1.6 billion annually and was to grow by $160 million each year.
Unfortunately, fiscal year 2003 served to once more take the wind out
of the proponent's sails. Once more we started to go backwards. Once
more we were disappointed, even though the need for respite and
sanctuary is clearly greater today than it was in fiscal year 2001.
We respectfully request that you stop the deterioration of these
critical programs during a time of such need. We ask that you remember
the vision of your predecessors in the mid 1960's. We ask that you
fully fund the Conservation Trust Fund, recognizing that this was the
compromise presented when CARA failed! To go backwards from the reduced
commitment cannot be justified, especially since it represents such a
small amount in the relative scheme of domestic spending.
For fiscal year 2004 please provide full funding for the stateside
LWCF. $200 million will allow the states and their municipalities to
continue to address the recreational needs of their citizenry. This
number is higher than the $160 million requested by the Administration,
but it is far below the original share authorized for the states.
Audubon New York believes that ultimately the LWCF should be funded at
its $900 million authorized level, and that amount should be evenly
split between the federal and stateside programs. New York has funded
more than 1,100 projects, in every County in the State, with LWCF
funds. Since the year 2000, approximately 60 projects have been funded
throughout the state from eastern Long Island to the Niagara Frontier;
from New York City to the Thousand Islands and from the Southern Tier
to the Adirondacks. Valuable open space has been protected, ball fields
built and trails aligned. None of these essential community amenities
would have been available without the support of the Congress. We thank
you for this, and we urge you to continue that good work in the future.
The other Conservation Trust Fund program that we would like to add
our support for today is the State Wildlife Grants program. This is
another critical program, which provides money for wildlife
conservation projects that stabilize, restore, enhance and protect wild
species and their habitats. Although authorized at $150 million, the
Administration is only recommending funding at the $60 million level.
Audubon New York urges an appropriation in the area of $125 million. We
struggle daily to prevent species from becoming endangered, and with
more than 1,000 species in such danger, we desperately need the funding
requested. The federal government needs to remain a partner in this
effort and we implore the appropriators to recognize that it is less
expensive to protect them today than it would be to help them recover
tomorrow.
I thank you for this opportunity to share the thoughts of Audubon
New York with you. Again, we are asking for full funding for the
Conservation Trust Fund at $2.08 billion; $200 million for the
stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund; and $125 million for the
State Wildlife Grants program. Let's live up to the promises and
commitments of the past; and let's invest in our communities, families
and children's future. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Conservation Trust Fund Coalition
Mr. Chairman, we, the Conservation Trust Fund Coalition, are
writing to express our support for fully funding the Conservation Trust
Fund (also known as the ``Conservation Spending Category''), the key to
providing adequate levels of conservation, recreation, historic
preservation, ocean conservation, and wildlife funds at the local,
state, and federal level.
As a broad and diverse coalition of conservation and civic
organizations, historic preservationists, state wildlife directors,
advocates for marine and coastal areas, park and recreation directors,
advocates for urban and wilderness areas, outdoor recreation and
sporting goods industry leaders, hunters and anglers, and youth sports
groups, we believe that the Conservation Trust Fund represents a major
advancement in conservation spending. The programs within the Trust
Fund encourage active lifestyles, promote smart growth, and stimulate
the economy by investing in communities across America.
For fiscal year 2004, we support maintaining the integrity of and
fully funding the Conservation Trust Fund at its dedicated $2.08
billion level. To make this possible, we respectfully urge you to
provide sufficient 302(b) allocations to both the Interior and the
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittees to
allow them to provide full funding for portions of the Conservation
Trust Fund within their jurisdiction without harming other important
programs.
We hope that you will join us by supporting the Conservation Trust
Fund at its dedicated level, safeguarding the health and well being of
America's communities and preserving our natural, cultural, and
historic resources. Thank you for your consideration of this important
matter.
______
Prepared Statement of The Ocean Conservancy
The Ocean Conservancy is pleased to share its views regarding the
programs in the Department of the Interior's budget that affect marine
resources and requests that this statement be included in the record
for the fiscal year 2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
bill.
The Ocean Conservancy (TOC) strives to be the world's foremost
advocate for the oceans. Through science-based advocacy, research, and
public education, we inform, inspire, and empower people to speak and
act for the oceans. TOC is the largest and oldest nonprofit
conservation organization dedicated solely to protecting the marine
environment. Headquartered in Washington DC, TOC has regional offices
in Alaska, California, Florida, and Maine.
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
TOC supports full funding for the Conservation Trust Fund. We
believe that the Conservation Trust Fund represents a major advancement
in conservation spending and urge the Subcommittee to fully fund and
maintain the integrity of the Conservation Trust Fund at its authorized
level of $1.56 billion in fiscal year 2004.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Endangered Species Program
Listing and Critical Habitat
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) continues to face a backlog of
species needing listing and critical habitat designation. TOC
respectfully requests the Subcommittee fund endangered species listing
and critical habitat programs at $24 million in fiscal year 2004, $14.9
million above fiscal year 2003 enacted levels.
Consultation Program
Each year, FWS reviews more than 62,000 federal actions under
Section 7 consultations. TOC requests that the Subcommittee increase
funding by $8 million to $56 million in fiscal year 2004 to ensure
timely completion of these consultations.
Recovery Program
TOC is extremely concerned about the Administration's proposed $2.4
million cut to the endangered species recovery program. We appreciate
the Subcommittee providing a modest increase in fiscal year 2003 and
urge an additional increase be provided in fiscal year 2004. Within
this increase, TOC respectfully requests the committee specifically
earmark funds for the southern sea otter.
The southern sea otter was listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act in 1977. The current population has suffered
significant declines in six out of the last seven years. Necropsy data
indicates that nearly 40 percent of otters examined had an infection at
the time of death. TOC respectfully requests $500,000 in fiscal year
2004 to produce an epidemiology plan, conduct a health assessment
workshop, and support the scientific research recommended by the
Southern Sea Otter Working Group.
National Wildlife Refuge System--Coral Reef Conservation
Coral reefs are rightly known as ``the rainforests of the sea,''
and are among the most complex and diverse ecosystems on earth. Coral
reefs provide habitat to almost one third of marine fish species, serve
as barriers to protect coastal areas, and provide an estimated $3
billion annually in economic benefits to the country from recreational
tourism and fishing. Coral reefs are also extremely fragile and face
serious threats from overutilization and pollution around the world.
The Department of the Interior serves on the Interagency Coral Reef
Task Force and is responsible for implementing the National Action Plan
to Conserve Coral Reefs. Unfortunately, the Department's budget is
grossly inadequate to properly manage, monitor and protect the over two
million acres of coral reefs under its jurisdiction. TOC respectfully
requests an additional $1.5 million in fiscal year 2004 be directed to
increase protection, monitoring and management of coral reefs within
the National Wildlife Refuge System, including the refuges in the
Florida Keys and newly established units at Palmyra and Kingman atolls.
Manatee Law Enforcement
TOC urges the Subcommittee to continue funding manatee law
enforcement in fiscal year 2004. Heightened law enforcement efforts are
necessary to protected the endangered Florida manatee and curtail
motorboat caused mortalities. Watercraft mortalities represent the
single largest identifiable cause of death for Florida manatees each
year. Past funding has enhanced compliance with manatee protection
speed zones and has increased the number of National Wildlife Refuge
System officers patrolling Florida waters. While we support the
Administration's proposed increase of $500,000 we ask for an additional
$500,000 to promote recovery and minimize human caused mortalities
within federally designated manatee refuges and sanctuary areas.
National Invasive Species Act--Ballast Technology Demonstration
Nonindigenous species infestations degrade natural resources of
virtually every U.S. waterway and coastal area. Free of natural
predators, alien species which become established in our waters often
out-compete native organisms, destroy habitat and alter the physical
and chemical conditions in our coastal waters. Invasive species are
regarded as a leading cause of diminished biodiversity and cost our
economy millions of dollars each year. The leading vector of
unintentional introductions of aquatic pest species is the discharge of
ballast water by oceangoing vessels. he National Invasive Species Act
(Public Law 104-332) authorizes $2.5 million for the FWS to eliminate
this source of aquatic invasives. We appreciate the Subcommittee's past
support and urge the full $2.5 million be provided in fiscal year 2004
to help develop and demonstrate environmentally sound ballast water
treatment technologies.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Buck Island Reef National Monument, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands
The Buck Island Monument has expanded in size from 880 acres to
18,135 marine acres, a twenty-fold growth. As a result, TOC
respectfully requests an additional $1.0 million in funding in fiscal
year 2004 for the Park Service to administer this ocean park;
scientifically assess, monitor and protect its marine resources; and
conduct outreach and education programs for its increased number of
visitors.
Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument, St. John, U.S. Virgin
Islands
TOC respectfully requests an additional $500,000 in funding in
fiscal year 2004 to administer this new monument; scientifically
assess, monitor, and protect its marine resources; and conduct outreach
and education programs.
Channel Islands National Park
TOC respectfully requests an additional $500,000 in funding in
fiscal year 2004 for the Channel Islands National Park. This funding is
necessary for the Park to continue working with the State of
California's Department of Fish and Game and NOAA's National Marine
Sanctuary Program to protect Park resources, conduct a scientific
assessment of the new marine reserves, and support education and
outreach efforts for Park visitors.
Additional funding should be also provided to improve the
management and protection of special coral reef areas in Florida's Dry
Tortugas National Park and Biscayne National Park.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SERVICE
Coral Reef Conservation
TOC respectfully requests $4.5 million in fiscal year 2004 for the
U.S. Geological Survey to support research and monitoring of coral
reefs, particularly in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Research and monitoring
is needed to better understand the impacts of fishing on coral reefs,
the causes of coral diseases, and the role of marine protected areas in
coral reef conservation.
National Water Quality Assessment Program
Over the past 50 years, nitrogen and phosphorus inputs into U.S.
waters from human activities on land have increased up to 20 times
their previous levels, and the rate of increase is accelerating. This
has had a number of adverse impacts on our coastal water quality. Algae
blooms are depleting oxygen levels, killing fish and other aquatic
organisms. Dead zones are increasing in size and quantity.
At the present time we cannot effectively assess the extent of our
water quality problems or the effectiveness of our programs because
only 32 percent of our estuaries and 5 percent of our ocean waters are
monitored. The National Water Quality Assessment Program (NWQAP) is one
of the few federal programs charged with systematically monitoring the
status of the nation's water quality, evaluating trends, and assessing
the sustainability of this critical resource. Data from NWQAP is
absolutely essential if we are to make progress in reducing the impacts
of excess nutrients in the marine environment.
We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's rejecting the
Administration's proposed 10 percent budget cut last year and request
$66.8 million in fiscal year 2004, $3 million above the
Administration's fiscal year 2004 request.
Toxics Substances Hydrology Program
The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program provides objective
scientific information on the behavior of toxic substances in the
nation's hydrologic environments. The information is used to improve
characterization and management of contaminated sites, to protect human
and environmental health, and to reduce potential future contamination
problems. The program is guided by reviews conducted by the National
Research Council. We urge the committee to reject the Administration's
proposed $2.5 million cut to this program and restore funding in fiscal
year 2004 to the fiscal year 2002 level of $13.9 million.
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Moratoria
Since 1981, Congress has included bill language in the Interior
Appropriations legislation to protect sensitive coastal and marine
regions from new offshore oil and gas leasing. Today the moratorium
protects the east and west coasts of the United States, Alaska's
Bristol Bay, and parts of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida. TOC
applauds the Subcommittee's historic support of this language and
strongly supports its continued inclusion in fiscal year 2004.
Thank you for considering the funding needs of these programs. They
are of the utmost importance to the stewardship of the nation's living
marine resources. We greatly appreciate your past support for these
programs and your consideration of our fiscal year 2004 requests.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society
Mr. Chairman, The Wilderness Society (TWS) would like to thank you
for the opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the
fiscal year 2004 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. On behalf of the more than 200,000 members and
supporters of TWS, a 70-year-old organization dedicated to preserving
America's last remaining wild places, I provide below our fiscal year
2004 funding recommendations for a number of important conservation
programs. Our top priorities include:
--Continuation and full funding for the Interior portion of the
Conservation Trust Fund (Land Conservation, Preservation and
Infrastructure Improvement Fund) at $1.56 billion;
--Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $450 million for Land and Water
Conservation Fund federal land acquisition; and
--Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $150 million for the Forest
Legacy program.
We also urge you to maintain the integrity of both the Conservation
Trust Fund, and of the Land and Water Conservation Fund contained
within it.
Adequate funding for the programs discussed below is vital to
protect America's wild areas and environmental values, essential
components of our American identity and our heritage. The land and our
relationship with it infuse our history, our heroes, and our hearts. We
hope to work with you to find the resolve and funding to protect those
values that, like freedom itself, are a national birthright.
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to provide full funding for
its portion of the Conservation Trust Fund (CTF) at $1.56 billion for
fiscal year 2004. In one of its great bipartisan environmental
achievements, the Congress established the Conservation Trust Fund in
2000 to address the chronic and severe underfunding of our nation's
conservation, recreation, wildlife, and cultural treasures' needs.
We thank the Subcommittee for providing the full dedicated for CTF
programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. However, we are
troubled by the drop of over $400 million in total CTF funding in the
final fiscal year 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill, and by the cut of
nearly $600 million in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget. We
strongly urge you to maintain Congress' commitment to the CTF for
fiscal year 2004 by providing the dedicated funding level of $1.56
billion for Interior appropriations programs.
Additionally, Congress should reject the proposal in the
President's budget to erode the fund's original purposes by cutting
funding for its authorized programs, such as the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and State and Tribal Wildlife grants, while adding
funding for new programs such as the poorly-defined Cooperative
Conservation Initiative.
Land and Water Conservation Fund.--Within the CTF, we urge the
Subcommittee to reject the Administration's proposal for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), and instead to provide at least $650
million for LWCF's original, authorized programs, including $450
million for Federal Land Acquisition. For decades, LWCF has been a
premier tool to fund two things: federal land acquisition and a state
assistance program. This year, in an attempt to make LWCF look full,
the Administration shoehorns in numerous additional unrelated programs.
This was done to mask cuts of over 50 percent in real land acquisition.
Funding in the President's Budget for National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service
land acquisition is cut from a combined total of $429 million enacted
in fiscal year 2002 to $187 million proposed for fiscal year 2004.
Americans have long relied on federal land acquisition to protect and
complete its parks, forests and refuges, and the Administration's cuts
would result in smaller, more degraded lands and fewer recreation
experiences--and the words ``Land and Water Conservation Fund'' would
lose the meaning they have had since 1965.
We specifically recommend LWCF federal land acquisition funding for
24 priority projects for fiscal year 2004, listed in Appendix A.
Federal acquisition of these lands is necessary to address grave,
immediate environmental threats with the potential for permanent
damage, and to help protect and restore wildlands of significance (e.g.
those with rare ecosystems, endangered species, and/or other special
qualities).
Forest Legacy.--We also recommend $150 million within the CTF for
Forest Legacy. Authorized by Congress in 1990, the Forest Legacy
program offers the opportunity for the federal government to work in
partnership with states, local communities and private landowners to
ensure that the multiple benefits found on forest lands--economic
sustainability, wildlife habitat protection, and recreational
opportunities--are secured for future generations. Since its inception,
Forest Legacy has proven an extremely popular means to combat the loss
of privately-owned timberlands to development, but is currently unable
to meet national demand. In fiscal year 2003, states submitted funding
requests totaling over $300 million in Forest Legacy funding, yet less
than a third of this amount was appropriated. In addition, several
other states are in the process of enrolling in the program in the near
future, increasing the demand for funding. We specifically recommend
Forest Legacy funding for 11 priority projects, listed in Table B
below.
ADDITIONAL AGENCY APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
U.S. Forest Service.--Forest Service lands provide a vast array of
popular recreational opportunities for millions of Americans. Outdoor
recreation contributes more to the U.S. economy than any other use of
the National Forest System, producing 31 times more jobs and 38 times
more economic benefits than logging. Despite this, many important
conservation programs that help maintain Forest Service lands'
recreational and ecological components are chronically underfunded,
while programs that harm our national forests have traditionally
received too much funding. We urge the Subcommittee to provide $76
million for Wildlife, Fish, Watershed and Atmospheric Sciences
Research, approximately a $25 million increase over the fiscal year
2004 President's Budget request. We also recommend $285 million for the
Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Program, an increase of $30
million, as well as $200 million for the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat
Management Program, an increase of $65 million.
We are concerned that the proposed fiscal year 2004 President's
Budget's for the Forest Service Research and Development account falls
$8 million short of the $260 million needed to prevent the further
erosion of scientific capability within the Forest Service.
Additionally, TWS strongly urges the Subcommittee to restore funding to
the Rehabilitation and Restoration program at the fiscal year 2001
level of $142 million; and to fund Deferred Maintenance and
Infrastructure Improvement at the fiscal year 2002 level of $60
million. These two funds are critically important for mitigating
environmental impacts after severe wildland fire events and for
reducing the $8 billion road maintenance backlog. Finally, we request
that you avoid endorsing the President's proposal to reduce the number
of wildland firefighting crews and engines by 53 percent, but instead
at least double the wildland fire budget to prepare for a fire season
similar to 2000 or 2002.
Fish and Wildlife Service.--The National Wildlife Refuge System
passes a significant milestone when it celebrates its 100th anniversary
this year. Unfortunately, the Refuge system is suffering under a nearly
$2 billion backlog in operations and maintenance. TWS gratefully
acknowledges the Subcommittee's faithful and consistent efforts to
improve funding for the system, and we look forward to continuing our
collaborative work with the Subcommitee towards additional
improvements. We recommend $700 million for the Operations and
Maintenance Program, an increase of $298 million above the President's
Budget, to carry out necessary repairs, fund new staff positions, and
support development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
National Park Service.--TWS is grateful for the President's
continued support of the National Resource Challenge, but an increase
of $12.4 million is needed in this fifth and critical year of this
program to bring its funding level to $80 million. We also recommend $6
million for the Soundscape program, to assist the National Park Service
(NPS) in preserving and/or restoring the natural soundscapes within the
parks. Additionally, as a member of the steering committee for
Americans for Our National Parks, we recommend an additional $178
million over the enacted fiscal year 2003 levels in Park Operations to
adequately protect the natural and cultural resources of the National
Park system, bringing the total NPS Operations appropriation to $1.63
billion.
In addition, TWS continues to recommend the formation of a
Wilderness Branch within NPS, as the agency is the conservator of the
largest total area of wilderness in the world.
Bureau of Land Management.--The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget
proposes $43 million for the National Landscape Conservation System
(NLCS), including an increase of $2.7 million for operations. This
funding increase is critical to protect the cultural and ecological
``crown jewels'' of the BLM system: 15 National Monuments, 15 National
Conservation Areas, hundreds of wilderness areas and wilderness study
areas and numerous segments of Wild and Scenic Rivers and National and
Scenic Trails. We also suggest the Subcommittee work with the agency
and other interests to allocate funding for specific resource
protection priorities at NLCS units.
For BLM overall, TWS recommends an increase of $2 million for
Resource Management Planning above the fiscal year 2004 President's
Budget request of $48 million, to ensure effective public participation
and outreach for new planning starts.
We also endorse the Interior Department's multi-agency Invasive
Species Initiative, and urge the Subcommittee to provide the full $9
million increase for its programs proposed in the fiscal year 2004
President's Budget.
TABLE A.--RECOMMENDED FEDERAL LWCF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Agency State Project name 2004 funding
request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM.................................... Arizona................... Grand Canyon Parashant 1.2
National Monument.
California................ California Desert Wilderness 2
Inholdings.
Utah...................... Grand Staircase Escalante/ 1
Calf Creek.
USFS................................... Alaska.................... Cube Cove--Admiralty Island. 4
Alaska.................... Tongass--North Knig Slough.. .510
Alaska.................... Unuk River--Misty Fjords .400
Nat. Monument.
California................ California Wilderness 2.5
Inholdings.
Florida................... Pinhook Swamp/Suwanee 2.5
Wildlife Corridor.
Georgia................... Chattahoochee NF--Etowah 1.2
River Basin.
Georgia................... Chattahoochee NF--Springer .700
Mountain.
Georgia................... Chattahoochee NF--Thrower 1.25
Tract.
Idaho..................... Payette NF--Thunder Mtn. 5
Area--River of No Returns.
Montana................... Gallatin National Forest-- 2
Taylor Fork.
New Mex................... Gila Wilderness--Margaret .075
Stewart Purchase.
New Mex................... Gila Wilderness--Middle .175
Percha Purchase.
New Mex................... Gila Wilderness--Spring .340
Canyon Purchase.
New Mex................... Kelly Purchase.............. .320
N. Dakota................. Griffin Ranch--Bullion Butte 1.5
Roadless Area.
Vermont................... Vermont Long Trail 0.20
Additions--Bolton Mt..
Washington................ Cascade Crest............... 8
NPS.................................... California................ Mojave National Preserve 2
Inholdings.
California................ Yosemite National Park-- 1.2
Hazel Green Property.
Texas..................... Big Thicket National 6
Preserve.
NPS/FWS................................ Colorado.................. Baca Ranch/Great Sand Dunes. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE B.--RECOMMENDED FOREST LEGACY PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
State Project name 2004 funding
request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine.............................. Boundary Mountains to 5
Nahmakanta.
Katahdin Forest...... 8
Machias River........ 2
Tumbledown Mtn./Mt. 4.3
Blue/Bald Mtn..
New Hampshire...................... 13-Mile Woods........ 2
New York........................... Moose River Corridor. 2
Sable Highlands- 5
Domtar.
Tahawus-National Lead 3.5
Vermont............................ Chittenden County 4.15
Uplands.
Mallory Brook........ 0.25
Northeast Kingdom IP 1.5
Realty Lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Anza-Borrego Foundation
The Anza-Borrego Foundation thanks you for this opportunity to
provide recommendations and comments on the fiscal year 2004 Department
of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. On behalf of
the more than 1,000 members and supporters of the Anza-Borrego
Foundation, an organization dedicated to the acquisition of lands for
Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, the largest contiguous state park in
the nature, I provide below our fiscal year 2004 funding
recommendations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund projects and
the Conservation Trust Fund.
Our top priorities include:
--Support of the allocation of $450 million to the federal LWCF land
acquisition program in fiscal year 2004.
--Support of funding the Conservation Trust Fund (commonly known as
CARA ``Lite'' or the Conservation Spending Category) at its
dedicated amount of $2.08 billion in fiscal year 2004.
--We specifically recommend $4 million for the Bureau of Land
Management to fund the California Desert Wilderness Inholdings
and Mojave National Preserve Inholdings federal LWCF projects.
(Please see below.)
The Anza-Borrego Foundation (ABF) is a small regional land trust
that acquires land through donation or purchase from willing sellers
that benefits Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. ABF was first organized
in 1967 at the request of the California State Parks Commission to deal
with the issue of nearly 60,000 acres of inholdings in the 600,000-acre
Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. In our 36 years of business, this small
but mighty foundation has acquired and transferred to the Park over
30,000 acres of inholdings and significant park resource lands.
ABF and the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park have benefited from
major funding from the stateside LWCF. In 2001, with the help of ABF,
the Park acquired 2,675 acres of the Lucky 5 Ranch. This acquisition
links two state parks, Rancho Cuyamaca State Park and Anza-Borrego
Desert State Park, thus creating a vital wildlife corridor between
these two publicly held lands. Currently California State Parks is
seeking additional stateside LWCF funding for the acquisition of 3,339
acres of the Vallecito Ranch. Here again, this acquisition will link
BLM lands to the south with existing state park land to the north. Both
of these acquisitions possess untold natural and cultural resources
including prime habitat for the federally listed endangered Peninsular
bighorn sheep.
Although our Foundation's focus in land acquisition is local in
scope and while this particular park has benefited only from the
stateside LWCF sources, the Anza-Borrego Foundation actively
participates as a partner in the broader land trust movement to protect
California's deserts. We enthusiastically support the need to fully
fund the federal LWCF to benefit the following California projects.
California Desert Wilderness Inholdings.--$2 million.
In southern California, the BLM Desert District manages 65
individual wilderness areas throughout the California desert. These
areas are as large as 200,000 acres and as small as 1,500 acres.
Landscapes vary between ecosystems, ranging from mountainous high-
altitude desert to lowland dry lakes and expansive sand dunes. The
designated wilderness areas provide habitat to numerous species
including bighorn sheep, bobcats, mountain lions, wild burros, gray
foxes, fringe-toed lizards and the threatened desert tortoise. The
Kingston Range Wilderness, home to the Banded Gila monster, is one of
only five places in the world where this critter exists.
Hundreds of land acquisition opportunities exist among the 65
wilderness areas the BLM manages. Due to the numerous important
ecosystems and habitats of these areas, the BLM would like an annual
appropriation of $2,000,000 to purchase critical inholdings. For every
$1,000,000 allocated, 1,500 acres of land can be acquired and
protected. New opportunities arise each year as landowners place their
property on the market. Some properties have more urgent funding needs
and some properties are of greater ecological significance. With an
annual funding allocation for critical inholdings, the BLM will be able
to acquire and protect the most sensitive lands in the wilderness areas
each year.
Mojave National Preserve Inholdings.--$2 million.
The Mojave National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service,
is a diverse ecosystem that contains sand dunes, Joshua tree forests,
desert washes, dry lakes, and mile-high mountains. The landscape
provides habitat to a wide variety of animals including bighorn sheep,
coyotes, iguanas, wild burros, and the threatened desert tortoise.
Numerous private inholdings exist within the National Preserve, some of
which have proposed development by the owners in the past. As these
inholdings become available for purchase it is essential that they be
acquired for preservation to prevent development and critical habitat
loss. The purchase of critical inholdings within the Mojave National
Preserve is an ongoing project and we request funding of $2,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004. Funding will be used to secure the most urgent
properties first.
In conclusion, as an organization that was formed exclusively to
acquire park inholdings, the Anza-Borrego Foundation is vitally aware
of the significance of acquiring these inholdings to make ``whole''
these vital publicly owned lands. We, therefore, support and recommend
the allocations of $450 million for federal LWCF land acquisition, and
$2.08 billion for the Conservation Trust Fund and, specifically $4
million for the projects identified above.
Thank you.
______
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Prepared Statement of the American Forest and Paper Association
he American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) \1\ supports
sustainable forest management on all forest lands. Principles such as
active management, long-term forest health and sustainability, and
local level decision-making are vital components of AF&PA's New Federal
Forestry policy. Federally supported research and forest health
programs are vital to achieving sustainable management on private
forests. AF&PA supports Forest Service and Energy programs that will
help achieve these objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest, pulp,
paperboard, and wood products industry. AF&PA represents approximately
200 member companies and related trade associations (whose memberships
are in the thousands) which grow, harvest, and process wood and wood
fiber; manufacture pulp, paper, and paperboard products from both
virgin and recovered fiber; and produce solid wood products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should address the nation's forest health crisis through
support for Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Forest Health Management, and
Forest Health Research Initiatives. AF&PA considers the Forest Products
program a vital means of promoting forest health and providing a stable
supply of fiber for society. Priority research efforts include FIA;
Forest Products, Utilization, and Process; Biobased Products and
Bioenergy; Industries of the Future; and Systems Integration &
Production Industrial Gasification programs. Following are specific
funding level and program recommendations for fiscal year 2004:
ensuring long-term forest health and sustainability
Our nation's forestlands face a forest health crisis. Millions of
acres of public and adjacent private forestland are at high risk to
catastrophic wildfire, insect infestation, or disease. The President's
Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI), building on the National Fire Plan,
will help reduce these threats and restore the health of our nation's
forests. The fiscal year 2004 budget needs to support these programs to
improve forest health, reduce hazardous fuels, improve fire suppression
efforts, and assist rural communities. Specifically, support is needed
for:
Hazardous Fuels Reduction.--AF&PA recommends $262.100 million for
this program. Increased funding is needed for hazardous fuels reduction
in order to protect resource values such as fish, wildlife, and water.
There are significant treatment needs in all areas of the country and
in all three condition classes. Regional allocations need to reflect
these nationwide priorities.
Rehabilitation and Restoration.--Rehabilitation and restoration
work is critically important, and requires a dedicated funding source.
AF&PA has serious concerns with the Forest Service's proposal to shift
funds from other programs, as this will adversely affect other
important work. Projects within this budget should focus on protecting
soil and water quality.
Fire Suppression Operations.--Congress needs to promptly resolve
the chronic problem of fire suppression costs exceeding available
funds. While the President's request of $604.580 million for fiscal
year 2004 is a significant increase over the fiscal year 2003 budget of
$417.964 million, it will prove to be insufficient if the nation
experiences a future fire season like the ones in 2000 and 2002.
Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management.--AF&PA supports the
President's request of $134.794 million for this program, and seeks to
ensure that important wildlife habitat and conservation programs are
undertaken. The drawdown in the Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) fund to pay for
wildfire suppression costs has a major impact on this and other
programs. Approximately $170 million was borrowed from the KV Fund
during the 2002 fire season; the Fund is now still owed a total of $433
million. Failure to completely repay the KV Fund diminishes
implementation of much-needed wildlife habitat, reforestation, TSI, and
other conservation projects. In some regions, this adversely impacts
non-essential KV projects, such as fish and wildlife programs that are
already underfunded.
Vegetation and Watershed Management.--AF&PA supports the
President's request of $192.606 million for this program. This program
should address the significant reforestation backlog, currently
estimated at 838,066 acres. Reforestation accomplishments have steadily
decreased while reforestation needs have increased since 1999 primarily
due to wildfires.
Forest Health Management.--AF&PA supports the President's request
of $82.019 million for the overall Forest Health Management budget, but
recommends an allocation of $44.963 million for Federal Lands and
$37.056 million for Cooperative Lands. It is vitally important that
programs to treat insects and disease be fully funded in order to
protect both federal and adjacent private forests. AF&PA supports the
concept behind the Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund, but recommends
greater flexibility to address the forest health crisis. Pest
suppression funds should not be limited to new pests or pathogens as
proposed by the Administration.
State Fire Assistance.--AF&PA recommends $58 million for the
program under the ``Wildland Fire Management, Fire Operations--Other''
budget area, and $28 million under the ``State and Private Forestry,
Cooperative Fire Assistance'' budget area. AF&PA supports these
increases to provide States and communities with increased technical,
financial, and strategic assistance to reduce hazardous fuels and
enhance their capacity to implement fire protection activities.
Watershed Forestry Assistance.--AF&PA supports the development of a
new Watershed Forestry Assistance program, funded at $20 million. This
program would assist States in monitoring Best Management Practices and
would promote the beneficial relationship between good forest
management and water quality.
Community and Private Land Fire Assistance (CPLFA).--AF&PA
recommends $15 million for this program, which is designed to aid
landowners and communities in the prevention, preparation, and response
to wildfire threats in the wildland-urban interface. This program
directly supports the objectives of the National Fire Plan.
ACTIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT
Active forest management is needed to ensure that the agency meets
legislative mandates of promoting forest health and providing a stable
supply of fiber for society. If the agency is to address urgent forest
health needs and meet its responsibilities, funds must be provided for:
Forest Products.--AF&PA recommends an increase to the total volume
sold, to 3.0 BBF, and funding of $404 million to support this program.
Timber sales can be an important tool to achieve forest health
objectives. Furthermore, the timber program is one of the few Forest
Service programs that generates revenue. The Forest Service expects to
achieve greater program efficiencies as a result of administrative
actions now under consideration; increased timber volume is likely to
result. Salvage sales are an important component of the timber sale
program as a means to treat forests following insect outbreaks, fires,
blow down, and other natural disasters. The Salvage Sale Fund balance
is so low, however, that Forests are unable to take advantage of
salvage opportunities. This fund is normally replenished with proceeds
from salvage sales; however, Congress should appropriate funding to
rebuild the capacity of this fund. AF&PA also recommends an increase in
timber sale pipeline funding sufficient to provide for one-half of a
year's program in the pipeline (1.2 BBF by the end of fiscal year
2004). Additionally, AF&PA recommends that the accomplishment
measurement be changed from volume offered to volume sold.
Land Management Planning.--AF&PA supports the President's request
of $70.868 million and urges the agency to expedite forest plan
revisions in order to stay on schedule and to ensure consistent and
reliable management. Revision of older plans is a high priority and it
is critical that these funds not be diverted for other planning
purposes.
Deferred Maintenance and Infrastructure Improvement.--AF&PA concurs
with the findings of the Program Assessment Rating Tool, which
highlighted significant problems with strategic planning regarding
deferred roads maintenance. Congress should require the Forest Service
to develop a prioritization system and complete a backlog analysis
within one year.
RESEARCH
Research helps find innovative ways to promote and enhance forest
sustainability and provides scientifically sound data that benefits
both public and private forests. Congressional support is needed for:
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA).--AF&PA recommends $67.691
million for FIA, which is the target funding for fiscal year 2004
required to deliver the base federal FIA program. Funding for this
program should include $14.8 million for State and Private Forestry,
$6.2 million for National Forest System, and $46.691 million for Forest
and Rangeland Research. FIA provides the forestry community with timely
and comprehensive forest data needed to make resource allocation
decisions. The President's request for fiscal year 2004 would severely
hamper the program. The Forest Service should analyze the collected
data annually in a consortium with State Foresters, universities, and
other stakeholders, and make this data available through annual
reports.
Forest Products, Utilization, and Process.--AF&PA recommends
$18.005 million for the program and suggests that the increase over the
agency's request be allocated to the Forest Products Lab for the
Building Durability Test Facility ($2.5 million), the Coalition for
Advanced Housing Research ($885,000) and core functions ($1 million).
To help promote forest sustainability, the Forest Products Lab and
experiment stations conduct research focusing on the efficient and
effective use of wood fiber. Unfortunately, funding for this research
has suffered from steady erosion in budget over the last several years.
Support is needed for the core functions of the research stations to
address issues such as the use of small diameter wood and bioenergy
production, and for the construction and operation of a Building
Durability Test Facility at the Forest Products Lab to address mold and
moisture issues. Funding is also needed for the Coalition for Advanced
Housing Research for research on damage mitigation from natural
disasters like floods, earthquakes and hurricanes.
Biobased Products and Bioenergy.--AF&PA recommends $10 million for
biobased products and bioenergy research, of which $1 million should be
specifically appropriated for Agenda 2020. Biobased Products and
Bioenergy research is needed to improve forest utilization, reduce U.S.
reliance on oil, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Agenda 2020 plays
a vital role in improving forest productivity; developing new bio-
energy technologies with superior environmental performance;
encouraging research in new forest-based materials and biobased
products; and innovating new technologies for wood and wood composite
materials.
Forest Health Research Initiatives.--AF&PA supports the President's
proposed increases to the Forest Service Research and Rangeland
Research budget for new science and technologies, including the
research targeted at invasive species and the Healthy Forests
Initiative. AF&PA looks forward to working with Congress to identify
priority research needs.
Industries of the Future.--The forest product industry's Agenda
2020 program has a proven track record for pre-competitive R&D. Working
with National Labs, universities, and private sector concerns, the
Agenda 2020 program undertakes research to improve the energy
efficiencies of the wood and paper products sectors. Unfortunately, the
Administration has proposed a 54 percent reduction in this program. We
strongly urge the committee to fund these programs at a continuing
level of $10.5 million for fiscal year 2004.
Systems Integration & Production Industrial Gasification.--The
forest products industry is engaged in the fifth year of a pre-
competitive research program with DOE to develop power generation by
gasifying pulping liquor and wood residuals. This new technology has
the potential to produce a net 22 gigawatts of power from a renewable
fuel source, displacing as much as 100 million barrels of oil per year.
The DOE budget stops this research program mid-stream. AF&PA recommends
that this funding level be restored to the fiscal year 2003 level of
$14.68 million.
CONCLUSION
AF&PA appreciates the chance to provide the Subcommittee with
testimony regarding fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Forest
Service. If implemented, the funding levels proposed for the programs
listed above will help promote sustainable management and forest health
on public and private lands.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Sportfishing Association
The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) recommends the
following as the Subcommittee considers appropriations for fiscal year
2004. The American Sportfishing Association is a non-profit trade
association whose 555 members include fishing tackle manufacturers,
sport fishing retailers, boat builders, state fish and wildlife
agencies, and the outdoor media.
The ASA makes these recommendations on the basis of briefings with
agency staff and from years of experience with fisheries management in
this Nation. It is important to note that sportfishing provides $116
billion in economic output to the economy of the United States each
year.
Forest Service
The American Sportfishing Association strongly objects to the
Forest Service budget structure as it relates to fisheries. Fusion of
budget line items make it impossible to track specific expenditures and
does not promote accountability to industry and state partners, the
public, or Congress. ASA recommends the budget return to individual
line items for each of the following areas: (1) fish; (2) wildlife; (3)
vegetation; (4) and threatened and endangered species habitat
management.
ASA supports the proposed fiscal year 2004 budget of $134.8 million
for Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Program, but is concerned
that this represents no real dollar increase for fiscal year 2004.
Given a healthy fishery resource, recreational anglers and others
in local communities depend on forest roads to access fishing and other
related recreational areas. Many of these roads and bridges are
deteriorating or unsafe, requiring maintenance to keep them usable and
assure they do not contribute to poor water quality. The ASA supports
the increase in the fiscal year 2004 budget for the roads, trails, and
facilities program but requests an additional $50 million in funding
for fiscal year 2004. The Forest Service has a $10 billion road
maintenance backlog. If this backlog were eliminated, annual road
maintenance needs would continue to be a minimum of $152 million
annually.
National Park Service
The ASA supports the President's requested funding of $12.0 million
for the Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) under the Challenge
Cost Share program. This initiative's goals to restore, conserve, and
enhance natural resources is vital to ensuring quality and longevity of
parks natural resources. In addition, we support the $10 million
funding level for the traditional Land and Water Conservation Fund, but
recommend the funds are dispersed through consultation with the states.
The Natural Resources Challenge, a program intended to protect
native species and habitat through resource management and performance
measures, has yet to provide evidence of success. Without proper
evidence that this program is accomplishing the original set of goals
and objectives, the American Sportfishing Association cannot support
funding of the National Resource Challenge program. Until a clear
status of proposals can be presented and specific natural resources
information needs are determined we no longer support funding.
The ASA is concerned with the structure and use of Cooperative
Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU). The Biological Resources Division (BRD)
of USGS is the primary research arm of the Department of the Interior
and the CESUs create competition between these research unit systems.
As we understand it, the CESUs purpose is to coordinate and complete
research for the Park Service with other federal and state agencies in
areas adjacent to national parks. CESU's activities lead to a
duplication of expenditures and efforts from federal and state agencies
when research projects are competing for the same government funding.
The ASA urges Congress to strictly define the need for CESUs and
express the difference between these study units and the longstanding
efforts of the BRD Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units of
USGS. Unless a distinction can be made, the monies for this program
should be transferred from the CESUs to the Biological Resources
Division.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
The BLM manages 117,000 miles of fishable streams, 17,000 miles of
anadromous fish habitat, and 3 million acres of fishable lakes and
reservoirs which provide recreational anglers with high quality fishing
opportunities, generating $390 million annually in economic benefits.
In order to manage these resources, the Administration is requesting
$11.87 million in fiscal year 2004 for Fisheries Management. This
represents a program increase of $200,000 from the fiscal year 2003
enacted budget, but remains $250,000 below the fiscal year 2002 enacted
budget. The ASA strongly encourages Congress to increase BLM's
fisheries budget by an additional $1 million.
The ASA is extremely concerned that at current staffing levels, the
Bureau's staff will be unable to meet its statutory requirements. A
recent workforce evaluation showed that with its current level of
staffing in fisheries, the BLM is staffed at only 50 percent of its
1993 identified needs. Nowhere in the fiscal year 2004 budget request
are these staffing deficiencies addressed. Already, approximately 30
percent of existing wildlife and fisheries staff time is being directed
to energy-related functions. The ASA strongly supports hiring
additional fish and wildlife staff to address these critical program
areas in the context of addressing the Nation's Energy Policy, but
recommends these positions be directly funded from the energy account,
rather than extracted from the existing base Wildlife Management,
Fisheries Management or Threatened or Endangered Species Program
budgets.
The BLM manages over 23 million acres of land classified as
riparian or wetland. These areas provide vital habitat components for
hundreds of fish and wildlife species, filter sediment from water,
afford greater water storage capacity, dissipate flood waters and offer
excellent recreational opportunities. For these reasons and more, the
ASA supports BLM efforts in riparian areas, but remains concerned that
the requested $21.97 million is insufficient to meet all of the
identified needs. The ASA requests that Congress add $3 million to this
riparian program, and urges BLM to continue its coordination with State
fish and wildlife agencies in order to achieve optimal program results.
The ASA understands the fiscal year 2004 budget request for BLM
includes $1 million to conduct long-term, large-scale, ``cumulative
effects'' resource monitoring. We support this effort and the manner in
which these fiscal resources are included in the appropriate programs
including wildlife management; fisheries management; soil, air and
water; and cultural resources. Conversely, BLM is proposing $500,000 to
expand resource monitoring to increase its ability to assess the
cumulative impact of oil and gas development, especially on cultural
resources and species-at-risk. This effort is targeted at states where
coalbed natural gas development is occurring. However in this instance,
the funding is contained in the oil and gas account. The ASA supports
this monitoring, but recommends the fiscal resources to conduct this
work be allocated within the appropriate program area budget where
biological and cultural resource expertise exists.
Fish and Wildlife Service
The American Sportfishing Association is pleased with the overall
requested increases for the fiscal year 2004 budget. Despite these
increases, there are several reductions that will cut necessary
programs and further delay conservation efforts.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) is a
cooperative program that matches at least 1:1 in non-federal funds, is
incentive based and is one of the most successful programs for
restoring wetlands for fish and wildlife habitat. With more than 2,000
partners including communities, governments, nonprofit organizations,
States, and academia involved in this program, the ASA strongly urges
Congress to appropriate the full $55 million as authorized for 2004.
The ASA is pleased with the requested increase of $25.2 million for
operations and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. With
a maintenance backlog of $663 million this funding can only begin to
address the needs for maximum operation of the Service's refuges. The
ASA also recommends continued support of the Cooperative Alliance for
Refuge Enhancement (CARE) recommendations for eliminating the backlog
of the Refuge Operations and Maintenance by recommending future budget
requests.
The ASA is pleased with the increase in funding for the Fisheries
Program's ``Vision for the Future'' developed by partners and States.
The ASA supports the Presidents request for $103.6 million for this
program, which is an increase of $9.0 million from fiscal year 2003.
Although we support this increase there are certain factors within the
Fisheries Program with which the ASA is concerned. We support an
increase of $5.0 million for hatchery operations, but a significant
hatchery purpose is to produce fish for mitigation and funding for this
is absent from the proposal. There is a statutory responsibility to
produce fish as mitigation for Federal water projects. In support of
the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council's recommendations for
the Service's Fisheries Program, the ASA urges Congress to provide an
additional $5.0 million for the Federal fishery mitigation programs
conducted by the Service.
The ASA supports the proposed increase of $3.0 million for hatchery
maintenance repairs and improvements on aging infrastructures. However,
the ASA is concerned about the $300 million backlog of hatchery
maintenance. We urge Congress to allocate an additional $7.0 million to
hatchery maintenance for the fiscal year 2004 budget, and we ask
Congress to support the President's additional request of $1.0 million
to combat aquatic nuisance species.
The American Sportfishing Association urges Congress to support
Fisheries Program efforts to restore fish passage for important
recreational fisheries. This can be accomplished by Congress
appropriating an additional $3.0 million for elimination of barriers to
allow fish passage and fish migration nationwide. This program is
critical to the health of our nations waters and to keep fish habitat
as close to its natural state as possible.
The ASA is concerned for the continuation of the Connecticut River
Atlantic Salmon Commission Migratory Fish Restoration Program's efforts
to restore migratory fish in the four state basin of Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The ASA requests an
additional $770,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Service for this program.
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has worked with 28,700
private landowners in restoration efforts for over 1,790,220 acres
across the United States. The ASA supports the President's increase of
$9.6 million, but asks Congress to add an additional $4.0 million to
enhance the Coastal program which has also made significant
improvements to wetlands and fishery habitats.
One important aspect of the Service is to control invasive non-
native species. This program needs to be a priority within the Service.
The ASA recommends an additional $10 million for the Service's invasive
species control programs. This problem is not only domestic but also
international and requires additional funding to ensure the survival of
native species.
No single agency has the responsibility to obtain the Food and Drug
Administration's approval for aquatic drugs and chemicals necessary to
run federal, state and private hatcheries. To meet this critical need,
the ASA urges Congress to make available $450,000 in new funds to be
added to the Service's Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership
program. This program would complete this important process that state
fish and wildlife agencies have already provided substantial funding.
______
Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Mountain Club
On behalf of the Appalachian Mountain Club's 90,000 members, thank
you for the opportunity to provide comments on the fiscal year 2004
Interior Appropriations Bill. Founded in 1876, the AMC is America's
oldest conservation and recreation organization, with chapters from
Maine to Washington D.C. AMC is dedicated to protecting critical
resources throughout our region, including the Northern Forest and the
Central Appalachian Highlands. In addition, our staff and volunteers
contribute countless hours to provide safe outdoor recreation
opportunities for the public in places like the White Mountain National
Forest, Acadia National Park, the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, and the Appalachian Trail, not to mention many state
parks and forests. As you will see by our priorities below, we place a
premium on those programs that foster partnerships and leverage the
substantial local, state, and private efforts in our region.
On behalf of the Appalachian Mountain Club I am submitting
testimony in strong support of:
--An increase in funding for the Forest Legacy Program to at least
$150 million,
--Full funding ($900 million) of the state and federal components of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
--Full funding ($2.08 billion) for the Conservation Trust Fund (Title
VIII),
--An increase in funding to the Rivers and Trails Conservation
Assistance Program to $15 million, and
--Priority consideration to projects in the Northern Forest and
Central Appalachian Highlands.
REGIONAL PRIORITIES
The Northern Forest
Encompassing 26 million acres across Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont
and New York, the Northern Forest is the largest contiguous forest area
east of the Mississippi. Its rugged mountains, legendary rivers,
extensive array of lakes and ponds, and endless woodlands lie within a
day's drive of 70 million people. The forest's capacity to grow quality
timber for high-value manufacturing; to lure visitors with breathtaking
displays of natural beauty; and to showcase a rich cultural and
historical tradition are the cornerstones on which to build a robust
regional economy.
In response to growing anxieties about development, land
stewardship, traditional access, and community sustainability, local
businesses and community leaders, elected officials, and conservation
organizations are working together to protect the important places and
traditional values in the Northern Forest. Private initiative has been
tremendous. In the last ten years, the region has witnessed some of
America's most exciting and innovative conservation partnerships,
protecting more than 2.4 million acres through a combination of state,
federal, local and private investments of $301 million. Our job in this
region is not done, and for fiscal year 2004, $38 million in needs from
the Forest Legacy Program have been identified.
Central Appalachian Highlands
The AMC also supports efforts to protect the critical treasures of
the Central Appalachian Highlands of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
and Connecticut. This surprising region of beauty, water and life lies
within a two hour drive of 20 million people and supplies quality
drinking water to over 11 million residents of the New York
metropolitan area. The Highlands provide abundant outdoor recreation
opportunities and critical wildlife habitat in one of the most densely
populated regions of the country.
The recent release of the U.S. Forest Service report on the
Highlands confirmed what locals have long understood: these water-rich
forests are the lifeblood of our region, and they will be lost soon
without further land conservation. The report reaffirms the ``national
significance'' and threatened nature of the Highlands region, including
the loss of over 5,000 acres of open space annually. The report
identified 100,000 acres of high-value conservation lands that are
imminently threatened by development in the NY-NJ Highlands. Given the
pace of development and high cost of land in the Highlands, a
significant federal investment and partnership in the region is needed
to secure its future. The Highlands Coalition has identified nearly $16
million in funding needs through the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal
year 2004 in the NY & NJ Highlands alone. Full funding of the Land &
Water Conservation Fund's state and federal programs would provide an
additional source of funding. As federal land units are scarce in the
Highlands region, we also support innovative conservation partnerships
between the states and federal government, building upon the successful
model to preserve Sterling Forest in New York.
PROGRAM PRIORITIES
Forest Legacy Program (FLP)--$150 million
With the program on a track to serve as many as 43 states within a
year, the rest of the country is quickly finding out what the Northeast
has known for decades: that the Forest Legacy Program is an excellent
tool for leveraging federal, state, local, and private resources.
States have a chance to opt into the program, and every project
requires at least a 25 percent match. Private landowners are
comfortable with the program's market-based approach; in fact, Forest
Legacy easements give landowners the support they need to continue
traditional uses of the land, including forestry. At the same time, the
public enjoys the many benefits that Forest Legacy promotes, including
scenic beauty, clean water, outdoor recreation and wildlife. Because of
the program's impressive track record of creating win-win conservation
solutions, this committee has steadily increased Forest Legacy funding
to $68.3 million in fiscal year 2003. In light of the overwhelming and
expanding demand for this program, the AMC strongly encourages this
committee to continue the momentum behind Forest Legacy by raising the
funding level in fiscal year 2004 to at least $150 million.
Forest Legacy Project Requests
--Machias River, Maine--$2 million
--Tumbledown/Mt. Blue, Maine--$4.3 million
--Katahdin Forest, Maine--$8 million
--Boundary Mountains to Nahmakanta, Maine--$5 million
--Pillsbury-Sunapee, New Hampshire--$2.5 million
--Thirteeen Mile Woods II, New Hampshire--$1.2 million
--Moose Mountain, New Hampshire--$1 million
--Trout Pond, New Hampshire--$1 million
--Chittenden County Uplands, Vermont--$4.15 million
--Monadnock Mtn./Victory Basin, Vermont--$1.5 million
--Mallory Brook, Vermont--$250,000
--Sable Highlands, New York--$5 million
--Moose River Corridor, New York--$2 million
--Tehawus-National Lead, New York--$3.5 million
--Highlands/Taconics region (including Pochuck Mountain and Torne
Valley), New York--$8 million
--Upper Delaware River Watershed, New Jersey--$8 million
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)--$900 million
As our nation's conservation cornerstone, LWCF is critical to the
future of many places that Americans treasure. From playgrounds and
ball fields, to biking paths and hiking trails, national parks, refuges
and forests, LWCF has been the key to providing places for all
Americans to recreate and get outdoors. Since its inception, LWCF has
helped communities acquire nearly seven million acres of parkland,
water resources, and open space. We strongly urge the subcommittee to
fully fund LWCF at $900 million in fiscal year 2004.
1Conservation Trust Fund--$2.8 billion
At the close of the 106th Congress, the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee established the Conservation Trust Fund (Title VIII).
Through an amendment to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, the new fund was fenced off in a separate
``conservation spending'' budget category that set aside a total of $12
billion in increased funding over a six-year period. The Conservation
Trust Fund is still subject to annual appropriations. We applaud the
creation of this budget category and ask that you honor this commitment
by providing the full level of $2.08 billion for the Conservation Trust
Fund in fiscal year 2004.
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA)--$15 million
Through technical assistance to build trails, restore rivers, and
establish open space, RTCA fosters walkable communities for healthier
lifestyles. RTCA, one of the National Park Service's smallest programs,
delivers enormous returns by building partnerships between state and
local interests and strengthening communities. RTCA has been recognized
by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention as an effective
program for improving community health by increasing the opportunities
for readily available opportunities for outdoor physical activities.
For fiscal year 2004, we urge you to increase funding for this
innovative program to $15 million.
In Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, as we look forward, we are faced with an historic
opportunity to conserve places of extraordinary natural and public
value. To successfully meet this challenge, conservation solutions will
depend on creative partnerships between government, businesses and the
non-profit community. Federal funds, leadership and expertise are
critical components of this partnership. We urge Congress to continue
to take up this challenge of working with the people of the Appalachian
region to protect its irreplaceable resources. On behalf of the
Appalachian Mountain Club, I would like to thank the chairman and
members of the subcommittee for considering our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Trail Conference
I am writing, in behalf of the Appalachian Trail Conference, to
request the Subcommittee's consideration of an fiscal year 2004
appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in an amount
totaling $8.3 million for three separate line items for the USDA Forest
Service--a ``Georgia Mountains'' project ($1 million), a ``Tennessee
Mountains'' project ($5.3 million), and a ``Virginia Mountains''
project ($2 million). Each of those project areas includes parcels
relevant to the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. In the case of the
Tennessee Mountains project and the Virginia Mountains project, the
request also includes other parcels that, while not proximate to the
Appalachian Trail, nevertheless represent critical in-holdings within
the proclamation boundaries of the affected forests (Cherokee and
George Washington/Jefferson, respectively). Permit me to further
describe the basis for our request.
The Appalachian Trail was initially established between 1923 and
1937 and has been maintained as a continuous long-distance footpath
since that time. In 1968, with the passage of the National Trails
System Act, the Appalachian Trail was designated as the nation's first
national scenic trail. The act also authorized state and federal land
acquisition to establish a permanent route and protective corridor or
greenway along the 14-state, 2,171-mile route of the trail. Since 1978,
with strong bipartisan support within the Congress, the two affected
federal agencies--the National Park Service and the USDA Forest
Service--have made remarkable progress in their respective Appalachian
Trail land-acquisition programs. Indeed, those programs are now 99-
percent complete. In the case of the National Park Service, the agency
has acquired more than 108,200 acres of land, affecting more than 2,600
parcels in eleven states, and has protected more than 618 miles of the
footpath. In the case of the USDA Forest Service, the agency has
acquired more than 55,890 acres, affecting more than 675 parcels in the
eight national forests crossed by the trail, and protected 149 miles of
the footpath. Together, those programs represent perhaps the most
successful land-acquisition programs in the history of those two
agencies.
At this point in the evolution of those two programs, our
expectation is that the National Park Service will complete its
program, possibly by the end of this fiscal year, with prior-year
appropriations. However, in the case of the Forest Service, indications
are that additional appropriations will be necessary to complete that
agency's Appalachian Trail land-acquisition inventory, which includes
about 70 parcels, affecting about 4,000 acres and about five miles of
the footpath in the states of Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Virginia. In those states, the agency has been impacted by significant
escalation in land values, particularly in the past five years. As a
result, our current best estimate of funding requirements to complete
the Appalachian Trail program is approximately $5.5 million. Slightly
more than one-half ($3 million) of that remaining need is reflected in
the above-referenced request for fiscal year 2004.
Georgia Mountains Project ($1 million).--We are requesting an
fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $1 million for the so-called Springer
Mountain (Glover/Little) parcel in the Chattahoochee National Forest.
This request is consistent with the Administration's fiscal year 2004
budget request and represents a second-phase acquisition, building on
an earlier appropriation in fiscal year 2003, for acquisition of this
key in-holding in that forest. That tract is a highly scenic parcel in
the foreground vista of Springer Mountain, the southern terminus of the
Appalachian Trail and the jumping-off point for thousands of would-be
``thru-hikers'' who, each year, set out to hike the full length of the
Appalachian Trail in one season. Due to estate issues, our
understanding is that the parcel must be acquired this year.
Tennessee Mountains Project ($5.3 million).--Our request includes a
second-phase acquisition of approximately 3,400 acres of the so-called
Rocky Fork tract--a 10,000-acre in-holding in the Cherokee National
Forest. The first-phase acquisition benefited from an appropriation in
fiscal year 2003 and will affect about 1.5 miles of the Appalachian
Trail. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request includes
$3.5 million for the second-phase Rocky Fork acquisition. However, the
Appalachian Trail Conference is requesting additional appropriations in
order to permit other acquisitions in the forest, including several key
in-holdings--affecting approximately 250 acres ($325,000)--in the
Highlands of Roan area, as well as nine in-holdings--affecting
approximately 450 acres ($1 million)--along the 220-mile route of the
Appalachian Trail through that forest.
Virginia Mountains Project ($2 million).--Our request for the two
Virginia forests (Jefferson and George Washington) includes several
components. One-half of the request ($1 million) is for the acquisition
on an opportunity, willing-seller basis, of as many as nine parcels,
affecting approximately 800 acres, that border the Appalachian Trail.
The balance of the request would provide, again on an opportunity/
willing-seller basis, for the acquisition of in-holding parcels in
three areas of the Jefferson National Forest: the Mount Rogers National
Recreation Area, a number of parcels bordering the Pine Mountain Trail
near the Virginia/Kentucky border, and the so-called Rocky Hollow Cave
property, which provides critical habitat for the endangered Indiana
bat. Although the estimate costs for land acquisition related to those
three areas exceeds $2 million, we are requesting only one-half that
amount in fiscal year 2004.
More detailed descriptions of the three project areas are provided
in separate attachments.
The Appalachian Trail Conference is a private, nonprofit,
educational organization established in 1925 to coordinate the design,
construction, and maintenance of the Appalachian Trail, to conserve
adjacent lands, and to provide educational opportunities for trail
visitors who now number in the millions each year. The Conference has a
membership of 33,000 individuals and also serves as a federation of 31
affiliated hiking and outing clubs throughout the eastern United States
that maintain an assigned segment of the Appalachian Trail. In fiscal
year 2002, more than 4,700 citizen volunteers from those clubs
contributed more than 184,000 hours toward the construction and
maintenance of the trail footpath, its system of overnight shelters and
campsites, and in education and outreach to its visitors.
Thank you for considering our fiscal year 2004 appropriations
request and for the steadfast support of the Subcommittee over many
years.
Attachments
Virginia Mountains
State: Virginia
Region/Forest: Region 8, George Washington and Jefferson National
Forests
Congressional District/Representatives:
6th District, Rep. Goodlatte
9th District, Rep. Boucher
Senators Allen and Warner
APPROPRIATION HISTORY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations received: 1989-2002...................... \1\ $4,321,179
Purchased through fiscal year 2002: Acres............... 6,209
Appropriated 2003....................................... ..............
2004 Administration request............................. ..............
2004 Conservation request............................... $2,000,000
Acres............................................... 1,650
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dollar amount indicated in appropriations history for the Forest
includes reprogrammed money and money received from the Emergency
Inholding appropriation
The proposed fiscal year 2004 appropriation is intended to address
on an opportunity-purchase basis a number of land-acquisition needs in
the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area, as well as for protection of
endangered species habitat at Rocky Hollow Cave, and right-of-way needs
for the Pine Mountain Trail through the Jefferson National Forest.
Although those needs exceed the $1 million requested, an appropriation
in that amount should permit acquisition of key tracts in any and
perhaps all of those areas. An additional $1 million is requested to
acquire tracts for the Applachian National Scenic Trail corridor across
the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests.
Mount Rogers National Recreation Area ($1,000,000).--Six parcels,
with an estimated value of $1,083,000, have been identified as high-
priority acquisitions within the Mt. Rogers NRA. The Mount Rogers
National Recreation Area is of exceptional biological interest because
of the number of organisms that occur nowhere else in the state, most
of them associated with elevations above 4,000 feet. Some represent
northern forms that extend southward along the higher elevations of the
Appalachians, but the majority are species endemic to the southern
Appalachians that extend no farther than Mount Rogers.
Acquisition of the tracts would result in protection of views in
the NRA, securing endangered species habitat, provide for continued and
expanded recreational use in the Mt. Rogers area, and improve visitor
access. The properties would also improve Forest Service management by
decreasing boundary maintenance, reducing the potential for
encroachments, and by consolidating ownership.
These acquisitions are of national concern because of the use that
the Mount Rogers NRA is receiving. The NRA is within a day's drive of
more than 100 million people. Last year, it is estimated that more than
one million people visited the NRA. Equestrian use, mountain biking,
angling, and hiking are very popular, but concentration of these uses
promotes overcrowding and resource damage. The acquisition of these
tracts would enable completion of additional trail systems to spread
the visitor use over a larger area.
All six tracts are within the proclamation boundary of the
Jefferson National Forest and are within the Mount Rogers National
Recreation Area. They also are identified for acquisition in the
Forest's Land Adjustment Plan and acquisition is consistent with
existing Jefferson Forest Plan direction to acquire lands that
facilitate consolidation of National Forest ownership and enhance
wilderness and other resource values such as key recreational tracts
and habitat for endangered species.
All of these tracts have willing sellers. There are no known health
or safety concerns with any of the seven tracts, nor are there any
known hazardous materials present.
If the Forest Service is not able to purchase these tracts, in all
likelihood they will be sold to private investors. The trend in these
areas is to subdivide property into recreational and residential home
sites. Should this occur, it will become increasingly difficult to
protect the NRA, the trails, and endangered species habitat.
Descriptions of these properties follow.
The Craig tract is located in the NRA and is a 128 acre tract that
is retangular in shape and adjoins National Forest on three sides. The
owner of this tract is a willing seller and has recently contacted the
Forest Service regarding his interest in selling the property.
Acquisition will eliminate a possible request for legal access across
National Forest. There is no need for additional infrastructure to make
this tract safe and usable by the general public if acquired. The
interest to be acquired is fee simple with no reservations.
The 40-acre Zachary property adjoins the Lewis Fork Wilderness and
is a complete inholding within the Forest and NRA. Acquisition of this
tract would enable the closure of a road, which has been a law-
enforcement problem involving illegal use of the wilderness.
In addition to the Craig and Zachary tracts, there are four other
tracts on the NRA identified for acquisition at this time. The 30-acre
James property, the 40-acre Dixon Lumber tract, the 228-acre Andrews
property, and the 220-acre Jennings tract. Acquisition of these tracts
would provide ecosystem protection and consolidation, preservation of
historic and prehistoric artifacts, and would protect the unique plant
and animal diversity of the Mount Rogers NRA.
Rocky Hollow Cave ($100,000).--Acquisition of this 285-acre
property would permanently protect a known bat cave for the Indiana
bat, an endangered species. It was noted after a visit to the cave in
1998 that ``Rocky Hollow Cave has the best potential for large-scale
repopulation of nay of the 13 most important Indiana bat caves and
mines in Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia.''
Attempts to protect the cave through acquisition and by gating have
been made by the Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, and the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries throughout the past 20
years. In addition to those agencies and organizations, this project
also is supported by the American Cave Conservation Association and Bat
Conservation International.
Pine Mountain Trail Tracts ($915,000).--A variety of tracts,
affecting a total of 2,612 acres are required to establish a right-of-
way for the Pine Mountain Trail across the Jefferson National Forest.
The Pine Mountain Trail is located along the crest of Pine Mountain,
the highest point in Kentucky and the geological break between the
ridge and valley and Cumberland Plateau geological provinces.
Approximately 27 miles of trail currently are constructed within the
proclamation boundaries of the Jefferson National Forest. However, the
entire trail, as planned, would extend for 110 miles along the crest of
Pine Mountain from Breaks Interstate Park on the Virginia/Kentucky
border to Pine Mountain State Park in Kentucky. An additional ten miles
of trail would extend from Pine Mountain State Park to Cumberland Gap
National Park. Also, the state of Tennessee is actively constructing
140 miles of trail that would extend from Chattanooga, Tennessee to
Cumberland Gap National Park. Proposed acquisitions are intended to
provide easements or fee-simple ownership for a right-of-way along
approximately nine miles of the trail presently situated on private
lands between Skeggs Gap and Pound Gap.
Appalachian National Scenic Trail ($1,000,000).--The Appalachian
National Scenic Trail (A.T.) is a public footpath through 14 states
across 2,169 miles of spectacular Appalachian Mountain ridgelines from
Maine to Georgia. Management of the A.T. is a partnership between the
Forest Service, National Park Service, Appalachian Trail Conference
(ATC), and local trail-maintaining clubs. This partnership has become a
model for partnerships between governmental agencies and private
groups. The local hiking clubs are made up of a small army of
volunteers dedicated to the maintenance and protection of the A.T.
With the passage of the 1968 National Trails System Act, and 1978
amendments to that act, funds were authorized to provide a permanent,
protected corridor along the entire trail route. The Congress has
continually supported the acquisition of land for the protection of the
A.T. The Forest Service, National Park Service and the Appalachian
Trail Conference have worked in partnership to complete the trail
acquisition project. Overall, about 99 percent of the entire A.T.
corridor from Georgia to Maine now is protected or in public ownership.
Corridor protection within the Jefferson and George Washington national
forest boundaries also is very close to completion: Since 1978, the
Forest Service has acquired nearly 200 tracts and more than 15,500
acres along the trail within the two forests. Indeed, only nine
parcels, totaling 814 acres, remain to be acquired, at an estimated
cost of $1.2 million.
In the New River/Pearisburg area near the Virginia/West Virginia
state line, an environmental assessment is nearing completion that will
determine the preferred route for the trail to eliminate road-walking
along busy Route 460 and to provide greater physical separation between
the footpath and the adjacent Celanese industrial complex there.
Additional lands (estimated at 170 acres, more or less) will be
acquired on a willing-seller basis from the Celanese corporation.
At the Big Walker farm in the Nebo Valley of Bland County,
additional land acquisition is necessary to supplement the very narrow
right-of-way interests presently in national forest ownership. This
area is characterized by wide-open and sweeping views of the pastoral
landscapes unique to southwest Virginia, and additional public
ownership (140 acres) is warranted in order to preserve that scenic and
agricultural character.
The 34-acre Abbot tract is adjacent to the A.T. corridor below the
popular Dragon's Tooth area in Craig County. The tract is within a
prominent A.T. viewshed and adjoins a Forest Service parking lot that
provides visitor access to the area.
The 22-acre Schliefer property is an inholding adjacent to the A.T.
corridor within the Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area and likely will
be developed if it remains in private ownership. Acquisition of the
property would help ensure the remote, primitive character of the trail
in the NRA.
Other tracts include Cash (78 acres), and Campbell (292 acres)
properties. However, due to the circumstances surrounding a number of
the affected owners, not all of these properties are suitable for
acquisition at this time. For this reason, although total land-
acquisition needs involve 814 acres at an estimated cost of $1.5
million, only $1 million is being requested in fiscal year 2004 for the
acquisition of approximately 450 acres.
Tennessee Mountains
State: Tennessee
Region/Forest: Region 8, Cherokee National Forest
Congressional District: 01: Representative(s): Bill Jenkins
Senators William Frist and Lamar Alexander
APPROPRIATION HISTORY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations received: 1996-2002...................... $5,280,000
Purchased through fiscal year 2002: Acres............... 4,800
Appropriated: 2003...................................... $4,400,000
Acres............................................... 2,442
2004 Administration request............................. $3,800,000
Acres............................................... 2,649
2004 Conservation request............................... $5,300,000
Acres............................................... 3,420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significance.--The proposed acquisitions consist of inholdings of
various sizes within the Cherokee National Forest. The Cherokee
National Forest shares a common border with National Forests in
Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. The Forest encompasses several
high elevation mountain ranges in the Southern Appalachians with a rich
biodiversity in both flora and fauna. Centered between the north half
and south half of the Forest is the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park. It is the most visited national park in the United States.
Visitation to the entire area is very high and is steadily increasing
due to easy access and proximity to large metropolitan areas including:
Knoxville, and Gatlinburg, Tennessee that are within a thirty minute
drive; Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Asheville, North Carolina, one hour;
Atlanta, Georgia and Lexington, Kentucky, two hours; Nashville,
Tennessee and Cincinnati, Ohio, three hours.
A portion of the lands proposed for acquisition would protect the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (A.T.). The A.T. is a public footpath
through 14 states across 2,172 miles of spectacular Appalachian
Mountain ridgelines from Maine to Georgia. About 220 miles of the A.T.
cross the Cherokee National Forest. Management of the A.T. is a
partnership between the Forest Service, National Park Service,
Appalachian Trail Conference, and local hiking clubs.
Acquisition of these key tracts in the Tennessee Mountains of the
Cherokee National Forest will protect the Appalachian Trail, provide
opportunities for public recreational uses (such as hunting, hiking,
and fishing), improve public access, and protect critical natural
resources, including wildlife habitat and fragile mountain watersheds.
The Rocky Fork Tract (2,649 acres).--The Forest Service proposes to
purchase approximately 2,649 acres of the larger area known as Rocky
Fork. This would be the second of a multi-phased purchase of the entire
10,000-acre tract. (Purchase of 2,130 acres was funded in fiscal year
2003). The tract encompasses the northeast section of the Rocky Fork
area and is situated along the crest of Rich Mountain and includes
Higgins Ridge and the entire upper watershed of Higgins Creek. Numerous
tributaries combine within this area to form Higgins Creek, a major
tributary, which then flows, into Indian Creek. Both Higgins Creek and
Indian Creek are designated trout streams. The tract's northern
boundary lies along the crest of Rich Mountain adjoining the Sampson
Mountain Wilderness and features stunning views of distant mountain
ranges and valleys in Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia.
Elevations of this tract range from 2, 200 feet in the valleys to 4,400
feet on Higgins Ridge at Frozen Knob. Ridgetops, rugged terrain,
abundance of water and a mixture of hardwoods and evergreens provide
excellent critical habitat for a variety of native fish and wildlife.
The Rocky Fork tract is one of the largest undeveloped and pristine
forested areas remaining in the rugged chain of the Appalachian
Mountains. Rocky Fork harbors miles of native brook trout fisheries and
vital watershed, rugged outcroppings and ridgelines featuring
breathtaking views of distant mountain ranges and valleys including the
Nolichucky River Valley in Unicoi and Greene Counties. Rocky Fork
serves as critical wildlife habitat for black bear, deer, turkey,
peregrine falcon and many other species. Much of the boundary adjoins
National Forest, including the Sampson Mountain Wilderness. The
Appalachian Trail, a National Scenic Trail, is situated along the
western boundary of Rocky Fork. Acquisition of Rocky Fork would close a
substantial gap in public lands along of the new scenic U.S. Hwy. 23
corridor (soon to be designated I-26), enhance protection to the
Appalachian Trail and Sampson Mountain Wilderness, preserve a large
expanse of critical watershed, wildlife habitat and aesthetic beauty,
and expand recreational opportunities, such as hiking, mountain biking,
hunting, and fishing.
The Forest Service has sought the acquisition of Rocky Fork for
many years, but since the development of the U.S. Hwy 23 corridor,
ownership of this large private holding has changed twice within the
last four years. Thus far, purchasers have not pursued development of
this wild area. With each transaction, combined with the expected
completion of the U.S. Hwy 23 corridor linking the Tri-Cities in
Tennessee to Asheville in North Carolina, development of Rocky Fork
becomes an increasing possibility. Should this happen, an opportunity
to preserve such a magnificent mountainous area will be lost forever.
The estimated cost of acquiring this 2,649-acre portion of Rocky Fork
is $3,800,000.
The Roan Mountain/Big Ridge Tract (250 acres).--This inholding lies
on the slopes of Big Ridge in the Roan Mountain area of Carter County,
Tennessee, on the headwaters of Doe River near the North Carolina/
Tennessee state line. Georges Creek, an excellent native Brook Trout
stream, flows 0.5 mile through the property, as do several unnamed
tributaries. The slopes and peaks of this tract are covered with a
mixed hardwood forest, with elevations that range from 2,600 to 4,000
feet. The property ties together fragmented and isolated National
Forest (NF) ownership and adjoins Roan Mountain State Park. Roan
Mountain State Park is one of Tennessee's premier state parks which
enjoys a high visitor count and features camping, cabin rentals, a
historic farm, trout fishing, hiking trails, and vistas. Nearby is the
6,285-foot summit of Roan Mountain, an environmentally sensitive
highlands area known for its unique flora, including scenic
rhododendron gardens amid spruce-fir forests and grassy balds. Views
from and to the property are outstanding. If not acquired, the property
will be sold for private development, complicating NF management and
limiting public benefits and uses.
National Forest purchase of this property will:
--Protect the best and most productive native Brook Trout waters in
this region.
--Protect habitat for 11 rare and endangered plant species, including
several sedges.
--Provide and improve public access to National Forest land.
--Enhance FS management and public recreational use by linking roads
and trails.
--Provide habitat for a variety of wildlife, including black bear,
deer, and wild turkey.
--Protect a fragile and sensitive watershed that's within 200 feet of
the Doe River.
--Protect waterfalls on Georges Creek that are critical for native
trout management.
--Preserve natural scenic values along US Highway 19E, a major
tourist route.
--Provide opportunity to plan a hiking/bike trail connecting with
other public lands.
--Protect high elevation slopes and peaks within view of the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail. While the property is
outside the trail's corridor, it is highly visible from the
trail's vistas on nearby White Rocks Mountain and from the
summit of Roan Mountain.
In short, public ownership of the Roan Mountain/Big Ridge property
will protect critical natural resources, greatly enhance National
Forest management, and provide enormous public benefits. The estimated
cost for this tract is $325,000.
In addition to the Roan Mountain/Big Ridge tract, there is an
opportunity to acquire two other smaller inholdings within the Cherokee
National Forest that would provide critical public access to a large
block of National Forest ownership and protect the highly scenic I-26
corridor. The purchase price of these two tracts, affecting 170 acres,
is estimated at $175,000. Those tracts, together with the Roan
Mountain/Big Ridge tract include a total of 420 acres at a cost of
$500,000.
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (884 Acres).--A total of 9
inholdings are proposed for purchase for protection of the Appalachian
Trail (A,T.) within the Cherokee National Forest in Carter, Unicoi, and
Greene counties. The tracts are located in the Sugarloaf Gap, Little
Mountain, Shook Branch/Watauga, Hump Mountain, Allen Gap, and Buck
Mountain areas. Acquisition of these scenic tracts will help maintain
the undeveloped mountainous environment and visitor experiences along
the Appalachian Trail.
Over the years, tremendous progress has been made to acquire A.T.
corridor lands and only a few remain that are not funded with prior-
year appropriations. Additional funds are needed, however, due to a
rerouting of the A.T. in the Shook Branch/Watauga area, where the trail
is being relocated off a paved road with residences and onto a much
improved route through a forested area, and as a result of significant
land-value escalation during the past several years.
The Appalachian Trail often is described as a national treasure. To
complete protection of that treasure in the Tennessee Mountains
requires additional funding. The total estimated funding need to
purchase these tracts, encompassing 884 acres, is $2,200,000. However,
only $1,000,000 is being requested in fiscal year 2004 for the
acquisition of seven of the nine parcels, affecting approximately 300
acres.
Constituencies.--There is growing public concern over development
in areas that adversely affect critical ecosystems such as the above
properties. The Cherokee Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
addresses the need for significant land acquisition for recreation and
ecosystem protection. Support for land acquisition by the Forest
Service comes from local, state, regional, and national organizations,
including the State Rivers Coordinator, The Wilderness Society, The
Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, the State Historian, the
Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency, The Conservation Fund, the Southern Appalachian
Forest Coalition, the Southern Environmental Law Center, Partners of
Cherokee National Forest, local sportsman groups, and the Appalachian
Trail Conference and its local affiliates, the Tennessee Eastman Hiking
Club and the Smoky Mountains Hiking Club.
Georgia Mountains
State: Georgia
Region/Forests: Region 8, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests
Georgia 10th Congressional District: Representative Deal
Senators Miller & Cleland
APPROPRIATION HISTORY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations received: fiscal year 1997............... $155,000
Acres acquired...................................... 45.87
Appropriations received: fiscal year 2002............... $1,200,000
Acres acquired...................................... 175
Appropriations received: fiscal year 2003............... $3,200,000
Acres to acquire.................................... 550
2004 request............................................ $1,000,000
Acres............................................... 125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Springer Mountain ($850,000).--This tract was identified as a
critical purchase for the Appalachian Trail project and has been
actively sought for more than 30 years. The owners of the tract agreed
to sell in 2003, but due to rapidly escalating land values in the area,
the appraised price exceeded the original project budget, and a phased
purchase became necessary. The 2004 request is the second and final
part of a phased purchase for this tract. The Springer tract
encompasses the foreground vista from the southern terminus of the
Appalachian Trail and is seen by many thousands of Forest visitors each
year. Due to estate issues, this purchase must be completed this year.
The remaining $150,000 will be used for other high-priority riparian
area inholding tracts in the Chattahoochee and Oconee national forests.
Constituencies.--The Chattahoochee Land and Resource Management
Plan clearly addresses the need to acquire and consolidate the Forest.
Support for acquisition by the Forest Service comes from local, state,
regional and national organizations, including The Trust for Public
Lands, The Nature Conservancy, The Conservation Fund, the Appalachian
Trail Conference and its local affiliate, the Georgia Appalachian Trail
Club, the Southern Environmental Law Center, Georgia Forest Watch,
local sportsmen, Trout Unlimited, The Wilderness Society, the Georgia
DNR, the Chattawah Land Trust, NRCS, local county commissioners, the
University of Georgia, The Upper Etowah River Alliance, and local
business leaders.
______
Prepared Statement of Audubon
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of over one million members and supporters
of Audubon, thank you for the opportunity to express to your Committee
our recommendations for fiscal year 2004 funding of Department of the
Interior and U.S. Forest Service programs. The purpose of our testimony
is to recommend levels of funding for specific programs that are vital
to our mission to protect birds, other wildlife, and their habitat.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
We are grateful to the Committee for its long-standing support of
Everglades restoration through the appropriations process and in
important appropriations-related policy issues such as the Modified
Water Deliveries project and the programmatic regulations. We urge the
Subcommittee to support the following funding needs for fiscal year
2004:
--National Park Service Land Acquisition Assistance to the State of
Florida should be funded at $20 million (the Administration's
fiscal year 2003 request).--The State of Florida has run out of
money for land acquisitions and the integrity of the entire
CERP rests on land acquisition.
--U.S. Geological Services and NPS Everglades science programs should
be increased to at least $15 million.--CESI funding should be
gradually restored to its previous levels of $12 million.
Adequate funding should also be provided to ongoing critical
Everglades studies regarding the sheet flow of water across the
Everglades, water quality, the levels of mercury and other
contaminants, nutrient levels, and the complex interaction of
groundwater and surface water in South Florida. On-going
science and research are critical to the successful use of
adaptive assessment. Applied research that directly supports
implementation and monitoring of project effectiveness is vital
to the success of the CERP.
--The Restoration, Coordination, and Verification Team (RECOVER),
should be funded by Interior at $3 million.--Interior and the
Corps of Engineers share federal leadership on RECOVER, so it
is appropriate that Interior contribute to this aspect of
Everglades restoration.
--CERP implementation for Fish and Wildlife Service and NPS in fiscal
year 2004 should be increased to $10 million.
--The Modified Water Deliveries project should be funded at $15
million, $2 million above the Administraion's request.--The
budget must continue adequate funding for previously authorized
programs whose performance assumptions have been included in
the CERP. It is crucial to the successful and timely
implementation of CERP that all components of the Modified
Water Deliveries project be adequately funded and completed in
2005. This will require $15 million in fiscal year 2004 and an
additional $15 million in fiscal year 2005.
LAND CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT FUND
(LCPII)
We urge you to renew the commitment to fully fund LCPII at its
dedicated amount of $2.08 billion in fiscal year 2004, while the DOI
appropriations portion of LCPII should receive $1.56 billion.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
We urge the Committee to appropriate the full $900 million
authorized for LWCF, with $200 million allocated to the stateside LWCF
program, to combat the rapid rate of habitat loss threatening America's
native birds and wildlife. Incorporating input from our 27 state
offices and more than 500 chapters, we have identified dozens of
critically important conservation opportunities through LWCF and we
will provide a complete list of those priorities for the committee's
consideration in the coming weeks.
State Wildlife Grants
This valuable program provides matching grants for design and
implementation of habitat and wildlife conservation plans and allows
states to conserve and restore declining native species prior to a
necessity to list them as endangered or threatened. The
Administration's request of $60 million for combined State and Tribal
Wildlife Grants short-changes the important conservation goals of this
program. Audubon supports funding SWGs at $125 million in fiscal year
2004.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)
National Wildlife Refuge System
America's Refuge System faces a massive $2 billion backlog of
operations and maintenance needs that is widely recognized as a
handicap to Fish and Wildlife Service efforts to conserve and protect
the System's more than 94 million acres of prime habitat for more than
2,000 bird and wildlife species. We call on the Committee to seize the
opportunity provided by the Refuge System Centennial to increase
funding for refuge operations and maintenance by $100 million over the
fiscal year 2003 level.
Endangered Species Program
We firmly believe that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of
our nation's most important environmental laws. We continue to be
disappointed that the Endangered Species Program has not been funded at
the level needed to carry out its critical purpose of staving off the
loss of irreplaceable species and biological diversity. Although FWS's
needs are much greater, in order to maintain its programs, we urge the
Committee to appropriate at least $275.7 million toward the Endangered
Species Program.
Law Enforcement Operations
The FWS Law Enforcement program is a primary means of protecting
fish, wildlife, and plants throughout the United States. There are
currently only 231 FWS special agents, despite an authorized level of
253. We therefore urge the Committee to provide $3 million over the
Administration's request to $55.6 million in fiscal year 2004.
Neotropical Migratory Birds and the Multinational Species Conservation
Fund
Approximately 500 of the existing 800 bird species found within the
United States migrate across this nation's borders annually. The
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) was passed to
reverse the decline of migratory birds that breed in the United States
by protecting their habitats in Latin America and the Caribbean. For a
great deal of these species, this region contains almost the entire
world population of these birds in the non-breeding season. In 2002,
the very first year for this program, there were 290 grant proposals,
from 33 countries and 31 states, for a total of more than $120 million
in proposed grants and matching conservation work submitted to the Fish
and Wild Life Service. With the limited budget of $3 million, however,
only 32 of the proposals could be granted. In light of the enormous
demand for this program, we respectfully request the full-authorized
amount of $5 million in fiscal year 2003 and 2004.
We ask that for the remaining Multinational Species Conservation
mammal funds, you appropriate $2 million each for the Asian Elephant
Conservation Fund, the African Elephant Conservation Fund, and the
Great Apes Conservation Fund; and $3 million for the combined
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund.
Migratory Bird Management (MBM)
The President's budget for fiscal year 2004 is insufficient to
enable FWS MBM to adequately carry out its mission. We urge the
Committee to increase funding for MBM by $12.4 million, for a total of
$43.5 million.
The FWS Migratory Bird Management (MBM) budget has been essentially
flat for the last 10 years. No increase has been provided since 1998,
and the base funding for MBM programs has been steadily eroded by cost
of living increases and unforeseen expenses. MBM has had to absorb
$475,000 in postal costs for the Harvest Information Monitoring (HIP)
program and $300,000 for DOI's Office of Aircraft Safety this year,
expenses that were previously covered out of a FWS overhead cost pool.
For the first time this year, OAS has not issued a waiver to FWS to fly
planes over weight capacity limits, so valuable migratory bird survey
data could be disrupted. We recommend that $2 million be provided to
begin to replace aged planes so surveys may continue. No funding has
been provided for an additional $400,000 cost of living increases this
year. Last year the $575,000 duck stamp program was transferred to MBM
without any accompanying funding. MBM has also been burdened by
unforeseen earmarks, including a $550,000 reward band study and a
$250,000 golden eagle survey. While these earmarked programs would be
warranted at some point in the future, FWS can not carry them out this
year without cutting core activities. MBM needs more FTEs, particularly
biologists, to carry out its responsibilities through support of
Partners in Flight (PIF), the U.S. Shorebird Plan, and the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The office has zero funding for
PIF regional coordinators, which were eliminated this year. An
additional $1.1 million would provide for seven PIF regional
coordinators, plus nominal program expenses. Despite a hiring freeze
and dramatic reductions in travel expenses, MBM faces a deficit of $2
million in fiscal year 2004.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)
Managing for At-Risk Species and Habitats
We urge the Committee to increase the President's budget request
for BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Programs to $38 million.
These funds will give the agency the ability to implement some 200
necessary recovery activities for listed species, and to conserve other
species to avoid the listing of new species. Many of the species found
on BLM land are birds, which the Wildlife Habitat Management, the
Threatened and Endangered Species Management, and the Riparian
Management programs work to conserve.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)
Biological Research Division
Audubon urges the Committee to appropriate $207 million, a total
increase of $37 million, to the USGS for the Biological Research
Division. Ongoing research and monitoring within BRD help Interior's
land management agencies to maintain the health, diversity, and
ecological balances of biological resources. Funding at current levels
for the BRD is not fully adequate to meet the science needs of the
Interior agencies and the complex, interrelated natural systems they
must manage.
West Nile Virus
Nearly two hundred species of birds have been infected by West Nile
Virus, which has spread to forty-four states since it was first
reported in 1999. The BRD requires additional staff and funding to
better understand and contain this epidemic. We urge the committee to
provide $3 million to BRD for research and monitoring in fiscal year
2004.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS)
International Programs
Audubon strongly urges the Committee to provide $10 million to
these grossly under-funded programs in fiscal year 2004. Of special
interest to Audubon within the International Programs is the Migratory
Bird Conservation program. Unfortunately, many migratory birds are
experiencing rapid population decline due mainly to the loss of habitat
outside of the United States. An increase of $3 million, to $4.2
million for the Migratory Bird Conservation Program will provide the
resources needed to help conserve such species as the Kirtland's
Warbler, Swallow-Tailed Kite, Cerulean Warbler, Bicknell's Thrush, and
The Mountain Plover. Without such support, these migratory bird species
will likely continue to decline and may ultimately face extinction.
Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to testify on
Audubon's priorities for the Interior Department and U.S. Forest
Service. I appreciate the fact that this is a large agenda, but the
problems facing America's birds, wildlife and their habitat are
daunting. We look forward to working with you to protect America's
birds, wildlife and habitat.
______
Prepared Statement of The Cascades Conservation Partnership
Mr. Chairman, The Cascades Conservation Partnership, a public-
private campaign, is seeking appropriations in fiscal year 2004 to
protect important conservation and recreation lands in Washington's
Central Cascades. Our request matches each forest conservation
objective with the appropriate tool, either Forest Legacy or LWCF.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony to the committee.
FOREST LEGACY REQUEST.--$2.5 MILLION--EASTON/YAKIMA RIVER
--Funds would secure conservation easements on 1600 acres to retain
forests near Easton and the Yakima River.
--Rapid conversion of prime forestland to urban type developments
fragments habitat, reduces recreational opportunities and
increases risk of fire.
LWCF REQUEST.--$8.5 MILLION--PLUM CREEK/I-90
--Funds would acquire 6,500 acres of checkerboard lands identified by
Congress as important for acquisition. Reduces management
expenses of public and private landowners.
--Forest Service options to purchase expire at end of this year.
--Wildlife habitat includes 1,700 acres of late-successional forest.
--Lands are near Interstate 90, include 5 miles of trails, and are
extremely popular with recreationists.
LWCF REQUEST.--$3.5 MILLION--CARBON RIVER
--Funds would acquire 700 acres of Plum Creek Timber Company lands,
adjacent to Mt. Rainier National Park, providing important
wildlife and salmon habitat and recreational opportunities.
EXPLANATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2004 REQUEST
Forest Legacy.--$2.5 million--Easton/Yakima River
The Forest Legacy project would acquire conservation easements on
approximately 1600 acres on lands to retain forests near Easton and the
Yakima River. This strategic project supports a working forest
landscape connected to nearby private, state and national forest lands.
Rapid conversion of prime forestland to urban type developments
fragments habitat, reduces recreational opportunities and increases
risk of fire and fire suppression costs.
LWCF.--$8.5 million--Plum Creek/I-90, Wenatchee National Forest
Keystone Lands.--Bringing certain lands into public ownership would
eliminate the checkerboard ownership pattern and improve management of
both public and private lands. Over 1,600 acres of roadless area and
1,700 acres of late-successional forest provide critical habitat for
species dependent on large contiguous forested areas to survive. These
parcels are contained in areas that have been given special
designations by the Forest Service, such as the Snoqualmie Pass
Adaptive Management Area.
Forested creeks in the Cle Elum River Valley provide important
habitat for fish and wildlife as well as abundant recreational
opportunities. Several trails and campgrounds are located in this area
just south of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Significant roadless areas,
including Kachess Ridge and Teanaway, surround the valley. Parcels in
the Manastash Roadless Area include groves of pine and fir, with waters
flowing into Taneum Creek, which supports bull trout. These tracts of
land are home to threatened spotted owls. They also contain miles of
trails and scenic vistas.
Urgency.--Plum Creek Timber Company is a willing seller, and
appraisals are complete. But the ancient forests on fiscal year 2004
parcels are threatened with logging next year, as the restrictions on
logging and road building in these parcels run out at the end of this
year.
Option Lands.--In negotiations with Plum Creek Timber Company over
the I-90 land exchange, many important lands were dropped from the
transfer. However, the Forest Service was granted an option to purchase
many of the highest priority lands. These options run out at the end of
2003. If the Forest Service allows its options to expire, Plum Creek
may sell the lands to another buyer (the company has been actively
marketing its Cascade lands). Even if Plum Creek agrees to sell the
lands to the Forest Service following the expiration of these options,
a new appraisal may be required, which may increase the purchase price
significantly.
Congressional Support.--In 1998, Congress passed legislation that
directed the I-90 Land Exchange between the Forest Service and Plum
Creek Timber Co. be completed. Congress found that, ``. . . the
checkerboard ownership pattern in the area has frustrated sound and
efficient land management on both private and National Forest lands . .
. [and that] acquisition . . . of certain parcels of land . . . will
serve important public objectives, including . . . enhancement of
public access, aesthetics and recreation opportunities . . . protection
and enhancement of old-growth forests and habitat for threatened,
endangered and sensitive species . . . meet a broad array of ecosystem
protection and other public land management goals . . . [and provide] a
significant reduction in administrative costs to the United States . .
.'' (section 602, fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act). The
legislation specifically mentions trails, streams and unroaded lands as
important public gains. The subject parcels still retain those values.
LWCF.--$3.5 million--Carbon River, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF
700 acres of Plum Creek Timber Company lands, adjacent to Mt.
Rainier National Park, provide important lowland forest habitat and
connections. This includes over 2 miles of frontage on the Carbon
River, protecting salmon habitat. The project is part of a larger
valley conservation plan with broad public support, designed to improve
recreation, habitat protection and economic stability.
THE CASCADES CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP
Unique Effort to Protect Wildlife Connections and Recreational
Opportunities
Providing a Private Match for Public Funding.--The Cascades
Conservation Partnership is an unprecedented three-year public-private
campaign to purchase and protect forest lands that link the Alpine
Lakes to Mt. Rainier. The Partnership seeks funding to accomplish this
goal. In addition to seeking Land and Water Conservation Fund
appropriations for the acquisition of lands included in our proposal,
we have undertaken a private fundraising campaign. To date, The
Partnership has raised $14.5 million from over 16,000 citizens.
Focusing on Wildlife.--Our effort is to protect important
conservation lands-especially habitat corridors between Washington's
north and south Cascades-to ensure the viability of many wildlife
species. Several of these species are threatened or endangered. Further
fragmentation of the forest threatens the wildlife corridors and risks
splitting species into smaller, more vulnerable populations.
Spotted owls, wide-ranging cougars tracking herds of deer and elk,
and martens will make good use of the habitat we protect. Even smaller
species such as salamanders need a connection.
Protecting Spectacular Lands & High Demand Recreation Areas.--In
addition to their importance to wildlife, these lands are prized for
the values they contribute to our quality of life. Key lands included
in our proposal provide clean water for drinking and spawning habitat
for endangered salmon. The lands contain vast recreational
opportunities for the burgeoning population of Washington State,
including more than 45 miles of trails. Hiking, horseback riding,
bicycling, hunting, fishing, and camping are just an hour's drive from
Seattle.
COMBINED FUNDING AND ACQUISITIONS
Several sources of funds have been used to conserve forests in the
Cascades.
Federal Funds.--Congress has appropriated $40 million for nearly
23,000 acres in the checkerboard country. These acquisitions included
4,000 acres of roadless lands, five miles of river, more than 5,000
acres of ancient forest and over 12 miles of trail, including segments
of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail.
Private Funds.--The Partnership has raised over $14.5 million to
date, and has purchased 4,200 acres, including three mile-square
parcels in the Manastash roadless area plus lands in a valley near
Leavenworth. These tracts, containing old-growth forests, streams and
trails, were donated to the Forest Service.
Forest Legacy Program.--The federal Forest Legacy Program provides
grants to states to conserve forest land threatened with conversion to
urban developments. With conservation easements, the lands can remain
as forestland in private ownership. For selected areas this will
provide added support to the wildlife corridors, where the core is in
public ownership.
Washington State.--Washington State and nearby cities have acquired
nearby critical low-elevation properties to better protect the greater
Central Cascade ecosystem from development, including urban sprawl. In
the past decade, Washington and other local governments have acquired
more than 37,000 acres in the area surrounding The Partnership's
proposal. Currently, funding for two major state acquisitions is
pending.
Related Transportation Project.--The Washington Department of
Transportation is planning an expansion of Interstate 90 east of
Snoqualmie Pass. One objective of this project is to improve wildlife
connectivity. Among the improvements will be major bridge structures
that will allow wildlife to move under the freeway, and two of the
structures are adjacent to our acquisition targets on the Yakima River
Wildlife Corridor. The Partnership's forest conservation project will
solidify the habitat areas north and south of the freeway, and the I-90
project will improve wildlife movement between these areas. Both
projects are essential for wildlife connectivity. The I-90 project will
also reduce the threats of accidents involving animals crossing the
freeway.
THE CASCADES CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP
Alpine Lakes Protection Society; Biodiversity Northwest; Kittitas
Audubon Society; Kittitas League of Women Voters; Kongsberger Ski Club;
North Cascade Conservation Council; Northwest Ecosystem Alliance;
Seattle Audubon Society; Sierra Club; The Mountaineers; Washington
Native Plant Society; Washington Trails Association; Washington
Wildlife Federation; and The Wilderness Society.
______
Prepared Statement of the Highlands Coalition
On behalf of the more 100 member groups of the Highlands Coalition,
I am writing to request fiscal year 2004 appropriations from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund and Forest Legacy Program to conserve the
valuable forests in the Highlands region. I am also writing to
encourage a total appropriation for Forest Legacy of $150 million as
part of full funding ($2.08 billion) of the Conservation Trust Fund
(Title VIII) package authorized in 2000.
BACKGROUND
The over 2 million-acre Highlands Region is defined by a series of
forested ridges stretching through four states (PA, NJ, NY and CT).
These ridges border and buffer several major metropolitan areas,
including Philadelphia, New York City and Hartford. Approximately 25
million people live within an hour of the Highlands, and over 15
million people rely on surface and ground waters from Highlands
watersheds for their drinking water. Some 247 threatened and endangered
species occur in the Highlands and over 14 million people visit the
region's parks annually for recreation. For these reasons, the USDA
Forest Service found the Highlands to be of ``national significance''
in their 1992 and 2002 studies of the region.
Unfortunately, the forested ridges of the Highlands are becomingly
increasingly fragmented and converted to non-forest uses due to intense
development pressure from suburban sprawl. The USDA Forest Service's
NY-NJ Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update documented the loss of over
5,400 acres of open space to development annually in the NY-NJ
Highlands alone between 1995 and 2000, a four-fold increase since their
previous study of the region in 1992. The Study projects that if
current trends continue, the population of the NY-NJ Highlands region
(1.4 million) could increase by 50 percent, leading to significant
impacts on both water quality and quantity, wildlife and recreation.
Only 20 percent of this nationally significant region has been
conserved publicly or privately. The NY-NJ Highlands Regional Study:
2002 Update identified nearly 540,000 acres of land that have high
conservation value for water, wildlife, recreation, and productive
forests and farmland, but are currently unprotected. Almost 100,000
acres of these high-value lands are identified as facing imminent
development pressure. The Highlands Coalition, a group of over 100
national, regional, state and local organizations working to protect
the region, has identified 180,000 acres of priority conservation lands
in the NY-NJ Highlands at an estimated value of $750 million.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 FUNDING NEEDS AND REQUESTS
For fiscal year 2004, the Highlands Coalition respectfully submits
the following requests for funding:
--$3 million from the Land & Water Conservation Fund for the Mount
Bethel and Egan projects, two important additions to the
Wallkill NWR, one of our identified Critical Treasure areas of
the NJ Highlands.
--$8 million from the Forest Legacy program for five projects in the
Upper Delaware River Watershed area of the NJ Highlands
identified as the top priority by the State of NJ: Stabile,
Culbertson, Checchio, Buckhorn Creek, and Crown Towers.
--$8 million as requested by the State of New York from the Forest
Legacy program for the Highlands/Taconics region, including the
following projects: Pochuck Mountain, Blumberg, Fahnstock-
Kisslinger, Cabot, Ice Pond, JJNC (Great Swamp) and Gilbert
(Vernay Lake). Additional critical projects that should be
considered for future funding include Torne Valley, Shirazi
(Sterling Forest) and Storm King School Property.
--$150 million in total program funding for Forest Legacy, to
accommodate not only these critical projects in the Highlands,
but also the many other important projects throughout the
eastern forests. National requests for fiscal year 2004 were in
excess of $300 million.
--$2.08 billion for Title VIII, the Conservation Trust Fund, the
authorized level for fiscal year 2004. For our region's
priority projects to receive critical Forest Legacy funding,
and also for a host of important conservation initiatives
across the nation, it is imperative that the array of programs
included in this title be fully funded.
Finally, the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations Bill included
language requesting the Secretary of Interior to join the Secretary of
Agriculture to review the findings of the NY-NJ Highlands Regional
Study: 2002 Update and to report to the Committee on ways in which the
Federal Government can partner with state, county, local and private
efforts to preserve critical lands within this nationally significant
area in the Northeast. We urge you to review the final report and
recommendations and to consider these findings as you make decisions
regarding funding priorities in fiscal year 2004 and beyond.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the need for funding
from the Forest Legacy program and the Land & Water Conservation Fund
in fiscal year 2004 to protect these critical and threatened forested
watersheds in the Highlands region.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies
U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS)
General Comments
The fiscal year 2004 budget approach (initiated for fiscal year
2001) continues to make it very difficult to understand the budget
request and to make meaningful comparisons with previous year
appropriations. The Association continues to object to the Forest
Service budget structure. Without specific budget line items and
expenditures for specific purposes, the current approach does not
promote accountability to State partners, the public, or Congress. In
addition, the lumping of important items in the budget structure
contributes to the continuing perception of the diminution of Forest
Service effectiveness and accomplishment resulting from planning-based
operational changes. In particular, the so-called ``output'' measures
of accomplishment (e.g., acres ``enhanced'', miles of stream
``enhanced'') are so broad and nonspecific as to be meaningless to
measure either the services provided or the benefits derived.
The Forest Service is in the process of eliminating the accounting
``by work activities'' system and implementing a new national work
planning system effective April 2003. We recognize the desire to reduce
the number of budget line items but believe a better system is needed
to get accountability for allocated monies. The Association requests
that future budgets include individual line items specific to fish,
wildlife, and endangered species habitat management. This should
include specific line items for: (1) wildlife and vegetation; and (2)
watersheds and fisheries, specifying the threatened and endangered
species efforts within each. This breakdown will combine improved
performance accountability with improved opportunities for integrated
activities with the state fish and wildlife agencies and other federal
agencies.
Furthermore, the Association continues to urge Congress to provide
a budget which reflects the full range of needs as identified in the
Forest Plans. The planning process includes extensive public and agency
considerations that are addressed in adoption of the final plans. The
public benefits both economically and environmentally as a result of
balanced consideration for all National Forest resources. According to
a 1996 survey, wildlife-related recreation on National Forest lands
contributed $21 billion to the national economy, and recreational
fishing generated an additional $8.5 billion. All these uses on
National Forest lands are projected to significantly increase in the
future, and where addressed in Forest Plans, should be reflected in the
budgets.
Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management
The Association supports the proposed fiscal year 2004 budget of
$134.8 million for the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management
Program, which (with adjustments) is essentially level-funded. The
Association specifically recommends and urges that the USFS coordinate
closely with the State fish and wildlife agencies in the use of these
funds. We also draw attention to the important partnership benefits
achieved through the Challenge Cost-Share Program and support continued
funding as proposed.
The USFS needs to coordinate closely with the respective State fish
and wildlife agencies so that programs and activities do not compromise
State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident wildlife. The
USFS also needs to facilitate the cooperative design and conduct of
research and management programs with state agencies to reduce
duplication and increase acceptability of program results. Genuine
cooperative efforts between the USFS and the State fish and wildlife
agencies will play a critical role in achieving land and resource
objectives for species and related resources.
We applaud the implementation of the Presidential Management
Initiatives and Forest Service Initiatives to streamline operations to
reduce bureaucracy. While reducing the number of positions in
headquarters by transfers to field offices, we urge the USFS take care
to avoid positions which duplicate or overlap with state fish and
wildlife biologist positions and programs. In times of reduced state
budgets, it is particularly important for the Service to look to ways
to use funding to assist the state programs and biologists involved in
mutual projects.
Forest and Rangelands Research
The proposed fiscal year 2004 budget provides $252 million for
Forest and Rangeland Research, an increase of approximately $9 million
above the fiscal year 2003 request but essentially level with the
fiscal year 2002 enacted budget. The fiscal year 2004 budget provides
over $11 million for new research initiatives related to invasive
species, the Healthy Forests Initiative and Sudden Oak Death disease.
The Association supports the proposed fiscal year 2004 research budget
provided current activities in the Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air
Research segment of the budget can be maintained.
Roads, Trails, and Facilities
The Association has continuing concerns regarding proposed funding
and management decisions involving roads and trails. There is a need to
prioritize funding for maintenance and to address deteriorating, unsafe
conditions. We support the increases in fiscal year 2004 for the USFS
roads, trails, and facilities program but request additional funding
for this and subsequent fiscal years for maintenance and improvements
to resolve the maintenance backlog.
The fiscal year 2004 budget estimates the deferred maintenance
backlog of roads and bridges at $10 billion, and if eliminated, the
annual maintenance needs would be approximately $152 million. These
figures are significantly different than the fiscal year 2003 budget
document, perhaps due to changes in the budget structure itself. We
urge that future budget documents break out deferred maintenance,
backlog of improvements, and other components from facilities so that
the funding needs and accomplishments can be more consistently
evaluated.
The Association strongly urges the USFS to closely coordinate with
State and local agencies early in the process of decisions to close or
to reduce use of roads on the National Forest System. Many roads are
important to the transportation needs and desires of local communities
and recreational users. While poorly designed, constructed, or
maintained roads add significantly to water quality issues and fish
habitat concerns, involvement of organizations with interests in
maintaining or retaining roads may result in additional options for
correcting those conditions without total closure. As noted in the
past, road closures should seek a balance with consideration for
adequate recreational and other user access to National Forest lands.
In particular, cooperation with State fish and wildlife agencies in
identifying roads to close or to seek alternate management options is
strongly recommended.
State and Private Forestry
We commend the President for increasing the Forest Legacy budget in
fiscal year 2004 to $91 million. We encourage Congress to support this
$20 million funding increase over the fiscal year 2003 President's
budget. We request that the USFS develop a nationally competitive and
unbiased process to rank Forest Legacy projects that includes state
lead agencies and Forest Service staff participation (Forest Service
staff should be within comparable employment rank to avoid weighting by
supervisors). We appreciate that the budget for fiscal year 2004 now
includes specific funding identified for the Forest Legacy program by
state and project.
The Stewardship Incentive Program and Forestry Incentives Program
were replaced with Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP). We support
the $25 million request for FLEP in fiscal year 2004.
The Association continues to strongly support programs that assist
private landowners and States to improve and enhance fisheries and
wildlife habitat, protect watershed values, and contribute to the
economic and environmental well being of urban and rural America. Under
the Cooperative Forestry component of the State and Private Forestry
budget, we support the proposed budget increases for the Urban and
Community Forestry program.
National Fire Plan
The Association is deeply concerned by the complete lack of any
funding request in the fiscal year 2004 Forest Service budget for
National Fire Plan rehabilitation and restoration. In fiscal year 2001
the amount allocated for this purpose was $141.7 million; in fiscal
year 2002 the level declined to $62.7 million; in fiscal year 2003
Congress approved $7.1 million; and in fiscal year 2004 the President's
budget request for rehabilitation and restoration is zeroed out. This
comes at a time when 19.2 million acres of forestland have burned in
the past three years--7 million in 2002 alone--with four states
experiencing their largest fires in recorded history. Predictions call
for another catastrophic fire season in 2003.
Given this devastating trend, the Association is at a loss to
understand the absence of any fiscal resources directed at
rehabilitation and restoration, while the other four program areas of
the National Fire Plan have experienced, and are proposed for,
significant budgetary increases. This action on the part of the Forest
Service also appears to be in direct conflict with Congressional
direction for the 10-year comprehensive strategy as expressed in the
Conference Report for the fiscal year 2001 Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-291). That report
specifically directed, ``The Secretaries should also work with the
Governors on a long-term strategy to deal with the wildland and
hazardous fuels situations, as well as the needs for habitat
restoration and rehabilitation in the Nation . . .'' As such, and given
the obvious need for ongoing forestland rehabilitation and restoration
throughout the life of the National Fire Plan, the Association strongly
recommends Congress appropriate at least $25 million in the fiscal year
2004 Forest Service National Fire Plan budget for the exclusive purpose
of rehabilitation and restoration, and in the out years, the Forest
Service submit realistic funding requests to meet this requirement.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club
The Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club urges the Subcommittee
to recommend a $2 million Land and Water Conservation Fund
appropriation for Inholdings in Sierra Nevada National Forests.
This appropriation is included in the President's Budget.
This appropriation would purchase lands at several locations in the
Tahoe National Forest. The first priority would be the remaining large
parcels along the North Fork of the American Wild River. The remaining
funds would purchase:
(1) lands along the Middle Fork of the American River; and
(2) Barker Pass lands near the Pacific Crest Trail.
The significant natural values that would be preserved by each of
these purchases are described in the following sections of this letter.
Appropriations for purchasing lands in the North Fork of the
American Wild River and the Middle Fork of the American River are
supported by the Placer County Board of Supervisors, the Board of
Directors of the Placer County Water Agency, and civic and
environmental organizations in Placer County.
THE NORTH FORK OF THE AMERICAN WILD RIVER
The appropriation would purchase 1,400 acres of private lands along
the North Fork of the American Wild River in Tahoe National Forest,
California. The anticipated cost of these lands is about $1 million.
The Forest Service has already acquired 8,200 acres along and near the
Wild River, and the proposed purchase would finally complete the
acquisitions of presently available large private parcels in and near
the Wild River Zone.
The North Fork American River flows down the western slope of the
Sierra Nevada in a beautiful wild rugged canyon more than half a mile
deep. Most of the canyon is steep-walled and narrow.
Both the Federal Government and the State of California designated
a 38-mile stretch of the North Fork American as a Wild River in the
1970's. The designations recognized the river's outstanding wildness
and beauty and its exceptionally pure waters.
The river supports an excellent self-sustaining trout fishery
managed as a Wild Trout Stream by the State of California. The canyon
is home to numerous large mammals, including black bear and mountain
lion, and provides habitat for 150 species of birds, including
peregrine falcons, golden eagles, and goshawks. The canyon's varied
ecosystems and vegetation, including a large acreage of old-growth
forest, are almost unspoiled. Ten challenging trails descend steeply
into the canyon, providing access for rugged hikers, backpackers, and
fishermen seeking solitude and strenuous adventure.
Though the canyon is remote and rugged, development which would
degrade the beauty and naturalness of these private lands could still
occur. A previous owner filed helicopter logging plans on several of
the parcels. Cabin sites could be developed on some of the parcels,
degrading their naturalness and limiting public recreational access.
THE MIDDLE FORK OF THE AMERICAN RIVER
Funds would also be used to begin the purchase of private lands in
the canyon of the Middle Fork of the American River, the adjacent major
drainage to the south.
The available lands include almost all the private land in a 25-
mile stretch of the Middle Fork canyon. This stretch of the Middle Fork
is the boundary between Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests.
The canyon of the Middle Fork is even more narrow, steep, rugged,
and remote than the canyon of the North Fork, and also possesses all
the same outstanding features. The clean waters of the river support a
high-quality trout fishery sustained by natural reproduction. Large
mammals, including black bear and mountain lion, are found in the
canyon. This remote unspoiled canyon provides habitat for the same
species of birds, including several sensitive species--spotted owls,
peregrine falcons, golden eagles, and goshawks. Fishermen and
naturalists who make the strenuous descent into the canyon are rewarded
by pristine conditions and solitude.
The Middle Fork is a major source of high-quality water for Placer
County and fast-growing downstream areas. Placer County has developed
the Middle Fork for water supply and hydroelectric power; this
development directly affects only a small proportion of the 25 miles of
canyon. Unified management of the Middle Fork Canyon by the Forest
Service would better protect water quality and better guarantee
preservation of its outstanding natural attributes. Possible future
mining and logging on private land could significantly degrade the
canyon's naturalness and the purity of the Middle Fork's waters.
BARKER PASS LANDS NEAR THE PACIFIC CREST TRAIL
Barker Pass crosses the Sierra Nevada crest on the edge of the
Tahoe Basin. Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) has made 1,400 acres near
Barker Pass available for purchase. These lands are just outside the
Tahoe Basin and adjacent to the Granite Chief Wilderness. About 640 of
the 1,400 acres were purchased by an fiscal year 2003 LWCF
appropriation.
The Pacific Crest Trail along the crest near Barker Pass traverses
lands with attractive forest and meadow scenery; volcanic outcrops add
scenic variety. Human activities do not dominate views from the Trail,
despite past roading and logging. Upper Barker Meadow provides
attractive campsites for PCT hikers.
Development of these lands would have significant adverse effects
on the Pacific Crest Trail, the Granite Chief Wilderness, and major
trails into the Wilderness. Much of the SPI acreage could be developed
for summer residences, especially appealing to purchasers preferring an
isolated location. These lands are easily accessible from Lake Tahoe in
summer by the high-standard Blackwood Canyon Road. Lands outside the
Tahoe Basin are not subject to the Basin's strict controls on
development.
The integrity of the Granite Chief Wilderness and wilderness users'
experiences would be adversely affected by development on the SPI
parcels near the boundary of the Granite Chief Wilderness.
The SPI lands, the largest block of private lands in the watersheds
of the Granite Chief Wilderness, include the headwaters of Powderhorn
and Little Powderhorn Creeks. New development and roadbuilding on the
SPI lands would increase erosion and siltation in these tributaries of
Five Lakes Creek. Pristine Five Lakes Creek, which flows through a
beautiful wilderness canyon, supports an outstanding population of wild
rainbow trout.
Acquisition of the SPI lands near Barker Pass will foreclose the
possibility of development adversely affecting the Pacific Crest Trail
and the watersheds of the Granite Chief Wilderness.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Conservation
Districts
The National Association of Conservation Districts is the
nonprofit, nongovernment organization that represents the nation's
3,000 conservation districts and more than 16,000 men and women who
serve on their governing boards. Established under state law,
conservation districts are local units of state government charged with
carrying out programs for the protection and management of natural
resources at the local level. They work with nearly two-and-half
million cooperating landowners and operators--many of them farmers and
ranchers--to provide technical and other assistance to help them manage
and protect private land in the United States. In carrying out their
mission to coordinate and carry out all levels of conservation
programs, districts work closely with USDA and USDI agencies to provide
the technical and other help farmers and ranchers need to plan and
apply complex conservation practices, measures and systems including
their interactions with public lands.
The partnership of conservation districts, state conservation
agencies, state forestry agencies, state wildlife agencies and other
resource organizations provide farmers and ranchers with critical help
in protecting and improving the quantity and quality of our soil and
water resources while meeting both domestic and international food and
fiber needs. America's agricultural producers provide many benefits to
our citizens including clean water and air, fish and wildlife habitat
and open space. Many of the practices producers apply on their land
also take carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in the soil,
providing a hedge against global climate change.
As stewards of the nation's working lands, farmers, ranchers and
forestland owners manage the vast majority of America's private lands
and provide tremendous environmental benefits to the country. They also
have a considerable influence on many of the nation's public lands.
On behalf of America's conservation districts, I am pleased to
provide our recommendations on selected conservation programs carried
out through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of
Interior relative to conservation on both private and public lands.
FOREST SERVICE
State and Private Forestry
The private forestlands of the nation are coming under increasing
pressure for production of wood and other products. Resource concerns
and needs include growing fragmentation, wildfire threats and insect
and disease infestation, as well as wildlife and recreation needs. The
State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs of the Forest Service
promote the health and sustainability of the nation's private forest
resources by providing technical and cost-sharing assistance to
landowners to support voluntary stewardship of state and private
forestlands. Conservation districts are key partners with both the
Forest Service and state foresters in carrying out the S&PF programs.
The Forest Stewardship Program is designed to assist nonindustrial
private forestland owners to better manage and use their forest
resources. Cost-shared with the states, the FSP provides technical
assistance that enables landowners to manage lands for multiple uses.
Fiscal Year 2004 Forest Stewardship Program Recommendation--$66 million
Urban and Community Forestry helps to provide leadership for
improving and expanding urban forest ecosystems in the nation's 45,000
towns and cities. It also provides leadership for state of the art
technology and grants to urban areas to support tree planting and urban
tree protection actions.
Fiscal Year 2004 Urban and Community Forestry Recommendation--$38
million
Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management provides technical
assistance for insect and disease suppression programs on both federal
and private lands. As our population continues to expand into rural
America, Cooperative Fire Protection helps ensure cost-effective fire
protection at the rural-urban interface.
The Forest Legacy Program helps to protect forestlands under threat
of conversion to nonforest uses. Economic Action Programs help rural
communities develop and sustain locally driven natural-resource-based
economies. Forest Resources and Information Analysis (FRIA) supports
regional units that have responsibility for collecting and analyzing
forest resource data to help guide management decisions.
Fiscal Year 2004 Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management
Recommendation.--$31 million
Fiscal Year 2004 Cooperative Fire Protection Recommendation--$31
million
Fiscal Year 2004 Forest Legacy Program Recommendation--$91 million
Fiscal Year 2004 Economic Action Programs Recommendation--$36.000
million
The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill)
repealed both the Stewardship Incentives Program and Forestry
Incentives Program and established the Forest Land Enhancement Program
(FLEP). The purpose of FLEP is to encourage the long-term
sustainability of nonindustrial private forest lands by assisting
forestland owners in more actively managing those lands. FLEP is
carried out through state foresters and provides resource management
expertise, financial and educational programs assistance. Funded
through the Commodity Credit Corporation at $100 million through 2007,
the Office of Management and Budget will apportion funds annually.
Conservation districts urge the subcommittee to allow full
implementation of FLEP.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
As a result of management decisions made in past decades that
resulted in unnatural suppression of fires on public lands, large
acreages of forest and rangeland have become extraordinarily dense and
overloaded with fuels, resulting in fires that no longer burn at
natural temperatures or rates. These catastrophic fires are dangerous
to fight, difficult to control, and, rather than renewing forests, they
destroy them. The President's Healthy Forests Initiative, which
includes components of several S&PF programs, as well as Wildland Fire
Management activities, is a new approach to address these issues.
Fiscal Year 2004 Wildland Fire Management Recommendation--$1.8 billion
The 2002 Farm Bill also established the Community and Private Land
Fire Assistance Program to help focus the federal role in promoting
firefighting efficiency, to augment federal wildfire protection
projects, expand outreach and education programs and to help establish
defensible wildfire buffers around communities and private homes. The
program, authorized at $35 million annually, is implemented through
state foresters.
Fiscal Year 2004 Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program
Recommendation--$35 million
fish and wildlife service
Fish and Wildlife resource concerns are significant throughout the
nation. With growing human population dwindling land and water
habitats, the need for active resource management programs grows with
each passing year.
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program offers technical and
financial assistance to private landowners to voluntarily restore
wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats on their land. The
program emphasizes the re-establishment of native vegetation and
ecological communities for the benefit of fish and wildlife while
meeting the needs and desires of private landowners. Conservation
districts are major partners in the program, raising matching funds and
sponsoring more than 900 wetland restoration projects.
Fiscal Year 2004 Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
Recommendation--$39 million
The Private Stewardship Grants Program provides grants and other
assistance on a competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in
local, private, and voluntary conservation efforts that benefit
federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk
species. The Landowner Incentive Program provides financial incentives
to encourage landowners to help protect and conserve rare species on
their lands. Established in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations process
as part of the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, both programs are
flexible and are open to all private landowners who have a desire to
voluntarily manage for rare species on their land.
Fiscal Year 2004 Private Stewardship Grants Program Recommendation--$10
million
Fiscal Year 2004 Landowner Incentive Program Recommendation--$50
million
The Ecological Services Program (Endangered Species and Habitat
Conservation) works in partnership with public agencies, private
organizations and landowners and operators with the goal of reducing
threats to declining species. Its consultation and recovery elements
include a wide range of management options designed to protect species
while still allowing private economic development to proceed.
Fiscal Year 2004 Endangered Species Recommendation--$130 million
Fiscal Year 2004 Habitat Conservation Recommendation--$85 million
Payments in Lieu of Taxes are funded through the National Wildlife
Refuge Fund and are designed to offset revenue lost by localities when
refuge acquisition results in land being removed from tax rolls.
Fiscal Year 2004 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Recommendation--$50 million
The Coastal Program focuses the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
efforts in bays, estuaries and watersheds around the U.S. coastline.
The purpose of the Coastal Program is to conserve fish and wildlife and
their habitats to support healthy coastal ecosystems. The Service
provides funding through the program to 16 high priority coastal
ecosystems.
Fiscal Year 2004 Coastal Program Recommendation--$12 million.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and associated
program provides assistance to conserve wetland ecosystems and
waterfowl and the other migratory birds and fish and wildlife that
depend upon wetlands. Through voluntary partnerships, federal funding
leverages non-federal funds for projects that focus on restoring
wetlands and acquiring wetlands from willing sellers to be managed for
wildlife conservation by private organizations or state and federal
agencies.
Fiscal Year 2004 North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
Recommendation--$50 million
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 262 million of
America's public lands, located primarily in 12 Western States. BLM's
mission, sustaining the health, diversity and productivity of public
lands, becomes more challenging each year as populations and pressures
on the resource base grow rapidly in these states.
BLM's Payments in Lieu of Taxes are designed to offset revenue lost
by localities when federal land acquisition results in land being
removed from tax rolls.
Fiscal Year 2004 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Recommendation--$200 million
The agency's Soil, Water and Air; Range Management; Wildlife &
Fisheries Habitat accounts and Challenge Cost Share Partnership are
each aimed at improving the health of landscapes and watersheds and to
manage, protect and restore important fish, wildlife and grazing
habitats.
Fiscal Year 2004 Soil, Water and Air--$36 million
Fiscal Year 2004 Range Management Recommendation--$75 million
Fiscal Year 2004 Wildlife & Fisheries Habitat Recommendation--$38
million
Fiscal Year 2004 Challenge Cost Share Partnership Recommendation--$21
million
Forestry programs within BLM target conducting commercial timber
thinning sales and management activities to improve the condition and
productivity of forests. OR&CA Grant Lands funds target enhanced
management activities on environmentally sensitive public lands in
Oregon and California.
Fiscal Year 2004 OR&CA Grant Lands Recommendation--$114 million
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Water needs are an increasing resource concern, especially in the
Western United States. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the
lead federal agency for supplying water to agricultural producers and
others in the seventeen Western states. Reclamation initiated the Water
Conservation Field Services Program (WCFSP) in 1997 to encourage the
efficient use of water on federal projects, assist water districts
develop and implement effective water conservation plans, and
complement and support other federal, state, and local conservation
program efforts. WCFSP is designed to provide technical and financial
assistance in conservation planning, education, demonstration of
innovative conservation technologies and implementation of effective
conservation measures.
The President's budget request includes a new, $11.0 million
Western Water Initiative to help develop solutions to the increasing
demands for limited water resources-especially in the West. The
initiative is directed at enhancing Reclamation's efficiency and
performance in carrying out its core mission of delivering water and
power in an environmentally sound and cost efficient manner. The
initiative has four key elements intended to enhance water management
and prevent crisis-level water conflicts in the West.
Fiscal Year 2004 Water Conservation Field Services Program
Recommendation--$20 million
Fiscal Year 2004 Western Water Initiative Recommendation--$11 million
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our recommendations to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
fiscal year 2004 appropriations. We understand and appreciate the fact
that the Subcommittee's ability to fund programs within its
jurisdiction is limited by our current national emergency.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. The Conservancy has more than 1,000,000 individual
members and 1,900 corporate associates. We have programs in all 50
states and in 30 foreign countries. We have protected more than 15
million acres in the United States and Canada and more than 83 million
acres with local partner organization globally. The Conservancy owns
and manages 1,340 preserves throughout the United States--the largest
private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Sound science and
strong partnerships with public and private landowners to achieve
tangible and lasting results characterize our conservation programs.
The Nature Conservancy believes that the conservation community has
an obligation to take action as well as raise awareness. Private
efforts alone, however, will not suffice. Federal investments in
conservation, through federal land and fish and wildlife programs, and
as a partner with state and local governments and the private sector,
are essential to conserve the nation's biodiversity.
STEWARDSHIP OF PUBLIC LANDS
The nation's federal lands require enhanced stewardship funding.
Many of our ecosystems are extremely degraded, particularly by invasive
species and poor fire management, and require substantial investments
to restore proper ecosystem function.
National Fire Plan
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget includes a substantial
increase in suppression funding and a very small increase in hazardous
fuels reduction funding. We believe that the smartest and most cost-
efficient way to address the threat of ecologically destructive fires
is through long-term restoration. Continuing to spend money on
suppression, at the expense of restoration to prevent destructive fires
creates a vicious cycle causing more need for suppression monies. We
believe that Congress should: (1) increase total funding for Hazardous
Fuel Reduction to $480 million, with an emphasis on funding for long-
term, large-scale hazardous fuels reduction projects with rigorous
adaptive management plans; and (2) restore total Rehabilitation and
Restoration programs to $82.7 million, the fiscal year 2002 level, with
a portion of the funding targeted at expanding restoration ecology
expertise. Despite one of the worst fire seasons in history, the
Restoration and Rehabilitation activity was zeroed out for the Forest
Service for fiscal year 2004, and reduced for DOI. Without adequate
post-emergency restoration following unnaturally severe fires, the
result is increased damaged caused by invasive species such as cheat
grass--including increased risk of future fires. As part of the
restoration funds, we recommend $10 million for development and
production of additional native plant materials through private/public
partnerships.
Invasive Species
Next to habitat loss, invasion by non-native species is the most
pervasive threat to native biodiversity on public lands. The
Conservancy supports the interagency National Invasive Species Cross-
Cut Performance Budget as a start for accelerating prevention, early
detection, rapid response, control and management and restoration. This
multi-pronged approach emphasizes private-public partnerships and
interagency collaboration and is essential if we are to reduce the
threat of invasive species to the nation's lands and waters. The
Conservancy supports the President's requested funding increases of $9
million for BLM, BOR, NPS and USGS and $6.6 million for the Forest
Service for enhanced invasive species management by federal land
management agencies.
ACQUISITION OF FEDERAL LAND
The Nature Conservancy applauded action by the Appropriations
Committees to establish and fully fund the Land Conservation,
Preservation, and Infrastructure Improvement program established in
fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. The Conservancy was disappointed
that the fiscal year 2003 Interior appropriations bill did not continue
the commitment to implementing this historic 6-year conservation
achievement. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to fully fund this
program at its fiscal year 2004 level of $1.56 billion.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
The Nature Conservancy strongly supports continued federal
acquisition of high-priority biologically important land and urges the
Congress to provide funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) at a far more robust level than the President's request. The
Nature Conservancy proposes funding of 44 biologically rich land
acquisition projects totaling $103,050,000. Priorities include
completing multi-year projects to transform Great Sand Dunes National
Monument into the nation's 57th National Park, expansion of Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park, and protection of major inholdings at
Florida's St. Marks NWR and Arkansas' Cache River NWR. A number of
projects, including the Red Rock Lakes NWR, Northern Tallgrass Prairie
NWR and BLM's Henry's Lake ACEC and Upper Snake /South Fork Snake River
projects, rely upon conservation easements to achieve important
conservation objectives while maintaining the integrity of working
landscapes. We also encourage the Subcommittee to maintain the
programmatic integrity of the LWCF and use it only for its
legislatively authorized uses. We urge the subcommittee to provide at
least the level of funding requested by the Administration for the
state-side of the LWCF. Overwhelmingly successful ballot measures
continue to demonstrate the substantial need and demand in states and
counties across the country to acquire land for conservation and
recreation purposes.
Forest Legacy
This program identifies and protects ecologically important
forestland that is threatened by conversion to non-forest uses. It is
an increasing popular and successful model of a non-regulatory
conservation approach based on partnerships between federal and state
governments and private landowners. This program has delivered
measurable conservation results at sites such as the Bar J Ranch in
Utah and the John Tully Wildlife Management Area in Tennessee, while
maintaining sustainable public use of these lands. Building on that
success requires a significant funding increase. We strongly support a
$150 million appropriation for this program, including such priority
projects as Maine's Machias River Project, Broxton Rocks in Georgia and
Dragon Run in Virginia.
PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES AND REFUGE REVENUE SHARING
Programs provide payments to counties where land has been taken off
the local property tax roles and put into federal ownership. In some
counties, protection of significant natural resources impacts the tax
base necessary to fund local government services, including schools and
public safety. We urge the Committee to provide full funding for these
programs and honor the federal government's commitment to impacted
communities.
SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION
Sound decisions on public and private land acquisition and
management must be based on high-quality scientific information. The
Conservancy's work on the ground long has been guided by information
from the non-profit organization NatureServe and its state natural
heritage program members. We support increase of $5 million for the
U.S. Geological Survey's National Biological Information Infrastructure
program and encourage an allocation of $500,000 to support the
scientific information management and dissemination work of NatureServe
and its state agency partners. We also support an increase of $2
million in BLM's budget for long-term resource monitoring to measure
the effects of increased energy development on other resources.
ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAMS
The Conservancy supports a funding level of $100 million for the
FWS's Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, an effective and flexible
tool for building cooperative, voluntary partnerships between federal,
state, and local governments to protect and recover critically
imperiled species. The requested increase reflects the importance and
unmet public funding needs of collaborative conservation strategies to
protect critically rare species on non-federal land, and state and
local acquisition of habitat necessary for the survival of listed and
candidate species. We support and appreciate the Subcommittee's long-
standing funding of $2 million annually to Southern California's
Natural Community Conservation Planning program.
The Nature Conservancy proposes significant increases for the FWS's
ESA implementation programs. Funding increases would enhance the
Service's ability to provide important incentive-based, non-regulatory
programs that assist private landowners in protecting species. $12
million for Candidate Conservation would expand this innovative program
and permit more effective monitoring and implementation of existing
agreements. $12 million for Listing would enable the Service to expand
its evaluation of imperiled species for listing, a critical action that
guarantees certain protections under the law, including the authority
to purchase habitat. $55 million for Consultation/Habitat Conservation
Planning would permit the Service to respond to the dramatic increase
in the use of HCPs. $75 million for Recovery would permit the
development, monitoring, and implementation of recovery plans and
actions for a rapidly increasing number of listed species. We also urge
support for the Cooperative Recovery Program for the four endangered
fish species in the Upper Colorado River Basin by requesting $700,000
of resource management funds for the FWS, along with $444,000 for
operation and maintenance of the Ouray National Fish Hatchery.
STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS
The Conservancy strongly supports this important and developing
program and recommends funding of $125 million. We believe the
development of state comprehensive wildlife conservation plans will set
the foundation to direct future resources for state conservation
objectives and encourage the states to make full use of the best
existing scientific information, including natural heritage data.
COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE AND PRIVATE LANDOWNER PROGRAMS
Private lands provide a portion of the habitat for at least two-
thirds of all federally listed species. The Administration's
Cooperative Conservation Initiative supports innovative ways to meet
conservation needs of private landowners, local communities, states and
the federal government through enhancing the capacity of federal
agencies for innovative conservation partnerships.
Challenge Cost Share
We support increased funding for the BLM, $23 million, FWS, $11.9
million, and NPS, $21 million. Challenge Cost Share programs leverage
appropriated dollars through 1:1 matches with State and private
partners to implement important restoration and resource protection
projects. Partners for Fish and Wildlife. We support an increase for
this program to $50 million. It provides important technical and
financial assistance to private landowners and other partners to
protect, restore and enhance habitat for fish and wildlife species. The
fact that more than 2,000 private landowners are on a waiting list to
use the program demonstrates the demand for this cost-sharing program.
Landowner Incentive Program and Private Stewardship Grants. Last year,
Congress funded these new programs to facilitate private wildlife
conservation efforts. We urge the Subcommittee to favorably consider
the Administration's request for $40 million and $10 million for these
programs.
PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVES
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is an excellent example
of a program that effectively leverages conservation benefits. Federal
support to NFWF continues to yield a return of nearly $3 for every
single taxpayer dollar. Since its creation in 1984, NFWF has supported
over 5,756 grants and leveraged over 230 million federal dollars for
more than 700 million dollars in on-the-ground conservation. We
recommend appropriations of $14 million for the USFWS, $4 million for
the BLM and $4 million for the Forest Service.
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and Joint Venture program
The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCF) supports
implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and
other initiatives that protect, restore, or enhance habitat for
wetland-dependent migratory birds. Working with a variety of partners
in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, it matches federal dollars at
more than 2:1. The Conservancy urges $55 million for this
extraordinarily successful program. The Conservancy is also supportive
of Congress' and the Administration's continuing commitment and support
for the Joint Ventures. In the fiscal year 2003 Appropriation Act,
Congress recognized the need for increasing support for Joint Ventures
and urged the Service to request additional funding in the fiscal year
2004 budget The Conservancy is pleased that Joint Venture funding has
been increased and supports the Service's request for $10.4 million for
the Joint Venture program.
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
We support funding for this new and promising program at its
authorized level of $5 million. Significantly, it can secure
conservation gains by leveraging partnership investments throughout the
Western Hemisphere. The Service should continue to administer this
grant program through its division of bird habitat conservation,
following the model of the North American wetlands conservation
program.
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
The Conservancy recommends a total of $14 million to the programs
identified in the FWS' Multinational Species Conservation Fund. We
propose, however, that the Committee appropriate $9 million for the
Rhinoceros/tiger, Elephants and Great Ape funds and appropriate
separately $5 million to the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Fund. The U.S. Forest Service's International Programs address
biodiversity challenges to forests worldwide. An increase of funding to
$10 million would enhance current efforts to protect migratory birds.
The NPS Office of International Affairs should be funded at $2 million
so that the National Park Service--global leaders in conservation--can
expand its collaborative activities to assist international partners in
creating and managing parks and other protected areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
comments on the Interior budget.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROJECTS RECOMMENDED
BY THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LWCF project TNC request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT:
Henry's Lake ACEC, ID............................. $1,000,000
Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa HCP,CA..................... 2,000,000
Santa Rosa/San Jacinto Mountains NM, CA........... 2,000,000
Upper Snake/South Fork Snake River, ID............ 2,000,000
-----------------
Subtotal........................................ 7,000,000
=================
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE:
Alaska Pennisula NWR (Pavlof Bay), AK............. 750,000
Baca NWR, CO...................................... 9,000,000
Cache River NWR, AR............................... 2,500,000
Cahaba River NWR, AL.............................. 1,500,000
Cape May NWR, NJ.................................. 2,000,000
Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA, ND/SD............... 1,000,000
Key West NWR, FL.................................. 1,500,000
Lower Hatchie NWR, TN............................. 1,800,000
Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR, TX................... 2,300,000
Massasoit NWR, MA................................. 530,000
Ninigret NWR, RI.................................. 825,000
Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR, MN/IA............. 1,000,000
Red River NWR, LA................................. 3,000,000
Red Rock Lakes NWR, MT............................ 750,000
Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Easement 1,000,000
Program, MT......................................
San Diego NWR, CA................................. 4,000,000
San Joaquin NWR, CA............................... 3,000,000
St. Marks NWR, FL................................. 1,600,000
St. Vincent NWR, FL............................... 2,250,000
Stewart McKinney NWR, CT.......................... 1,500,000
-----------------
Subtotal........................................ 45,030,000
=================
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE:
Big Thicket National Preserve, TX................. 5,400,000
Fire Island National Seashore, NY................. 1,500,000
Great Sand Dunes National Monument, CO............ 2,000,000
Hawaii Volcanoes NP (Kahuku Ranch), HI............ 6,500,000
Obed Wild and Scenic River, TN.................... 1,600,000
Pinelands National Reserve, NJ.................... 3,000,000
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, FL..... 2,500,000
-----------------
Subtotal........................................ 22,500,000
=================
U.S. FOREST SERVICE:
Chattahoochee-Oconee NFs, GA...................... 2,500,000
Chequamegon-Nicolet NF, WI........................ 4,500,000
Delta NF, MS...................................... 2,000,000
Francis Marion NF, SC............................. 3,500,000
Hoosier NF, IN.................................... 1,750,000
Los Padres NF, CA................................. 3,000,000
Monongahela NF, WV................................ 1,800,000
National Forests in Alabama, AL................... 2,300,000
Prescott NF, AZ................................... 900,000
Shawnee NF, IL.................................... 1,200,000
Skagit River, WA.................................. 2,000,000
Sumter NF, SC..................................... 2,000,000
Wenatchee NF (Tieton River), WA................... 1,075,000
-----------------
Subtotal........................................ 28,525,000
=================
Total........................................... 103,055,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Northern Forest Alliance
The 26-million-acre Northern Forest stretching from Maine's St.
Croix River through New Hampshire and Vermont to the Adirondacks and
Tug Hill in New York is a lifeline to millions of Americans. Clean air,
clean water, wilderness and abundant wildlife are but a few of the
gifts the forest offers to the 70 million people living within a day's
drive. The forest's capacity to grow quality timber for high-value
manufacturing; to lure visitors with breathtaking displays of natural
beauty; and to showcase a rich cultural and historical tradition are
the cornerstones on which to build a robust regional economy.
The Northern Forest Alliance is a coalition of more than 40 state,
regional and national organizations dedicated to the protection and
stewardship of the region. Together we represent the interests of more
than one million people. On behalf of the Alliance I am submitting
testimony in strong support of several Northern Forest Forest Legacy
projects, a significant increase in funding for the Forest Legacy
Program to at least $150 million, and for full funding of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. Also, as you know, in 2000 Congress approved
Title VIII, the Conservation Trust Fund (Title VIII), which should be
funded in fiscal year 2004 at $2.08 billion, as originally authorized.
It is critical for conservation efforts not only in our region but
across the country that the array of programs included in this title be
fully funded.
THE CASE FOR SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE FOREST LEGACY
PROGRAM
In recent years the number of compelling projects in need of
funding under the Forest Legacy Program, along with its popularity, has
grown exponentially. A major reason for the success of the program is
that the conservation mechanisms available under the program are able
to address a range of legitimate conservation needs of the 21st
century: the program enables landowners to retain ownership of their
land and continue to earn income from it; conserves open space, scenic
lands, wildlife habitat, and clean water; and ensures continued
opportunities for outdoor recreational activities such as hunting,
fishing, and hiking. In addition, with its minimum requirement of 25
percent non-federal matching funds, the program leverages state and
private dollars to complement federal money, creating partnerships that
have lasting value.
Authorized by Congress in 1990, the Forest Legacy Program helps
preserve working forestlands and protect critical resources. As our
population grows and land values rise, many private productive forests
are in danger of conversion to housing subdivisions or second-home
development. The United States loses more than half a million acres of
privately-owned timberland to development each year. These changes are
impacting the economic integrity of our forest-based communities, and
they are also limiting the amount of recreational open space and
critical wildlife habitat we all enjoy. The Forest Legacy Program,
administered by the U.S. Forest Service through grants to states,
provides a mechanism and a small pot of federal funds for protecting
forestland and the multiple benefits these lands provide. It is
increasingly apparent, however, that the modest funds historically
provided for this program, despite the increase in fiscal year 2003, is
woefully inadequate to meet current and future projected demand.
FOREST LEGACY SUPPORTS WORKING FORESTS
A central purpose of the Forest Legacy Program is to ensure the
continuation of a traditional working forest rather than fragmentation
and subdivision. Under a Forest Legacy easement, the landowner or other
parties may continue to harvest timber according to the terms of the
agreement. If a landowner chooses to sell the timber harvesting rights,
they may do so, but under many existing Forest Legacy easements, the
landowner has retained harvesting rights and agreed to specific
language governing harvest methods.
With a tradition of using the forest that goes back hundreds of
years, Northern Forest residents are not eager to see the forest
subdivided and the lakeshores built up. Converting woods to house lots
puts an end to local forest dependent businesses ranging from timber
and paper production to guiding and cultural tourism. Breaking up the
forest disrupts wildlife and jeopardizes water quality. Private
driveways and ``No Trespassing'' signs change the culture and character
of the region. And so local residents have banded together to identify
the most important places that are for sale. They're working with state
agencies, legislatures, non-profits and private donors to protect more
than 800,000 acres in the Northern Forest from development this year.
But they cannot do it on their own; they need assistance from the
Forest Legacy Program to realize their goals. To meet growing national
demands, the Forest Legacy Program should be funded at $150 million in
fiscal year 2004. In the Northern Forest, we're depending on a $38
million investment this year to realize the potential of this public-
private collaboration for protecting our intact forests. It's an
opportunity that cannot be missed, for the sake of conserving a
landscape, a regional economy, and a cherished way of life.
FOREST LEGACY SUPPORTS PRIVATE LANDOWNERS' RIGHTS
Through conservation easements, a landowner can voluntarily sell
development rights, continue to generate economic activity, and
maintain a traditional landscape for the next generation to enjoy.
Through the purchase of conservation easements, a landowner's private
property rights are being protected. It is the landowner who decides
whether or not to limit development of their property, and they are
fairly compensated for the rights purchased.
FOREST LEGACY PROMOTES PARTNERSHIPS AND LEVERAGES FUNDS
The Forest Legacy Program offers the opportunity for the federal
government to work in partnership with states, local communities and
private landowners to ensure that the multiple benefits found on forest
lands--economic sustainability, wildlife habitat protection, and
recreational opportunities--are secured for future generations. Since
its inception, the program has proven extremely popular but unable to
meet the demand across the nation. In fiscal year 2003 states submitted
funding requests totaling over $300 million in Forest Legacy funding,
yet less than a third was appropriated. In addition, several other
states are in the process of enrolling in the program in the near
future, increasing the demand for funding.
FOREST LEGACY IS A POPULAR AND GROWING PROGRAM
34 States are currently enrolled in the Forest Legacy Program, and
several other states are currently developing plans for enrollment in
the program or considering beginning the planning process.
Congressional support for the program has steadily grown, with
funding levels increasing from $7 million in fiscal year 1999 to $30
million in fiscal year 2000 to $60 million in fiscal year 2001, $65
million in fiscal year 2002 and over $70 million this year.
Significantly the Administration has requested more than $90 million
for the program for fiscal year 2004. Even at this level, however,
several properties being offered for protection by willing landowners
and states through the Forest Legacy Program could not be fully funded
and will have to be carried over to the following year. The Northeast
in particular has an abundance of worthwhile projects and documented
needs for Forest Legacy funding which will go unmet unless Forest
Legacy is significantly increased or other sources of funding are
identified.
The Forest Legacy Program must be funded at $150 million annually
on a dependable basis to meet the nation's need for conserving large
tracts of forest with easements. Legacy is an essential tool in land
conservation because it enables a public/private partnership for
protecting the many public benefits of large tracts of forest land. It
is clear that Forest Legacy will play an important role in completing
the emerging conservation projects in the Northern Forest.
SUMMARY OF NORTHERN FOREST FISCAL YEAR 2004 LEGACY PROJECTS AND FUNDING
REQUESTS
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acreage Request Project cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine:
Machias River............. 32,000 $2.00 $15.00
Tumbledown/Mt. Blue....... 30,000 3.00 15.00
Bald Mountain............. 10,000 1.30 4.00
Katahdin Forest........... 241,000 8.00 50.00
Northern Tier: Boundary 500,000 5.00 35.00
Mtns. to Nahmakanta......
New Hampshire: 13-Mile Woods.. 5,300 2.00 3.80
Vermont:
Monadnock to Victory Basin 3,524 1.50 1.90
Mallory Brook............. 490 0.25 0.40
Chittenden County Uplands. 8,515 4.15 4.15
New York:
Domtar-Sable Highlands.... 105,000 5.00 8.50
Moose River Corridor...... 5,600 2.00 9.70
Headwaters of the Hudson-- 11,200 3.50 7.00
Tahawus..................
Property Mileage Request:
Vermont: Long Trail....... 2.5 0.20 ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LWCF--STATE PROGRAM
Vermont workers whose employer had closed its plant in Island Pond.
With this and other aid, a group of employees has started a new
business, which now produces its own furniture line. In New York, the
same program has helped the community of Tupper Lake establish a
Natural History Center of the Adirondacks, a focal point for future
nature based tourism in the area. Significant funding is needed
nationally and in the Northeast Region to keep these valuable, results-
oriented programs active in Northern Forest communities.
AGENCY/PROGRAM REGION REQUEST
ECONOMIC PROGRAMS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA State and Private Forestry Division:
Forest Land Enhancement Program National............... 22
Economic Action Programs Northeast..................... 10
USDA Rural Development Division: Rural Business Enterprise 4
and Opportunity Grants Northern Forest States.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW PARTNERSHIPS
Without a new partnership with the federal government, however,
even these landmark state funding programs cannot meet the conservation
challenges in the Northern Forest. Millions of acres of forest, clean
rivers, and pristine lakes need to be protected in this most densely
populated part of our country. We are poised now on the cusp of an
historic opportunity to protect the cherished landscape of the Northern
Forest, a mainstay of the economy, ecology and culture of the
Northeast.
We challenge Congress to fund the Forest Legacy Program at a
minimum level of $150 million, to fully fund the Land & Water
Conservation Fund at $900 million annually, and the Conservation Trust
Fund at $2.08 billion to meet the conservation needs of the 21st
century.
Mr. Chairman, as we begin the 21st Century we are faced with an
historic opportunity to conserve places of extraordinary natural and
public value. The work of protecting and caring for these special
places must be a partnership that engages government, businesses and
non-profit organizations. But federal funds, leadership and expertise
are a critical element of this partnership. We urge the continued
commitment of Congress to work with the people of Maine, Vermont, New
Hampshire and New York to protect these irreplaceable resources. Thank
you for considering our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sierra Nevada Alliance
Mr. Chairman, the Sierra Nevada Alliance (the Alliance) would like
to thank you for the opportunity to comment and make recommendations on
the fiscal year 2004 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. I write these comments on behalf of the Alliance,
a 10-year-old organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the
natural values of the Sierra Nevada while promoting sustainable
communities. Our top priorities include:
--Continuation and full funding for the Interior portion of the
Conservation Trust Fund (Land Conservation, Preservation and
Infrastructure Improvement Fund) at $1.56 billion;
--Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $450 million for Land and Water
Conservation Fund Federal land acquisition; and
--Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $150 million for the Forest
Legacy program.
We also urge you to maintain the integrity of both the Conservation
Trust Fund, and of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Adequate
funding for the programs discussed below is vital to protect the Sierra
Nevada's wild areas and environmental values.
The Sierra Nevada range covers 18 counties and two States,
California and Nevada. Our range has over 50 percent of the species of
California, supplies over 60 percent of California's water and much of
Nevada's, and is a world renown destination for recreation. Much of the
value of our region and its ability to fuel the Sierra economy is due
to the conservation of wildlife, recreation, and natural treasures.
Consequently, funding provided by the Subcommittee for Federal
conservation programs is of vital importance to every resident and
visitor of the Sierra Nevada.
please provide full funding for the conservation trust fund
We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to provide full funding for
its portion of the Conservation Trust Fund (CTF) at $1.56 billion for
fiscal year 2004. The Conservation Trust Fund was established by
Congress in 2000 to address the chronic underfunding of our nation's
conservation, recreation, wildlife, and cultural treasures' needs.
We thank the Subcommittee for providing support for CTF programs
under the jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for
fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. However, we are troubled by the
drop of over $400 million in total CTF funding in the final fiscal year
2003 Omnibus appropriations bill, and by the cut of nearly $600 million
in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget. We strongly urge you to
maintain Congress' commitment to the CTF for fiscal year 2004 by
providing the dedicated funding level of $1.56 billion for Interior
appropriation's programs.
Additionally, Congress should reject the proposal in the
President's budget to erode the fund's original purposes by cutting
funding for its authorized programs, such as the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and State and Tribal Wildlife grants.
Land and Water Conservation Fund.--Within the CTF, we urge the
Subcommittee to reject the Administration's proposal for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), and instead to provide at least $650
million for LWCF's original, authorized programs, including $450
million for Federal Land Acquisition. LWCF has been a premier tool to
fund two things: Federal land acquisition and a State assistance
program. This year, the Administration masked cuts of over 50 percent
in real land acquisition by adding in new programs. Funding in the
President's Budget for National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service land
acquisition is cut from a combined total of $429 million enacted in
fiscal year 2002 to $187 million proposed for fiscal year 2004.
Americans have long relied on Federal land acquisition to protect and
complete its parks, forests and refuges, and the Administration's cuts
would result in smaller, more degraded lands and fewer recreation
experiences.
Federal acquisition of these lands is necessary to address grave,
immediate environmental threats with the potential for permanent
damage, and to help protect and restore wildlands of significance (e.g.
those with rare ecosystems, endangered species, and/or other special
qualities).
ADDITIONAL AGENCY APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
Fund U.S. Forest Service Conservation Programs.--The U.S. Forest
Service is the largest single land owner in the Sierra Nevada, owning
38 percent of all Sierra lands. These Forest Service lands provide a
vast array of popular recreational opportunities for millions of
Americans. Outdoor recreation contributes more to the Sierra Nevada
economy than any other use of the National Forest System. Despite this,
many important conservation programs that help maintain Forest Service
lands' recreational and ecological components are chronically
underfunded, while programs that harm our national forests have
traditionally received too much funding. We urge the Subcommittee to
provide $76 million for Wildlife, Fish, Watershed and Atmospheric
Sciences Research, approximately a $25 million increase over the fiscal
year 2004 President's Budget request. Here in the Sierra, our aquatic
ecosystems are the most impaired systems in the range and further
assessments of our watersheds are greatly needed. We also recommend
$285 million for the Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Program, an
increase of $30 million, as well as $200 million for the Wildlife and
Fisheries Habitat Management Program, an increase of $65 million.
Provide Funding for the purchase of California Wilderness
Inholdings on National Forest Service Land.--There are about 25,000
acres of inholdings in National Forest Wilderness Areas within
California. Numerous inholdings exist in the Sierra Nevada. Each year,
numerous private inholdings are offered for sale by the landowner. It
is essential that the Forest Service acquire these lands as they become
available to protect the ecological integrity of the wilderness areas.
For fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $2,5000,000 to purchase
available inholdings. There is a pressing need for consistent funding
for these forest inholdings as they become available. Annual funding
allocated specifically for critical forest inholdings would allow the
Forest Service to purchase land on a prioritized need basis to prevent
development of lands and protect areas of significant ecological value.
We are also concerned that the proposed fiscal year 2004
President's Budget's for the Forest Service Research and Development
account falls $8 million short of the $260 million needed to prevent
the further erosion of scientific capability within the Forest Service.
Additionally, the Alliance strongly urges the Subcommittee to restore
funding to the Rehabilitation and Restoration program at the fiscal
year 2001 level of $142 million; and to fund Deferred Maintenance and
Infrastructure Improvement at the fiscal year 2002 level of $60
million. These two funds are critically important for mitigating
environmental impacts after severe wildland fire events and for
reducing the $8 billion road maintenance backlog. The Sierra has a
history of suppressing fires and future wildland fire events will
occur. It is imperative that the Forest Service have the resources to
address these severe fires, ideally pro-actively as well as in
response. Therefore, we request that you avoid endorsing the
President's proposal to reduce the number of wildland firefighting
crews and engines by 53 percent, but instead at least double the
wildland fire budget to prepare for a fire season similar to 2000 or
2002.
Fund National Park Service Protection of Natural and Cultural
Resources.--The Sierra Nevada Alliance is grateful for the continued
support of the National Resource Challenge, but an increase of $12.4
million is needed to bring its funding level to $80 million. As a
member of Americans for Our National Parks, we recommend an additional
$178 million over the enacted fiscal year 2003 levels in Park
Operations to adequately protect the natural and cultural resources of
the National Park system, bringing the total NPS Operations
appropriation to $1.63 billion. In the Sierra we have both Yosemite
National Park and Kings Canyon/Sequoia National Parks. Both these
heavily visited parks need funding to protect the natural resources and
ensure visitors for years to come enjoy the same beautiful and
inspiring environment we do today.
Fund Protection of Bureau of Land Management Lands.--In the Sierra
Nevada, 11 percent of our lands are managed by BLM, including numerous
wilderness areas and wilderness study areas. The President's fiscal
year 2004 Budget proposes $43 million for the National Landscape
Conservation System (NLCS), including an increase of $2.7 million for
operations. This funding increase is vital to protect the these
important lands.
For BLM overall, the Alliance recommends an increase of $2 million
for Resource Management Planning above the fiscal year 2004 President's
Budget request of $48 million, to ensure effective public participation
and outreach for new planning starts.
We also endorse the Interior Department's multi-agency Invasive
Species Initiative, and urge the Subcommittee to provide the full $9
million increase for its programs proposed in the fiscal year 2004
President's Budget. In the Sierra, numerous land trusts and watershed
councils have identified significant problems with invasive weeds which
require support for their eradication to restore the natural ecosystem.
In summary, the Sierra Nevada is a unique and valued region of this
nation, and full and adequate funding of Federal conservation programs
is necessary to protect and restore these vibrant lands. Given that
over 50 percent of our Sierra lands are federally owned and managed,
significant cuts to the programs mentioned above have considerable
negative impacts for the Sierra. I strongly encourage your committee to
do everything in its ability to fully fund the conservation programs
mentioned above, for the sake of millions of Americans and future
generations. Please provide $450 million for Federal LWCF, and $2.08
billion for the Conservation Trust Fund.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters
The Society of American Foresters (SAF) represents more than 17,000
forestry professionals. SAF's primary objective is to advance the
science, technology, education, and practice of professional forestry
for the benefit of society. We offer this testimony for the fiscal year
2004 budget for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies. With
the understandable restriction on the length of this testimony, it is
difficult to provide the in-depth analysis we would normally provide
The table below details those items for which we offer suggestions that
differ significantly from the Administration's proposal.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Discretionary appropriations 2003 enacted 2004 proposed SAF request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Inventory and Analysis \1\............................... 55.1 43.3 67.7
===============================================
State and Private Forestry:
Forest Health Management--Federal........................... 50.0 44.5 50.0
Forest Health Management--Cooperative....................... 30.8 25.1 31.0
Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund............................ .............. 12.0 20.0
State Fire Assistance....................................... 25.5 25.4 28.0
Volunteer Fire Assistance................................... 5.0 5.0 6.0
Community and Private Land Fire Assistance.................. .............. .............. 35.0
Forest Stewardship.......................................... 32.0 65.6 50.0
Watershed Forestry Assistance............................... .............. .............. 16.0
Forest Legacy Program....................................... 68.4 90.8 100.0
Urban and Community Forestry................................ 36.0 37.9 40.0
Economic Action Programs.................................... 26.3 .............. 28.7
International Forestry...................................... 5.7 5.1 6.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 284.7 315.8 410.7
===============================================
National Forest System:
Land Management Planning.................................... 71.7 70.9 72.2
Forest Products............................................. 263.6 268.0 271.1
Expedited Consultation...................................... .............. .............. 15.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 1,353.4 1,369.6 1,374.0
===============================================
Wildland Fire Management:
Preparedness................................................ 612.0 609.7 640.0
Fire Operations............................................. 418.0 604.6 605.0
Hazardous Fuels............................................. 226.6 231.4 262.1
Rehabilitation and Restoration.............................. 7.1 .............. 63.0
Fire Research and Development............................... 21.2 21.4 23.0
Joint Fire Sciences Program................................. 7.9 8.0 ..............
Forest Health Management--Cooperative....................... 9.9 5.0 5.0
Economic Action Programs.................................... 5.0 .............. 12.5
State Fire Assistance....................................... 46.2 46.5 58.0
Volunteer Fire Assistance................................... 8.2 8.2 10.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 1,371.0 1,541.8 1,695.6
===============================================
Capital Improvement and Maintenance:
Facilities.................................................. 202.3 200.9 202.3
Roads....................................................... 231.3 245.4 245.4
Infrastructure Improvement.................................. 45.6 .............. 24.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 548.5 524.6 550.0
===============================================
Land Acquisition/L&WCF Total.................................... 132.9 44.1 50.0
===============================================
Other Appropriations............................................ 10.3 10.0 10.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This includes funding normally allocated to S&PF, NFS, and Research. We propose creating a separate line
item for FIA.
Forest and Rangeland Research.--The forest health issues we are
currently facing as a nation require an increased emphasis on research
to achieve solutions. Increases in funding will help increase capacity.
The Agency should also look to innovative partnerships with
universities to further leverage research funding.
Forest Inventory and Analysis.--The FIA program provides a clear
understanding of forest resources, integrating data across all
ownership boundaries. This information is crucial to ensuring forest
management decisions are based in fact. We are concerned with the
Administration's proposed cuts to the FIA program. To achieve the
mandates of the 1998 Farm bill, producing an overall assessment of the
nation's forest resources in a timely manner, FIA program funding must
be set at a minimum of $67.7 million for fiscal year 2004. We also
propose creating a separate line item for the FIA program. There is
confusion in funding FIA through various line items. Consolidation will
provide a complete understanding of all funds available for the FIA
program.
Fire Research.--Last year's wildfires burnt over 7.1 million acres,
we must learn from these fires through research and transfer findings
to those in the field. Improvements in fire management and proper
implementation of the National Fire Plan can only be realized with
scientific discovery, validation, and application supplied by critical
research programs in partnership with all sectors of forestry research
including colleges, universities, and private sector researchers.
State and Private Forestry.--S&PF programs are a vital component of
the sustainable management of the nation's forests. These programs
focus on more than half of the nation's forest land, which supply clean
water and air, recreational opportunities, and forest products.
Development pressures are the primary threat to the sustainability of
private forests. S&PF programs provide tools to help the 9.9 million
landowners resist development pressures and sustain their forests for
the nation's benefit.
Community and Private Land Fire Assistance.--We support full
funding for this program as authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill. The
program enables communities to coordinate wildfire protection planning
as well as undertake special restoration/hazardous fuel reduction
projects, combat invasive species and build local markets for small-
diameter materials. The one ingredient broadly lacking in the National
Fire Plan is local county/community involvement. This program gives
locals the needed incentive to engage in the National Fire Plan.
Forest Stewardship, Forest Legacy, Forest Land Enhancement
Program.--Private forest lands in the United States are increasingly
threatened by several factors, including development pressures, the
increasing need for forest products and services, as well as forest
health concerns. The Federal government has an obligation to ensure
these forests are managed sustainably, as they provide numerous public
goods and services.
While we appreciate the proposal to allocate additional funding for
the Forest Stewardship Program, as an alternative, we suggest that the
proposed $16 million initiative to fund certain predefined stewardship
projects on a competitive challenge cost share, should be eliminated
and instead the funding should be allocated for a new program, the
Watershed Forestry Assistance program. This program, originally
proposed during debate on the 2002 Farm Bill, would address watershed
and water quality issues on private lands in cooperation with State
agencies. This program is similar to the Watershed Restoration and
Enhancement Agreements legislative proposal contained in the 2004
budget.
Emerging Pests and Pathogens Fund.--Invasive species, insects, and
disease pose increasing threats to our public and private forests.
There is a need for a cooperative approach to addressing this issue
across ownership boundaries, as these invaders do not respect property
lines. In 1998, over 54 million acres of forest land were affected by
various insect and diseases. Invasive species are increasingly a
threat, contributing to the decline of 46 percent of imperiled or
endangered species in the United States, second only to habitat
degradation and loss. This program will help address these problems
through rapid response to this overwhelming threat affecting the health
and sustainability of forest resources across the country.
Economic Action Programs.--We strongly oppose elimination of
funding for Economic Action Programs. Local communities utilize these
funds to build their capacity to and contribute to sustainable forest
management. Through EAP, Communities are able to assist with fuels
reduction and other forest health projects and utilize the byproducts
of this work.
National Forest System.--Because of rising stand densities and
mortality rates, the NFS lands are increasingly at risk of fire,
insect, and outbreaks, and invasive species. There is a need for active
and continuous forest management as current management levels are not
adequate to address forest health issues and provide the multiple uses
for which these lands were established. There is a need for revision
and clarification of the laws and regulations that govern national
forest management in light of the changing public values,
administrative agendas, court decisions, and federal environmental laws
that have shifted the emphasis of land management. Without adjustments,
we fear we will continue to see delays and increasing costs for the
land management agencies. SAF will continue to work with Congress and
the Administration to address these issues.
One such example of the increasing cost and delay in land
management is the timber sale component of the Forest Products Program.
The budget documents indicate timber sales can take up to 8 years to
complete. This is unacceptable. Timber harvesting is a legitimate use
of national forests and BLM public lands, as the multiple-use mandates
make clear. Current harvesting levels are insufficient to maintain
forest health, to meet the goals for hazardous fuel reduction to reduce
wildfire and the risk of insect and disease outbreaks in the nation's
forests and provide economic and community benefits.
Adequate funding for land management planning is also necessary to
ensure the Agency continues with the revision schedule for forest
plans. With 39 plans in progress, and another 52 plans that will need
revision in the coming years, the Agency cannot afford backlogs in
planning.
Expedited Consultation.--Without additional funds for the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management to support consultation
required under the Endangered Species Act with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the land management agencies will be unable to do much needed
work in a timely manner, such as fuels reduction and insect and disease
mitigation activities.
Wildland Fire Management--Congress, the Administration, the Western
Governors, the State Foresters, the SAF and numerous others have
expressed strong support for the National Fire Plan, and its four
goals: improve fire prevention and suppression, reduce hazardous fuels,
restore fire-adapted ecosystems, and promote community assistance.
However, the proposed budget does not reflect this support,
particularly with the elimination of funds for Rehabilitation and
Restoration as well as the minimal increase in funding for preparedness
and hazardous fuel activities. Funding for the National Fire Plan needs
to be a sustained effort that will enable the nation as a whole to
develop a long-term solution.
Rehabilitation and Restoration.--In the proposed budget, this
account was eliminated. The funds allocated to rehabilitation and
restorations were placed in suppression accounts, which can be utilized
for Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation activities. Other less
immediate fire-related rehabilitation and restoration projects,
normally funded by the Rehabilitation and Restoration account, will be
prioritized within relevant programs along with other non-fire projects
to ensure accomplishment of the highest priority projects given limited
funding. While this rationale is consistent with the philosophy of
local forest management, we do not believe this is consistent with the
goals of the National Fire Plan. This funding allocation requires
managers to make tradeoffs, when clearly; Congress, the Administration,
and others who support the National Fire Plan believe fire-related
rehabilitation and restoration activities should be a priority. If
however, this is the direction that Congress chooses, the funds
previously allocated for rehabilitation and restoration, should be re-
allocated to the relevant program accounts (i.e. Vegetation Management,
wildlife management, etc.) were the project funding would actually come
from under this proposed strategy. The funds should not be allocated to
suppression, which does not fund these non-emergency projects.
Capital Improvement and Maintenance.--The proposal to fund the
deferred maintenance projects through the facilities, roads, and trails
line items, is somewhat unclear. The deferred maintenance backlog
within the Forest Service is unacceptable, the Agency should work to
address this problem, not ignore it. If funding for this deferred
maintenance is to come from the other line items, there should be
increases in those items to pay for those projects. We encourage the
Agency to adopt a prioritization system for these projects and forward
with implementation.
National Forest Foundation.--The National Forest Foundation
continues to provide outstanding leadership in natural resource
management, providing valuable programs and services to the Agency and
the public. We encourage you to increase funding for the NFF.
Bureau of Land Management.--The BLM manages a total of 262 million
acres of public lands, 55 million of which are forested lands. There is
a significant disconnect between the number of acres of forest land the
BLM manages and the number of forest management experts that are
employed by the BLM. Congress should appropriate increases in funding
to address this disconnect, especially in light of the additional
authority granted under under the Stewardship Contracting provisions.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tumbledown Conservation Alliance
Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony. I am writing
on behalf of the Tumbledown Conservation Alliance (TCA). TCA is a
nonprofit organization in Maine that is dedicated to land conservation
efforts in the Mt. Blue/Tumbledown Mountain region of western Maine. I
am writing specifically in regards to current land protection efforts
that are underway for Tumbledown Mountain.
TCA hopes that the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
(Committee on Appropriations) will support $3 million in fiscal year
2004 funding from the Forest Legacy program to go towards the
protection of Tumbledown Mountain. A lot of progress has been made to
date on this effort with the recent protection of 11,600 acres of land
on and adjacent to the Tumbledown Mountain range.
The Tumbledown Mountain range is one of the most popular hiking
areas in the State. The parcels under consideration are essential for
protection of the range and all of its popular trails. The $3 million
in fiscal year 2004 Forest Legacy funding would allow the State of
Maine to complete the protection of Tumbledown and would be used to
permanently protect important timberland, trailhead areas, wildlife
habitat, and trails. The President's fiscal year 2004 budget includes a
request for Forest Legacy funding for Tumbledown Mountain and we hope
that Congress and the Appropriations Committees will do the same. This
effort to complete the protection of Tumbledown is part of a larger
effort by the State of Maine, non-profit organizations, residents and
visitors to conserve over 30,000 acres in the Mt. Blue/Tumbledown
Mountain region of Maine.
The Tumbledown Conservation Alliance requests that you support $3
million for the fiscal year 2004 Forest Legacy Program for Tumbledown
Mountain. Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Management Institute
The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is submitting its comments
on the U.S. Forest Service's (FS) proposed budget for fiscal 2004. WMI
is a scientific, educational non-profit organization that is staffed by
professional wildlife biologists and is committed to the sustainable
management of wildlife populations and habitats throughout North
America. For 92-years we have worked closely with the FS to identify
wildlife conservation needs and resource management solutions. Our
following comments support a majority of the Administration's budget
requests but includes recommendations for a $25 million increase for
the National Fire Plan's restoration and rehabilitation account and a
$19 million increase for the Forest Service's research and development
program.
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
Overall, WMI supports the Administration's proposed budget for the
National Forest System: $134.8 million for wildlife and fish habitat
management and $192.6 million for vegetation and watershed management.
This proposal represents essentially flat level spending for the FS,
which is definitely appropriate at a time when our nation is in war. It
is important to note, however, that at least $65 million is needed to
address documented needs for wildlife and fish habitat improvements.
The Forest Service has succeeded in using partnership dollars to chip
away at deferred conservation projects, but wildlife and fish habitat
management on national forests and grasslands should not depend only on
the assistance of generous partners. In fiscal 2002 alone, over $5.8
million in FS dollars leveraged almost $13.3 million (includes in-kind
contributions) to complete approximately 719 forest and grassland
projects. WMI encourages your subcommittee to expand the wildlife and
fish habitat management account to the degree that current
circumstances allow.
Similarly, the vegetation and watershed management account needs an
additional $49.4 million to restore and conserve a variety of
ecosystems, including aspen, sagebrush, early successional forests,
prairies/grasslands and old growth forests. Proactive habitat
management benefits not only wild animals and the recreational users
that depend on them, but can simultaneously meet the goals of the
President's Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) and National Fire Plan
(NFP). Therefore, WMI requests that the biological and ecological needs
of wildlife and fish serve as one of the primary factors that guide the
implementation of the HFI and NFP.
Lastly, the spread of non-native, invasive plants is a major
problem among all rangelands, grasslands and forests. Invasive species
thrive in disturbed environments, such as land areas that have been
burned or used for road construction. Since fiscal 2001, substantially
fewer National Forest System acres have been treated to control or
eradicate invasive plants. Using vegetation and watershed management
funds, nearly 144,000 acres were treated in fiscal 2001 but only
100,570 acres were planned for treatment in fiscal 2003 and 75,331
acres are planned for treatment in fiscal 2004. Because the annual
economic cost of invasive plants for farmers, livestock ranchers and
wildlife and fish agencies is estimated at $38 million, WMI urges your
subcommittee to direct the FS to increase its focus on invasive species
management and to treat at least 25,000 more acres in fiscal 2004. We
believe the FS can realize this goal by integrating invasive species
management into the objectives of the wildlife and fish habitat
management program. Deferring this action results in significantly
escalated costs in outlying years.
STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
WMI applauds the Administration for significantly increasing the
funding accounts for Forest Legacy ($91 million total request) and
requesting $25 million for the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP;
previously known as the Stewardship Incentives Program and Forestry
Incentives Program). Forest Legacy projects use conservation easements
to protect non-industrial private forests that are at risk for
conversion to other uses. Private forests provide valuable habitat to
wildlife and approximately 300,000 acres are currently enrolled in the
program. However, the FS has identified 1.7 million private forest land
acres for protection. Thus, WMI asks your subcommittee to endorse the
Administration's $91 million request for Forest Legacy and to promote
similar spending increases in the future as well.
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN
WMI is deeply troubled by the Administration's proposal to zero out
the NFP's restoration and rehabilitation account. In fiscal 2001, this
account received $141.7 million, which decreased to $62.7 million in
fiscal 2002 to $0 in fiscal 2004. The restoration and management of
burned lands is a multi-year project and should not be funded solely by
the National Forest System's accounts for wildlife and fish management
and vegetation and watershed management, as proposed by the
Administration. Since 2000, catastrophic wildfires have occurred on
19.2 million acres of forests and rangelands and the FS is preparing
for another season of intense wildfires. WMI urges your subcommittee to
appropriate at least $25 million for the restoration and rehabilitation
account. Additionally, the FS must be directed to prepare realistic
fire suppression budgets to ensure the agency does not have to borrow
money form National Forest System accounts to combat future wildfires.
Failure to adequately fund these programs will result in both near- and
long-term excessive costs to taxpayers.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Administration proposes flat level spending for research and
development activities concerning wildlife and fish habitat ($18.164
million and $8.572 million, respectively) and watersheds ($18.477
million). WMI encourages your subcommittee to at least support these
funding requests. However, please note that the Forest Service's
wildlife and fish research units have identified a $19 million funding
need for research questions concerning the HFI and invasive species.
For example, it is unclear how certain mammals, such as bats and forest
carnivores, for which research funding is lacking, will respond to the
removal of small diameter timber (need is $1.5 million). Also,
landscape level research is needed to fully assess the impacts of HFI
activities (need is $1 million). As for invasive species research, it
remains unclear how non-native plants and animals impact native fish
and wildlife populations and how native wildlife and fish populations
respond to invasions of non-native organisms (need is $2.5 million).
WMI asks your subcommittee to address these additional research needs
to the best of your ability.
In closing, WMI remains concerned by the Forest Service's
transition to the Budget Formulation and Executing System. This budget
structure relies upon broad performance measurements (e.g., acres of
improved terrestrial habitat and number of products provided for
information and education). This approach makes it impossible for FS
partners to track services provided or benefits received among specific
programs. The agency's new accounting process further exacerbates this
problem because it groups work activities for wildlife, fish and listed
species under one budget line item. To ensure FS projects are
transparent and accessible for public review, WMI urges your
subcommittee to direct the FS to use more specific budget line items
when explaining how requested and appropriated dollars will be spent.
Thank you for reviewing our comments, and we hope to work with you
throughout the appropriations process. If you or your staff would like
to discuss our recommendations further, please contact me or Terry
Riley, Director of Conservation, at (202) 371-1808.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning the fiscal year 2004 budgets for the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA),
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Services (CSREES). The Wildlife
Society is the association of almost 9,000 professional wildlife
biologists and managers dedicated to sound wildlife stewardship through
science and education. The Wildlife Society is committed to
strengthening all federal programs that benefit wildlife and their
habitats on agricultural and other private land.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
Farm Bill Technical Assistance.--We applaud Congress for passing
the 2002 Farm Bill, which authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture
to work with third party Technical Service Providers to build a solid
network of certified professionals that can assist NRCS in delivering
assistance to producers. However, NRCS recognizes that training will be
needed to effectively prepare Technical Service Providers to assist
producers and landowners. The Wildlife Society recommends that Congress
provide NRCS with adequate funds to recruit land grant universities and
colleges, the USDA Extension System, and professional societies to help
train sufficient Technical Service Providers.
Monitoring and Evaluation.--Monitoring Farm Bill conservation
programs and evaluating their progress toward achieving Congressionally
established objectives for soil, water, and wildlife will enable NRCS
to ensure successful program implementation. Changes to agricultural
policy in the 2002 Farm Bill, such as higher funding authorizations and
expanded acreage enrollment caps, necessitate the establishment of an
accountability system that continuously assesses the effectiveness of
conservation programs and policies. The Wildlife Society recommends
dedicating mandatory funding to the monitoring and evaluation of Farm
Bill conservation programs at the $10 million level approved in the
Farm Bill Statement of Managers. We propose using a competitive grants
process to fund a consortium of non-USDA organizations (non-
governmental organizations, universities, and state organizations) for
the purpose of identifying cost-saving practices, program improvements,
and future funding requirements and determining the environmental and
economic value of conservation expenditures.
Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP).--We would like to express our gratitude for your continued
support of WRP and for authorizing WHIP in 2003. WRP is a valuable
program designed to assist farmers and ranchers protect and restore
wetland habitat. WHIP is a voluntary program that provides technical
and financial support to farmers and ranchers to create high quality
wildlife habitat. The Wildlife Society supports funding WRP at $250
million in fiscal year 2004. We are concerned that the Administration's
request for WHIP, $42 million for 2004, is well below the 2002 Farm
Bill's authorized amount of $275 million. The Wildlife Society
recommends funding WHIP at $275 million in 2004.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY
Staff Years.--FSA requires an adequate budget to implement the Farm
Bill conservation programs under its administration. The Wildlife
Society is concerned that the staffing level of 16,701 FTE proposed by
the Administration in 2004 is too low to address the demonstrated need
of agricultural producers. The Wildlife Society recommends that the
budget include sufficient personnel funding to maintain the 2003
requested level of 19,337 FTE.
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP).--We believe the GRP will be
valuable in aiding landowners in their grassland restoration efforts.
The Wildlife Society supports the Administration's 2004 request of $85
million for GRP.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).--CRP is popular with
landowners, and has resulted in significant wildlife and habitat
benefits on agricultural land. Current demand for the program is on the
rise, as is demand for technical assistance associated with
implementation of CRP. The Wildlife Society recommends maintaining CRP
enrollment at 39.2 million acres as finalized in the 2002 Farm Bill.
Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP).--The Forest Land
Enhancement Program was created through the 2002 Farm Bill to provide
financial, technical, educational, and related assistance to promote
sustainable management of non-industrial private forestlands. The
program is authorized at $100 million for 2002-2007, to be distributed
through state forestry agencies. The Wildlife Society asks that
Congress appropriate at least $20 million to FLEP in 2004 to ensure
that private forestlands continue to provide sustainable forest
products and protect the health of our water, air, and wildlife.
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
Wildlife Services.--Wildlife Services (WS), a unit of APHIS, is
responsible for controlling wildlife damage to agriculture,
aquaculture, forest, range and other natural resources, for controlling
wildlife-borne diseases, and for controlling wildlife at airports. Its
activities are based on the principles of wildlife management and
integrated damage management, and are carried out cooperatively with
State fish and wildlife agencies.
The Wildlife Society is concerned about the proposed $1.5 million
decrease in funding for Methods Development for 2004. Many current
wildlife control tools such as traps, snares and wildlife toxicants are
becoming less acceptable to the public and are being prohibited in many
states as the result of public referenda. The only credible way to
identify and perfect new methods is through research. However, WS
funding is only adequate to cover maintenance and operating costs and
no funding is being provided for the development of new innovative
wildlife damage management methods. The Wildlife Society requests a $5
million increase for Methods Development to adequately continue non-
lethal methods research and address the increased operating and
maintenance costs.
Veterinary Services.--Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a serious
problem plaguing our Nation's deer and elk. The spread of CWD is
draining already diminished federal and state agency budgets and is
hurting local economies that depends on revenues from recreational
hunting. The Wildlife Society supports the Administration's request of
$14.9 million for the research, monitoring, and control of CWD.
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND EXTENSION SERVICES
Renewable Resources Extension Act.--The Wildlife Society was
pleased that Congress appropriated $423,000 above the Administration's
request for the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) in 2003. RREA
provides an expanded, comprehensive extension program for forest and
rangeland renewable resources. The need for these programs is greater
now than ever due to fragmentation of ownerships, urbanization, the
number and diversity of landowners needing assistance, and the
increasing social concern for land use and its effect on soil, water,
air, and wildlife.
It is important to note that RREA was reauthorized in the 2002 Farm
Bill at $30 million annually through 2007. Though RREA is proven to be
effective at leveraging cooperative state and local funding, it has
never been fully funded in the annual appropriations process. In fact,
the fiscal year 2004 request for RREA falls back to the 2002 funding
level, $4.093 million, which is insufficient for assisting private
landowners who own and manage most of the nation's natural resources.
An increase to at least $15 million would enable CSREES to expand its
capability to assist more private landowners in improving management of
private land while increasing farm revenue. Therefore The Wildlife
Society recommends that the Renewable Resources Extension Act be funded
at a minimum of $15 million in fiscal year 2004.
McIntire-Stennis.--The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry
program funds state efforts in forestry research to increase the
efficiency of forestry practices, and to extend the benefits that come
from forest and related rangelands. McIntire-Stennis calls for close
coordination between state colleges and universities and the Federal
Government, and is essential for providing research background for
other Acts, such as RREA. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 request
for McIntire-Stennis is $21.884 million, in essence level with 2002 and
2003. The Wildlife Society recommends that funding for McIntire-Stennis
Cooperative Forestry be increased to $30 million.
National Research Initiative.--National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants (NRI) are open to academic institutions, federal
agencies, and private organizations to fund research on improving
agricultural practices, particularly production systems that are
sustainable both environmentally and economically, and to develop
methods for protecting natural resources and wildlife. Innovative grant
programs such as NRI help broaden approaches to land management, such
as integrating timber and wildlife management on private lands. The
Wildlife Society supports the Administration's 2004 request of $200
million for National Research Initiative Competitive Grants, and
requests Congressional approval.
Thank you for considering the views of wildlife professionals. We
look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure adequate
funding for wildlife conservation.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy
My name is David Nemtzow, President of the Alliance to Save Energy,
a bi-partisan, non-profit coalition of business, government,
environmental, and consumer leaders committed to promoting energy
efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier economy, a cleaner
environment and energy security. I am writing to request, generally,
that funding for the energy efficiency programs of the U.S. Department
of Energy be increased, and that the Buildings Technologies, and
Industrial Technologies programs be restored to their fiscal year 2002
levels--$9.8 million, and $41.3 million respectively. Specifically, our
top priority recommendations, totaling $8.0 million, are set forth
below.
The Alliance was founded in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy (R-IL)
and Hubert Humphrey (D-MN). The current Chair is Senator Byron Dorgan,
and Vice-Chairs are Senators: Susan Collins; Jeff Bingaman; James
Jeffords and Representative Ed Markey. Seventy-six companies and
organizations currently belong to the Alliance.
The Alliance has a long history of researching and evaluating
federal energy efficiency programs. We also have a long history of
supporting efforts to promote energy efficiency that rely not on
mandatory federal regulations, but on partnerships between government
and business and between the federal and State governments. DOE
efficiency programs are largely voluntary programs that further the
national goals of broad-based economic growth, environmental
protection, national security and economic competitiveness. The Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy does this through the
development of new energy-efficient technology in cooperation with the
national laboratories, by working with the private sector to deploy
that technology, and by fostering energy efficiency activities in the
states.
I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2004
budget for energy-efficiency programs at the Department of Energy.
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST
We have two general concerns regarding the fiscal year 2004
request.
First, it proposes reductions of roughly 4 and 2 percent from
fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 appropriations, respectively.
Given the current volatility in energy prices, the continuing economic
slowdown, and the insecurity of the nation's energy systems and
supplies, we believe that now is not the time to be cutting back on
investments in energy efficiency--the nation's cheapest, quickest, and
cleanest energy resource.
Second, the fiscal year 2004 request proposes cutting existing and
successful programs in order to pay for increases for Weatherization
Assistance and the fuel cell programs. The Alliance strongly supports
both of these recommendations. We have serious concerns, however, that
while the Administration is proposing $674 billion in tax cuts as a
part of an economic stimulus plan there are decreases in other programs
that have demonstrated their ability to create jobs and stimulate the
economy.
In 2001, the National Research Council found that for 17 DOE energy
efficiency programs they analyzed, there was a return of $20 to the
economy for every dollar invested. These rates-of-return compare
favorably with most investment opportunities including the stimulus
effect anticipated from tax reductions. In a time of recession and
high, volatile energy prices, we should be substantially increasing our
investment in these successful programs instead of using them to fund
other initiatives.
By our calculation, the fiscal year 2004 budget request would
reduce funding for non-fuel cell, nonweatherization programs by more
than 20 percent as compared to fiscal year 2002. That includes programs
with proven cost-effectiveness such as: Lighting and Appliance
Standards, Energy Star, the Federal Energy Management Program, Windows
R&D, support for state adoption of building energy codes and other
programs that have reduced national energy demand, cut energy costs for
consumers, and created jobs through the commercialization of new
technologies and products. We urge that funding for the Buildings and
Industrial Technologies accounts be restored to their fiscal year 2002
levels.
For example, the appliance standards program has been acknowledged
by DOE to have reduced national peak electric demand by 2.5 percent.
That is a huge accomplishment, achieved at a federal cost of less than
$10 million per year. Equally large savings remain available assuming
continued funding support. In fact, even the existing limitations on
appropriations have caused DOE to fall years--sometimes up to ten
years--behind on setting standards for products that could be providing
savings for consumers and the economy. Moreover, Congress is poised to
enact legislation that would substantially increase the number of
rulemakings that DOE would be required to undertake. What is the logic
of cutting this program?
Another program that was praised by the National Research Council
is the Industries of the Future Program (IOF). IOF has historically
worked in consultation with energy intensive industries to assess
research needs and focus on the greatest value added for government R&D
efforts. DOE seems to have largely abandoned this approach in the 2004
budget, cutting chemical, forest and paper products industries, and
other program areas by more than 50 percent. In addition, the
Administration has zeroed out efforts to continue similar successes in
the buildings sector, eliminating its roadmap programs for lighting and
windows. The justification for eliminating these programs appears to be
that, if they are worth doing, then industry will fund it. Several
analyses of government R&D efforts have shown that this does not hold
true (Galvin, Yergin).
NEW MONEY IS NECESSARY
We have now had two gasoline and two natural gas price spikes in
three years. Our energy prices and supplies continue their instability,
costing consumers dearly to fill their gas tanks and heat their homes,
and sending shocks through the economy. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is
the wrong approach to national energy policy. The President's fiscal
year 2004 cuts in energy efficiency are the wrong approach. We agree
that new energy efficiency research objectives need to be met, but
funding should be increased to do so instead of cutting back on other
equally important objectives.
HYDROGEN
Hydrogen has potential to replace oil as the fuel to power our
transportation system, but there are major technological problems to be
solved. We cannot predict whether those hurdles will be overcome by the
time those born this year will become drivers, as anticipated by the
President in his State of the Union speech, or whether it will take
much longer. Research and development, by its very nature, is
uncertain. It is often compared to a financial investment portfolio.
Diversity, and balancing risk are key considerations in developing an
effective investment, or R&D, strategy. No one knows for certain
whether large-scale use of hydrogen for transportation will ever become
practical, let alone in the next 16 years.
Just one of the critical questions which has not yet been answered
is; how to make the hydrogen? Currently, the best way to make hydrogen
is from natural gas. But natural gas is currently used to heat 55
percent of American homes and is expected to fuel nearly all new
domestic electric generation capacity added during the next decade.
Surely, the addition of powering our extensive transportation system
from natural gas will invalidate current assumptions about the future
price and supply of natural gas--a commodity already undergoing
tremendous price volatility.
Accordingly, we should not curtail work on increasing the
efficiency with which our building and industrial sectors use natural
gas, or DOE's work on improving hybrid technology and other
transportation fuel efficiency technologies simply because hydrogen has
the potential to be a long-term solution to transportation efficiency.
Such a strategy does not properly balance the risks of failure with the
likelihood of success.
ANOMALIES IN THE BUDGET REQUEST
The Alliance is confounded by certain reductions in the President's
budget request between fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
For fiscal year 2003, DOE requested $6.2 million for the Energy
Star program. That figure was supported in both the House and Senate
Interior Appropriations bills passed last year--though reduced to $4.2
million by the Conference Committee under the stringent caps of the
Omnibus legislation. The fiscal year 2004 request is for $3.7 million,
a 14 percent cut from fiscal year 2003 actual appropriations and a 40
percent cut from the fiscal year 2003 request. Why does Energy Star, a
program which produces $75 in savings for every dollar spent, and which
received glowing support in the National Energy Plan, merit such less
consideration this year than last?
Another drastic change occurred in the request for the Federal
Energy Management Program. For fiscal year 2003, the President
requested $27.9 million for this very successful effort to save energy
in the federal government, the world's single largest energy user. FEMP
has played a central role in the federal government's success in
reducing energy use by 21 percent from 1985 to 2000. Nevertheless, the
fiscal year 2004 request is $19.9 million. Again, there is no
indication of why FEMP has been targeted for such significant
reduction.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Since the reorganization of EERE last year, the budget request
includes the new Program Management account, to be funded at $76.66
million in fiscal year 2004.
Previously, each of the energy-use sector programs had its own
program management account to cover salaries and administrative costs.
Now, these funds are consolidated in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary to be disbursed at their discretion. While, the Alliance has
no objection to discretion, such discretion need not preclude
transparency. We believe that there should be greater disclosure
regarding the intended allocation of these funds so that Congress and
the public will have a clear view and understanding of the total budget
that is recommended for each major program area. In fact, we remain
confused about the fiscal year 2004 funding levels for some programs
because it is uncertain how much of these ``program management'' funds
they will be receiving.
EERE REORGANIZATION
Last year, our testimony presented several questions about the
reorganization at EERE. After a year of experience, it is time to ask
them again.
--Does the reorganization itself create shifts in program priority
for EERE, and what are they?
--For which programs does the reorganization make it harder, or
easier, to do business?
--How does the mandated routing of all communication activities
through the Assistant Secretary's office enhance or detract
from the office's ability to get its message out?
RECOMMENDATIONS
Generally, the Alliance to Save Energy recommends that the
activities under the Building Technologies and Industrial Technologies
sectors be restored to fiscal year 2002 levels. Specifically, the
Alliance recommends the following fiscal year 2004 funding levels:
--Lighting and Appliance Standards (under Equipment, Materials and
Tools)--plus $2.0 million over the request, to $11.0 million;
--Federal Energy Management Program--plus $2.0 million, to $22.0
million;
--Energy Star--plus $2.0 million, to $5.7 million;
--Industrial Best Practices (under Industries of the Future,
crosscutting)--at the requested level of $8.24 million;
--Window Technologies (under Building Envelop R&D)--plus $1.0 million
to $4.5 million; and
--State Building Codes (under State Energy Program, Building Tech.
Assist.)--plus $1.0 million, to $2.8 million.
Other programs deserving of increased funding are: Thermal
Insulation and Building Materials; Clean Cities; Industrial Assessment
Centers; Industries of the Future--Specific; Building America; and
Sensors and Control Technologies.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for offering the Alliance to Save
Energy the opportunity to submit its views, and for your support in
past years for energy efficiency. We hope that you share our commitment
to energy efficiency and to the economic, environmental, and security
benefits it offers the nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Allison Transmission Division of General
Motors, Indianapolis, IN
REQUEST
Our companies are competitively developing Heavy Duty hybrid
electric propulsion systems (HD Hybrid) for Trucks and Buses. At the
same time, we have pre-competitively established common objectives that
we agree to jointly pursue in order to enable these products to come to
market. All of our companies have encountered barriers to
commercialization so significant that we have collectively agreed
Federal assistance is essential to overcome them. We jointly request
that the committee increase the Department of Energy's 2004 budget for
the Hybrid and Electric Propulsion Program as shown in the table at the
end of this testimony. The Department of Energy should be instructed to
``use these additional funds for the acceleration of Heavy Duty Hybrid
Development, without stipulation of vehicle fuel type, architecture or
configuration, to enable the development of solutions that best meet
the needs of the trucking industry''.
BACKGROUND
Our goals are to develop HD Hybrid propulsion products, overcome
the technical barriers that inhibit the technology and stimulate market
demand for these products. In essence, we are attempting to create a
new, globally competitive industrial base in the United States that
will significantly benefit the Transportation sector. Our approach is
to create an environment that is conducive to the accomplishment of our
goals. Our plan is to educate interested parties as to why HD Trucks
and HD Hybrids are important, explain why HD Trucks and HD Hybrids
differ from those used in Cars, Light Duty Trucks, SUV's and Combat
Vehicles, to outline why Government assistance is needed and to
summarize our technology priorities.
THE DILEMMA OF HEAVY DUTY (HD) TRUCKS
The average American does not understand or care why HD Trucks are
important. Quite the contrary, the prevailing attitude toward HD Trucks
ranges from indifference to outright hostility. They are dirty, noisy
and smelly and many of them aren't pretty. Americans have to share the
roads with them. Such trucks intimidate automobile drivers and are
perceived to cause accidents, clog traffic and ruin the roads. It's no
wonder that looking for public policy support for HD Trucks is
difficult. Trucks are unpopular, but, the average American doesn't
realize that America can't economically survive without them and
Americans cannot live without them.
THE IMPORTANCE OF HD TRUCKS
America's economy runs on trucks. Virtually everything we own was
transported by a HD Truck at least once, if not multiple times, to
bring it to our homes or the place where we purchased it. If you have
it, it came by truck and when you're through with it, a truck will take
it away. According to both the 1993 and 1997 U.S. DOT Commodity Flow
Survey Studies, 72 percent of the dollar value of goods shipped in the
United States was shipped by truck. Furthermore, trends such as Just-
In-Time (JIT) delivery and E-commerce are pushing our dependency on
shipping higher. A report titled ``Economic Effects of Transportation,
the Freight Story'', January 2002 by ICF Consulting and HLB Decision
Economics outlines the causes and effects of this paradigm shift. The
Motor Carrier Act of 1980 deregulated trucking, which led to increased
competition in interstate transportation markets. This caused trucking
companies to cut their profit margins and increase efficiency to
survive, which led to lower shipping costs. Business managers soon
recognized this trend and invented JIT delivery, exploiting the trend
by trading inventory cost for shipping cost to save money. Inventory
costs of business were reduced from 8.2 percent of GDP in 1981 to 3.6
percent of GDP in 1999 and at the same time, shipping costs were
reduced from 7.4 percent of GDP in 1980 to 6 percent of GDP in 1988 and
after. This resulted in more money available to suppliers of goods and
less to the trucking industry despite increasing ton-mile volumes,
which helped fuel the pre-Y2K economic expansion we enjoyed. The other
significant effect is that the Nation's economy is now considerably
more dependent on reliable, low-cost freight due to reduced
inventories. In summary, trucking is extremely important to our
Nation's economy, even though most Americans take it for granted.
THE IMPORTANCE OF HD HYBRID TRUCKS
HD Hybrid makes trucks cleaner and more efficient. In an era of
increasing ton-mile shipping volumes, fueled by the economic phenomenon
described above, this is a very important consideration. HD Hybrid can
reduce Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) up to 50 percent and improve fuel
economy up to 50 percent, depending on the driving cycle. Other
technologies that are being developed and introduced to meet EPA 2004
emissions regulations (in 2002 for those companies that are party to
the consent decree) such as Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) improve
emissions but degrade fuel economy. HD Engine company representatives
have stated that 2004 compliant engines reduce fuel economy as much as
10 percent. Considering the trucking industry's razor thin margins, the
cost increase driven by 10 percent poorer fuel economy could be
devastating to both the trucking industry and the Nation's economy.
With HD Hybrid, you don't have to sacrifice efficient for clean.
Interestingly enough, HD Hybrid is a multiplier of other advanced
truck and bus technologies. It complements, enhances and integrates
with improvements in engines, aerodynamics, safety, aftertreatment
devices, anti-idling systems, traction control and intelligent
transportation concepts. It does this because of its advanced computer
control system and its inherent power management capability. HD Hybrid
can have the effect on HD Trucks that stringent fuel economy and
emissions regulations coupled with savvy foreign competition and
increasing customer expectations has had on passenger cars. These
market forces caused the automakers to more fully integrate their
vehicles and meet emissions regulations, improve fuel economy and offer
higher quality, more competitive products. HD Hybrid is a unifying
technology that enables Engine, Truck and HD Component Manufacturers to
work together in an Integrated Product Team (IPT) fashion to enhance
the competitiveness of their products.
Looking forward, HD Hybrid is an integral part of the technology
roadmap for fuel cell powered and all-electric HD Trucks and Buses. A
fuel cell has no spinning shaft for power take-off and connection to a
mechanical transmission and driveshaft. You put hydrogen in, and
electricity and water vapor come out. But electricity alone cannot move
a truck. HD Hybrid brings with it the electric drive technology that a
fuel cell needs to become a propulsion system. And, the Japanese
trucking industry is already moving forward with HD Hybrid, spearheaded
by a Government wide METI initiative
HOW HD TRUCKS DIFFER FROM LD VEHICLES
This subject is worth discussing to address the common perception
that investments in Passenger Car technology benefit HD Trucks. First,
it is important to understand the definitions of Light Duty (LD) vs.
Heavy Duty (HD) vehicles. LD vehicles (and Trucks) are those that fall
into Classes 1 and 2a, which contain vehicles such as Passenger Cars
(Pass Cars), Light Trucks (such as the GMC/Chevy 1500 series pick-up
truck), Minivans and most Sport-Utility Vehicles (SUV's). HD Trucks are
everything else, that is, all vehicles that exceed 8,500 lbs Gross
Vehicle Weight (GVW), which are Classes 2b through 8. This cross
section of vehicles includes Tractor-Trailers, Delivery Vans, Refuse
and Dump Trucks, UPS and FedEx Package Vans, Buses, even large pick-up
trucks such as the GMC/Chevy 2500 and 3500 series are in the HD class.
A summary of characteristics that differ between LD and HD vehicles
relative to North American markets is shown below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy duty (HD) LD trucks and pass.
Characteristic trucks cars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW).. 8,500 to 80,000 lbs. Up to 8,500 lbs.
Duty cycle.................. Continuous daily Intermittent light
operation. duty
Peak horsepower............. 150 to 600.......... 70 to 300
Continuous horsepower....... 150 to 600.......... 25 to 60
Annual mileage.............. 20,000 to 250,000 8,000 to 20,000
miles. miles
Expected lifetime........... Up to 1,000,000 150,000 miles
miles.
Purchase price (not incl. $40,000 to $150,000. $12,000 to $40,000
bus).
Market volume (annual)...... 800,000............. 18,000,000
Number of configuration Millions............ A few thousand
variants.
Fuel of choice.............. Diesel.............. Gasoline
Fuel consumption............ 5 to 15 MPG......... 14 to 40 MPG
Who buys it................. The fleet manager... The driver
Who drives it............... A hired driver...... The owner
Buyers priority............. Reliability, Low I like it/Want it
ownership cost.
Emissions certification..... Engine only......... Vehicle level
Certification responsibility Engine manufacturer. Vehicle manufacturer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These factors have caused HD Truck and LD Vehicle markets and
industries to behave very differently. Their markets, products,
business models, revenue streams and regulatory environments are
completely different. Technologies resulting from Basic Research can be
transferable between the industries but the products of Applied
Research and beyond are market specific. In summary, the HD Truck and
LD Vehicle technologies and corresponding investments in them are
complimentary, but they leverage each other only at the most basic
level.
How HD Trucks differ from Military (Combat) Vehicles.--Likewise, HD
Trucks are significantly different than Combat vehicles. Arguments have
been made that investments the DOD is making in hybrid electric for
programs such as Future Combat System (FCS) should yield technology
that is transferable to HD Trucks. As with hybrid technology developed
for cars, military hybrid technology is complimentary, but only
transferable at the basic level. Applied technologies are still unique
for HD Trucks. A summary of characteristics that differ between Combat
Vehicles and HD Trucks aids in understanding this concept and is shown
below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy duty (HD)
Characteristic trucks FCS combat vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty cycle.................. Continuous daily Intermittent duty
operation.
Annual mileage.............. 20,000 to 250,000 600 to 2,000 miles
miles.
Expected lifetime........... Up to 1,000,000 40,000 miles
miles.
Purchase price (not incl. $40,000 to $150,000. $500,000 to
bus). $6,000,000
Market volume (annual)...... 800,000............. 1,000
Number of configuration Millions............ Less than 100
variants.
Who buys it................. The fleet manager... The Army
Who drives it............... A hired driver...... A Soldier
Buyers priority............. Reliability, Low Performance
ownership cost.
Emissions certification..... Engine only......... Not Required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Government Assistance is Needed.--The preceding paragraphs have
established the importance of trucking to the Nation's economy and
highlighted that HD Hybrid is a technology that offers increased
efficiency with a simultaneous emissions reduction. HD Hybrid can
enhance Energy and Economic Security as well as favorably impact the
attainment of Air Quality Standards. It was also noted that technology
investments in Light Duty vehicle technology have marginal impact on
Heavy Duty Trucks, production volumes are much smaller than that of
cars, and that the trucking industry operates on very slim profit
margins due to the competition created by deregulation. As a result, HD
Hybrid is a technology that offers significant benefit to the public
good, but due to the economic factors discussed above the trucking
industry cannot afford it. This is where the Government can help.
Through prudent investment in key technologies, and by assuring that
sufficient testing experience is available to overcome consumer
reluctance, the Government can help Industry get this technology ``over
the hump'', to the point that it will stand on its own with a strong
business case driven by proven Life Cycle Cost payback and superior
residual value to trucking firms.
Therefore, we respectfully ask the Subcommittee to Increase the
Department of Energy's 2004 budget for the Hybrid and Electric
Propulsion Program as shown in the table below. The Department of
Energy should be instructed to ``use these additional funds for the
acceleration of Heavy Duty Hybrid Development, without stipulation of
vehicle fuel type, architecture or configuration, to enable the
development of solutions that best meet the needs of the trucking
industry''.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2004 21CT
Hybrid and electric propulsion line item President's partnership 21CT plus-up
request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Storage.................................................. 28,700 32,700 4,000
Advanced Power Electronics...................................... 13,690 17,690 4,000
Subsystem Integration and Development........................... 7,173 11,173 4,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our technology priorities are Power Management Technology, Building
the Component Supplier Base, Engine & Aftertreatment Integration,
Electric Machines and Drive Units, Component & System Reliability
Growth and Component & System Modeling & Simulation. The first two
priorities map in to the Energy Storage and Advanced Power Electronics
line items. The remaining four priorities map into the Subsystem
Integration and Development line item.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Gas Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
American Gas Association (AGA), comprising 191 natural gas distribution
companies across North America, serving 60 million homes and businesses
in all 50 states, we offer this testimony related to the US Department
of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 2004 Budget. AGA is pleased with the
productive partnership it has with DOE and this Subcommittee to advance
cost-shared research projects that serve the national interest. Within
the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction, DOE's fiscal year 2004 budget
request for natural gas RD&D programs reside in the Offices of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and Fossil Energy (FE). For the
past decade we have provided this Subcommittee with a litany of
technology priorities across a broad spectrum of programs. While AGA
continues to support programs such as natural gas vehicles and
industrial RD&D, two top priorities and programs have emerged: FE's
natural gas infrastructure and EERE's distributed energy resource (DER)
programs. The Administration requested no funding for natural gas
infrastructure research in the fiscal year 2004 budget, compared with
$9.1 million appropriated by Congress for the current year. AGA
respectfully requests an increase of $25 million to the budget request
for Infrastructure programs. Justification for this $15.9 million
increase over the current level is discussed below. EERE's fiscal year
2004 DER request is virtually unchanged from fiscal year 2003 at the
level of $58.8 million and AGA respectfully requests an increase of $10
million for a total of $68.8 million. The purpose of the amendment
request is discussed below.
AGA's prioritization and funding request reflects the nation's
immediate need for, and the Industry's commitment to, dramatic
advancement in the areas of infrastructure and DER. The horrible
terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, make clear the needed re-
investment in infrastructure both to facilitate greater reliance on
domestic energy resources and to ensure the secure distribution of
those national assets to American consumers. Increased emphasis on
Homeland Security also highlights the value of a power generation
portfolio that is distributed, reliable, cost-effective and able to
operate independently even if a central power station or the electric
grid is compromised. Given these needs and our commitment to reliable
and safe service for the American people, the Natural Gas Industry has
developed two initiatives aimed at dramatically advancing
Infrastructure and DER, they include the Natural Gas Partnership and
the National Accounts Energy Alliance.
The Office of Management and Budget proposes to terminate funding
for the natural gas infrastructure program in DOE. The American Gas
Association strongly supports the DOE's program for natural gas
industry Infrastructure and Operations. This program was initiated in
fiscal year 2001 with an appropriation of $4.9 million for
infrastructure and has been met by tremendous enthusiasm and project
cost sharing within the natural gas industry. More than 70 proposals,
totaling in excess of $45 million, were submitted by industry partners
in response to the inaugural year funding under the DOE program. These
proposals exceeded the available dollars by a nine-to-one margin. All
proposals met or exceeded DOE's 35 percent cost-sharing requirement.
Congress appropriated $9.1 million for fiscal year 2003 and all
indications are that industry partners will respond at least as
enthusiastically as last year. Given the need to revitalize the
Nation's aging natural gas infrastructure with new technologies and
materials, given the heightened importance of safeguarding that
infrastructure, and given the overwhelming response of the natural gas
industry to partnering with the government to achieve these objectives,
AGA highly recommends the continuation and expansion of this program by
$15.9 million in fiscal year 2004.
In general, DOE's infrastructure R&D is geared to its mission to
make the nation's energy infrastructure more reliable, efficient and
able to meet the needs of the economy. It tends to have longer-term
benefits. DOE's programs include projects such as: more corrosion-
resistant material that can transport gas at higher pressure, more fuel
efficient compressors that are capable of flexible compression
operation, improved automated data acquisition, system monitoring and
control techniques, no dig technologies, innovative excavation and
restoration systems, and plastic pipe technology. All of these
contribute to public benefits in terms of additional domestic energy
supply, increased safety and reliability, lower cost to consumers, and
improved environmental performance.
The natural gas industry provides substantial cost sharing in the
development of the technologies necessary to develop this new
infrastructure. We do believe that there are significant benefits that
will accrue to all Americans as a result of an infrastructure research
partnership. We know that major and novel system improvements are
needed for natural gas to be delivered in the volumes that DOE believes
will be required in the future and that these improvements are
dependent on new, highly efficient technologies.
Some in the Office of Management and Budget argue that all natural
gas infrastructure research should be conducted exclusively by the
Department of Transportation. Currently, the Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS) in DOT does conduct limited infrastructure-related work.
Consistent with its role as a pipeline safety regulatory agency, OPS's
pipeline R&D has focused on near-term safety, security and damage
prevention projects and technologies, and codes and standards
development. DOE focuses on the long term energy delivery issues
related to natural gas infrastructure. Although, both departments are
involved in R&D, the departments have different missions and their R&D
programs reflect it.
Coordination between the two departments is critical and AGA
recommends a balance of both security, safety, reliability and
efficiency related work. The research programs in each department are
extremely essential.
Meeting a large increase in demand efficiently and in a manner that
is in the best interest of the American people will require continued
cooperation among DOE, DOT, and the natural gas industry to develop the
necessary research tools. It is clear that immediate and substantial
investment in research supporting natural gas infrastructure is
essential to ensuring energy reliability and security in our Nation.
The natural gas industry's commitment to partnering with the
Departments of Energy and Transportation is underscored by AGA's
creation and advocacy of legislation that sets aside industry funds to
compliment federal research expenditures on natural gas infrastructure.
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES--NATIONAL ACCOUNTS ENERGY ALLIANCE (NAEA)
Efforts to test and deploy technologies being developed under the
DER program in EERE are significantly under-funded. Private sector
interest in these technologies is compelling. The Office of Power
Technologies receives nearly ten solicitation applications (each
application is typically developed by an entire team of companies) for
every award it makes. While more manufacturers are entering the market,
and dramatically more attention from states, power providers and end-
users is focused on DER, significant RD&D requirements abound. DER
provides the opportunity for efficient use of waste heat to achieve
total system efficiency levels as high as 80 percent. This compares to
large central power plant efficiencies that are typically less than
half as efficient largely due to their inability to productively use
all of their waste heat. Further, the higher efficiency of DER systems
inherently leads to lower emissions since these systems use less fuel,
and typically cleaner feedstock fuels, than central power plants to
achieve a given unit of power output. Many utilities are now exploring
the utilization of DER to reduce the strain on congested transmission
systems. On-site DER systems are especially important for high-tech and
mission-critical facilities as they offer dramatic increases in power
quality and reliability. The national economy is inextricably linked to
information and electronically sensitive computer systems that require
uninterruptible power that the 50+ year old electric grid was not
designed to serve. Mission-critical systems, be it in high-tech,
healthcare, manufacturing, or government facilities, are enhanced by
DER.
DOE has spent tens of millions of dollars developing individual DER
technologies over the past decade. However, tremendous work remains in
the areas of system development, advanced controls and sensors, power
quality and reliability, storage, and interconnection. DOE has studied
the technical, regulatory, market and institutional barriers to
widespread utilization of DER and has worked to promote commercial
acceptance. However, to date, these programs have failed to capture the
vision of large commercial end-users at the corporate or headquarters
level--NAEA is focused on affecting targeted change at this point.
Few of the potential benefits from the Department's research
investments will be realized if these technologies are not adequately
tested and if initial deployment is not targeted to commercial
applications with large potential for replication. The National
Accounts Energy Alliance (NAEA) started in fiscal year 2002 and was
envisioned as a four-year cost-shared initiative aimed at developing
highly-efficient, technology driven, new construction and retrofit
models for the nation's largest end-users, in partnership with their
energy providers. The American Gas Association, Gas Technology
Institute and American Gas Foundation have come together to establish
NAEA. NAEA's members comprise the nation's largest energy providers
(electric and natural gas) as well as almost two dozen end-users such
as McDonalds, Wal-Mart Stores, TJ Maxx, the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Com (A&P).
The nation's electric grid faces many technology challenges ranging
from generation shortfalls to transmission and distribution
constraints. The utilization of distributed energy resources (DER) is
widely considered to be the cheapest, cleanest and most obtainable
near-term solution to many of these challenges. DER systems can be
sited where the power is needed and can be utilized with energy
efficiency ratings exceeding 80 percent (compared to 29 percent
efficiency for the electric grid) where waste heat is recaptured and
reused. DOE has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years
developing DER technologies but many technical, regulatory and
institutional barriers remain. This is especially true for
incorporation into new construction or retrofits of large commercial
end-users. NAEA was created to address these barriers squarely by
working with large commercial entities, at the headquarters-level, to
develop new and standardized construction models incorporating advanced
DER systems. Typically, all of these construction efforts are based on
a central construction model, with a handful of geographic-based
options. Additionally, a missing ingredient to DOE's past deployment
programs was an energy Technology Test and Verification Program
(TT&VP). DER testing and technology adoption by national accounts is
the fastest way to perform testing, disseminate the results widely,
make necessary technology and applications corrections and subsequently
rapidly deploy improved systems. Because of fierce competition,
standardization, central design services and extensive building
programs, it is extremely difficult for national accounts to perform
such tests on newly emerging technologies like DER because of their
impact upon facility design.
At its inception NAEA focused on retail, supermarket and food
service industries. In fiscal year 2003 and beyond, NAEA will expand
its membership to include a broader segment of the healthcare, high-
tech and telecommunications, hotel, and targeted manufacturing
industries. This program illustrates the commitment of the natural gas
industry and its partners to deploy the research being conducted under
the DER technology areas.
We respectfully request that the Subcommittee add $10 million to
the DER budget for consortiums such as the National Accounts Energy
Alliance to conduct technology verification tests and build
partnerships of key stakeholders for the rapid deployment of
distributed energy technologies.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, AGA is giving great emphasis to developing
comprehensive programs across end-use sectors that complement each
other and provide cheaper energy to the end-user, while reducing
emissions and improving energy efficiency, quality, and reliability.
And, the infrastructure research partnership between DOE and the
natural gas industry will also have significant benefits in terms of
safety, reliability, cleaner air and economic growth that will accrue
to all Americans. AGA greatly appreciates your past support and
consideration of these proposals.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Iron and Steel Institute
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony this
year. Our testimony concerns fiscal year 2004 funding for the Office of
Industrial Technologies (OIT)-Steel within the Department of Energy.
This line item includes the highly successful, highly leveraged
Technology Roadmap Program (TRP), which has nearly 60 industrial
participants.
It is because of this extensive leveraging (steel companies have
cooperated for decades and are highly skilled at collaborative research
and tech transfer to the plant floor), that seemingly small amounts of
funding yield very significant results. Our research programs with DOE
are fundamental to overcoming technical barriers to the future success
of the steel industry. We believe that a strong, competitive and
innovative steel industry is a critical component of national security
and is also strategic for our country's energy security (e.g.,
transmission towers and pipelines). We ask you to keep these points in
mind as you consider our request. And we ask you also to look at the
results our programs have achieved thus far.
The present budget mark of $3.4 million for all steel programs will
satisfy Technology Roadmap funding requirements for current tasks ($2.2
million in 2004), but such a drastic cut (the fiscal year 2003 budget
is $10 million) will prohibit completion of other valuable steel
projects and render useless the investments already made in them.
Second, new opportunities for potential breakthrough technologies will
not be pursued. Third, the steel industry recently committed to a 10
percent reduction in energy utilization per ton by 2012 as part of the
President's Business Challenge/Climate Vision Program. If passed, the
proposed 66 percent cut in steel R & D funding will certainly reduce
our ability to develop and deploy technology needed to achieve that
goal. We urge the subcommittee to fund OIT-Steel at a level of $10
million in order that programs under contract are completed (so their
benefits are realized) and new opportunities can be pursued. We would
also direct the subcommittee's attention to the specific funding of TRP
at $2.2 million (of the $10 million requested) in fiscal year 2004. We
believe the track record of steel industry research undertaken by AISI
and DOE is excellent, as evidenced by the results, some of which are
described below. Another metric of the value of this work is that
widespread industrial participation and funding remained, even through
periods of severe steel company financial distress. There is every
reason to believe that continued funding will lead to additional
important advances, such as those described below.
TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Technology Roadmap Program began under the Steel and Aluminum
Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act, also known as
the Metals Initiative. This legislation authorized DOE to fund projects
with the goals of energy-efficiency, increased competitiveness of U.S.
industry, and environmental improvement. All of these goals are being
achieved. For example, the Technology Roadmap Program has provided key
technologies enabling the stunning energy and environmental
achievements of the steel industry's Ultra Light Steel Auto Body--
Advanced Vehicle Concept (ULSAB-AVC). ULSAB-AVC has developed complete
designs for safe, steel intensive compact and mid-size sedans that will
achieve 52 miles per gallon (mpg) using gasoline, or 68 mpg if equipped
with a diesel engine. To appreciate the impact of this accomplishment,
if one million ULSAB-AVC vehicles replaced an equivalent number of mid-
size sedans operating at the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard of
27.5 miles per gallon, and were each driven 10,000 miles per year, the
annual savings our country would realize are estimated at:
Annual Reduced fuel consumption--171 million gallons
Annual Cost savings at $1.75/gallon--$300 million
Annual CO2 reductions--2.1 million tons
It should be noted that all of the savings above are not a result
of lightweighting-they are a function of the steel intensive design
that includes drivetrain and design advances. Further, since
approximately 16 million new vehicles enter service in the United
States annually, the energy savings that can be realized if ULSAB-AVC
technology is universally applied is enormous, approximately 0.3
quadrillion BTU, or nearly 20 percent of the entire energy consumed by
the steel industry in a year (1.8 quadrillion BTU). And, based on
comprehensive cost modeling, all this can be accomplished at no cost
penalty to the consumer--that is why these technologies are already
appearing in cars on the road today. This is clearly the type of pre-
competitive research appropriate for government partnering-developing
the technologies that lead to breakthroughs that serve the public good,
reduce our dependence on foreign oil and significantly reduce
greenhouse gases. The following is a brief list of TRP projects whose
results are incorporated in the ULSAB-AVC designs:
--TRP 9732--Study of Deformation Behavior of Light Weight Steel
Structures Under Impact Loading (prediction of crash
performance of advanced high strength steels and advanced
materials processing).
--TRP 9756--Cold Work Embrittlement of Interstitial Free Steels
(predicting embrittlement of automotive steels).
--TRP 9934--Development of Appropriate Resistance Spot Welding
Practices for Transformation Hardened Steels (optimizing
materials joining process for advanced high strength steels).
--TRP 9807--Reducing the Variability of HSLA Sheet Steels (developing
practices for consistent properties of advance high strength
steels).
--TRP 9904--Constitutive Behavior of High Strength Multiphase Steels
Under High Strain Rate Deformation Conditions (modeling and
developing the processing routes to produce advanced high
strength steels).
--TRP 0012--Characterization of Formability for New Generation of
Advanced High Strength Steels (characterizing the key
properties of next generation steels).
--TRP 0015--Quantitative Measurement of Steel Phase Transformation
(characterizing the key properties of advanced bar steels).
--TRP 0038--Characterization of Fatigue and Crash Performance
(generate fatigue, tensile and component test data at high
strain rates for direct input for automotive engineering and
design).
--TRP 0101--Inclusion Optimization for Next Generation Steel Products
(developing processes to'' engineer'' imperfections in the
microstructure of sheet steels so that they enhance properties
and steel performance).
--TRP 0106--Laser Assisted Arc Welding of Advanced High Strength
Steels (developing advanced joining methods for use of advance
high strength steels).
--TRP 0114--Development of Appropriate Resistance Spot Welding
Practices for Advanced High Strength Steels (Resistance spot
welding is a ``gateway technology'' for the implementation of
advanced high strength steels into vehicle production.).
The above Technology Roadmap Program R&D is part of the continuous
process of advancing the science of materials. It helps the automobile
and steel industries achieve their goals of bringing safe, affordable,
energy efficient, environmentally desirable vehicles to the public. It
advances the president's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, other TRP projects have made similar contributions to
energy-efficiency, environmental leadership and steel industry
competitiveness:
1. New thermally-efficient steel stud designs for residential and
light commercial applications resulting in energy savings of 2.5
percent of current consumption (0.03 quad) may be achieved based on 25
percent of new homes using this technology.
2. A recent study by the Florida Solar Energy Center found that
metal roofing can save Florida homeowners 23 percent in cooling costs
over conventional gray shingle roofs.
3. Steels used in electrical applications result in more energy
efficient motors. The electrical properties of Cold Rolled Motor
Lamination (CRML) steels continue to improve. Only a few years ago the
best CRML material available had core loss values of 2.0 watts/pound.
CRML steel is now being produced with core loss properties less than
1.7 watts/pound. This 15 percent energy efficiency improvement means
that electrical devices made from this material, such as florescent
light ballasts, transformers, and motors, can be made more efficient.
These savings are being realized in the home, commercial, and
industrial application of these products.
4. Advanced steels for bearing applications have a direct impact on
the energy efficiency of equipment. Developments in steel processes in
recent decades have not only greatly improved productivity and lowered
cost, they have led to significant quality improvements through the
reduction of the population of harmful inclusions.
5. Process modeling--In addition to the benefits of the application
of fundamental sciences to understand complex relationships, the
application of predictive models allows development work to be done
without disrupting the process line until the verification and
implementation stages are reached. This minimizes development costs and
fine tunes where and when capital is invested. The Hot Strip Mill Model
developed under TRP and now in commercial use, is an excellent example.
Funding for TRP projects currently under contract should be
continued in fiscal year 2004 so they can continue to achieve the
excellent returns described above. In addition, funds should also be
provided in fiscal year 2004 so that a new group of TRP projects may be
started to continue to advance yield improvement, materials science and
our industry goal of increasing energy-efficiency by 10 percent by
2012. Your support helps us deliver these benefits to the American
people sooner rather than later and ensures the success of an industry
critical to our national security.
Please feel free to contact me at 202-452-7206 or
[email protected] if you require any additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other state and locally owned utilities throughout the United
States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver
electricity to one of every seven electric consumers (about 40 million
people), serving some of the nation's largest cities. However, the vast
majority of APPA's members serve communities with populations of 10,000
people or less.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
our fiscal year 2004 funding priorities within jurisdiction of the
Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: ENERGY CONSERVATION
APPA is disappointed in the Administration's fiscal year 2004
request of $876 million for the Department of Energy's (DOE) energy
conservation programs. We are confident that Congress's prioritization
of these programs in its ultimate allocation for fiscal year 2003 of
$892 million highlighted the importance of these programs to the
Administration. We believe that DOE's energy conservation programs
should be level-funded at minimum, and encourage the subcommittee to
continue last year's commitment of at least $892 million.
FREEDOMCAR
APPA has supported the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle in
the past and supports the Administration's request of $158 million for
the new FreedomCAR program. APPA believes that the availability of fuel
cell technology for transportation is critical for cities and states
that must achieve mandatory federal air quality standards. We
appreciate the Administration's new emphasis on refocusing research and
development toward the achievement of cost-effective fuel cell
vehicles. The fuel cell vehicle is virtually pollution-free and highly
efficient. One of APPA's member utilities, the Sacramento Municipal
Utilities District (SMUD) has done extensive research into this field
and have found that even a 10 percent market penetration could reduce
regulated air pollutants by more than a million tons a year and
emissions of carbon dioxide by 60 million tons a year.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE & WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL
ACTIVITIES
APPA supports the Administration's fiscal year 2004 request of
$52.6 million for helping to increase the efficiency of commercial and
residential buildings. APPA is particularly supportive of the emphasis
on weatherization assistance as part of the President's National Energy
Policy and encourages the Subcommittee to provide the $288 million
requested by the Administration for this important program. The
weatherization assistance program helps more than 100,000 residents
annually, and is especially critical for the working poor, elderly and
disabled. This program has been particularly effective at helping low
income citizens afford their energy bills while at the same time
reducing energy usage.
STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM
APPA supports Congress's prioritization of the State Energy
Conservation Program and urges the Subcommittee to at least level-fund
the program at $38 million for fiscal year 2004. State energy offices
work on nearly every energy efficiency issue and have been extremely
successful in identifying the efficiency needs of local communities,
businesses and consumers and providing support for meeting those needs.
The State Energy Conservation Program offers the ideal combination of
state-level implementation with federal support.
COMMUNITY ENERGY PROGRAM--REBUILD AMERICA
APPA is concerned that the Administration's request of $9 million
for fiscal year 2004 for the Rebuild America program is a significant
cut from the fiscal year 2003 request of $20 million. The program
partners with states and communities interested in using energy
efficiency to help address a wide range of community priorities, but
primarily facilitating improvements to commercial buildings. As part of
the local and state governmental structure, APPA's member utilities are
uniquely suited to participate in these types of partnerships and
encourage continued support for this important program. We encourage
Congress to level fund this program at last year's commitment.
______
Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association
This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2004 appropriation for
the research, development, and deployment (RD&D) effort performed by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDAFS) on forest
biomass-based energy, fuels, and chemicals in its Biobased Products and
Bioenergy Research (BPBR) program. The Biomass Energy Research
Association (BERA) recommends that $22.0 million be appropriated for
this high-priority RD&D in fiscal year 2004. Separate statements have
been prepared for submission on other biomass energy RD&D performed by
the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) under the Energy and Water Development Bill,
and by EERE's Office of Industrial Technologies under the Interior and
Related Agencies Bill.
BERA is a non-profit association based in Washington, DC. It was
founded in 1982 by researchers and private organizations that are
conducting biomass research. Our objectives are to promote education
and research on the production of energy in all its forms from virgin
and waste biomass that can be economically utilized by the public, and
to serve as a source of information on biomass RD&D policies and
programs. Please note that BERA does not solicit or accept federal
funding for its efforts.
On behalf of BERA's members, I would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to present our Board's position on the
funding of forest biomass RD&D. Specifically, BERA's Board of Directors
recommends that the appropriations for USDAFS' BPBR program in fiscal
year 2004 be allocated as follows.
--Continue the research program proposed by the USDAFS; $2,000,000
was requested for fiscal year 2004.
--Collect DOE's forest biomass research results obtained from
laboratory and field projects and consolidate them with those
of the USDAFS, $1,500,000.
--Assess the technical value and economics of the consolidated
results with industry participation, $2,000,000.
--Develop an optimized, advanced RD&D plan with industry
participation, $1,500,000.
--Initiate the RD&D plan with industry participation and cost sharing
of the scale-up projects, $15,000,000.
BERA urges that this program be funded starting in fiscal year
2004.
BACKGROUND
One of the original goals of the Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative,
which was created as a result of ``The Biomass Research and Development
Act of 2000,'' and Title IX of the Farm Bill, was to triple United
States usage of bioenergy and biobased products. Although the timeframe
has been extended up to 2015 or 2020, a strategic plan has been
developed to reach this goal by the multi-agency Biomass Research and
Development Board (BRDB) co-chaired by the Secretary of Energy and the
Secretary of Agriculture.
Substantial increases in biomass energy and fuel consumption are
clearly needed because of what has recently happened to U.S. crude oil,
natural gas, and electricity markets, our continually increasing
dependence on imported oil, the renewed importance of achieving U.S.
energy security, and the impacts of environmental issues. It is time to
determine whether practical biomass energy systems can be developed
that are capable of displacing much larger amounts of fossil fuels than
they have in the past. The amount of fossil fuels displaced by biomass
energy in 2000 was 1.55 million barrels of oil equivalent per day,
approximately 79 percent of which was wood-based. The average amount of
crude oil imported into the United States was 9.07 million barrels per
day in 2000.
In fiscal year 2002, DOE began to restructure EERE's biomass RD&D
program. This process is continuing. The funds requested by DOE for
biomass feedstocks are for infrastructure development only, such as for
transportation and storage. The critical research to develop, plant,
grow, and manage dedicated energy crops for conversion to cost-
competitive energy and fuels has been terminated. DOE stated that other
agencies or departments are better suited to handle this research, and
that it is considered to be part of the USDA program. While DOE's
feedstock production program has made significant research
contributions over the last 25 years, BERA strongly endorses the idea
that the USDA should assume responsibility for this program. The USDA
has a long history in biomass production and is recognized worldwide
for its accomplishments in developing advanced agricultural and forest
biomass production methods. BERA recommends that research on woody
biomass production for energy applications be continued by the USDAFS
under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill. Woody feedstocks are
essential for the production of much larger amounts of affordable
fuels, electricity, and bioproducts than have been realized to date.
BERA submitted testimony in support of this RD&D by USDAFS for fiscal
year 2003, but funding was not provided.
The expansion of the USDAFS' BPBR program recommended by BERA
provides a considerably higher probability of significantly increasing
the contribution of biomass to primary U.S. energy demand to help
displace fossil fuel consumption. Indeed, the key to this eventuality
is the development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies for
producing low-cost forest biomass for conversion to economic supplies
of energy and fuels. Forest biomass is the nation's and the world's
largest reserve of renewable carbon resources. Without the availability
of economically competitive forest biomass feedstocks, the probability
of tripling or even doubling biomass energy consumption in the United
States is doubtful.
Ultimately, this program is expected to lead to commercial,
sustainable energy plantations that are integrated with conversion
processes supplied with both forest and waste biomass fuel and
feedstocks. These biorefineries will be designed to yield multiple
product slates that are sufficiently flexible to meet market conditions
and demands.
In the remaining paragraphs, I would like to elaborate on the high-
priority forestry research that BERA strongly urges be continued or
started.
BERA RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposed USDAFS Research for Fiscal Year 2004
The USDAFS requested an appropriation of $2,000,000 for its BPBR
program to develop new and more economical technologies for the
production, management, harvest, and utilization of woody materials for
energy and high-valued products for fiscal year 2004. This work builds
on the USDAFS' expertise on industrial wood recycling, wood chemistry,
and wood-plastic composites; small-diameter timber harvesting and
utilization; and experience in intensively managed silvicultural
systems. The research is a natural complement to the woody feedstock
production RD&D for energy and fuels by the USDAFS that BERA recommends
be added to its overall program. BERA also recommends that some level
of coordination of this research with the USDA work on fire hazard
reduction for western forests be implemented to enhance the prospects
for full use of biomass for energy across the country.
Collection and Consolidation of DOE's Research and Field Project
Results
DOE has conducted an extensive forest biomass production program
since the 1970's. This research included laboratory and field projects
performed by academe, national laboratories, research institutes, and
the private sector. The program emphasized the development and
selection of special species, hybrids, and clones of trees, and
advanced growth, management, and harvesting procedures for dedicated
energy crops. Research on short-rotation tree growth and the screening
of tree species in small-scale test plots was carried out in several
areas of the country. Depending on the geographic location, woody
species recommended as energy feedstocks from the test-plot results
included hybrid poplars, willow, eucalyptus, black locust, and others.
In collaboration with DOE, BERA recommends that the documented results
of these efforts be collected and consolidated with those of the
USDAFS. Furthermore, it is recommended that a plan be developed and
implemented for preserving the large amount of improved woody crop
clonal materials produced both by the USDAFS and the university
collaborators of DOE.
Assessment of the Consolidated Results With Industry
BERA recommends that selected companies be invited to join with the
USDAFS for the purpose of evaluating the consolidated data and
information compiled by the USDAFS. The first objective of this
assessment is to carefully analyze tree species in terms of their
potential for sustained growth in energy plantations at maximum yields
under acceptable growth conditions in different U.S. regions. The
second objective is to update and perform comparative economic analyses
of conceptual system designs to assist in the prioritization of each
system. Presuming the industrial organizations that participate in this
work are experienced in large-scale, commercial tree production, their
inputs will be invaluable in performing the next phase of this program,
which consists of producing an RD&D plan.
Development of an Optimized, Advanced RD&D Plan With Industry
The purpose of this phase of USDAFS' forest biomass program is to
produce a 10-year, strategic RD&D plan that continues the research
necessary to obtain the data and information needed for optimum energy
plantation design, including environmental impacts, and that targets
industry cost-shared field projects to demonstrate medium-scale,
sustainable, forest biomass and residuals production in several
geographic locations. It is important to include a schedule of
milestones over the life of the RD&D.
Initiation of the RD&D Plan With Industry
Considerable progress has been made on the efficient production of
short-rotation woody crop and multi-crop systems. In addition, research
on tissue culture techniques and the application of genetic engineering
methods to low-cost energy crop production have shown promise. This
research should be continued to develop advanced biomass production
methods that can meet the anticipated feedstock demand.
BERA also recommends that industry cost-shared, scale-up projects
of at least 1,000 acres in size be installed and operated in different
regions of the country as a forerunner to commercial energy plantations
in which dedicated energy crops are grown and harvested for use as
biomass resources. The results of this work will provide sufficient
operating and capital cost data to afford second generation economic
data for larger modular systems and to perfect the design of
sustainable energy plantations. The scale-up projects should be
strategically located and should utilize the advanced woody biomass
production methods developed in the research programs. Successful
completion of this work will help biomass energy attain its potential
by providing the data and information needed to implement the design,
construction, and operation of practical forest biomass production
methods for sustainable energy plantations that can supply low-cost
feedstock for conversion to heat, steam, electric power, liquid and
gaseous fuels, and chemicals.
It is expected that during the first year of this program, fiscal
year 2004, site studies can be completed to facilitate the selection of
specific areas that are deemed suitable for energy plantation
construction, and that installation on at least one site can be
started. DOE should be involved in this program where appropriate so
that their work on biomass infrastructure can be applied to program
goals such as the design and operation of integrated biomass production
and conversion systems.
______
Prepared Statement of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bob
Lawrence, and I am President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a
consulting firm located in Alexandria, Virginia. With me today is Ms.
Patrice Courtney, a Senior Associate with my firm. We are here today to
request full funding for the Department of Energy's Weatherization and
Intergovernmental Program (OWIP) within the Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy. Specifically, we request fiscal year 2004 OWIP
funding of $375M of which $18.8M is required by the Rebuild program
under the Gateway Deployment line item. For the Building Technologies
program, we request a total of $63M, the same as the fiscal year 2002
appropriated number. Cutbacks in the Building Technologies program have
all but eliminated any outreach and education for this program.
Outreach and education is essential for early adoption of evolving
technologies and the maximization of national benefits.
My firm and I have been involved in issues of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy since 1975, when this Subcommittee played an active
and major role in helping to solve our country's first, major energy
crisis. Ms. Courtney is responsible for communications regarding energy
efficiency issues in both national and statewide forums, with a
particular focus on New York State.
Buildings account for one third of all energy used in our country,
once you factor in the significant percentage used to generate
electricity to heat, cool, light, and control buildings and their
occupants. In addition, most oil use in buildings occurs in those parts
of the country where the percentage of imported oil use is the highest.
Therefore, efficiency increases in buildings and their associated
technologies offset directly the import of foreign oil.
Our current efforts, overseas, remind us all too well that the U.S.
economy remains significantly threatened by still-high oil prices.
Energy efficiency has become an economic priority because it is key to
reducing our vulnerability to high oil prices controlled by
unpredictable foreign hands. Today, many U.S. states are deregulating
electric utilities in an effort to lower electricity prices. These
developments have important implications for energy efficiency in
building technology.
Our purpose today, Mr. Chairman, is to support the Weatherization
and Intergovernmental Program (WIP), which has been uniquely successful
in its campaign to help Americans save energy. For example, its Rebuild
America program, for which $18.8 million is requested, continues to
play an important role. Through Rebuild, completed energy efficiency
renovations are saving communities nearly $131 million each year, along
with an annual 9 trillion BTUs of energy. (That's the equivalent of
8,200 oil tanker trucks in line for 113 miles.) This has resulted in
savings of $1.5 billion in cumulative energy costs in participating
communities. To date, Rebuild has generated $601 million in private
sector investment, and resulted in more than 529 million square feet of
renovated building space--an area equivalent to 16,000 schools. In
addition, 569 million square feet in new projects are committed or
under way. Every DOE dollar invested has produced $18.43 in annual
community energy savings and $9.38 in private energy efficiency
investments.
The program has 500+ participating communities in 54 states and
U.S. territories. State energy offices play an integral role in its
implementation, working with individuals, businesses and institutions
committed to improving the quality of life, building by building, via
energy efficiency retrofits or new construction. Middle income and
lower income Americans are direct beneficiaries of Rebuild America both
through direct labor dollars and the overall, positive effect on the
economy.
Rebuild America is a working model for leveraging taxpayer dollars
with private investment to produce significant energy cost savings. For
example, Rebuild is actively working with more than 35 associations and
trade groups in its Strategic Partners initiative, and with 140
companies, including Johnson Controls, Siemens, TRANE, Sempra Energy
Services and others, in its Business Partners project.
One such strategic partnership proceeds from the Memorandum of
Understanding between the DOE and the American Institute of Architects
(AIA). This has resulted in a number of collaborative activities
between Rebuild and the architecture community, such as the Solar
Decathlon, a design competition that involves hundreds of architecture
students, and a Rebuild-sponsored mentoring program in which Howard
University architecture students are teaching middle school students
about design issues, including energy efficiency and sustainability.
Going forward, the AIA and Rebuild plan to select leading examples of
buildings to demonstrate the metrics associated with environmental
performance. For its part, the AIA will continue to support DOE program
demonstration activities and participate in technology transfer
activities included in High Performance Commercial Buildings Roadmap
implementation, Solar Decathlon, Energy Smart Schools, and Labs21, and
will disseminate the results.
Energy Smart Schools (ESS) is a key Rebuild project, for good
reasons. A nationwide survey conducted by the U.S. General Accounting
Office estimated a conservative $112 billion to complete needed
repairs, renovations, and modernizations for the nation's public
schools. According to the DOE, the nation spends $6 billion each year
on energy costs for schools--about 25 percent more than necessary.
Around the nation, a number of school districts are using Energy
Smart School assistance. The College Station Independent School
District in Texas, for example, used Rebuild's partnership system to
team up with Texas A&M's Energy Systems Laboratory, and Texas Energy
Engineering Services Inc., which audited the district's schools to
determine needed energy retrofits. Rebuild helped the district locate
5.6 percent financing that required up-front capital outlays. The loan
will be repaid by 2009 with projected annual energy savings of
$183,000. Ultimately, the school district financed $1.5 million of its
capital improvements with help from Energy Smart Schools, for
improvements that included new chillers, boilers and DX units; improved
lighting; energy management system upgrades, and the launch of
continuous building commissioning to ensure efficient operations and
maintenance. This school district and many others are working to
incorporate the Energy Smart Schools' high performance school design
guidelines, which have been developed with recommendations that vary by
climate, geography and energy mix.
Here are some examples of other WIP programs and how they're saving
energy and dollars:
Residential Building Integration/Research and Development (formerly
Building America).--$15.2 million is requested. Great strides have been
made in the way we construct and operate our buildings; we have
documented energy savings of 30-50 percent at little or no cost
increase. But there's much more work to be done. This group is working
to realize a 60 percent reduction in overall residential building
energy use compared with the model International Energy Conservation
Code of 2000. These activities also include the exciting work being
done in the Zero Energy Buildings program. Additionally, the
Residential Building Energy Codes group's work includes important new
initiatives to develop new code compliance tools for residential
construction to foster a ``whole buildings'' approach in new and
existing buildings.
In the area of Commercial Buildings Integration, $4.9 million is
sought to continue its R&D. This will include guidance for four new
building projects that will document improvements to the design process
allowing up to 50 percent reduction in energy use. Using the Commercial
Building roadmap, the group also is focusing on controls, indoor air
quality, and technologies for the retrofit of existing buildings.
Wireless sensors, whole building controls systems and retrofit
technologies, and ventilation technologies will be key areas of
investigation. The codes group seeks to continue its revisions to the
IECC 2006 Edition/ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2004 to further promote energy
efficient window assemblies. The objective is to simplify code
compliance so that builders can use the advanced technologies developed
by the High Performance Buildings effort, and to enable the cost-
effective construction of Zero Energy Buildings.
State and Community Programs.--The State Energy Program (SEP) is
the only federally funded, state-based program administered by the DOE
that provides resources directly to the states. WIP seeks to stay level
at $38.7 million in fiscal year 2004 funding for the SEP. The SEP has
become a strong foundation for success in reducing energy use in
buildings, working at the community level. Rebuild America contributes
greatly to the SEP's success, as it delivers technical support that
states and localities require. Recent studies have documented that each
$1 of SEP funding results in annual energy savings of 1.17 million
source BTUs and annual cost savings of $7.23. Additionally, each $1 of
SEP funding leverages $3.54 from non-federal sources, not including
public benefit funds.
WIP leads in the technology transfer to professionals in building
technologies. For example, on its Web site is a powerful software tool
that can be downloaded for free. EnergyPlus, formerly known as DOE-2,
is a new generation building energy simulation program designed for
modeling buildings with associated heating, cooling, lighting,
ventilating, and other energy flows.
In conclusion, it has been shown via audits and other analyses,
that the DOE Buildings programs, however their names have changed over
the years, have provided tens of billions of dollars in benefits to our
country measured in more efficient energy use, less pollutant emission,
and lower energy prices. Not measured in this dollar number is the
significantly increased health of our citizens as a result of these
benefits. This taxpayer investment pays tremendous dividends.
During the 1980s, funding was drastically cut for energy-efficiency
R&D. When the programs were revisited in the early 1990s, lost ground
had to be regained. Research successes are now turning into
commercially viable products. It is crucially important to cost share
the field testing phase and to push new products through the R&D
pipeline to market acceptance, particularly in the fragmented building
industry.
Mr. Chairman, the required annual investment in Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy is less than one percent of what we invest in
defense, but its purpose is no less important. It is an investment in
our economy, our standard of living, and our very way of life.
We thank you for your attention to this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association
This testimony pertains to the request for appropriations in fiscal
year 2004 by the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), for mission-oriented biomass
energy research, development, and deployment (RD&D) in the Industrial
Technologies Program funded under the Interior and Related Agencies
Bill. The Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA) recommends that
$36.4 million be appropriated for these high-priority biomass programs
in fiscal year 2004. Separate statements have been submitted in support
of biomass RD&D performed by EERE under the Energy and Water
Development Bill, and on forest biomass energy production by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDAFS) under the Interior
and Related Agencies Bill.
On behalf of BERA's members, I would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to present the recommendations of BERA's
Board of Directors for the high-priority programs that we strongly urge
be continued, restored, or started. BERA is a non-profit association
based in Washington, DC. It was founded in 1982 by researchers and
private organizations that are conducting biomass research. Our
objectives are to promote education and research on the production of
energy, fuels, and chemicals from virgin and waste biomass that can be
economically utilized by the public, and to serve as a source of
information on biomass RD&D policies and programs. BERA does not
solicit or accept federal funding for its efforts.
The specific programs and budgets that BERA recommends for fiscal
year 2004 are:
--Incorporation of the Bioenergy and Bioproducts Initiative (BBI)
created as a result of ``The Biomass Research and Development
Act of 2000'' and Title IX of the Farm Bill, into EERE's
Industrial Technologies Program ($10,000,000), mainly for cost-
shared scale-up projects.
--Continuation of commodity organic chemicals-from-biomass RD&D
started in fiscal year 1999 ($8,800,000).
--Restoration of advanced black liquor gasification RD&D and its
scale-up ($13,600,000). This program is aimed at developing two
different processes, each of which has been cost-shared by
industry; federal support has ended. Without continued federal
support at this time, successful development in the existing
facilities is highly unlikely. The technology is essential to
enable the U.S. pulp and paper industry to reach energy self-
sufficiency.
--Continued development of advanced biomass technologies for the
forest and paper products industries ($4,000,000).
PROGRAM INTEGRATION, COORDINATION, AND MANAGEMENT
For several years, BERA has urged that all biomass-related research
funded by DOE should be coordinated and managed at DOE Headquarters so
that the program managers are heavily involved in this activity. We are
pleased to note that this process, which began in fiscal year 2002, has
continued in fiscal year 2003. BERA congratulates DOE on the progress
made in restructuring the program and its management. BERA also
congratulates DOE and USDA for the new spirit of working together and
coordinating the programs of each department to increase the usage of
agricultural and forestry biomass for the production of much larger
amounts of affordable fuels, electricity, and biomass-derived products
than have been realized in the past. These efforts are expected to help
facilitate the transition of waste and virgin biomass in the USA into
major sources of renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals.
BERA urges that the BBI be incorporated into the overall federal
biomass research program. Without it, the time table for this
transition will be stretched out for several decades and possibly never
happen except to a very limited extent for niche markets. Large,
strategically located, energy plantations are ultimately envisaged in
which waste biomass acquisition and virgin biomass production systems
are integrated with conversion systems and operated as analogs of
petroleum refineries to afford flexible slates of multiple products
from multiple feedstocks. Unfortunately, relatively large amounts of
capital and inducements are required to get the private sector involved
in developing even modest size projects in the field. So to help
implement this program, BERA includes the BBI as a line-item in its
annual testimony.
BERA also continues to recommend that implementation of the BBI
should include identification of each federal agency that provides
funding related to biomass energy development, each agency's programs,
and the expenditures by each agency. DOE and the USDA have initiated
this process. This is an on-going activity that should be expanded to
include other agencies and departments and help fine-tune the critical
pathways to program goals. Continual analysis of the information
compiled should enable the coordination of all federally funded biomass
energy programs through the BRDB to facilitate new starts focused on
high priority targets, and help to avoid duplication of efforts,
unnecessary expenditures, and continuation of projects that have been
completed or that do not target program goals. Full implementation of
the BBI will enhance the value of the federal expenditures on biomass
research to the country in many different ways.
BERA RECOMMENDATIONS
BERA's project recommendations consist of a balanced program of
mission-oriented RD&D on conversion research and technology transfer to
the private sector. Advanced conversion processes and power generation
technologies, alternative liquid transportation fuels, and hydrogen-
from-biomass processes are emphasized. Biomass production RD&D for
energy uses is ultimately expected to be done by the USDA.
BERA continues to recommend that at least 50 percent of the federal
funds appropriated for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-
up projects, are used to sustain a national biomass science and
technology base via sub-contracts for industry and universities. While
it is desirable for the national laboratories to coordinate this
research, increased support for U.S. scientists and engineers in
industry, academe, and research institutes that are unable to fund
biomass research will encourage commercialization of emerging
technologies and serious consideration of new ideas. It will also help
to expand the professional development and expertise of researchers
committed to the advancement of biomass technologies.
To improve management and coordination of biomass research, EERE
has consolidated most of its biomass RD&D under a single, integrated
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems Program. As a result of the
restructuring started in fiscal year 2002, a few major changes were
made in biomass RD&D funded under the Interior and Related Agencies
Bill in the Industrial Technologies Program (formerly the Office of
Industrial Technologies). The two subcategories of biomass RD&D in this
program are now called Advanced Biomass Technology: Products
Development, and Systems Integration and Production.
Bioenergy and Bioproducts Initiative (BBI)
The original goal of the BBI created as a result of ``The Biomass
Research and Development Act of 2000,'' and Title IX of the Farm Bill,
was to triple the usage of bioenergy and biobased products. Congress
has provided annual funding for the BBI since fiscal year 2000. A
strategic plan has been developed by the multi-agency Biomass Research
and Development Board (BRDB), co-chaired by the Secretaries of Energy
and Agriculture, to achieve this goal. Its achievement is necessary
because of environmental, energy security, and projected fuel supply
issues, and our increasing dependence on imported oil. We must
determine whether practical biomass systems capable of displacing much
larger amounts of fossil fuels can be developed. The fossil fuel
displaced by waste and virgin biomass in 2000 was 1.55 million BOE per
day, approximately 79 percent of which was wood-based.
BERA strongly urges that the BBI be added to the Industrial
Technologies Program in fiscal year 2004 at the funding level
recommended by BERA, and that the highest priority be given to
development of this program component as a line item. BERA recommends
that most of the funding for the BBI be used for scale-up.
Advanced Biomass Technology: Products Development (Formerly Industries
of the Future [Specific]).
Organic Commodity Chemicals from Biomass (Formerly Agriculture
Vision).--This program was started in fiscal year 1999. Projects were
selected that used a variety of biomass feedstocks to produce
industrial products such as coatings, lubricants, chemicals, plastics,
and composite materials. The overall goal was to develop the
technologies necessary to displace 10 percent of the fossil feedstocks
with biomass for the production of organic commodity chemicals and
chemical products. When the goal is fully implemented, it was projected
to reduce fossil feedstock usage by 0.189 quad in 2010, and 0.545 quad
in 2020. BERA indicated in previous statements that it is important to
include the process energy displaced too. In 1999, for example, total
fossil feedstock converted to chemicals was approximately 1.26 million
BOE/day. Ten percent of this value is 126,000 BOE/day, while the
corresponding process energy consumption was about 136,000 BOE/day, or
a total of about 0.6 quad annually. The potential energy savings is
evident.
EERE reported last year that no new research solicitations would be
issued in fiscal year 2003, and that the existing program would be
integrated with the EERE-wide bioenergy and bioproducts solicitations
that focus on biorefinery development. However, the existing university
grants may be increased, and new solicitations may be issued in this
area. Twelve active projects were scheduled to be continued. They
focused on novel separations technology; the production of plastics,
foams, adhesives, and coatings based on sugars and vegetable oils;
lower cost and energy use in harvesting, pre-processing, and biomass
storage; and the modification of crops to reduce the cost, processing
requirements, and energy consumption in the use and conversion of the
crops to products. It was expected that 2 projects will involve scale-
up to pilot-scale demonstrations with industry, and 1 or 2 will involve
commercialization projects on new biopolymers or solvents. Technology
breakthroughs were expected that will improve plant composition for
conversion to products, and provide novel, lower cost, less energy-
intensive harvesting and storage technology.
EERE requested a total of $8,808,000 for fiscal year 2004 to
continue this research under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill.
This consists of $3,304,000 for thermomochemical conversion products,
$5,104,000 for bioconversion products, and $400,000 for technical
management. The goals in fiscal year 2004 are to evaluate the existing
portfolio of projects in fiscal year 2003, to select and continue those
projects that are commercially promising with significant potential for
energy savings, to complete validation at the pilot scale in
partnership with industry of one new biobased product with long-term
potential sales greater than 2 billion lb/yr for economic, technical,
and product viability, and to increase product yields and energy
efficiency in key chemical product chains by more than 30 percent.
BERA believes that this effort is very worthwhile. Successful
implementation of the commodity chemicals-from-biomass research is
expected to result in many regional and national benefits because
virtually all commodity organic chemicals and products--including
plastics and petroleum- and natural gas-derived chemicals--can be
manufactured from biomass. Focusing on reducing the energy intensity of
established organic chemical commodities as well as on new products
where appropriate has a high probability of commercial success and of
displacing substantial amounts of fossil fuels.
Systems Integration and Production
Industrial Gasification (Formerly Industries of the Future
[Crosscutting], Combustion and the gasification projects from the
Forest and Paper Products Vision).--The largest part of this research,
which started several years ago, was the industry cost-shared program
to develop and commercialize the gasification of black liquor. In the
appropriations request for fiscal year 2004, DOE states that funding
for technology development and validation appear to be within
industry's capability, so funding is not requested in view of the
industry's ability to pursue further development without DOE support.
While industry has provided all funding for a small-scale, black liquor
gasification facility in Canada, there has been no such commitment from
paper companies for projects in the United States. Therefore, BERA
strongly urges that this program be continued with industry cost-
sharing to the point where industry will assume all financial risks.
There are several reasons that support BERA's position. Black
liquor gasification provides a pathway to combined electric power
generation and the recovery and recycling of chemicals for the pulp and
paper industry at much higher efficiencies than the industry currently
realizes from combustion methods. Presuming there is wide-spread
acceptance of one or both of the two basic processes under
development--high-temperature processing at the facility in North
Carolina, and low-temperature processing at the facility in Virginia
scheduled to be operational in the fall of 2003--adoption by the pulp
and paper industry is projected to eliminate all power purchases and to
make the industry energy self-sufficient. Twenty GW of renewable
generating capacity, which is about twice the capacity of all biomass-
fueled generating systems today, could be realized. Also, it is
estimated that industry's use of this technology would reduce carbon
emissions by more than 20 million tonnes each year. The pulp and paper
industry currently purchases over 90 TWh of electricity annually.
Finally, it is important to emphasize that the pulp and paper
industry has been involved in cost-sharing these programs since they
were started at DOE, and has a sizable investment in this RD&D to date.
The benefits of their participation will probably be lost if the
programs are zeroed-out at this time. According to discussions with
industry representatives during review of this research by BERA, the
industry is not expected to continue the work without DOE support
because of its current economic position and the risks involved.
Forest and Paper Products Vision.--Excluding the energy savings
from black liquor gasification, EERE staff estimates this effort can
reduce fossil energy usage by 0.080 quad in 2010, and 0.258 quad in
2020. This basic assessment, along with economic analyses, when applied
to development of this program, will help ensure its success. The
program has significant matching funds from industry and continues to
show significant value in addressing both national and industry
priorities.
The program for fiscal year 2003 was described as follows:
Sustainable Forestry consists of approximately 8 projects on
biotechnology, tree physiology, and sustainable soil productivity,
including the continuation of studies to develop process models to
predict the effect of forest management on growth and productivity on
managed forests; Energy Performance consists of approximately 12
projects on efficiency, heat recovery, wood and paper drying, deposit
formation in boilers, and corrosion-resistant materials for black
liquor gasifiers; Environmental Performance consists of approximately 7
projects to develop advanced pollution prevention technologies, reduce
pollution abatement costs, and demonstration of volatile organic
compound emissions reductions at a forest products mill; Improved
Capital Effectiveness consists of approximately 10 projects focused on
system and process efficiency and materials of construction and
fabrication; Recycling consists of approximately 7 projects to reduce
energy use and fiber deterioration in recycling, improving separation
technologies, expanding the use of recycled fibers, and optimizing
drying processes; Sensors and Controls consists of 5 projects on the
development of actuators and control devices, process and product
measurement and modeling, data interpretation, and a wireless
microwave-based moisture sensor in a wood-drying kiln.
EERE has requested funding of $4,021,000 under the Interior and
Related Agencies Bill for fiscal year 2004. One of the goals is to
support voluntary efforts by the American Forest & Paper Association
and other industry organizations to improve their energy efficiency and
environmental performance through the industry's Agenda 2020. This
activity will include cost-shared research. In addition, those
activities with the highest long-term energy savings potential will be
continued such as development of new paper dewatering techniques,
advanced sustainable forestry projects, scale-up of solid waste
recovery technology, and the selection of new projects that help
improve energy efficiency and environmental performance that industry
would not undertake without federal support.
BERA recommends that this program be continued at the requested
funding level.
______
Prepared Statement of the Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of
Texas at Austin
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Bureau of Economic
Geology's perspective on fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the
Department of Energy Fossil Energy Budget. The President's budget
proposes deep cuts to the U.S. Department of Energy's Fossil Energy
Research and Development, specifically the National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL) and the National Petroleum Technology Office (NPTO)
programs. I understand that the Oil Technology budget was reduced from
$56.2 million in 2002 to $42.3 million in 2003 to $15.0 million in
2004, and the Natural Gas Technology budget was kept level from $44.1
million in 2002 to $47.3 million in 2003 and reduced to $26.6 million
in 2004.
These reductions come at a time when private sector spending on
fossil energy research is at a several-decade low and falling,
university enrollments in geosciences and petroleum engineering are at
40-year lows, oil and natural gas demand represents 60 percent of all
energy demand combined and is rising in percentage and absolute terms
owing to increased overall energy demand, imports of oil and natural
gas by percentage continue to rise and impact national security, and
oil and gas resources that remain--although potentially abundant--will
require new and advanced technologies. The time is critical for a
changed model from the past, a model that includes increased Federal
awareness of the changed nature of the private energy sector,
leveraging of the very real opportunities for private-public
partnerships, and public awareness of the economic and environmental
benefits that will result from same.
CONSUMPTION: FOSSIL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IS RISING AND THE TREND IS
TOWARD NATURAL GAS
The past 20 years (1980-1999) have seen a steady and predictable
decrease in the percentage of global energy consumption satisfied by
oil (46 percent down to 40 percent) and coal (26 percent down to 22
percent), and an associated increase in the percentage of global energy
consumption satisfied by a combination of natural gas, nuclear, and
other renewables (28 percent up to 38 percent). From 1980 to 1999 total
global energy consumption increased by nearly 35 percent (from 282 to
379 quads). During the same period, U.S. total energy consumption
increased 23 percent (from 78 to 97 quads).
In contrast to global consumption, which shows a trend away from
coal and oil to natural gas, nuclear, and renewables, the U.S. energy
consumption mix has remained flat for two decades to a point where
today it is nearly identical to the global energy mix (coal 22 percent,
oil 39 percent, and natural gas 23 percent). To maintain a flat oil and
coal consumption curve, the United States bears the security risks
associated with 60 percent and rising oil imports and the resultant air
quality emissions from coal-fired electric plants. Importantly, fossil
fuels account for 84 percent of global and U.S. energy consumption
today. More importantly, for reasons including energy efficiency,
environmental well-being, economic stability, health of the future
energy workforce, supply distribution, mitigation of an oil crisis, and
national security, U.S. energy policy and associated legislation should
encourage what Jesse Ausubel describes as ``decarbonization''--the
changing energy mix toward natural gas, nuclear, and other renewables.
THE CHANGED FACE OF INDUSTRY: PERMANENT DECREASE IN PRIVATE TECHNOLOGY
AND RESEARCH
The oil and gas business is, and will remain, a technical one.
Drilling and operational technologies have advanced to a point where
virtually any land drilling location is technically feasible, ocean
water depth is less and less a limiting factor, oil and gas fields can
be developed using multilateral well bores from a single vertical well
bore, downhole logging tools provide remarkable information about the
rock-fluid system, seismic data have evolved to a point where some
depositional systems lend themselves to direct hydrocarbon detection,
all aided by the seemingly endless improvements in computer--speed,
memory, disk, visualization--capabilities. These and other advancements
have combined to improve efficiency across the oil and gas industry
significantly. In fact, while manpower in the industry has decreased
nearly 70 percent in the past two decades, global production of oil and
natural gas has steadily increased.
The oil and gas industry changed considerably in the last two
decades. Historically, the lion's share of the research and development
that resulted in the creation and application of advanced technology
and enhanced efficiency was funded by the private sector. Private
companies each had research--later to be renamed technology--labs, and
they competed for the best intellectual talent from universities, and
with each other to develop advancements that would provide
differentiating competitive advantage and allow for more expeditious
and economic discovery and development of oil and gas. Those days are
gone, as are most of the research labs--Amoco, ARCO, Conoco, Texaco,
Chevron, Marathon, Mobil, Phillips, and Unocal--and much of the R&D
spending by petroleum companies--fallen over 100 percent in the past
decade.
Major companies and large independents can no longer afford to
operate R&D facilities because the payout time for commercialization of
research--commonly on the order of 3 to 10 years--far exceeds what the
capital markets and commodity price cycles will bear. In order to meet
the quarterly market demands, the private sector has had to focus every
effort on reduced cycle time, replacement of reserves (largely through
acquisition), quarterly return on investment, and profit.
THE NEED FOR TECHNOLOGY: OIL AND NATURAL GAS WILL REQUIRE INCREASED R&T
IN THE FUTURE
Oil.--Oil represents a bridge to the natural gas and hydrogen
future. Increased production of known reserves (reserve growth) via
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects will continue to account for more
U.S. oil than new discoveries.
Efficient EOR requires advanced reservoir characterization and
technology. These projects in the United States will be conducted
largely by the independent producer, who does not have staff or
resources for high-level R&D. Federal policy and investment in oil
research, technology, and incentives should be directed almost
exclusively toward the independent for EOR. Is this corporate welfare?
No more than investing in clean coal technology, wind turbines, or fuel
cells. It is simply a wise Federal investment in the U.S. energy
future. An environmental benefit of EOR is that no new lands will be
impacted.
Natural Gas.--Natural gas (1) is an efficient fuel, (2) has
significant environmental advantages over coal and oil, (3) is more
broadly distributed across the globe, which, once the transportation
networks are established, will provide long-term price, economic
stability, and security benefits, and (4) will serve as feedstock for
hydrogen in a hydrogen economy. The global resource potential of
natural gas is very large. To date, natural gas has been produced
largely in association with oil, called conventional gas. About one-
third of U.S. annual production of natural gas comes from sources not
associated with oil called unconventional gas, such as coalbed methane,
shale gas, and basin-centered and tight gas. Other unconventional gas
sources include subsalt, ultra deep (>15,000 ft), and gas hydrates.
Combined with conventional gas, these unconventional sources represent
the future of the global natural gas supply. Because their behavior and
distribution are not as well understood, exploration and exploitation
will require significant research and technology investment, both
Federally and privately.
A BETTER DIRECTION: A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WILL FACILITATE A
SMOOTH TRANSITION
We have before us a remarkable opportunity for a public-private
partnership that will lead the world into the natural gas economy. For
the foreseeable future, a balance in energy sources is critical to
satisfy global demand. Stalwarts such as oil, and to some degree coal,
will remain prominent sources of global energy for at least the next
several decades. But these are sunset sources of energy, and Federal
technology investment should be couched accordingly. Dollars spent on
new research initiatives in coal are dollars spent against natural
global trends. National oil independence is highly unlikely, but energy
independence is achievable with a balanced investment in a mix of
energy sources.
Oil and gas research programs across Federal agencies have been
targeted for massive budget cuts each year for the past several years.
The fiscal year 2004 DOE budget requested of Congress for research
directed at major U.S. energy production and consumption represents 3
percent of the total DOE budget. Of that 3 percent, only 2 percent is
for oil, and 3 percent is for natural gas. The remainder of the 3
percent is for coal (40 percent), renewables (39 percent), and nuclear
(16 percent). Let me say that a different way: of the $23.4 billion DOE
budget, only $26.6 million (0.1 percent) is for natural gas, and $15
million (0.1 percent) is for oil. Oil and natural gas account for 65
percent of the nation's energy supply but only 0.2 percent of the
proposed fiscal year 2004 DOE budget for oil and gas research! Combine
these essentially nonexistent Federal dollars with decreases in the
private sector, and there appears to be no future for young people in
the oil and gas energy field. University statistics reflect this, as
U.S. geoscience and petroleum engineering enrollments are at a 35-year
low.
For the next several years, Federal investments must be redirected
to focus on Federal-private-university partnerships that help bridge
the gap to a natural gas economy, including (1) the continued
production of coal with some ``clean coal'' research dollars redirected
to natural gas, (2) continued renewable and nuclear energy research,
(3) enhanced oil recovery research in support of independent producers
($150 million), and (4) research and technology across the upstream to
downstream natural gas spectrum ($300 million).
______
Prepared Statement of Caterpillar Inc.
Caterpillar Inc. appreciates the opportunity to present its
comments for the record addressing the Department of Energy fiscal year
2004 budget request for heavy-duty transportation R&D within the Office
of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (FCVT.) Caterpillar Inc., a
Fortune 100 company headquartered in Peoria, Illinois, is the world's
largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment and diesel
and natural gas engines used in a variety of applications. We are the
leading worldwide supplier of heavy-duty off-road vehicles and diesel
engines for medium and heavy-duty on-road trucks, competing globally
primarily from a U.S. manufacturing base.
Our longstanding partnership with the Department of Energy has
resulted in the development of an R&D technology road map to assure
that project goals are consistent with national priorities and are
fiscally responsible. The building blocks for Caterpillar's innovative,
fuel-efficient and clean Advanced Combustion Emissions Reduction
Technology (ACERT) are the direct result of collaborative R&D efforts
between our company and the DOE.
As such, Caterpillar is concerned with the significant reductions
in key line items in the fiscal year 2004 FreedomCAR and Vehicle
Technologies Program budget submission. Caterpillar understands the
need for the Department to focus attention on emerging technologies
such as fuel cells and hydrogen power. But, we believe it is equally
important to maintain and accelerate R&D efforts that will provide
``bridge technologies'' to meet the needs of our transportation
industry through this decade and into the next. Our comments will focus
on six program areas that provide the collaboration and funding of
these ``bridge technologies'' that are essential to improving the fuel
efficiency and retaining the competitiveness of our nation's commercial
transportation sector.
Heavy Truck Engine.--The Heavy Truck Engine Program, with a fiscal
year 2004 agency request of $7.0 million, is competitively bid and
designed to respond to the impact on fuel efficiency of upcoming
federal emissions standards. These emissions reductions targeted for
model year 2007 and beyond could result in a five to ten percent fuel
penalty for heavy-duty trucks, which currently consume 30 percent of
on-road transportation fuel.
The primary focus of this R&D program is to develop technologies
that will enable engine manufacturers to meet federal emissions
requirements by 2006 while improving fuel economy by ten percent. The
technological complexities and short time frame necessitates a
collaborative, 50-50 cost shared effort with the Department of Energy
and the federal laboratories to maximize R&D resources. Caterpillar's
focus in this program includes the development of advanced fuel and
combustion systems, exhaust aftertreatment systems and friction
reduction to help improve fuel efficiency.
Now that we are three years into this program, we have learned that
the technical challenges are even greater than originally expected.
Significant fuel penalties are a near certainty unless a technology
breakthrough is created through this well focused, competitively bid,
collaborative program. Progress on HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression
Ignition) combustion with near zero emissions has been encouraging and
holds great promise for all commercial trucks and off-road equipment.
However, much work remains to provide the overall control and power
capability needed for market acceptance. In addition, the application
of exhaust aftertreatment technologies has numerous challenges that
this program is addressing. If adequate funding is provided, there is a
reasonable possibility to deliver a diesel engine demonstration by 2006
that will enable the industry to meet the 2007 emissions regulations
with improved fuel efficiency.
Caterpillar strongly urges the subcommittee to provide fiscal year
2004 funding for this line item at $13.5 million (fiscal year 2003
actual was $12.5 million) to reflect the urgency of pulling forward
technologies to meet the environmental and commercial challenges facing
our transportation system.
Light Truck Engine.--This program, with an agency request of $13.1
million (a $2.0 million decrease from fiscal year 2002 actual), targets
the development of compression ignition engine technologies for light-
duty applications (trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans). It is
focused on achieving a 50 percent improvement in vehicle miles per
gallon over comparable production vehicles. This 50 percent cost-shared
program, in its final year of funding, involves multiple industry teams
comprised of heavy-duty engine and light-duty vehicle manufacturers,
plus significant involvement of the DOE laboratories.
Like the Heavy Truck Engine Program, the Light Truck program
addresses national energy security concerns and offers a tremendous
return on taxpayer investment. For example, a 50 percent market
penetration of fuel-efficient light trucks could result in a half-
million barrels per day of oil saved, reducing our dependence on
imported Mideast OPEC oil by over 20 percent. This could translate into
a $10.7 billion annual saving in fuel costs to our economy. As our
reliance on foreign oil continues unabated, the development of fuel
efficient, cleaner burning technologies for the largest segment of the
light-duty vehicle market is critically important.
Caterpillar's focus in the program is to maximize key enabling
technologies essential to improving fuel efficiency and emissions
reductions. Again, HCCI is a key building block of our strategy to
achieve the ultra low emission levels required for light duty trucks.
The HCCI combustion approach applies even better to the light duty
operating cycle. Light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles spend
the vast majority of time at light loads where HCCI works best. The
fundamental HCCI work is similar to the effort underway in the Heavy
Truck Engine program. However, the light-duty application is different,
especially the duty cycle, aftertreatment and systems integration
requirements. Caterpillar's strategy is to develop the fuel and air
system technology that is the key enabler for HCCI combustion and work
with light truck manufacturers to incorporate this technology into
vehicles to dramatically reduce emissions of diesel engines.
Based on the genuine progress made in this program to date, and the
enormous potential impact on fuel efficiency, Caterpillar strongly
urges the subcommittee to increase the funding for this program to $15
million, in line with the amount approved by Congress for fiscal year
2003. We would also like to strongly suggest that this program be
continued for 2 additional years to complete the work.
Off-Highway Engine R&D.--According to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, non-road diesel engine emissions of oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) will comprise 38 percent of all mobile source NOx
emissions by 2010 with diesel particulates (PM) accounting for 60
percent of all mobile source PM emissions. The USEPA has initiated a
phased-in emission reduction timetable. Tier 2 regulations began in
2001, with Tier 3 regulations scheduled for implementation beginning in
2006. Without major technological breakthroughs, these emission
requirements will cause a significant increase in fuel use. And while
some technologies developed for on-road engines can be transferred to
non-road applications, the lack of cooling air flow to the engines,
differing power demands, and use of extremely high sulfur fuel
necessitate the development of new technologies to meet the demands of
off-highway equipment.
In fiscal year 2003 Congress increased the funding level to $3.5
million, earmarking the funds for emissions R&D, fuel cell R&D and
locomotive R&D. However, DOE has terminated the program in fiscal year
2004. Caterpillar strongly supports retaining the fiscal year 2003
congressional funding level of $3.5 million with $2.0 million earmarked
for high efficiency off-highway earthmoving equipment.
Combustion and Emissions Control.--An important element of this
comprehensive program, currently underway at Sandia Livermore, Lawrence
Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories, focuses on the need to
understand fundamental combustion processes and the development of
computer modeling of these processes and validation on laboratory
engines. The development of sophisticated computer modeling is
critically important for the timely, cost-effective introduction of
future clean and efficient power systems for a variety of engine
applications. This program funds several Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements (CRADAs) working on the development of exhaust
aftertreatment technologies requiring the unique equipment and
personnel expertise of the DOE national laboratories.
Caterpillar urges the subcommittee to reinstate program funding at
the fiscal 2003 level of $23.5 million, allocated equally between
light-duty (FreedomCAR) and heavy-duty (21CT) projects.
Advanced Propulsion Materials.--New and improved materials are a
necessary and key enabler for many engine system programs. With the
recent breakthroughs in new, clean and efficient combustion regimes in
our DOE programs, e.g. full and part mode HCCI, the development of new
and improved materials is critically important. Along with the
commitment to this breakthrough technology are the engine structural
challenges in accommodating the much higher pressure rise rates HCCI
creates. These are beyond the traditional design options with current
materials. So along with the combustion development we also must
advance the materials technology to assure a commercially viable
breakthrough engine.
The current fiscal year 2004 line item request for heavy-duty
propulsion materials is $5.85 million. To meet our future goals, an
additional $3 million could be very well utilized, to address HCCI
structural needs and accelerate aftertreatment development in areas
showing fresh promise. We urge the subcommittee to increase the Fiscal
2004 funding level to $8.85 million.
Fuels Technology Subprogram.--Two activities conducted within this
subprogram have had the active participation and support of the heavy-
duty diesel engine industry. Unfortunately, both programs have been
terminated for fiscal year 2004. In the first instance, the Advanced
Petroleum Based Fuels (APBF) activity for heavy-duty engines began with
an evaluation of new fuel formulations and their impact on the two most
promising types of future aftertreatment systems. The introduction of
reliable aftertreatment devices with the most cost effective and
compatible fuel for heavy-duty engines is critically important to
meeting our goals of cleaner air and improved fuel efficiencies.
Congress approved $8.2 million in fiscal year 2003 for the heavy-duty
component of this program and we strongly urge Congress to fund the
heavy-duty portion at that level again in fiscal year 2004.
Another activity in this subprogram addresses Environmental
Impacts. The data from the source apportionment and ambient ozone
studies conducted by this subprogram are the only accurate measurements
available and are critically important to identifying the role and
contributions of mobile emissions to air quality. Despite the obvious
importance of these activities, no other agency has been willing to
fund this work. DOE has undertaken the effort because of the direct
relationship between emissions reductions and reduced fuel efficiency.
We urge Congress to reinstate funding for this subprogram at $2.0
million in fiscal year 2004.
21st Century Truck Partnership.--The 21st Century Truck Partnership
was created to provide a systems-wide approach to addressing our
national transportation priorities. This collaborative effort includes
16 companies and the Departments of Energy, Defense and Transportation
and the Environmental Protection Agency. The partnership embraces 214
projects with annual federal funding approaching $120 million.
Operating within the 21st Century Partnership, industry and government
will develop critical R&D synergies and establish technology priorities
to avoid funding duplication and redundancies. Caterpillar supports
this unique R&D collaborative effort and commends the Department of
Energy for its leadership.Mr. Chairman, Caterpillar believes that the
FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program effectively addresses real-
world technology challenges through the leveraging of public and
private sector resources. Achieving the goals set forth in these
programs is critically important to meeting our nation's energy and
environmental imperatives while maintaining the competitiveness of our
transportation sector.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Government and Private Sector
Coalition for Operation Clean Air (OCA)
On behalf of the California Government and Private Sector Coalition
for Operation Clean Air's (OCA) Sustainable Incentive Program, we are
pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our
fiscal year 2004 funding request of $7,000,000 for OCA as part of a
Federal match for the $180 million already contributed by California
State and local agencies and the private sector for incentive programs.
This request consists of $5,000,000 from the Department of Energy (DOE)
for bio mass incentives, and $2,000,000 from DOE for alternative fuels
infrastructure funding.
California's great San Joaquin Valley is in crisis. Home to 3.3
million people, its 25,000 square miles may have the most unhealthy air
in the Country. Even Los Angeles, long known as the smog capital of the
nation; can boast better air quality by certain standards. While peak
concentrations of air pollutants are still greater in Los Angeles; for
the past four years, the San Joaquin Valley has exceeded Los Angeles in
violations of the eight-hour federal health standard.
A combination of geography, topography, meteorology, extreme
population growth, urban sprawl and a NAFTA corridor with two major
highways that produce 5 million big-rig miles per day driven by diesel
powered trucks, have collided to produce an air basin which over
300,000 people, nearly 10 percent of the population, suffers from
chronic breathing disorders. In Fresno County, at the heart of the San
Joaquin Valley, more than 16 percent of all children suffer from
asthma, a rate substantially higher than any other place in California.
The extreme summertime heat works to create smog even though smog-
forming gases are less than half the amount in the Los Angeles basin.
There is no prevailing wind to flush the natural geologic bathtub and,
as a result, pollutants and particulates stagnate, accumulate and
create unhealthy air.
Degradation of human health is not the only consequence of poor
quality air. Because the eight county air pollution control district is
designated as a ``severe'' nonattainment area, a significant number of
the Valley's businesses are required to obtain permits and comply with
increasingly burdensome regulations imposed by federal and state law
and the Air Pollution Control District, resulting in added cost in
compliance, reporting and record keeping. At the same time, the area is
burdened by unemployment rates of nearly 20 percent. Encouraging
business expansion in or relocation to the San Joaquin Valley to combat
unemployment is extremely difficult in the face of such regulatory
burdens.
In the fall of 2003 the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District Board will decide whether to become the first District in the
nation voluntarily to declare itself an ``extreme'' non-attainment
area. That designation, if made, will defer until 2010 the date for
attainment of federal standards of air quality, but will come at a cost
of imposing permitting on thousands of more businesses and even further
discouraging business expansion or relocation. Unemployment will
certainly not be improved.
The San Joaquin Valley is home to the most productive agricultural
land in the world. Over 350 crops are produced commercially on 27,000
farms that encompass more than 5 million irrigated acres. While the
agricultural industry has made great strides at considerable expense to
replace old diesel engines and manage fugitive dust and other
emissions, farming cannot help but contribute to the problem. However,
it is a $14 billion industry that forms the backbone of the Valley's
economy.
Industry alone is not the source of the Valley's poor air.
Population growth faster than the rest of the state and nearly the rest
of the nation, in an area without effective mass transit, where cheap
land has led to a landscape of suburbia and sprawl, results in
excessive over-reliance on the automobile. Trucking has increased
dramatically with the increase in population. Other factors such as
fireplace burning in the winter, open field agricultural burning
because of lack of adequate alternatives, and wild fires resulting from
lack of controlled burning in the nearby foothills and mountains all
contribute to the problem.
Despite the challenges listed above, much progress has been made.
The State has spent nearly $80 million on improvement and compliance
programs. Local government and private industry have spent over $100
million on technology and compliance. As specific examples, over one
half of the diesel operated irrigation pumps used by agriculture have
been replaced with cleaner engines. The City of Tulare has converted
its entire fleet of vehicles to natural gas as have several other
private fleet operators. A $45 million federally financed comprehensive
study of ozone and particulate matter is nearing completion. As a
result, the number of one-hour EPA health standard exceedences has been
reduced by 40 percent since 1989.
But much more needs to be done. The District estimates that daily
emissions must be reduced by 300 tons to achieve attainment. There is
no single or short-term quick fix. The entire Valley is part of the
problem and the entire Valley will need to be part of the solution.
Operation Clean Air is a coalition of business, government, health
care and environmental groups throughout the eight county San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District and Mariposa County. Its goal is
to clean the Valley's air and increase its economic prosperity. The
coalition seeks to catalogue efforts that have produced positive
effects and identify those strategies that could produce even greater
effects if supported by sufficient resources. At the heart of its
efforts will be an array of sustainable, voluntary practices and
activities that can and will be undertaken by all of the residents of
the San Joaquin Valley, both public and private, to improve air
quality.
This unique public-private partnership has invested considerable
resources in this project to date, and will continue to do so, but
federal funding is both imperative and justified to help address what
is essentially an unfounded federal mandate.
For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is seeking funding of
$2,000,000 from the Department of Energy (DOE) for the installation and
operation of alternative fuels infrastructure throughout the San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The alternative fuels infrastructure will
allow for the accelerated introduction of alternatively fueled vehicles
in municipal fleets, public school fleets, and private fleets. The
widespread use of lower-emitting motor vehicles will provide
significant improvement to air quality in the San Joaquin Valley while
furthering the goals of the Department of Energy and the National
Energy Policy Act. Development of alternative fuel infrastructure will
augment the low-emission vehicle program by providing much needed
compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (CNG) fueling
facilities.
For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is also seeking funding of
$5,000,000 to provide financial incentives to reduce open field burning
of residual agricultural materials by utilizing biomass-energy power
plants to burn this material in a controlled environment. This process
will result in multiple benefits to the San Joaquin Valley by reducing
air pollution and producing electrical power from a renewable source.
Thank you very much your consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I represent the
Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST), which is a
consortium of seven leading mining schools in the United States. I
appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony requesting your
committee to add $4 million to the 2004 Fossil Energy Research and
Development budget, U.S. Department of Energy, for Advanced Separations
research. The research in advanced separation is an integral part of
the Solid Fuels and Feedstocks Program of the Fossil Energy R&D.
I am joined in this statement by my colleagues from the consortium:
Richard J. Sweigard (University of Kentucky), Peter H. Knudsen (Montana
Tech), Maurice C. Fuerstenau (University of Nevada-Reno), Ibrahim H.
Gundiler (New Mexico Tech), Jan D. Miller (University of Utah) and
Richard A. Bajura (West Virginia University).
The U.S. mining industry produces approximately 40 percent of all
solid wastes generated in the country. The generation of excessive
waste can lead to the loss of valuable natural resources, environmental
damage, and higher cost in raw materials production--including the coal
that is used to generate 52 percent of the nation's electricity. A
large part of the waste generated by the mining industry can be
attributed to the inefficiencies of the various separation processes
that are currently being used. Therefore, there is a need to develop
advanced separation technologies that can be used by the U.S. mining
industry. The Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) has
been established to meet this need.
BACKGROUND
In 2001, the U.S. mining industry produced a total of $58 billion
of raw materials, which consisted of $39 billion from minerals and $19
billion from coal. The mineral processing industries increased the
value of the minerals to $374 billion, while coal and uranium were used
to produce 72 percent of the nation's electricity, whose dollar value
was $194 billion. Thus, the U.S. mining industry contributed a total of
$568 billion to the nation's economy, which accounted for 5.6 percent
of its GDP. According to the 2002 Mineral Commodity Summary, major
industries further increased the value of the processed mineral
materials to $1,720 billion, which accounted for 17 percent of the GDP.
Despite the important contributions that the U.S. mining industry
is making to the nation's economy, the country has not been investing
in technology development. This is particularly the case with the coal
and minerals processing technologies, which are mostly concerned with
separating one mineral (or coal) from another. In the absence of
advanced separation technologies, companies resort to increasing
throughput rather than improving separation efficiencies, which in turn
causes increased waste generation. This approach may give higher rates
of return on these companies' investments in the short term, but it
entails a higher loss of valuable natural resources and greater
environmental damages. Fine coal waste impoundments are a notable
example. According to a recent NRC report, the U.S. coal industry is
discarding 70 to 90 million tons of fine coal annually to 713
impoundments, mostly in the Appalachian coal field.
To address the need for the advanced separation technologies that
can be used by the U.S. mining industry, the National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL) issued a solicitation (DE-PS26-00FT40756) in 1999 for
the creation of a knowledge base for solid-solid and solid-liquid
separation technologies. Virginia Tech and West Virginia University
jointly responded to this solicitation and proposed to establish the
Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST). The objective of
the alliance was to conduct long-term, high-risk research, primarily
for the U.S. coal industry.
In 2002, NETL issued a second solicitation (DE-PS26-02NT41422-9)
requesting proposals for developing crosscutting advanced separation
technologies for both the U.S. coal and minerals industries. CAST
responded to this solicitation as a consortium of seven universities:
Montana Tech of the University of Montana, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, University of Nevada-Reno, University of Utah,
University of Kentucky, West Virginia University, and Virginia Tech.
The proposed work addressed a broad spectrum of technological needs of
the mining companies operating in different geographical locations of
the United States. The proposal was selected for $8.8 million of
funding for three years, which included $1.8 million for the first
year, $3 million for the second year, and $4 million for the third
year. This testimony is to present a progress report and a rationale
for requesting the third year funding.
PROGRESS TO DATE
During August 14-15, 2002, CAST organized a workshop in Charleston,
West Virginia, to identify the technological needs of the U.S. mining
industry. A large number of industry leaders participated and developed
a 63-page roadmap for research. The document has recently been printed
and distributed throughout the U.S. mining industry and is available at
the CAST website (www.castconsort.org). Faculty members from the
participating universities developed research proposals, which were
reviewed by industry representatives in accordance with the priorities
outlined in the roadmap, and the U.S. Department of Energy made the
final selection in light of its policies and national needs.
Solid-liquid separation (dewatering) was one of the research topics
that were given the highest priority in the roadmap, which may be a
reflection of the fact that many coal companies continue to discard
ultrafine coal to impoundments mainly due to the difficulty in
dewatering. CAST is currently developing several different fine coal
dewatering processes, including the development of novel dewatering
aids (chemicals), a hyperbaric centrifugal filter (HBF), and a
hyperbaric horizontal belt filter (HBF). Several dewatering aids have
been tested successfully in a small pilot-scale continuous operation.
Tests conducted on fine coal recovered from a large impoundment in
southern West Virginia showed that the use of novel dewatering aids can
more than double the throughput of vacuum filtration, reduce the
moisture content substantially, and improve the handleability of the
processed coal. Based on these successful test results, Beard
Technologies, Inc. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is planning to
construct a 200-ton per hour recovery plant. The HCF and HBF are
designed to create an optimum pressure drop across a filter cake and
thereby achieve higher filtration rates and low cake moistures.
In general, solid-solid and solid-liquid separation processes
become more efficient with narrowly sized feeds. Separation becomes
particularly difficult with feeds containing large amounts of ultrafine
particles (or slimes). In this regard, the industry representatives who
participated in the 2002 CAST workshop stressed the need to develop
efficient methods of desliming coal. Two CAST member universities are
jointly working on the project. It has also been shown that enhanced-
gravity separators work substantially better when the feed coal is
deslimed.
In 2002, CAST took a major step forward by expanding the scope of
its research beyond coal. The justification for this shift was that
many of the unit operations used in the coal and mineral processing
industries are common. Thus, a research investment in the improvement
of a crosscutting technology such as flotation would be cost efficient.
Furthermore, the cost of implementing the results of a crosscutting
technology development is lower due to the larger customer base.
The modern form of flotation technology was introduced to the
mining industry nearly one hundred years ago. Yet, it was only recently
that comprehensive flotation models were developed from first
principles, which has made it possible to predict flotation performance
on the basis of a broad spectrum of process parameters. CAST is further
developing the models so that they can be used to predict flotation
rates under more realistic conditions. Based on preliminary model
predictions, a set of new flotation reagents has been developed, some
of which are being used commercially for coal flotation in the United
States and Australia.
Beginning in 2002, CAST started research in the area of minerals
processing as part of its mission to develop crosscutting technologies.
An alternative to copper smelting has been sought for years for cost
and environmental reasons. However, chalcopyrite is notoriously
difficult to dissolve in acidic media due to the formation of an
impermeable sulfur layer forming on the mineral surface. This problem
has been overcome by adding finely divided solids that can support
photo-catalytic reactions. CAST is also developing methods of
optimizing heap leaching processes by conducting 3-D mineral exposure
analysis, and of improving the separation of phosphate, potash, kaolin
clay and trona in efficient and environmentally acceptable manner.
PROPOSAL
The research activities will follow the CAST Technology Roadmap,
which identifies three generic research areas: (i) physical separation,
(ii) chemical/biological separation, and (iii) environmental control.
In physical separation, issues concerning size-size, solid-solid, and
solid-liquid separations will be addressed. High priority research
topics in these areas of research will include the development of
efficient desliming methods, dewatering fine coal, extending the upper
and lower particle size limits of flotation, and the densification of
waste materials. In chemical/biological separation, methods of leaching
refractory base metal sulfide ores will be developed. The
photocatalytic technique that is currently under development can be an
alternative method to the energy-intensive smelting process and can
minimize pollution. Chemical and biological separation methods will be
developed to process low-grade ores and to remove both organic and
inorganic sulfur from coal. In environmental control, advanced methods
for separating various contaminants from wastewater streams and soils
will be developed. In general, the advanced separation technologies to
be developed in the three generic areas of research identified above
will be useful for increasing the efficiency of coal and mineral
processing operations, which will result in the minimization of the
wastes generated by the U.S. mining industry.
To promote industrial participation, CAST will initiate the
Cooperative Research Program, in which groups of companies will jointly
fund projects of common interest to solve specific industrial problems
using the wide-spectrum of expertise available at the Center. This
program will serve as a vehicle for generating substantial cost-sharing
funds.
RATIONALE
The U.S. mining industry is facing a difficult time due to high
operating costs, stringent environmental regulations and a worldwide
economic downturn. To cope with this situation, many companies are
trying to survive by increasing their production capacity without due
consideration of improving efficiency, which in turn causes greater
waste generation and loss of valuable natural resources. It is,
therefore, necessary to develop advanced separation technologies that
can be used to increase recovery rates and hence minimize waste
generation.
The United States is by far the largest mining country of the world
with $58 billion of raw materials produced in 2001. Australia is the
distant second, with $17.5 billion in 2000. Yet, Australia has
established a total of five centers of excellence in the area of
minerals and coal processing research. In the United States, CAST is
the only such center. The center is poised for success, as it is a
consortium of seven universities with diverse expertise and its
research activities are carried out in close consultation with a broad
spectrum of U.S. mining companies.
REQUEST
Thanks to the support of your Committee, the proposal submitted by
CAST to DOE has been selected for funding for three years. It is
sincerely hoped that this testimony provides justification for
requesting $4 million for the third year funding.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC)
SYNOPSIS OF CURC \1\ TESTIMONY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The CURC is an ad-hoc group of electric utilities, coal
producers, equipment suppliers, state government agencies, and
universities. CURC members work together to promote coal utilization
research and development and to commercialize new coal technologies.
Our 40+ members share a common vision of the strategic importance for
this country's continued utilization of coal in a cost-effective and
environmentally acceptable manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our testimony focuses upon the following three topics:
1. The DOE-CURC-EPRI Clean Coal Technology Roadmap;
2. A recommendation to increase funding for programs in the
President's Clean Coal Research Initiative in the DOE Fossil Energy
Budget to $347.65 million, which represents a $60.0 million increase
over the Administration's requested $287.65 million for those programs
in fiscal year 2004; and
3. The Department of Energy's FutureGen Initiative.
THE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP
In collaboration with the fossil fuel experts at the Department of
Energy (DOE), as well as the professional staff of the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), the CURC has drafted a clean coal technology
roadmap. A copy of the technology roadmap is available upon request and
can also be obtained on the CURC website at www.coal.org.
The roadmap seeks to identify the critical technologies that must
be successfully developed, as well as the timelines for when that
development must take place, if the Nation is to have highly efficient
(near 55 to 60 percent conversion to useful energy) coal energy
production facilities available for commercial deployment by 2020.
These same technologies will be capable of near zero emissions to the
air or water and will be able to provide low cost, competitive
electricity or other useful products to end use consumers. In addition,
the roadmap seeks to define a technology development program for carbon
management; that is, the prevention or capture and sequestration of
carbon dioxide. In the event public policies are determined necessary
for the capture/sequestration of CO2 at some future time,
then it is important that we have technologies designed to safely and
effectively address this matter.
It is our intent to evaluate this and future year budget requests,
to score the progress and direction of technology development conducted
by the Department of Energy, and to advise the current and future
Administrations as well as the Congress about coal-based technology
issues by using the technology roadmap as a principal reference. We
have utilized the roadmap as a ``tool'' by which to judge budget
priorities for fiscal year 2004 and the progress or success of R&D
endeavors. Further, and more importantly, we hope that the roadmap will
become a ``tool'' to enable the Congress to ask whether certain
research and development programs are necessary or whether funding
should be augmented or terminated for those programs. The members of
CURC are ready to assist the Congress in understanding the elements of
the roadmap and how the document might be used to oversee the coal
technology R&D programs of the DOE and others.
SPECIFIC FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COAL R&D PROGRAM
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CURC fiscal
Administration CURC roadmap year 2004
Technology program fiscal year annual R&D proposed
2004 request budget \1\ budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Coal Power Initiative....................................... 130.00 240.00 150.00
IGCC/Gasification................................................. 51.00 106.00 62.00
Pressurized fluidized bed (PFB)................................... .............. 14.00 12.00
Innovations for Existing Plants................................... 22.00 43.00 32.00
Advanced turbines................................................. \2\ 13.00 \2\ 15.00 23.00
Carbon Sequestration.............................................. 62.00 84.00 52.00
Advanced research--Ultrasupercitical Materials Consortium......... 4.65 4.00 4.65
Coal derived fuels & liquids...................................... \2\ 5.00 \2\ 13.00 12.00
---------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 287.65 519.00 347.65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This number is 80 percent of the total R&D amount required and represents the federal contribution. It is
assumed that industry would provide the other 20 percent required to carry out the R&D. The annual budgets are
based upon the CURC Roadmap through fiscal year 2010; the annual budgets from 2011-2020 are not reflected.
\2\ Not specified for coal syngas R&D.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--CURC recommends that fiscal year 2004
CCPI funding be appropriated at the fiscal year 2003 level ($150
million) so that there will be sufficient funds for multiple, large-
scale demonstration projects to be selected in the next program
solicitation. In addition, because of the CCPI program's critical
importance as well as the need to provide assurances to industry that
the program will continue to be adequately funded, CURC recommends that
the CCPI program be fully funded through advance appropriations.
IGCC/Gasification.--The requested increase in funding from $44.7
million in fiscal year 2003 to $51.0 million in fiscal year 2004 is
insufficient to keep the development of promising IGCC systems on track
and further funding is requested. Specifically, CURC supports the
recommended budget levels for the H2/CO separation and other gas
cleanup at $8 million and the gasification slipstream units at $9
million. CURC recommends that an additional $3 million in funding be
allocated to ceramic membrane and oxygen separation activities, for a
total of $12 million, and recommends an additional $8 million be
appropriated to fund hydrogen storage and materials management
research. CURC also supports funding for the PSDF operation at $21
million, but notes that this funding will simply maintain the program
in its current state.
There are a variety of other R&D activities to further IGCC
technology that should be funded. These include: the application of
IGCC systems on sub-bituminous and low-rank coals, coal-derived
hydrogen, oxygen-blown transport gasifier, air separation membranes,
advanced synthesis gas cleanup, solid oxide fuel cell element,
combustion turbine burners, synthesis gas coolers, improved fuel feed
systems, and high-temperature heat exchangers, and a number of other
activities. (The CURC supports activities in these areas, although no
specific funding levels are recommended.)
Pressurized Fluidized Bed (PFB) Systems.--CURC recommends that DOE
restore in fiscal year 2004 funding for coal combustion-based R&D at
$12.0 million. Further, this program should be renamed ``Advanced
Combustion Systems'' and focus on development of high efficiency,
superior environmental performance, and CO2 sequestration
technologies. The CURC recommends that the advanced combustion program
should focus on the following areas: advanced combustion technologies
able to capture and sequester CO2, including high efficiency
oxygen combustion systems and chemical looping systems; hybrid power
plant systems; ultra-supercritical steam cycles; and, continued funding
for the Combustion Technologies University Alliance.
Advanced Turbines.--The recommended increase in funding is
specifically directed to research in high efficiency gas turbines
configured for use of synthesis gas derived from coal. The increased
funding will accelerate the development of critical component
technologies that will allow advanced gas turbines (i.e., G and ATS (H)
class gas turbines just now entering the market operating on natural
gas) to operate in coal-based IGCC plants. Specifically, additional
focus and R&D funding is needed in the following areas: syngas tolerant
advanced gas turbine materials and coating systems; sensors and
monitors for syngas applications; and ultra-low emission combustion
systems for fuel flexible gas turbines.
Innovations For Existing Plants.--CURC recommends an increase of
$10 million in the fine particulate/air toxics budget in order to
increase the number of full-scale field tests from 3 to 4 tests to 10,
to allow tests with lignite, sub-bituminous, and low-Cl and high-Cl
bituminous coals at various configurations. Additional funding also
should be made available for the superclean systems budget to fully
fund the solicitation due in the fall of 2003 to develop improved
technology and materials for meeting increasingly stringent
NOX requirements, or in the ``waste and water management''
budget to address pressing clean water regulatory issues.
Carbon Sequestration.--CURC recommends that the carbon
sequestration program reduce its funding for the National Climate
Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) program by $10 million (the
current Request is $13 million) in order to allocate funds to other
coal-related programs in the Fossil Energy Budget. Funds for the NCCTI
program should be considered of secondary importance to the immediate
need to develop carbon separation and sequestration technologies that
will be required to support the FutureGen Project. CURC recommends that
the funds provided for carbon sequestration should focus on near-term
proof of concept projects and provide out-year funding for
demonstration of CO2 separation and sequestration
technologies.
Advanced Research--Ultra-Supercritical Materials Consortium.--CURC
believes that the ultra-supercritical materials consortium should be
funded at the level recommended in the fiscal year 2004 Budget request.
The program, based on successful results will provide the materials and
processing technologies to increase steam conditions, enabling
attainment of higher generation efficiencies.
Coal Derived Fuels And Liquids.--CURC recommends that funding for
hydrogen fuel derived from coal is an activity more appropriately
placed in the IGCC program. CURC recommends that funding for Coal
Derived Fuels and Liquids be allocated at $12 million in total funding,
with $8 million in funding for Transportation Fuels and Chemicals. Of
the $8 million, $3 million should be allocated to complete present
commitments to the Early Entrance Co-Production program, $1 million for
advanced computational modeling work focused on polygeneration system
designs (power, liquids, hydrogen, co-generation), and $4 million for
work on reactor design, catalyst development, scale-up, and engineering
and development. In addition, CURC recommends retaining an Advanced
Fuels Research Program at $4 million in total funding, with $2 million
focused on military applications of coal-based fuels to meet
requirements for logistic fuels.
THE PROPOSED FUTUREGEN PROJECT
In late February, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced
that the United States will lead a $1.0 billion public-private effort
to construct the world's first pollution-free, fossil fuel power plant.
The prototype power production facility, according to Secretary
Abraham, will serve as a research platform to develop new technologies
for electricity and hydrogen production, and for carbon capture and
sequestration.
First, the CURC supports this very important research project
capable of testing and integrating a variety of cutting edge
technologies.
Second, FutureGen is estimated to cost at least $1.0 billion.
Because it will be a research program, it is important to acknowledge
that the government will be contributing at least 80 percent of the
total funding required for the project.
Third, the ten-year FutureGen project will require, at least, $800
million in federal contributions. These funds must be made available
from new funds and not acquired by stripping funding from other coal
technology development programs. Specifically, the CURC would strongly
oppose any plans to acquire funding by reducing announced funding for
the President's Clean Coal Power Initiative. Further, funds should not
be obtained simply by reducing or eliminating other important, on-going
coal R&D and demonstration programs. These on-going programs are also
instrumental in the development of clean coal technologies that have
yet to be proven at commercial scale and will not be demonstrated in
the FutureGen project. Examples of ongoing programs include innovations
for existing plants, advanced combustion technologies, and carbon
management programs.
CONCLUSION
The DOE-CURC-EPRI roadmap describes a variety of advanced coal-
based energy systems that, if fully developed, will ensure cost-
effective, efficient and environmentally acceptable uses of coal, as
well as the timeframes for development of those technologies and the
performance requirements of these systems. However, if critical
components of a particular system are not developed in a timely manner,
a promising technology may not materialize in the recommended
timeframe. Importantly, to achieve timely technology development, the
government's long-term commitment must be assured and funding of
programs must be substantial. Technology is the key to assuring the
long-term use of coal, and the Department of Energy's coal RD&D
programs are vital to that technology development.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to
provide this testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies regarding fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the
Energy Conservation programs of the U.S. Department of Energy. The
Governors appreciate the Subcommittee's support for these programs, and
recognize the difficult funding decisions which confront the
Subcommittee this year. At a time of heightened attention to the
security, reliability and efficiency of the nation's energy systems, we
believe that modest federal investment in these programs provides
substantial energy, economic and environmental returns to the nation.
In recognition of the contribution which energy efficiency and
conservation programs make to cost-effective energy strategies, the
CONEG Governors request that funding for the State Energy Program be
increased to $74 million, and that funding for the Weatherization
Assistance Program be increased to $288 million in fiscal year 2004.
The Governors also request that funding for the Northeast Home Heating
Oil Reserve be maintained at $6 million in fiscal year 2004.
The Department of Energy's State Energy Program and Weatherization
Assistance Program provide valuable opportunities for the states,
industry, national laboratories and the U.S. Department of Energy to
collaborate in moving energy efficiency and renewable energy research,
technologies, practices and information to the public and into the
marketplace. Administered by the 50 states, District of Columbia and
territories, these programs are an efficient way to achieve national
energy goals, as they tailor energy projects to specific community
needs, economic and climate conditions.
State Energy Assistance Program.--The State Energy Program (SEP) is
the major state-federal partnership program for energy. While it
represents only a small portion of overall funding for state energy
activities, it is a critical nucleus for many states. As the nation
moves to enhance the security of its energy infrastructure, the energy
emergency preparedness activities long provided by state energy offices
take on heightened significance. Increased SEP funding in fiscal year
2004 will ensure that States can continue to rely upon state energy
offices to serve as their essential energy emergency preparedness
officials in providing this vital public security and safety function.
As part of the nation's strategy for a balanced, reliable energy
system, SEP also helps move energy efficiency and renewable energy
technology into the marketplace. Through the SEP, states also assist
schools, municipalities, businesses, residential customers and others
in both the private and public sectors to incorporate the practices and
technologies which help them manage their energy use wisely.
The modest federal funds provided to the SEP are an efficient
federal investment, as they are leveraged by non-federal public and
private sources. According to a study of the SEP done by the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory at the request of U.S. Department of Energy, every
dollar in SEP funding yields $3.54 in ``leveraged'' funding from the
state and private sectors, and results in $7.23 in annual energy cost
savings. This adds up to over $256 million in annual energy costs
savings. These savings estimates do not capture the valuable public
benefits, such as energy emergency planning and preparedness, provided
by SEP. In short, the Oak Ridge report concludes that the SEP, with its
impressive savings and emissions reductions, ratios of savings to
funding and payback periods, offers effective operations and a
substantial positive impact on the nation's energy situation.
Weatherization Assistance Program.--The Weatherization Assistance
Program (WAP) helps low-income households better manage their ongoing
energy use, thereby reducing the heating and cooling bills of the
nation's most vulnerable citizens. According to the U.S. Department of
Energy, low-income households spend 14 percent of their annual income
on energy, compared to 3.5 percent for other households. The
Weatherization Assistance Program strives to reduce the energy burden
of low-income residents through such energy saving measures as the
installation of insulation and energy-efficient lighting, and heating
and cooling system tune-ups. These measures can result in energy
savings as high as 30 percent.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.--The nation's heightened
emphasis on energy security places renewed importance on the Northeast
Home Heating Oil Reserve. The Northeast, with its reliance upon
imported fuels for both residential and commercial heating, is
particularly vulnerable to the effects of supply disruptions and price
volatility. The Reserve provides an important buffer to ensure that the
states will have prompt access to immediate supplies in the event of a
supply emergency.
In conclusion, we request that the Subcommittee increase funding
for the State Energy Program to $74 million and for the Weatherization
Assistance Program to $288 million; and that it maintain funding at the
level of $6 million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve in
fiscal year 2004. These programs have demonstrated their effectiveness
in contributing to the nation's goals of environmentally sound energy
management and improved economic productivity and energy security.
We thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to share the views
of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, and we stand ready to
provide you with any additional information on the importance of these
programs to the Northeast.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gasification Technologies Council
The Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) submits this statement
addressing fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the U.S. Department of
Energy's (DOE) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) R&D
program, the High Efficiency Engines and Turbines R&D program, the Coal
Derived Fuels and Liquids R&D program and the Clean Coal Power
Initiative. Specific funding recommendations are listed below:
--The IGCC R&D program for fiscal year 2004 should be funded at a $60
million level, up from the $51 million requested.
--The High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET) program for R&D
activities directed toward enabling advanced gas turbines to
operate on gasification-based synthesis gas should be funded at
a $24.5 million level, instead of the $13 million requested.
--The Coal Derived Fuels and Liquids Program funding should be $12
million, instead of the $5 million requested.
--The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) should be funded at a level
of $150 million instead of the $130 million requested.
--Any funding for the FutureGen program should come from new revenue
sources and not transfers from any of the above programs.
role of gasification in doe strategy, policies & programs
Gasification related technologies are key elements in the DOE's
strategy to bring extremely clean, highly efficient coal based power
generation into the marketplace. More advanced and competitive
technologies are fundamental to achieving this goal, as well as to the
successful implementation of Vision 21 and the FutureGen pollution-free
power plant. Continuing and robust IGCC R&D, HEET R&D, Coal Derived
Fuels and Liquids R&D, and CCPI programs, together with tax incentives
being proposed in the new energy legislation, are necessary to achieve
the goal of state-of-the-art, competitive gasification-based
technologies.
Gasification-based power generation, as embodied in an Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant configuration, has
inherently superior environmental benefits compared to combustion-based
power generation:
--Hydrogen Economy.--Gasification offers the most cost-effective
means of producing hydrogen from coal. However, for our vast
coal resources to become a viable alternative to natural gas as
a source of hydrogen, gasification technology needs first to be
established as a competitive means of generating power from
coal through continued research, development and demonstration
efforts.
--Carbon Removal & Sequestration.--If CO2 removal from
coal-based power generation becomes a regulatory requirement in
the future, the impact on the cost of electricity will be
significant. Because of its inherent characteristics,
gasification based power production will enable the addition of
CO2 removal at the lowest additional cost and thus
support the ability of coal to remain a viable feedstock for
power production if carbon capture and sequestration are
required. The average additional capital cost to include
CO2 capture in the design of a pulverized coal plant
is expected to be more than twice the additional capital to add
that capability to an IGCC plant. Furthermore, the associated
decreases in capacity and efficiency of the pulverized coal
plant are expected to be twice that of an IGCC plant. The R&D
to confirm and extend IGCC performance in this regard is
important to the goal of minimizing the impact on coal-based
power cost, should CO2 capture become a requirement.
--Mercury Emissions Reductions.--Volatile mercury removal from coal
gasification-based synthesis gas is being practiced
commercially today. In fact, a recent DOE-funded study
concluded that the cost of 90 percent+ volatile mercury removal
from a gasification-based plant would be but one-tenth of that
from a combustion-based plant of comparable capacity.
--Efficiency.--IGCC plants already are more efficient than combustion
based plants because they enable the use of high efficiency gas
turbines to generate power. Further improvements now being
developed in the DOE IGCC R&D program focusing on discrete
components of the IGCC system, including high efficiency gas
turbines and ceramic air separation membranes among others,
offer a future of additional efficiency improvements.
Combustion-based technologies, faced with the need to add on
energy intensive emissions control systems to meet more
stringent air regulations, will likely see reduced efficiencies
and generate additional solid wastes.
--Criteria Pollutants.--IGCC reduces criteria pollutant emissions
(SOX, NOX, CO and particulates) from
coal-based power generation to levels that cannot be achieved
by combustion-based technologies at comparable capital and
operating costs, and comparable efficiency levels. An IGCC also
generates far lower levels of solid wastes. DOE sponsored R&D
in several key areas promises to widen further IGCC'S
advantages in emissions reductions.
THE IMPORTANCE OF ROBUST GASIFICATION R&D PROGRAMS
The inherent technical benefits of gasification noted above cannot
be fully realized on an accelerated schedule without a solid
underpinning of research and development, both in the private sector
and in joint public-private sector endeavors as embodied in the current
DOE IGCC program in combination with a continuation of the CCPI.
The managers of the DOE IGCC research program have been working
closely with the gasification industry to define critical technology
improvements that will enhance the performance and reduce the cost of
IGCC to help stimulate future deployment of the technology. A recent
study has shown that if the goals of the DOE fossil energy R&D program,
including IGCC, are realized, by 2020 the use of IGCC could see a ten-
fold increase over what otherwise would occur. This would increase coal
use by ten percent, and reduce pressures on natural gas use for power
generation, with no increase in criteria pollutants and with a decrease
in mercury emissions from coal-based power generation. However, this
analysis is premised on a successful DOE fossil R&D program, including
the IGCC and HEET efforts.
WHY ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE NEEDED FOR IGCC R&D
Although the 2004 budget request for the IGCC R&D program appears
higher than for the prior year, a number of combustion-related programs
that had been partly funded by IGCC are now being entirely funded by
the IGCC program area. This means that, if current IGCC programs are to
be adequately funded, and important new efforts initiated, total
appropriations for IGCC R&D should be increased from the requested
level of $51 million to a minimum of $60 million.
The DOE IGCC program office has made a concerted effort for the
past several years to actively seek out industry views on critical
gasification R&D requirements. The goal of this effort has been to make
sure that limited public funds are directed toward projects that will
be leveraged by private sector funds and that will have payoffs in
introducing improved technologies into the marketplace. The increased
funding being recommended will enable these joint public-private R&D
efforts to continue.
Recommended Fiscal Year 2004 IGCC R&D Appropriation.--$60 million
why additional funds are needed for the heet r&d program
Today's most advanced gas turbines, offering increased efficiency
(with accompanying lower operating costs and reduced carbon emissions)
have not yet been proven on combustion of syngas from coal-based IGCC
systems. There is a distinct need for further R&D to develop advanced
turbines for coal-derived syngas utilization and test them in full-
scale demonstrations in coal gasification systems. This will be
necessary in order to achieve the high efficiency levels necessary to
meet the goal of developing by 2008 a 50 percent efficient coal-based
IGCC plant at a cost of less than $1,000/kW with near zero emissions.
Recommended HEET Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation.--$24.5 million
WHY ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE NEEDED FOR COAL DERIVED FUELS AND LIQUIDS R&D
Co-production of chemicals and fuels should be encouraged through
ongoing financial support in the DOE fossil fuels R&D program.
Coal derived fuels and liquids research are necessary to enable
further development of ``polygeneration'' facilities which have the
capability of producing not just electricity and steam, but also
chemicals and fuels (both hydrogen and liquid fuels) as well. Such
polygeneration facilities will ultimately improve the overall economics
of building and operating gasificationbased power generation plants,
thereby accelerating their deployment into the marketplace and bringing
with them substantial environmental and efficiency advances.
Additionally, although one national long term goal is a hydrogen
fueled transportation fleet, it is also necessary to address
intermediate term needs to improve performance and emissions
characteristics of our current liquid fueled fleet of vehicles with
coal-derived ``zero-sulfur'' liquid fuels that are co-produced in
conjunction with an IGCC plant.
The goal of diversifying the sources of transportation fuels to
include coal-based fuels, which complements programs in Vision 21 and
FutureGen, is also a consideration in supporting increasing funding for
R&D for coal derived transportation fuels.
Recommended Coal-Derived Liquids and Fuels Fiscal Year 2004
Appropriation.--$12 million
why additional funds are needed for the ccpi
GTC recommends that appropriations for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative be maintained at no less than the $150 million of the prior
year. This will signal to potential industrial investors in the program
that the Congress continues to view the CCPI as a high priority with
long term public policy support. This level of funding over extended
years will provide sufficient funds for multiple, large-scale
demonstration projects to be selected under the next, and future,
program solicitation. Any reduction in CCPI funding from previous year
levels will limit the number of otherwise worthy projects that can be
funded and thereby limit the technical progress that can be made.
Recommended CCPI Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation.--$150 million
the importance of adequate, balanced resources for gasification
Going forward the DOE is embarked on an ambitious yet realistic
program of gasification-based research, development and demonstration
to accelerate the commercial introduction of coalbased IGCC power
generation that will reduce emissions and power costs, while increasing
use of the nation's coal resources. However, this will require a
balanced program that does not short-change either important R&D needs
or the CCPI demonstration program. As other new technology
demonstration initiatives, such as the FutureGen program, are
undertaken they must be adequately funded with additional resources and
should not rely on transfers from ongoing R&D programs or the CCPI
program, which are critical to the deployment of the technology
improvements that will support large scale demonstration and
commercialization of IGCC.
______
Prepared Statement of the General Electric Power Systems
The following testimony is submitted on behalf of General Electric
Power Systems (GE) for the benefit of the Committee during its
consideration of the fiscal year 2004 budget requests for the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Fossil Energy program.
Continued technology advancements are key to realizing the
potential for cleaner, more efficient power generation. In addition, by
improving the U.S. technology base, government-private sector programs
addressing these challenges will enhance the international
competitiveness of U.S. industry. Several important DOE programs
deserve the Committee's support.
VISION 21 FUEL CELL/TURBINE HYBRIDS
The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Vision 21 Hybrids line
item within the Distributed Generation/Fuel Cells program contains a
significant reduction below the fiscal year 2003 funding level. GE
believes that adequate resources should be restored to this program in
fiscal year 2004 to support technology development to realize cost
competitive planar solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)/gas turbine (GT) hybrid
electric generation systems in the 1 MW to 10 MW size range.
Planar SOFC/turbine hybrid systems have the unique potential to
meet the nation's need for clean, high efficiency, cost effective power
plants with the ability to use multiple fuels. Fuel cell systems offer
significant emissions reductions compared to conventional, combustion
based electrical production. In hybrid systems, efficiencies of 65
percent are achievable, well above the current state of the art. These
systems also will be able to use fuels of future importance to our
nation: hydrogen, coal or biomass derived syngas, as well as natural
gas. When fully developed, planar SOFC/GT hybrid systems in the 1MW to
10 MW size range are projected to be cost-competitive with today's
electricity generation technologies. Systems of this size will have
important applications in meeting dispersed generation needs to
overcome congestion on the bulk power grid.
Hybrid fuel cell/turbine systems are fully in line with DOE's views
for the powerplant of the future, as seen in both the Department's
Vision 21 goals and its recently announced FutureGen program. DOE has
described hybrid power modules as a ``key enabling technology'' for
long-term Vision 21 systems. The Department has further noted that
these modules are an important element of DOE's carbon management
policy. Similarly, DOE's February 2003 description of the FutureGen
initiative anticipates that electricity production in the prototype
FutureGen plant will involve turbines, fuel cells or hybrid
combinations of these technologies.
Hybrid planar SOFC/GT technology development for cost effective
systems in the 1 MW to 10MW size range is in its early stages. There
are significant technology challenges in both the fuel cell and system
design. There will also be unique gas turbine constraints and
challenges to be overcome. Early system design, analysis, and modeling
are required which will lead to identification of optimum system
configurations. Demonstration test programs will then be required to
validate component and system design, system integration and
manufacturability.
Additional funding in fiscal year 2004 for planar solid oxide fuel
cell/gas turbine hybrids will complement and leverage the technology
advancements of DOE's Solid-State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA)
program. The SECA program, in which GE is a participant, focuses on
continued SOFC technology development and demonstration to improve
performance and reduce costs. The technology development being
performed under the SECA program forms a solid basis for the hybrid
effort. However, development of planar SOFC fuel cells for hybrid power
systems requires additional technology development, such as scale-up
and pressurized operation, which goes beyond the technical scope of the
SECA program.
Successful development of cost effective planar SOFC/turbine hybrid
electrical generation systems has significant implications for the
United States in terms of reducing fossil fuel consumption, lowering
emissions associated with power generation and easing of grid
constraints. However, with so much uncertainty in the electricity
industry today, industry alone is not in the position to assume the
full burden of the technological risks inherent in advancing hybrid
fuel cell/gas turbine technologies. The long term time frame for
commercial development of this technology and the technical challenges
to realize the benefits of cost effective commercial systems will
require a collaborative effort between the government (DOE) and private
industry.
SECA
GE supports full funding for SECA in the Innovative Systems
Concepts line item of the Distributed Generation/Fuel Cells program. As
noted above, GE is a participant in the SECA program. SECA is a broad
collaboration among industry, government, universities and other
research organizations that has as its ultimate objective the
development of fuel cells for a variety of uses, which will lead to the
significant cost reductions needed for this technology to be deployed
widely. GE appreciates the Congress's support for the SECA program in
the past, and encourages the Committee to provide sufficient resources
again this year to assure that the important work of this program
continues.
HIGH EFFICIENCY ENGINES AND TURBINES
The Administration's fiscal year 2004 request for the High
Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET) program, within the Central
Systems program, should be increased by a total of $11.5 million. This
program represents the Department's primary research effort focusing on
gas turbines for electricity production. As DOE has explained in its
budget submission, ``developing advanced turbines with fuel flexibility
is critical as many of the advanced, coal-fired power generation
technologies currently being developed or demonstrated will incorporate
modified gas turbine systems.'' The importance of this technology
requires that adequate resources be available.
GE commends to the Committee's attention the testimony submitted by
the Gas Turbine Association relative to the funding needs for HEET. In
particular, GE encourages the Committee to increase funding for DOE
NETL's Broad Based Financial Assistance solicitation (improving overall
performance of turbines in integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) applications), to address combustion of hydrogen in turbines, to
support the University Turbine Systems Research (UTSR) Program, and to
assure that adequate emphasis is placed on reliability, availability
and maintainability (RAM).
RAM.--The HEET program needs to continue to support improvements in
powerplant asset utilization (RAM) through development of advanced
technologies for sensors, diagnostics, and condition monitoring.
Continued partnering between government and industry will accelerate
the pace of this work and speed the introduction and widespread
deployment of new technology in the field. Economic benefits are
realized by increasing the operational flexibility of gas turbines to
provide more power to the electrical grid during periods of peak
demand, reducing the costs associated with unplanned turbine outages,
increasing the time between scheduled outages, and reducing emissions
under both full and partial load conditions. Advances in asset
utilization technology can be moved into the marketplace quickly and
applied to the installed base, including current coal based systems,
thus enabling the nation to rapidly recognize the benefits of
investment in this area.
HEET Program Accomplishments Will Support IGCC Focus.--GE believes
that DOE's continued focus, vision and support for IGCC technology is
warranted, and we support the fiscal year 2004 funding request for the
IGCC program. Recent increases in the price of natural gas once again
highlight the need for a robust, fuel-diverse energy infrastructure.
Our electricity generation sector needs to continue to utilize abundant
and indigenous fuels such as coal and renewables in order to reduce the
stress on both natural gas resources and their distribution. IGCC
boasts high potential for generating clean power under present and
future environmental criteria. It has flexibility to process a wide
variety of feedstocks--including coal, petroleum coke and biomass. IGCC
is also the base from which low-CO2 power can grow.
The HEET program will make important contributions towards
realizing the full measure of IGCC's potential. GE, as the industry
leader in IGCC gas turbine operation, has made significant investment
in the development of fuel-flexible combustors and fuel systems. This
has expanded the potential application range of gas turbines that are
ready to support the broadening of gasification feedstock flexibility.
However, to meet the aggressive emission and fuel flexibility goals of
the HEET program, new combustion system technologies must be developed.
Widespread commercial adoption of IGCC has been hampered by its
high cost and complexity. Superb environmental performance and high
efficiency are not, by themselves, sufficient to offset costs in a
utility's technology decision process. GE, therefore, urges that all
IGCC programs utilize an overall system perspective to identify areas
for development that have the highest potential of meeting the
challenging technical, cost, operability, and availability goals of the
HEET program.
Hydrogen.--Our nation's increasing focus on hydrogen as a future
energy source was recently highlighted by the announcement of the
President's hydrogen fuel initiative. While it is anticipated that
initial demand for hydrogen will be met by natural gas, serious
consideration must be given to the future impact on natural gas
supplies. Economical sources of hydrogen will be needed to achieve a
significant reduction of our reliance on imported oil. With continued
escalation of domestic natural gas prices, GE believes that large scale
coal-based IGCC could be a significant alternative source for hydrogen
production. The synthetic gas produced from gasification combined with
current process technologies for removal of carbon can provide a
hydrogen-rich feedstock for either combustion in a gas turbine,
chemical production, or use elsewhere in the coming ``hydrogen
economy.''
Funding under the HEET program should be provided for the
development of gas turbine combustion technology for use with a high
hydrogen fuel stream. GE has experience with gas turbines operating on
fuel blends containing hydrogen, and has performed laboratory
demonstration tests on high hydrogen content fuel. This experience
highlighted the need for development of advanced combustion technology
in order to drive down NOx emissions and enable advanced hydrogen
generation processes. In addition, current strategies for effective
integration of all major subsystems need to be revisited and redefined
for use with hydrogen fuel.
The United States has reached a critical point in time where
development and demonstration is sorely needed for coal-based hydrogen
production processes. DOE's FutureGen program promises to provide a
platform to address this need. Technology research and development
through the HEET program can serve as an important source of enabling
technology for the FutureGen plant. With regard to the FutureGen
initiative, GE recommends that the early involvement and participation
of the providers of technology as key stakeholders be encouraged and
sought.
CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE
GE also supports sustained funding for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative. This program should provide a vital opportunity for the
demonstration of IGCC technologies that hold the key to the
environmentally acceptable use of coal for future power generation. The
CCPI offers a unique opportunity to demonstrate these technologies on a
commercial scale--a step that is vital to ultimate commercial
acceptance of this technology. DOE's budget submission calls for a
``more focused'' second round solicitation for the CCPI, and we urge
that IGCC be a major part of the focus of the CCPI going forward.
CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITES
Finally, GE recommends that funding be provided for Ceramic Matrix
Composite (CMC) crosscutting technology material development. CMCs
offer greater than 2000F capability when compared to current metal plus
coating technology. This increased capability provides potential
benefits in power output, efficiency, emissions and part life depending
on how the material is designed and utilized in product applications.
Potential opportunities include both power generation (gas turbines)
and industrial process heating (radiant burner) markets. CMCs could
thus provide an enabling technology for all of the programs discussed
above, as well as the Distributed Energy Resource Program (Industrial
Gas Turbines and Microturbines) and Industry Of The Future (IOF)
initiatives within the Energy Conservation budget account.
______
Prepared Statement of IBACOS, Inc.
IBACOS (Integrated Building And Construction Solutions) urges the
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to provide $16 million
for the Department of Energy (DOE) fiscal year 2004 Residential
Buildings Program.
IBACOS, through the DOE, has significantly improved the efficiency and
livability of U.S. homes
IBACOS is a founding partner in the DOE's Building America Program,
which consists of five industry consortiums (teams). IBACOS is made up
of more than 30 leading companies from the home building industry,
including equipment manufacturers, builders, design firms, and other
parties interested in improving the overall quality, affordability, and
efficiency of our nation's homes and communities. Although we are
located in Pittsburgh, PA, our Network membership is derived from
across the country. Our associated building product manufacturers and
trade associations include: North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association (NAIMA) of Washington, DC; Carrier Corporation of
Indianapolis, IN; GE Appliances of Louisville, KY; USG Corporation of
Chicago, IL; Owens Corning of Toledo, OH; and Andersen Corporation of
Bayport, MN. Our builder partners includes such large builders and
developers as Pulte Homes of Bloomfield Hills, MI; RGC of Newport
Beach, CA; Civano Development Partners of Tucson, AZ; Beazer Homes of
VA; Washington Homes (a division of K. Hovnanian) of VA; and John Laing
Homes of Denver, CO. Other builders and developers in CA, CO, GA, IN,
NC, NJ, NY, NV, SC, and TX also participate.
Through these and other partners, Building America has had direct
influence in increasing the efficiency of nearly 10,000 homes to date.
All of these homes use 30 percent less energy than a code compliant
home, and many exceed 50 percent in savings.
We have been working with the DOE's Residential Building Program
since the start of the Building America Program in 1993. Along with the
four other teams, we represent more than 200 residential builders,
developers, designers, equipment suppliers, and community planners. All
Building America partners have a common interest in improving the
energy efficiency and livability of America's housing stock, while
minimizing any increase in home costs. Many of the products used
actually result in a lower cost, while others experience only marginal
increases in first cost and absolute reductions in cash flow. In
pursuit of this common interest, the five Building America teams pursue
common activities that will ultimately assist all homebuilders and
benefit the nations' homebuyers.
Building America teams, such as IBACOS, have the ability to research
and develop new technologies and processes, as well as
demonstrate and diffuse information throughout the building
community
We are working to significantly expand the active team membership
of Building America, but, perhaps more importantly, we are finding
innovative new ways to increase the energy efficiency of the nation's
housing stock, and are encouraging the diffusion of information to
hundreds of builders through participation in research partnerships,
national conferences, technical committees and the Internet. In fact,
in working with Owens Corning, we helped introduce a market based
program, System Thinking, in which Owens Corning is applying lessons
from Building America to more than 100 builders in all regions of the
country. Other Building America teams have had similar success with
national programs such as Environments for Living. All of the teams are
partnering with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/DOE Energy
Star( program.
The DOE helps develop and implement widespread innovation in the
fragmented residential construction industry
The new residential construction industry accounts for the
production of 1.6 million single family homes per year (over $70
billion in revenue) and approximately 20 percent of total energy use in
the United States.
Despite its size and impact, the industry is exceptionally
fragmented. It comprises nearly 100,000 builders, many building only a
few homes per year, others as many as 35,000. A multitude of
residential product manufacturers, architects, trades, and developers
further compound the problem of an industry in which it is very
difficult to implement widespread technological innovation. Building
America acts as an aggregator for identifying and pursuing research
needs and consolidating relationships between the industry and National
Labs.
Additionally, there has been little incentive for builders to
improve on energy efficiency for a number of reasons. First, energy and
resource efficiency does not necessarily contribute to the bottom line
of the builder; instead, it benefits the homeowner and the nation.
Second, because builders cannot directly recoup costs for up front
investments through energy savings (since they do not own the homes),
they have little reason to spend more initially. Third, adopting new
technologies and training staff and trades to properly install new
systems and products is costly and problem-ridden. Fourth, builders are
not good at sharing knowledge between competitors, so the DOE's role is
critical to expanding the practices beyond the first builders in.
For these reasons, we are working to create higher performance,
quality homes for no incremental costs, along with associated training,
management, and technology transfer methodologies. We believe that
because of this work, energy and resource efficiency, durability, and
affordability will, eventually, be commonplace in the home building
industry.
Because the home building industry is made up of so many differing
parties, it is virtually impossible for them to come together to
perform common research without a third party.
The DOE plays a critical role in bringing this research,
development, and deployment agenda to the marketplace.
Current research activities include:
--systems integration, technology and process research and
development to improve energy efficiency
--indoor air quality
--safety, health, and durability of housing
--thermal distribution efficiency
--incorporation of passive and active solar techniques
--techniques that increase builder productivity and product quality
--reduction of material waste at building sites
--use of recycled and recyclable materials
--building materials improvements
--envelope load reduction and durability
--mechanical systems efficiencies and appropriate sizing
The DOE's role in bringing together the right entities and cost
sharing common research is invaluable in improving our nation's
building stock, while we work to reduce up front builder costs.
Through the DOE, significant energy saving results have been achieved
in residential construction, and encouraging research results
on systems integration have helped to increase overall energy
efficiency
Results of the experience gained by the Building America teams has
been reflected in both DOE and HUD roadmapping sessions, development of
research priorities for National Labs, and cooperation on programs
within DOE/BTS. For example, the Building America Program is working
cooperatively with the Windows program at BTS to ensure that advanced
window products are incorporated into high efficiency residential
housing. The Building America Program is also partnering in the Zero
Energy Buildings effort. Additionally, collaborative research
activities with the National Labs, including NREL, ORNL, and LBNL have
resulted in the sharing of knowledge and resources that bridges the gap
between Federal research programs and the industry.
The Residential Buildings Program improves the affordability of
homes by reduced energy use, and results in better use of capital and
natural resources. The scale of impact is exemplified by the 50 percent
savings in the average new home built today-the equivalent of the
energy used by a sports utility vehicle for one year. And, the home
will have a useful life of 100 years.
Investing in residential construction technology makes economic and
market sense. By using improved materials and techniques, the
Residential Buildings partners promote wiser use of resources and
reduce the amount of waste produced in the construction process.
Because of the homes' improved efficiency, emissions from electrical
power will be reduced, potentially eliminating 1.4 million tons of
carbon from the atmosphere over the next ten years. The DOE's
residential programs will also save consumers more than $500 million
each year through reduced energy bills. These savings are permanent and
significant.
IBACOS supports efforts across the government to integrate
activities in the residential building area. This includes work with
the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing (PATH), the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Housing and Urban
Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency. We at IBACOS are
working with PATH communities as a part of Building America. One of the
PATH communities is in Tucson, AZ. IBACOS, through the Building America
Program, is working with the developer and builders on a 2,600-home
sustainable new town called Civano. Through detailed monitoring, the
homes in this community are proving to be at least 50 percent more
efficient than comparable homes. Many of these homes are being heated
and cooled for less than $1 a day. Other communities in which Building
America is serving as a partner with developers, builders, and PATH are
Village Green in CA, Summerset at Frick Park in PA, and emerging
communities in Denver, CO, North Charleston, SC, and in Florida.
Communities are now under construction that will yield upwards of
80,000 units over the next seven years. All of these units will result
in savings between 30 percent and 50 percent of their energy cost and
serve to create market momentum, influencing many other local builders.
Research results on systems integration are exciting and
encouraging. One of the major hurdles in home building has been the
issue of assembling the home on the building site in a way that
maximizes integration of the various components and equipment within
the house. Systems integration results in an airtight house in which
subsystems are used together to optimize the home's engineering and
otherwise increase the overall energy efficiency of the home.
There have been a number of concrete and encouraging results from
research, development and demonstration activities in cooperation with
the Federal government. In fact, IBACOS, as a part of the Building
America Program, has been able to demonstrate to production builders
such as Hedgewood Homes in Atlanta, GA that they can build homes that
save more than 30 percent to 50 percent in energy costs while avoiding
any increase in initial construction costs. Medallion Homes in Texas
markets to first time home builders and offers up to 50 percent
reductions in energy; they have had excellent market success. The rapid
adoption of new technologies from the National Labs and the industry to
the marketplace requires additional demonstration opportunities. We are
pleased to be working with the DOE towards this end.
Additionally, IBACOS has been participating in road mapping
processes for residential buildings. We have partnered with the DOE to
ensure that renewable energy technologies are incorporated into
Building America research and development activities. We feel very
strongly that the integration of the systems into a home is as
important, or even more important, than the individual pieces of
equipment that are installed. We have proven the ability to work with
builders to build single pilot homes and support them through early
adoption in their production lines.
We look forward to continuing to work with the DOE to research and
develop the technology and process necessary to deliver higher
performance homes to the U.S. market, as well build markets for more
efficient equipment and technologies.
We at IBACOS urge you to provide $16 million for the DOE fiscal
year 2004 Residential Buildings Program. Along with the industry cost
share in the program of at least 100 percent, this program has had and
will continue to significantly catalyze improvements in what has
traditionally been a very fragmented industry.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association for State Community
Services Programs
As Executive Director of the National Association for State
Community Services Programs (NASCSP), I am pleased to submit testimony
in support of the President's 2004 Budget request of $288.2 million for
the Department of Energy's (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program
(WAP) and in support of $74 million for the DOE State Energy Programs
(SEP). NASCSP is the member organization representing the states on
issues related to the WAP and the Community Services Block Grant. The
state offices represented by our organization would like to thank this
Committee for its continued support of the WAP and SEP through the
years. The $225 million in WAP funds provided by the Committee in 2003
is expected to result in:
--An additional 93,750 homes occupied by low-income families will
receive energy efficiency services, thereby reducing the energy
use and associated energy bills; and
--Greenhouse gases and environmental pollutants will be significantly
reduced due to the decrease in energy use by these newly
weatherized homes; and
--Nearly 16,000 full time, highly skilled, jobs being supported
within the service delivery network and in related
manufacturing and supplier businesses;
The WAP is the largest residential energy conservation program in
the nation and serves a vital function in helping low-income families
reduce their energy use. Developed as a pilot project in 1975, the WAP
was institutionalized in 1979 within DOE and is operated in all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and on several Native American
reservations. The funds are used to improve the energy efficiency of
low-income dwellings using the most advanced technologies and testing
protocols available in the housing industry. The energy conservation
resulting from the efforts helps our country reduce its dependency on
foreign oil and decreases the cost of energy for families in need. With
lower energy bills, these families can increase their usable income and
buy other essentials like food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and health
care.
The WAP provides an energy audit for each home to identify the most
cost-effective measures, which typically include adding insulation,
reducing air infiltration, servicing the heating and cooling systems,
and providing health and safety diagnostic services. For every dollar
spent, the WAP returns $1.80 in energy savings over the life of the
weatherized home, based on the Energy Information Administration's
long-term energy prices outlook. Since the program's inception, more
than 5,000,000 homes have been weatherized using federal, state,
utility and other monies.
As we all know, these are troubling times facing our nation--war,
budget deficits, homeland security needs, and a slowed economic
recovery. These times create added financial burdens for all Americans,
but especially for those who live at or below the poverty line. Low-
income families have always spent a disproportionate share of their
income for energy needs than their middle-income counterparts. For
example, a typical middle class family pays about 3 to 7 percent of
their annual income for energy costs (heat, lights, air conditioning,
appliances and hot water). Low-income families pay nearly the same
dollar amount each year for energy but this amount represents a
significantly higher percentage of their total household income (14 to
20 percent). In times of energy shortages and escalating energy costs,
the energy burden for these families can reach 25 to 40 percent or more
of their available income.
When energy costs rise, like they have during the 2002-03 heating
season, even a nominal increase can have a dramatic negative impact on
low-income families. The expected increase in this year's energy costs
may amount to an additional $200 for most families. For middle-income
families, this increase will amount to less than one quarter of one
percent of the total household income. For many low-income families;
however, a $200 increase will result in a 3 to 5 percent increase and
will require families to go without other important essentials like
food, medicine, or clothing to meet this higher financial demand.
These families need long-term solutions to help them reduce their
energy use both now and in the future--resulting in lower energy bills.
That is the primary mission of the Weatherization Assistance Program--
``To reduce heating and cooling costs for low-income families,
particularly for the elderly, people with disabilities, and children,
by improving the energy efficiency of their homes while ensuring their
health and safety.''
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory report entitled State Level
Evaluations of the Weatherization Program in 1990-1996: A Meta-
evaluation That Estimates National Savings found that the WAP
significantly improved its energy savings results during those years.
In 1996, the Program showed savings of 33.5 percent of gas used for
space heating--up from 18.3 percent savings in 1989. The increase in
savings was based in large part on the introduction and use of more
sophisticated diagnostic tools and audits. Families receiving
weatherization services can reduce their heating energy use by an
average of 22 percent, making the cost for heating their homes more
affordable. The Evaluation report also concluded that the WAP possessed
a favorable cost-benefit ratio of 2.40 to 1.0. Simply stated, the
federal funds provided to support the Program have a 140 percent return
on investment, or nearly $2.50 in benefits for every dollar invested.
By reducing overall energy use, families can realize average savings of
$250 or more each year, thereby helping families move closer to
economic self-sufficiency.
In addition to direct energy savings from the work performed in the
Program, the WAP also returns non-energy benefits. In a recent report
published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory entitled Non Energy Benefits
from the Weatherization Assistance Program: A Summary of Findings from
the Recent Literature, it was reported that the WAP creates
quantifiable benefits in several categories including: increased
property value, reduced incidence of fire, reduced arrearages, federal
taxes generated from employment, income generated from indirect
employment, avoided costs of unemployment benefits, environmental
externalities. Taken together, for every $1 invested in the program,
Weatherization returns $3.66 in energy and non-energy impacts.
The WAP has always served as a testing ground and provides a
fertile field for the deployment of research conducted by national
laboratories. For example, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory developed
the National Energy Audit (NEAT) for use by local agencies in assessing
cost effectiveness of service delivery. Oak Ridge is currently
investigating the cost effectiveness of including certain base load
measures (water heater replacement, lighting, motor efficiency) into
the Program and continues to test other protocols and material
installation techniques to help state and local agencies improve their
field operations. The Florida Solar Energy Center and the state of
Hawaii are working on the development of cost effective solar hot water
heaters. The State of New York, working in concert with the local
utility companies and the State Energy Research Development Authority,
has implemented a refrigerator replacement program to test the impact
of providing base-load services to conserve energy and reduce costs.
One of the major outcomes of WAP field deployment is that the
private sector eventually adopts these technologies. This pattern has
been established through several advancements including blower door-
directed air infiltration, duct system testing and sealing, furnace
efficiency standards, and insulation and ventilation protocols. The
acceptance of these standards and protocols by the private sector is
enormously important as builders attempt to construct new properties or
rehabilitate existing ones using a renewed energy efficiency
philosophy.
Of equal importance to the technological and programmatic
foundation are the WAP contributions in achieving overall national
energy policies and social strategies. Some examples of how the Program
helps achieve these goals include:
--Reducing harmful green house gas through reduced CO2
emissions by avoiding energy production. Each time a house is
weatherized, the reduction in energy needs reduces the
environmental impact associated with creating that energy
reduction of sulfur dioxide, carbon, and other pollutants
spilled into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels
like oil, coal, kerosene, wood, gas, and propane.
--Increasing jobs in communities throughout the country. For every $1
million invested in the WAP, more than 51 full time jobs are
created and supported in the states. Another 20 jobs are
created in companies who provide goods and services to the
Program. With the $288.2 million requested in the President's
budget, nearly 20,000 full-time, above minimum wage jobs are
created and supported in local communities and in related
service and material industries.
--Investing money into communities through job creation, local
purchasing of goods and services, and tax revenues. These
investments result in many secondary benefits. These residual
benefits, known as ``economic benefit multipliers,'' are
applied to local community investment to value the real worth
of money used locally. This multiplier is 3.5 to 4 times the
actual investment. This means that an investment of $288.2
million in the WAP could yield nearly $1.2 billion in economic
benefits to local communities.
--Reducing consumption of imported fuels by reducing residential
energy consumption. Our country currently imports nearly 60
percent of its oil from foreign countries. This figure is
higher than the import percentage in the 1970s, when the oil
embargo threatened our ability to operate as a nation. The
conservation efforts of the WAP network will help reduce our
country's dependency on foreign oil, thereby strengthening our
country's national security.
In 2001, the Administration earmarked the WAP as a ``Presidential
Priority'' in its National Energy Policy Plan. President Bush committed
$1.4 billion to be added to WAP over a ten-year period to help
thousands of low-income families meet their energy needs while reducing
their energy burden. Each year since then, the Administration has asked
for higher appropriations levels in their budgets submitted to
Congress. In response to these higher budget requests, this Committee
did vote to increase the WAP in 2002 to $230 million--$40 million less
than the President's request but an increase over 2001 levels. In 2003,
the President requested $277.1 million for this Program and your
Committee passed a bill that funded the WAP at $240 million.
Unfortunately, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2003 ended with a cut
of $5 million for the Program from the 2002 level of $230 million (far
below the President's request). Again in 2004, the President, in
keeping with his commitment to WAP as a ``priority'' within his energy
strategy, has asked Congress to appropriate $288.2 million for the
Program. Our organization strongly supports the President's request and
would respectfully request this Committee to provide the funding at the
budget request level of $288.2 million to meet the President's priority
for WAP.
NASCSP is also concerned about the low level of funding proposed
for the State Energy Programs (SEP) in 2004. SEP enjoys a broad
constituency, supporting state energy efficiency programs that include
energy generation, fuels diversity, energy use in economic development,
and promoting more efficient uses of traditional energy resources. SEP
funding has fallen steadily from a recent high in 1995 of $53 million
to its fiscal year 2003 level of $45 million. The President's fiscal
year 2004 request is a further cut to $38 million. The state energy
offices are the crucial centers for organizing energy emergency
preparedness. They have been asked to do much new work in the sensitive
area of infrastructure security. Taking into consideration this growing
burden, the increasing difficulty of managing energy resources,
together with increasing opportunities for states to implement cost-
saving, efficiency-enhancing measures, we are supporting their request
of $74 million for fiscal year 2004. This level would restore the
program's recent funding cuts, enhance their ability to address energy
emergency preparedness, and allow for inflationary impacts since 1995.
By the evidence provided herein, this Committee can be assured that
the increase in WAP and SEP funding will provide essential services to
thousands of low-income families, resulting in greater energy savings,
more economic investments, increased leveraging of other funds, and
less reliance on high-cost, foreign oil--outcomes that will benefit the
nation. NASCSP looks forward to working with Committee members in the
future as we attempt to create energy self-sufficiency for millions of
American families through these invaluable national programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, NASEO submits this
testimony in support of funding for a variety of U.S. Department of
Energy programs. Specifically, we are testifying in support of no less
than $362.2 million in funding for the State Grant programs, including,
the State Energy Program (SEP) ($74 million) and the Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP) ($288.2 million). This figure moves in the
direction of President Bush's promise included in his campaign issue
paper to double the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State
Energy Program. This campaign promise would provide $76 million for SEP
and $306 million for WAP. We also support an important program which
has been a dramatic success, the State Energy Programs Special Projects
(SEP Special Projects) account, which should receive at least level
funding of $19 million. SEP Special Projects has set a standard for
state-federal cooperation and matching funds to achieve critical
federal and state energy goals. These programs are successful and have
a strong record of delivering savings to low-income Americans,
homeowners, businesses, and industry. We also support an increase of
$600,000 for the Energy Information Administration's State Heating Oil
and Propane Program in order to cover the added costs of doubling the
frequency of information collection (to weekly), the addition of
natural gas, and increasing the number of state participants.
Generally, EIA funding is a critical piece of energy emergency
preparedness and response. NASEO continues to support at least level
funding for a variety of critical deployment programs, including
Rebuild America, Energy Star, NICE3 and Industries of the Future.
Proposed cuts in these programs are counter-productive and are
detrimental to a balanced national energy policy. The states also
strongly support increased funding for the State Technology Advancement
Collaborative (STAC). The fiscal year 2003 conference report allocated
$3 million for State Cooperative R, D, D&D initiatives and $5 million
from the science initiative for this effort. We are moving forward as
quickly as possible to implement this directive of the Subcommittee. It
is a new area of cooperation. Our hope is that it will speed
procurement sand dramatically improve multi-state/federal cooperation
and coordination.
Over the last year, both oil and gas prices have been rising in
response to international events as well as very low domestic
inventories. Even in the absence of the international situation, the
United States may very well find itself in the grips of an energy
crisis as summer approaches. In addition, we now have quantifiable
evidence of the success of the SEP program, which we did not have in
years past, which demonstrates the unparalleled savings and return on
investment to the federal taxpayer of SEP.
In January 2003, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) completed a
study and concluded: ``The impressive savings and emissions reductions
numbers, ratios of savings to funding, and payback periods . . .
indicate that the State Energy Program is operating effectively and is
having a substantial positive impact on the nation's energy
situation.''
The ORNL study found that $1 in SEP funding yields:
--$7.23 in annual energy cost savings
--1.17 million source MMBTUs saved
--$3.54 in leveraged funding from the states and private sector
--Annual energy savings of 41,358,478 BTUs
--Annual cost savings of $256,422,600
The annual cost-effective emissions reductions associated with the
energy savings are equally significant: (1) Carbon--719,251.8 metric
tons; (2) VOCs--127.2 metric tons; (3) NOX--5,739 metric
tons; (4) PM10--144.8 metric tons; (5) SO2--7,655.7 metric
tons; and (6) CO--968.7 metric tons
It is important to note that the actual program benefits are even
greater since the ORNL study quantifies the benefits of only 14 SEP
program areas, representing about 60 percent of SEP funding. This means
that the savings above are calculated on 100 percent of SEP funding but
include only 60 percent of the results. Results not quantified include
clean energy production activities such as demonstration of alternative
fuels, development of wind energy resources, and geothermal activities.
In addition, essential energy emergency preparedness and response
activities are not quantified by the ORNL study (since the study
focused only on energy efficiency activities).
EXAMPLES OF RECENT SEP-FUNDED ACTIVITIES
North Dakota
The North Dakota Energy Office has been at the forefront of a
sustained effort to explore the economic viability of wind energy and
to promote its development. The office has utilized State Energy
Program (``SEP'') funding and other funds to forge several partnerships
that have resulted in a high level of wind energy activity in the
state, as well as other important state-based clean energy activities.
The North Dakota Energy Office initiated a comprehensive, utility-
sponsored statewide resource assessment of wind involving all seven of
North Dakota's generation and transmission utilities. The office worked
with local development corporations, DOE's Wind Powering America
program, the Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks,
North Dakota, and several others to create one of the best ongoing wind
resource assessment programs in the country. In addition, the office is
active in statewide landowner meetings in partnership with the
grassroots organization ND SEED (Sustainable Energy for Economic
Development) and EAPC Engineers/Architects of Grand Forks, along with
other information dissemination efforts. Wind energy integration
studies are ongoing.
Wind energy is an important new industry to North Dakota. The state
has a turbine blade manufacturer in Grand Forks, ND, a tower
manufacturer in West Fargo, ND, and related engineering, development,
and construction businesses, employing hundreds of people. With recent
installations and announcements by Minnkota Power Cooperative, Montana-
Dakota Utilities, and Basin Electric Power Cooperative, North Dakota
will move from an installed capacity of .35 MW of wind generation to
over 65 MW by the end of 2004, with more on the horizon.
New Mexico
The New Mexico Energy Office Wind Energy Program is making great
strides in preparing the way for large-scale wind development. The SEP-
supported program has completed an essential wind resource assessment
and monitoring effort, which will aid industry in determining the
feasibility and best locations for wind development. To date, six sites
have been selected for intense monitoring and all appear to have
significant commercial potential. In addition, the energy office has
conducted necessary economic impact studies and other research that
lays the groundwork for the private sector to commit substantial
capital and add fuel diversity to the state's 99 percent fossil-fired
generation fleet. The total $400,000 in SEP funds will garner nearly
$90 million in state incentives for wind projects, and the state
reports that over 200 MW of wind capacity is scheduled to go line by
end of 2003. In addition, the success and data collected to date have
been essential in aiding state decision makers as they considered a
renewable portfolio standard, which will be effective later in 2003,
with a goal of 10 percent renewable generation by 2011.
Montana
The Montana Energy Office completed a demonstration of biodiesel
fuel in Yellowstone National Park in December 2002. The project
addresses the problem of air pollution caused by millions of tourists
who visit the park every year. Biodiesel is produced in Montana from
rapeseed oil (ethyl esters) or potato residues generated by the food
processing industry. The project documents performance and emissions
reductions using EPA protocols from operating a conventional diesel
engine on 100 percent biodiesel. The truck operated normally for
121,000 miles and started well in cold weather. In fact, the only time
it failed to start during the experiment was when the temperature was
-37 on a day when many other vehicles also failed to start. Among
other findings, the sweet odor of the exhaust did not attract bears,
which was a concern for park rangers at the beginning of the
experiment.
Washington
The Washington Energy Office established a telework program with
funding from SEP a number of years ago. The program has grown more
successful each year, with increasing private-sector cost share and the
expansion of the program to Oregon, Arizona, and Texas. The program
reduces vehicle miles traveled, saves energy, improves air quality,
reduces traffic congestion, and enhances job opportunities. Following
the events of 9/11/01, the states were able to use telework as a
foundation for emergency management plans. The SEP-supported telework
program has leveraged more than $1 million in funds to create a
comprehensive package of telework tools including guidebooks, training
kits, on-line training, case studies, and web sites. The program has
aided organizations in 46 states and 12 countries in establishing
programs. And the U.S. Office of Personnel Management lists Telework
Collaborative training materials on its telework web site as suggested
resources for Federal agencies. The multi-state results are impressive:
State agency teleworkers in OR, WA, AZ, and TX drive 8.5 million fewer
miles, saving 283,000 gallons of gasoline. (Note that substantially
more savings are achieved by the program's private sector
participants.) State agency teleworkers in OR, WA, AZ, and TX reduce
2,300 tons CO2 annually.
Florida
The Florida Energy Office's Sensible Sustainable Technology Program
promotes the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy technologies
and reduces fossil fuel environmental impacts. The program demonstrates
sensible sustainable technologies at schools, government buildings and
state recreation facilities. These technologies include, for example,
daylighting, geothermal heat pumps, solar dehumidification and solar
security and street lighting. The results to date include energy
savings of: (1) Daytime lighting loads--640,360 BTUs per lumen; (2)
Dehumidification loads--642,940 BTUs per operating hour; (3) Combined
savings from all projects reduced average Energy Users Index 31,977
BTUs per square foot per year--$739,681; and (4) Fossil fuel savings--
5,424 barrels of oil or 1,379 tons of coal. Emissions reductions have
been 9,250,949 pounds of power plant emissions. The projects have also
saved 6,405,386 gallons of water.
Tennessee
The Tennessee Energy Office's SEP--Energy Smart Schools activity
reduces the energy dollars spent by schools and showcases the economic
benefits of energy efficiency to school systems throughout Tennessee.
The energy office assists schools with energy efficiency lighting
retrofits, and aided in the delivery of $500,000 worth of lighting
improvements in 12 schools in Fayette County. Energy savings have been
1,687,930 kWh annually with annual cost savings of $108,000. The
Project's lifetime economic benefit is $3,766,761--or $7.53 for each
$1.00 expended under the project.
Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Energy Office used SEP to aid in implementing the
Philadelphia Livable Neighborhood Project. The project empowers
individuals to save energy by adopting environmentally sustainable
practices, and worked with 50 EcoTeams (250 households) in low income,
urban neighborhoods to achieve energy reductions through energy
efficiency and conservation. The project resulted in the following
energy savings: (1) Energy use reduced by 9 percent; (2) transportation
fuel use reduced by 13 percent; (3) Per household--14,611,472 fewer
BTUs used for transportation; (4) 117 gallons less transportation fuel
used per household--equivalent to 105.2 gallons distillate #2 fuel oil;
and (5) each of 91 households saved $195--Combined $17,745. Emissions
reductions of CO2 has been 3,711 pounds. Funds leveraged
include: (1) $30K SEP funds; (2) $100K City of Philadelphia; and (3)
$63K PA Department of Environmental Protection, Growing Greener. Other
savings included garbage reduced by 34 percent and water use reduced by
27 percent and neighborhood revitalization should lead to business
development.
Ohio
The Ohio Energy Office's Residential Batch Test Protocol program
evaluates the energy efficiency of homes built to the ENERGYSTAR
standard--key to ensuring the actual delivery of savings to homeowners.
The testing supported by the program examined the feasibility of a
sampling approach verifying that homes meet the ENERGYSTAR standard
rather than more costly mass inspections. This important pilot
addresses the need for large production builders to find a cost-
effective means of assessing the efficiency performance of the ENERGY
STAR homes they construct. The resulting homes, built to standard and
affirmed by the batch test method, will deliver Ohioans an estimated
total annual savings of over 3,670 million BTUs and savings to the
homeowners that will exceed $7.5 million.
Texas
The Texas Energy Office's Loan Star program has long produced great
success by reducing building energy consumption and taxpayers' energy
costs through efficient operation of public buildings. For example, a
recently announced energy efficiency loan to the El Paso Independent
School District will save more than $60,000 per year in energy costs.
The loan is in the amount of $444,075 and will be used to install high-
efficiency lighting in schools throughout the district. The loan will
pay for itself in about seven years, and El Paso will reap the savings
from the lighting for many years thereafter.
Since its inception in 1989, the Texas' program has distributed
more than $163 million in loans to 142 public institutions. So far, the
Texas Energy Office estimates that the program has saved Texas more
than $123 million in energy costs, and savings grow every year. Over
the next 20 years, Texas estimates that the program will save taxpayers
$500 million. The Texas Comptroller said of the program, ``Energy
conservation programs like LoanSTAR are important economic tools for
Texans. When we encourage the efficient use of energy, we save tax
dollars and help preserve our natural resources.''
New York
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority's
(NYSERDA) Flex Tech program continues to succeed by encouraging energy
efficiency in commercial and industrial sectors, by providing cost-
shared and objective engineering assistance to increase energy
efficiency and productivity. With $750,000 per year of SEP funds the
program provides technical information on energy improvements and
implementation of energy efficiency. The SEP-funded portion saves
70,000 barrels of oil equivalent per year, and the entire program saves
the following: (1) 20,000 mWh of electricity per year = electricity use
of more than 3,300 households; (2) 5,000 kW peak load reduction per
year = one-third cost of NGCC plant; (3) 200,000 MMBtu of natural gas
per year = 195 million cubic feet; and (4) 200,000 MMBtu of oil per
year = 34,500 barrels of crude oil. Emissions reductions include: (1)
CO2 30,000 tons per year; (2) NOX 40 tons per
year; and (3) SO2 80 tons per year. SEP funds leverage $14
million in capital improvements, $4 million per year of energy and
operational savings and creates 130 jobs.
CALIFORNIA
The California Energy Commission, Building Energy Code Training
initiative uses SEP and other funds to save energy through energy code
training for large production builders, and improves compliance with
California's Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title
24)--with the cooperation and support of California's homebuilders. The
public-private partnership program provides training in quality energy-
related construction practices (insulation, space conditioning,
plumbing, etc.) To date, more than 400 builder companies and 3,000
builder and local building department staff have participated. Before
the program was implemented, new homes complied with the standards only
15 percent of the time. Following training, participating builders were
in compliance 77 percent of the time. The result is 125,000 new
homeowners have directly benefited in the builder-supported program.
Results include energy savings of: (1) more than 69 trillion Btus
annually in energy efficiency or $600,000,000 in reduced electricity
use, equivalent to nearly 1.7 million households; (2) over 6 years: 388
trillion Btus or $3.3 billion annually for life of homes = electricity
use of nearly 9.5 million households; (3) annual consumer savings over
150 percent of one-time training costs; and (4) total savings =
production of 2 ``peaker'' power plants. Emissions reductions include:
(1) CO2--101,196 pounds; (2) -SO2--7,197 pounds;
and (3) NOX--7,833 pounds.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion we would like to remind the Subcommittee of the
successes that State Energy Offices deliver to the taxpayer in spite of
the relatively small federal investment in the program. This modest
federal investment, through the State Energy Program, is the type of
success that state-federal energy partnerships can deliver. The states'
success is based upon our ability to directly meet the needs of
taxpayers, small business people, farmers, and industry. We are asking
for $74 million in funding for SEP for fiscal year 2004; a small price
to pay for success. As Congress and the Administration consider the
development of a new energy policy, we understand the need to
prioritize funding. We need to achieve a balance between demand side
and supply side resources. The programs we discuss today can help us
address our energy problems, both in the near-term and the long-term.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association
The National Mining Association's (NMA) member companies account
for approximately three-fourths of the coal production in the United
States, over one billion tons annually, and the vast majority of mined
minerals including iron ore, copper, gold, silver, uranium lead, zinc,
and phosphate. The purpose of this statement is to present the mining
industry's views on fiscal year 2004 programs for the following
agencies: Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Energy Information Administration, and the U.S.
Geological Survey.
OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY
National Mining Association strongly supports the Future Gen
project recently announced by Secretary of Energy Abraham. The
integration of coal gasification technology, combined cycle electricity
generation, hydrogen production and carbon sequestration is an
important step for our nation's energy future. Over the long term,
domestic coal can continue to provide the basis for affordable
electricity and become the basis for affordable hydrogen to use in
transportation and other uses. When coupled with carbon sequestration,
America can move rapidly toward energy independence with near zero to
zero emissions. Although the Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year
2004 budget does not specifically incorporate this project we
understand that DOE will use unspent dollars from the Clean Coal
program to help with start up costs. NMA supports reprogramming these
unspent dollars in this way, but oppose taking dollars that are already
budgeted for important ongoing research for this program. The results
of much of the ongoing research in all the coal programs will
ultimately be used as part of the Future Gen project and should not be
shortchanged now. As announced, Future Gen will require funding
participation from the public and private sector. NMA members are
currently evaluating opportunities to participate in a core group of
industrial interests that will help fund the private-sector share of
the project.
NMA supports the DOE Clean Coal Power Initiative's (CCPI) requested
level funding of $130 million to continue with the government-industry
partnerships that demonstrate innovations to allow coal-fueled power
plants to operate more efficiently and with improved environmental
performance. We understand that this will be combined with funding from
the fiscal year 2005 budget into a solicitation so that larger projects
can be undertaken.
The Clean Coal Technology Program (CCTP) has been one of the most
successful cooperative research, development and demonstration efforts
between the government and industry, due in large part to Congress
providing it with advanced funding. This financial commitment gave
lending institutions and industry the confidence to move forward with
high-risk, innovative projects. The same ``up front'' commitment should
be considered for the 10-year, $2 billion, CCPI in order to assure that
the results of the clean coal programs contribute to our nation's
energy and economic security in a timely and effective manner.
At the same time, ongoing R&D activities must be maintained and
expanded to support the greater use of coal while addressing the new
SO2, NOX and mercury standards proposed under the
Clear Skies Initiative. If funding for central system research and for
the fuels program is reduced, as proposed by the DOE budget, it will be
more difficult for these technologies to be developed in the time frame
required. Many of these programs will be used to support Future Gen. We
support the overall increase in funds for the total coal program (an
increase over fiscal year 2003 levels) but note that the request is
still below fiscal year 2002 spending levels. We urge the Congress to
increase the budget to fiscal year 2002 levels with the increase
designated for the central systems and fuels programs.
In particular, NMA supports the increase in research funds
allocated to the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program. We
understand that much of this increase is due to the fact that the
dollars previously dedicated to research on Pressurized Fluidized Bed
Combustion have been transferred to this account. We would support an
additional increase to this account so that there are sufficient funds
to cover technology development in both areas. NMA recommends that the
funding for turbine research be increased from the proposed $13 million
to at least $20 million. The current budget request is enough to
maintain existing research, but is insufficient to begin new research
in this area that is important to coal and all fuels.
Vision 21 looks to the future where highly efficient power plants
will continue to use coal and other fossil fuels to provide Americans
with low-cost electricity and other products. This program is important
to support the President's long term hydrogen initiative. Vision 21
will build on and incorporate many of the technologies developed in the
original Clean Coal Technology program as well as the Clean Coal Power
Initiative. The work that DOE is proposing for fiscal year 2004 is
critical if Vision 21 technologies are to be demonstrated by 2015. NMA
supports funding at, or above, the requests for Vision 21.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration technologies promise to offer an
alternative to emitting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. They are also
an important part of the President's Future Gen initiative. Most of
these projects will be a longer term, but research must begin now. NMA
supports the request for an increase in carbon capture and
sequestration funding to $62 million as a vital part of any climate
change initiative.
Coal Research and Development, Fuels Research.--It is important to
continue funding for coal preparation and liquefaction technologies as
advanced coal preparation technologies promise to reduce the cost of
continued use of coal in traditional applications in large industrial
and electric utility boilers. It is important to continue the industry
cost-shared research work on technologies for manufacturing advanced
carbon-based products. Research in the areas of advanced technologies
for solid-solid and solid-liquid separations directed toward fuel
production and use is equally important. The funding for the entire
solid fuels program has been reduced to $5 million with support for
solid-liquid separations eliminated entirely. NMA supports restoring
$4.0 million for advanced separation research and increasing the entire
solid fuels budget to $15 million.
NMA supports continued funding of the Steubenville Comprehensive
Air Monitoring Program (SCAMP) to develop information essential for
defining the relationship between fine particulate matter (PM)
concentrations in ambient air and the fine PM concentrations to which
individuals are exposed. SCAMP is co-funded by the Department of
Energy, the Ohio Coal Development Office, the National Mining
Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Electric Power
Research Institute, the American Iron and Steel Institute, and CONSOL
Inc.
University Research.--The DOE should continue to provide strong
support for research on mining at the academic institutions. We are
very pleased to see an increase in direct funding for University coal
research that will nearly double the fiscal year 2002 spending levels.
Mining engineering departments continue to consolidate and some are
closing, due to lack of funding. Thus, diminishing the national
capability to develop fundamental sciences to improve mining practices,
and impairing the ability of the universities to train future
generations of mining engineers. The $5 million requested for
University research, with the increase dedicated to projects that focus
on mercury control technologies, is important to support our
educational system.
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
The Mining Industry of the Future Program.--The 58 percent funding
reduction proposed by the Administration's budget must be rejected and
funding levels restored to at least the $5.6 million dollar level
appropriated for fiscal year 2003. The proposed cut to $2.35 million
would mean that several of the projects already underway would have to
be halted in mid-stream. No new research projects starts would be
possible. The research priorities developed through this industry/
government partnership offer important direction to the Department of
Energy, industry and Congress for a sustainable mining industry in the
21st Century. Response to the program has been overwhelming. Since the
program was begun in 1999, 132 proposals totaling nearly $150 million
have been received--at 50 percent, DOE's cost share would be nearly $75
million. Clearly there is a need for mining research that is not being
satisfied as only a portion of these projects could be funded. Of the
total projects started to date, industry's cost share is just over 55
percent, or about $36 million.
In early 2003 five new processing projects led by universities and
industry were selected from 21 new proposals, bringing the total active
projects funded to date to 33. Of these, 10 have been concluded or will
be completed this summer. As these projects wrap-up, the program had
hoped to get several other R&D-related activities underway. A mining
and exploration solicitation was issued early in 2003, with the goal of
selecting new projects by the end of the year. We expect that many of
the proposals will be in the area of mine safety. If the proposed cuts
stand, this solicitation can not go forward.
NMA has incorporated the Mining Industry of the Future program into
its Mining Climate Action Plan (MICAP) developed in response to the
Administration's request to industry to voluntarily reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. The proposed cuts would jeopardize the NMA's efforts in
this climate plan.
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (EIA)
In addition to its value to the nation, the functions performed by
the EIA are of significant importance to the mining industry. EIA's
unbiased analysis and independent short and long-term forecasts form a
basis for reasoned and responsible policy decisions by the Congress,
the DOE and other government agencies on both the Federal and State
levels. EIA's independence and objectivity are especially important as
governments develop policies to respond to energy price increases and/
or to possible energy shortages. EIA's energy data collection and
dissemination responsibilities are essential to industry's ability to
evaluate production and market trends and to make investment decisions
that accrue benefit to the nation.
Unfortunately, the quality, consistency and timeliness of the
underlying data collected and published by EIA--data that provides the
basis for both industry market analysis and for public policy
decisions--was bad last year and continues to deteriorate in terms of
quality, completeness and accuracy. Although the EIA has made
significant strides in improving their data on coal production, the
data on the vital electric utility sector continues to be late,
incomplete and nearly unusable. Consistency in data collection--even on
a month-to-month basis--is nonexistent. There is no consistency in
reporting data. For example, the Monthly Energy Review has two
completely different and seemingly unrelated sets of numbers for coal
consumption and stocks at utilities. EIA should put the matter of the
electric utility data base at the top of its priority list.
Unfortunately the nation is considering a national energy strategy and
new environmental policies on the basis of this flawed data. While we
support the current funding levels suggested for EIA, and would
certainly support an increase, we would urge that the Committee again
include directions to the EIA to take immediate steps to improve the
quality of the data collected and published. Sound public policy cannot
be made if the underlying information used is faulty.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)
The USGS's role in mineral information exploration, identification
of geological hazards and mapping offers important support to the
mining industry. NMA supports maintaining these programs at current or
expanded levels. In addition, the USGS is the only source for most of
the United States' statistical data on mining and minerals commodities.
This information provides the basis for informed policy decisions by
government and is extensively used by other government agencies, by
Members of Congress and by State and local governments, as well as
industry, academia and nongovernmental organizations. NMA opposes the
proposed $8.1 million reduction of funding for the Mineral Resource
Program in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. It is already difficult
to maintain the data quality and timeliness that is so important--not
just to the industry for market analysis purpose--but to the
Administration and the Congress when developing and implementing public
policy. Our nation is becoming more dependent upon foreign sources to
meet our metals and minerals requirements as exploration and
development of domestic resources is declining. Development of a
National Minerals Policy to halt and reverse this trend is vital to our
nation's economic future and strategic defense. The information
collected and made available by the USGS will become all the more
important in future years as Congress begins to consider elements of a
National Minerals Policy. It is important that it be maintained at
least at current levels.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy,
West Virginia University
Chairman Burns, Ranking Member Dorgan, and Members of the
Subcommittee: We appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony
regarding the programs of the Office of Fossil Energy and the Office of
Energy Efficiency in the Department of Energy. We recommend continued
strong support for coal programs and restored funding for critical
elements of the Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency programs which were
reduced in the budget proposal advanced by the Administration. Comments
on specific programs are offered below.
FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAMS
From an overall perspective, we believe that funding recommended
for fossil energy research and development is far below the amount
needed to implement technologies which meet our energy needs, are
environmentally friendly, and promote our energy security. We urge the
Subcommittee to find additional funds to support the overall program at
levels at least as high as the Subcommittee approved for fiscal year
2002.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--Funding for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative needs to be in excess of $150 million if we are to achieve
the Administration's ten year goal of providing $2 billion in support
of demonstrating clean coal technologies. Reducing the fiscal year 2004
appropriation by $20 million compared to fiscal year 2003 because of
unspent funds remaining from previous years is detrimental to the
objectives of this program. Significant investments are made by power
companies to propose projects which place them at high risk should out-
year funds not be available. We need to know that continued funding
would be assured and that funds are available in each competition to
accommodate the large-scale projects necessary to prove new clean coal
technology at commercial scales.
Fuels Program.--Funding for the fuels research program in fiscal
year 2004 has been allocated exclusively to initiate programs for
hydrogen production from coal. While we applaud the initiation of the
hydrogen program, we are deeply concerned regarding the proposed cuts
for research directed toward liquid transportation fuels from coal.
With automobiles numbering in excess of 200 million and large fleets of
trucks, aircraft, and marine vessels, we continue to need advanced
research to develop clean burning fuels for the private, commercial,
and military transportation sectors. In addition to environmentally
friendly fuels, we also must increase our energy security and decrease
our dependence on imported petroleum products. Continued funding is
also recommended for solid fuels and feedstocks research to improve the
quality of coal products while reducing the environmental impacts of
their extraction and use.
We make the following requests regarding programs in transportation
fuels and chemicals currently being supported by the Subcommittee:
--Early Entrance Co-Production Program: Funding for the EECP program
should be continued at a level of $3 million in fiscal year
2004 to complete research initiated on the WMPI and Texaco
projects.
--Work in Ultra Clean fuels should be continued to complete projects
such as the ICRC/Syntroleum program. This program involves
developing a small-footprint gas-to-liquids plant with
demonstrations in Alaska and Washington, D.C. An additional
investment of $4 million is requested to complete this project
and harvest the benefits from the $19 million in federal funds
invested thus far and which were also matched by a similar
investment from the private sector.
--Funding should be restored to continue the C-1Chemistry program in
fiscal year 2004 at the current level of $2 million. Additional
funding of $2 million is recommended to initiate advanced
research into liquid fuels for military applications.
--Under the China-United States Bilateral Agreement, we have an
opportunity to study the design, construction, operation, and
environmental and economic impacts of a large coal-based liquid
fuels production facility. We recommend the addition of $0.5
million to the international component of the Fossil Energy
program to conduct this study. The plant operators in China
will provide significant cost sharing with additional cost
sharing from the United States side.
We note that the FutureGen project proposed by the Administration
has the essential elements to produce liquid fuels, not just hydrogen,
and urge the Subcommittee to recommend that DOE focus on liquid fuels
production along with demonstrating advanced coal gasification,
hydrogen production and carbon sequestration technologies under this
initiative. We further recommend that Fossil Energy be encouraged to
develop coal-based programs funded under the Department of Defense to
address the needs of the military for advanced fuels which meet
logistical requirements.
We make the following requests regarding programs in solid fuels
and feedstocks currently being supported by the Subcommittee:
--Funding for the Center for Advanced Separations Technology [CAST]
should be increased to $4 million to meet mortgages for the
current program of research supported by the National Energy
Technology Laboratory. According to the 2002 Mineral Commodity
Summary, the mining industry contributes 5.6 percent of the
Gross Domestic Product of the United States and the major
industries further increase the value of these minerals to a
total of 17 percent of the GDP.
--We recommend that funds also be found to initiate programs targeted
toward developing advanced mining technologies and training
future miners in view of the importance of this activity to our
economic development.
--Funding for the coal extraction program should be continued at a
level of $1.5 million in fiscal year 2004. In addition, funding
for the Consortium for Premium Carbon Products from Coal should
be continued at a level of $1 million. Both of these programs
focus on producing useful carbon products from coal, a need
which is more critical since many of the traditional sources of
carbon feedstocks are unavailable due to the loss of coking
ovens associated with steel manufacturing and the need to find
alternative carbon sources other than imported petroleum.
Focus Area for Computational Energy Science.--This program develops
models and dynamic simulations of advanced energy plants to improve the
speed and reduce the costs of developing advanced systems. The modeling
results are applicable to a wide variety of fossil energy technologies
such as fuel cells, advanced turbines, combustion systems, FutureGen,
and chemical reactors. We request that the funding for this program be
restored to the level of $5 million which the Subcommittee supported in
fiscal year 2002.
High Temperature Electrochemistry Center.--The High Temperature
Electrochemistry Center [HiTEC] serves as a primary technology
underpinning for Fossil Energy's Advanced Energy Conversion Concepts,
such as FutureGen. HiTEC develops technologies which can resolve
technology barriers standing in the way of developing the power
generation systems of the future. This center is supported in the Other
Power Systems/Distributed Generation Systems element of the Fossil
Energy program and has been recommended for funding at $10 million by
the Administration for fiscal year 2004. We request that an additional
$2 million be added for a total of $12 million to expand the scope of
this program to include other university participants.
Innovations for Existing Plants.--Waste management issues
associated with coal combustion and gasification byproducts require
continued research to maximize recycle use of coal utilization
byproducts for various market applications and to facilitate technology
transfer. We recommend that funding for this line item be increased to
$3 million [vs. $2,475 Administration request] to provide at least $1
million for research on the utilization of combustion byproducts.
Oil and Gas Programs.--The regional Resource Centers funded under
the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council [PTTC] program provide
technology and training to many small oil and gas companies throughout
the nation. The expertise in these centers contributes to important
programs such as regional carbon sequestration. We recommend that the
PTTC program be continued in fiscal year 2004 at a level of $3 million.
We also recommend continuation of the PUMP program.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS
Industries of the Future.--We are concerned that the fiscal year
2004 Administration budget request has significantly reduced funding
for the Industries of the Future program by about 30 percent compared
to fiscal year 2003. Of particular concern is the drastic reduction in
funding for the Industries of the Future (Specific) Program. We have
found that the IOF (Specific) programs enable the energy intensive
industries to rally together in focal programs which build strong
partnerships. The proposed cut will severely curtail the Mining IOF
program. We request that the Industry of the Future (Specific) program
be restored to the fiscal year 2003 level of $52.3 million.
FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program.--As with the Fossil
Energy programs, we are concerned about the focused investment in
hydrogen research for fiscal year 2004 at the expense of research in
traditional liquid fuels. Our nation will use liquid fuels into the
foreseeable future as we develop hydrogen technologies. It is important
that we continue investments in liquid fuels. The present budget
request from the Administration has essentially deleted funding for
these areas. We should continue work toward developing non-petroleum
based fuels using feedstocks such as coal. We request that the
Subcommittee restore funding for Fuels Technology programs to the
fiscal year 2002 level of $24.65 million. We have a particular interest
in the following:
--Non-Petroleum Based Fuels and Lubricants: We request funding for
continuing the programs of the National Research Center for
Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions at a level of $2
million in fiscal year 2004.
--Automotive Lightweight Materials: We request funding for continuing
the Metal Matrix Composites program at a level of $1 million in
fiscal year 2004.
--Fueling Infrastructure: There are over 130,000 natural gas vehicles
and over 300,000 compressed natural gas cylinders in use.
Detailed visual inspection must be performed every three years
or 36,000 miles. There are few certified inspectors, and no
widely available program to train such individuals. We request
funding of $1 million to continue an initiative begun in fiscal
year 2003 to develop a Natural Gas Vehicle Compressed Natural
Gas Cylinder Safety Inspection and Certification Training
program under the leadership of the National Alternative Fuels
Training Consortium [NAFTC]. The NAFTC is an organization of 22
institutions which provide training in alternative fuel vehicle
safety and maintenance. These programs will also be applicable
to storing hydrogen fuels.
closing comments
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on these important
programs. We appreciate the support of the Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council
PROGRAM SUPPORT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY
OIL AND NATURAL GAS R&D PROGRAM
In support of the Department of Energy (DOE) R&D program, this
letter is to provide background on the Petroleum Technology Transfer
Council (PTTC) and focus on the need for the continued research
required in the United States today. Independents continue to drill 85
percent of the wells in the United States. The 7,000 Independents with
an average of 12 employees lack the resources, time and money to pursue
research or spend valuable resources looking for technology related
information. As with the Agriculture Extension Program, PTTC focuses on
bringing practical information to producers in a form they can readily
apply. This provides critical adult education to those out there in the
field developing new oil and gas reserves. Both programs seek to make
America stronger through the education of available technology.
PTTC is a national not-for-profit organization directed by industry
representatives, primarily independent producers. PTTC was established
in 1994 to disseminate technology ideas that were proven yet not widely
accepted across the country to enhance domestic production of oil and
natural gas. The PTTC program is a cost sharing arrangement with
Federal funding by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy, through a grant from
the National Petroleum Technology Office (NPTO) and Strategic Center
for Natural Gas (SCNG) within the National Energy Technology Lab
(NETL). Several state governments, universities, state geological
surveys, and industry provide matching 50:50 cost-share and fully
participate in the program.
For U.S. independent oil and natural gas producers, obtaining
access to cost-effective exploration and production (E&P) technologies
is an act of survival. With limited technical staffs, independents need
field-tested and proven, cost-effective solutions to their E&P
problems. The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) enables
independents to make timely, informed technology decisions--through
targeted connections to potential solutions--in its five program lines:
--Exploration
--Drilling and Completion
--Operations and Production
--Reservoir Management
--Environmental Concerns
PTTC functions as the ``Bridge to Solutions'' for independents by
helping them identify and clarify problems, by educating them about
options for solutions and opportunities, and by connecting them with
technology providers. In each of these areas, PTTC disseminates
information and makes connections via a network of regional resource
centers at universities and state geological surveys with strong oil
and gas expertise. The PTTC organization has 13 regional and satellite
offices in addition to a national office to implement the transfer of
information.
Smaller companies and independents play an expanding role as
primary operators in domestic production of oil and gas due to major
producers withdrawing from onshore activity. To address the shifting
production environment, PTTC's most important products and services
include:
--Low-cost regional workshops that provide real-world solutions
targeted to specific constraints
--Regional resource centers with technical referral assistance to
service companies/consultants and demonstrations of exploration
and production software
--An award-winning national website linked to PTTC's 13 regional and
satellite websites and other technical resources
--Publications and information products including newsletters,
technical reports, databases, and case studies
--National Quarterly Newsletter distributed electronically and
hard-copy form
--Petroleum Technology Digest ``Case Studies'' published in World
Oil
--Tech Connections published in American Oil and Gas Reporter
Technology Transfer Programs Showing Results
In nearly 10 years of transferring results to thousands of industry
people, PTTC has achieved its original goals--and gained the widespread
credibility within the upstream petroleum industry that is vital to
success. PTTC programs disseminate cost-effective technological
solutions addressing a wide range of problems--exploration, drilling
and completion, operations and production, reservoir and development,
as well as environmental compliance.
Following are the most important accomplishments in expanding
industry awareness and technology usage at the national and regional
level:
--Technology workshops.--PTTC held approximately 150 workshops last
year and plans to hold just as many this year. Cumulatively,
more than 37,000 individuals, the vast majority from industry,
have attended PTTC workshops since inception. To leverage
limited resources, most PTTC events are held with other
organizations such as professional societies and state/regional
producers associations.
--Workshops with DOE.--PTTC has sponsored many workshops to transfer
the results of DOE programs to independents, including the
Technologies for Independents Program. In upcoming events, PTTC
actively looks for opportunities to highlight DOE-funded
project results in its regional workshop programs.
--Regional resource centers.--Independents contact their local PTTC
resource center for a variety of services: (1) access to
information/data resources, (2) expert response to inquiries,
(3) demonstration and training for E&P software, (4)
information products, (5) help with understanding technological
problems and opportunities, (6) access to special purpose
databases, and (7) other outreach efforts.
--E&P Software Training.--PTTC is well respected in producing quality
training on software packages that reduce risk and keep
marginal well producing for longer periods, thereby gaining
more of recoverable hydrocarbons. The courses offered are
filled to capacity on a regular basis, which indicates the need
is there and relevance is confirmed.
--Internet websites.--With a national website plus 13 regional and
satellite sites, PTTC's electronic network is a key delivery
system for oil and gas information, data, case studies,
calendars of events, and technical summaries. Industry usage is
increasing as the on-line technical content and search
capabilities grow.
--Newsletters.--The 16-page, quarterly national newsletter, PTTC
Network News, reaches over 16,000 readers (approximately 65
percent are independent E&P companies). Regional newsletters
also inform thousands of local producers about technology
transfer activities and the results of DOE technical programs.
--Case Studies/Reports.--PTTC has developed many producer-vendor case
studies and are releasing new Petroleum Technology Digest case
studies in the World Oil publication on a monthly basis that
reaches over 38,000 readers. These success stories from
companies that have successfully applied a technology are
popular at showing other producers what is working, thereby
reducing risk of application for others and increasing
widespread usage of solid ideas.
--Region-Specific Products.--Several regions have developed products
specific to local needs, such as the Louisiana Desktop Well
Reference on CD-ROM, which provides lease and production data.
The West Coast Region is developing templates to assist
operators reduce produced water production with the
participation of the state of California. This has broad appeal
for the entire country. There are many similar examples in
other regions.
Many DOE programs are designed to encourage environmentally
responsible domestic production from marginal fields operated primarily
by independent producers. Participation in the form of cost share from
industry, state budgets and academia provides substantial leverage for
these programs. But the reality is that federal budgets are under
strain and even programs with attractive benefits are under great
scrutiny.
R&D programs by major producing companies have been significantly
downsized. The service sector is shouldering more of the R&D
responsibility but stock market investors force companies to focus on
short-term results. Investment in the domestic energy sector is
severely challenged. All factors combine to create an environment where
technologies appropriate for mature U.S. reservoirs receive inadequate
resources for development or adaptation. In this environment, there is
a role for federal funding.
The federal government balances short-term and long-term objectives
in providing reliable and affordable energy to consumers across the
country. In the short term, DOE-supported R&D is making an impact in
reducing risks for smaller independent operators and many would like
that work to continue. These projects would not be possible today
without participation from DOE.
The role for government in long-term, high-risk R&D investments is
to ensure new technologies directed at more unconventional resources
continue to enter the pipeline to commercialization so they are
available in the future. These projects have significant potential for
leveraging developing technologies in other industries for application
in the energy industry. Leveraging extends scarce resources and speeds
commercialization. Adequate funding is essential to stimulate the
continued flow of technology into the industry.
The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) appreciates this
opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the fiscal year 2004
appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). PTTC strongly
supports Congressional funding for DOE Fossil Energy's Oil and Natural
Gas Program at a level consistent with the importance of oil and
natural gas production to the domestic economy. This level, which
should be equal or higher than fiscal year 2002-fiscal year 2003
funding levels, is far above the level requested in the
Administration's budget. Continued strong funding is needed for DOE to
fulfill its role in securing domestic oil and natural gas production.
______
Prepared Statement of Plug Power Inc.
Plug Power urges the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
to, at the least, support the President's request of $77.5 million for
the PEM fuel cell program in the Department of Energy's Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office.
My name is Dr. Roger Saillant, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Plug Power, Inc., a developer of on-site energy generating
systems utilizing proton exchange membrane (``PEM'') fuel cells for
stationary power applications. I am particularly pleased about the
opportunity to comment on the U.S Department Of Energy Budget. Plug
Power, our Latham, NY-based company was founded in 1997, as a joint
venture of DTE Energy Company and Mechanical Technology Incorporated.
Plug Power's fuel cell systems for residential and small commercial
stationary applications are expected to be sold globally through a
joint venture with the General Electric Company, one of the world's
leading suppliers of power generation technology and energy services.
Plug Power is very enthusiastic about the attention being paid to
the impact of fuel cell technology on energy transformation and the
interest level in Washington. As President Bush emphasized during his
State of the Union Address, we as a nation currently have an
opportunity to make a great difference to our economy, to our world
position, and to the environment. As an auto company executive veteran
of 30 years experience, who participated in the auto emission, safety,
and fuel economy improvements, I see parallels in the magnitude of the
challenges and the scope of the outcomes. First, the auto company
transition costs were enormous but were forced by regulation.
Currently, the fuel cell industry in partnership with the U.S.
Government is trying to facilitate fuel cell based energy
transformation improvements through R&D and buy-down incentives at a
significant dollar cost. Second, this upcoming change in our energy
situation is related to worldwide problems of natural resource
depletion rates and global environmental degradation. Thus, the United
States must be a technological leader in the emergence of this economic
opportunity. And third, going from a centralized distribution model to
a mosaic of centralized and distributed generation based on fossil
fuels, wind, biomass, solar, and nuclear will require inspired
leadership from our government over an extended period of time.
STATIONARY FUEL CELL DESCRIPTION
A stationary fuel cell is an on-site power generation system that
electrochemically combines hydrogen with oxygen in the air to form
electricity. The hydrogen fuel can be obtained from readily available
fuels, such as natural gas or propane, or in the longer term from
renewable sources. It can also be generated by electrolyzing water with
low-cost off-peak electricity, or with electricity obtained from
renewable sources such as solar, wind, or biomass. Fuel cell systems,
whether for the residential, commercial or institutional markets,
produce not only electricity, but also heat that can be captured and
beneficially utilized in these applications (combined heat and power
[CHP]). This makes such fuel cell systems highly efficient as well as
environmentally friendly. This is in stark contrast to central power
plants where generally the heat is not captured or utilized. The heart
of the stationary PEM fuel cell system is the stack, which is comprised
of the same technology as is used in most fuel cell vehicle
applications.
STATIONARY FUEL CELL BENEFITS
Our traditional central generation model for supply of power in the
United States is failing to meet the needs of a growing economy with
increasing demand for high-quality power. There are weaknesses in power
generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure that can best
be met with the new paradigm of distributed generation: placing the
generating assets on site, where both the thermal and electric energy
is needed. Fuel cells will be an important technology component in our
nation's distributed generation portfolio.
When operating on a fossil fuel such as natural gas, stationary
fuel cells using reformers emit less than half the CO2 (a
primary ``greenhouse gas''), of a traditional, coal-fired power plant.
When fueled by hydrogen from a renewable energy source such as solar,
wind, or hydropower, or if the fuel source is bio-fuel like ethanol
from plant wastes, CO2 emissions are net zero.
Fuel cells can provide highly reliable electricity. Some studies
estimate that power quality and reliability issues cost our economy as
much as $150 billion per year in lost materials and productivity alone,
while others have reported estimates as high as $400 billion per year
(source: Bear Stearns, April 2000 Distributed Energy, p. 8).
Fuel cells require hydrogen and oxygen to react chemically and
produce electricity (and heat) and can therefore use any hydrogen rich
fuel, or direct hydrogen. This allows fuel cell products to be
``customized'' for customers' available fuel. It also provides the
option of renewably generated hydrogen for a fully renewable and zero
emissions energy system.
Because fuel cells provide electricity at the site of consumption,
they reduce the load on the existing transmission and distribution
system. Siting the fuel cells at the point of consumption also avoids
the line losses (up to 15 percent) inherent in moving electricity and
provides an alternative to costly and unattractive traditional power
lines.
Because fuel cells make both electric and thermal energy where it
is needed, the heat can be recaptured in combined heat and power
applications to attain combined efficiencies of over 80 percent.
Fuel cell systems are quiet.
STATIONARY FUEL CELL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Our company participated in the Department of Energy road-mapping
process for the stationary fuel cell program in 2002. During that
process, it became clear that the number one R&D need from the U.S.
Government is to cost share component research and development for
significant cost reductions, as well as life and reliability
improvements. Additionally, the group suggested that a dedicated
national laboratory tackle core, pre-competitive R&D issues that are
beneficial to all of the PEM fuel cell developers.
Clearly, some fuel cell R&D is crosscutting and has applications
for both stationary and transportation applications. For example some
of the basic stack component improvements such as materials, catalysts,
instrumentation and supporting controls, blowers and pumps, will help
both applications. In fuel processing, synergies between the
applications occur as we begin to move to a hydrogen-based system that
is non on-board. And in the integration of fuel cell systems, some
subsystem synergies can be co-utilized. We are pleased that the
Department of Energy recognizes these synergies and has reorganized
into a more comprehensive program.
Where the fuel cell stack is concerned, this means critical
research on both stack and fuel processor involve life and unit cost.
For stationary applications, weight and size can be greater than in
automotive applications; however, the life of the fuel cell must be at
least 40,000 hours compared to an auto fuel cell life need of only 5000
hours. Ideally, the participants in the development of the fuel cell
technology roadmap would like to see a 100,000-hour stack life to make
the fuel cell system akin to other major ``appliances'' in the home or
building.
Fuel to feed a stationary stack will be gaseous, such as natural
gas or propane (or direct hydrogen); therefore, reformer technology is
very different from onboard vehicular reforming of liquid fuels.
Research agendas include the need for significant reformer cost
reduction, as well as life and reliability improvements. Fuel clean up
is also important and there are hence implications for the fuel cell
stack and how many ``impurities'' it may be able to accept.
The integrated system design for the major fuel cell components
including supporting subsystems (i.e., cooling, water management, etc.)
depends on the application. Integration and systems architecture are
very important development needs for fuel cell manufacturers, as is
manufacturing improvements and research.
NEED FOR GOVERNMENT R&D AND SYSTEMS INTEGRATION
Plug Power is enthusiastic about the President's commitment to
hydrogen and fuel cell technology made evident by his State of the
Union Address and budget increase. We feel that there is a vital role
for the U.S. Government, and specifically the Department of Energy, to
work with industry on pre-competitive research and on systems
architecture and integration with specific products and applications in
mind. These efforts begin with a fundamental understanding of the PEM
fuel cell stack membranes, catalysts, plates, as well as reformer
fundamentals as they relate to contaminant resistant catalysts and
hydrogen storage technology. Further, the availability of higher
quality heat from high temperature (150C to 200C) PEM stacks requires
fundamental research on stack components and associated systems that
further increases the value and impact of stationary power systems.
Another area of high interest is the coupling of hydrogen generation
for stationary and automotive applications to further increase overall
efficiency and impact the progress toward widespread fuel cell use and
greater energy independence. The results of all these efforts are
universally applicable to fuel cell power systems, speed their
commercial introduction, and move the United States closer to energy
independence.
Pre-competitive research is tough for industry. When I first became
CEO of Plug Power, I wrote to many of the PEM fuel cell developers with
a plea that we work together on fundamental research issues that are
vital to all our interests. This is not something a competitive
industry will readily undertake. Rather, the government has to take the
lead in bringing us all together, ensuring that no one's rights are
infringed upon similar to the Semetech approach used in Austin in the
late 80's. I feel very strongly that there are ``leapfrog''
technologies that will help all of us in the fuel cell industry, while
helping the United States become a global technology leader in this
field. We need to work together, with the DOE taking the lead, to find
those leapfrog advancements. Without this private-public partnership,
the U.S. industry will fail to develop and will allow another country
to win the race to lead this industry.
We urge this Subcommittee to, at the least, approve the President's
request for an additional $20 Million for the PEM fuel cell program in
the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office.
______
Prepared Statement of SAGE Electrochromics, Inc.
SAGE Electrochromics, Inc., located in Faribault, Minnesota, is a
developer of energy saving electrochromic (EC) window products and is
working in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE.) We at
SAGE urge you to recommend a budget level of $7,000,000 for the
Window's Technologies Program at DOE including $2.5 million for
electrochromics R&D, engineering and systems integration in fiscal year
2004 Interior Appropriations.
brief description of electrochromics
An electrochromic window (door or skylight) is a solar control
device that regulates the flow of light and heat with the push of a
button. In this way the window tint can be varied from fully colored to
completely clear or anywhere in between. The electrochromic (EC)
properties are achieved through vacuum deposited thin films on one of
the glass surfaces, with the rest of the construction being very
similar to the standard insulated glass used in millions of homes and
office buildings.
THE UNIQUE BENEFITS OF ELECTROCHROMICS AND WHY THEY ARE GOOD FOR THE
COUNTRY
Industrial and government partners in the DOE EC program are
performing cost shared research and development that will lead to
significant energy and cost savings by fundamentally changing the
nature and function of window products for tomorrow's buildings.
Significant savings in the cooling and lighting loads can be achieved
while reducing peak electricity demand. Just as important is the
ability of EC technologies to improve visual and thermal comfort and
thereby increase worker productivity and the aesthetics of the home or
office space.
Traditionally, adding windows to a building envelope has meant
reducing energy efficiency because the other materials in the structure
are much more energy efficient. However, with EC technology, windows
will become multifunctional energy saving appliances in the home or
office space and thereby will allow increased use of windows for
aesthetic reasons. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories (LBNL)
estimated that the use of EC in average size windows in commercial
buildings will reduce cooling electricity consumption by up to 28
percent, lower peak electrical power demand by 6 percent and decrease
lighting costs by up to 19 percent for the entire building perimeter
zone.
In the residential sector, use of electrochromic windows could lead
to a 65 percent reduction in cooling over the existing installed base
and a 47 percent reduction in cooling over the best performing glass
used today--spectrally selective low-E. Heating savings based on the
weighted average U-value and shading coefficients for the installed
base and new construction are 61 percent and 31 percent respectively.
This will be even more important for the customer's bottom line as the
cost of energy becomes increasingly market driven.
National energy savings are also impressive. The calculated
national total energy savings for all market segments due to EC glazing
adoptions show energy savings of 0.71 quads across all market sectors,
which translates into total annual national energy cost savings of
$11.5 Billion. These estimates are based on current EC technology,
which is expected to improve during the marketing period. Additionally,
the LBNL estimates do not include the use of occupancy sensors, which
could substantially reduce cooling costs in the summer and heating
costs in the winter simply by switching the EC glass to the completely
darkened or clear states at the appropriate time.
Although energy and energy-related costs savings are significant,
additional benefits accrue from using EC technology and may even be
more important. Reduced fading of fabrics has significant cost impacts
in many installations. Glare control and greater thermal comfort, as
well as the ability for full daylighting have been shown to increase
worker productivity and reduce absenteeism. Ability to change building
design to take advantage of more window space is a significant
architectural benefit and may additionally reduce energy use as a side
benefit. And the EC industry could easily grow to over $15 Billion.
ADDITIONAL WORK TO BE DONE REQUIRES FURTHER INVESTMENT
The Department of Energy has supported this research and
development for the past few years, but insufficient funding has been
split among a number of players in the industry. Traditionally,
activities have focused on development of durable electrochromic
materials and devices for use in building applications. This has moved
the technology so far; however, it has become clear that the industry
needs and will cost share pre-competitive research in three areas.
First, continued materials and basic component research for EC windows,
which is the principal area funded by the DOE EC program in prior
years. Second, technology and engineering activities focused on volume
manufacturing processes for improved performance, yields and
reliability. And third, systems engineering and applications research
focused on design, specifications, installation and lifetime of the
products in building applications.
In Materials and Components Research and Development, near term
activities must focus on continued optimization of the device and the
individual thin film layers further improving optical performance and
achieving coloration desired by architects and building owners. These
advancements will be very important to maximize market penetration and
hence the total national energy savings provided by electrochromic
windows. Modifications to achieve more rapid switching will be required
for those applications in which glare must be reduced quickly (e.g.
workplaces with computer display terminals). Additionally, advanced,
durable window controls technology must be developed that can
reproducibly switch EC glazings to appropriate transmission states for
occupant comfort and/or optimum energy savings.
With respect to Manufacturing Technology and Engineering, future
activities should apply basic knowledge developed from the materials
and components R&D to design for volume production and the
implementation of in-situ diagnostics for rapidly and automatically
controlling EC window fabrication processes. Additionally, consensus EC
window performance requirements must be developed together with
standards setting organizations and will entail significant testing in
the initial stage to establish the technical basis for performance
requirements. Testing needs to include laboratory testing of large
electrochromic windows under simulated solar irradiation and
accelerated temperature conditions, and towards the end of 2003,
extensive outdoor testing in which windows can be exposed to a range of
real world environmental conditions.
In Systems Engineering and Application, the DOE program must begin
initial field trials of EC windows in occupied buildings. The first
installations will have fairly simple controls and elicit user feedback
on performance comfort level and other parameters. Multiple window
control must be developed and demonstrated so we can learn how to tie
the adjacent windows together for control of the overall space.
In summary, SAGE Electrochromics, Inc. urges the Subcommittee to
include $7,000,000 for the Window's Technologies Program at DOE
including $2.5 million for electrochromics R&D, engineering and systems
integration in fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations. It is obvious
that with continued public and private partnership, EC research will
open the door for significant energy and cost savings in the United
States.
______
Prepared Statement of the Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation believes that energy
technology R&D is essential to our nation's future and respectfully
offers the following funding level recommendations in the fiscal year
2004 DOE Fossil Energy R&D budget for Interior Appropriations:
High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET).--$24 million: to
increase university-led research, strengthen advanced materials and
advanced combustion research.
Vision 21 Hybrids--Distributed Generation.--$16.5 million: to
accelerate commercial applications by completing on-going fuel cell and
hybrid system technology development.
Innovative Systems Concepts--Distributed Generation.--$43 million
to fully-fund on-going research for next generation, high power density
stationary power fuel cell systems (SECA).
Sequestration R&D.--$62 million: supporting the Administration's
request.
--The United States has placed a high priority on developing cleaner
more efficient electric power generation technologies;
--The Administration's 2004 budget proposal correctly recognizes the
need for continued investments in fossil fuel R&D in order to
meet the increasingly demanding environmental, siting and
efficiency demands for new generation technologies;
--New proposals now being debated in the Congress will significantly
tighten environmental standards but today's technologies are
unlikely to meet these standards without additional R&D
investments;
--The Administration is addressing the need for advanced energy
technologies through initiatives like the Clean Coal Power
Initiative and FutureGen, as well as the Freedom Car and
Freedom Fuels proposals. Implicit in all of these initiatives
is the need to employ our extensive technology capabilities to
utilize coal, our most abundant, dependable and least expensive
energy source. As we move to develop emerging coal technologies
like integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and other
stationary fuel cell hybrid turbine applications, advanced gas
turbines and stationary fuel cells are certain to play key
roles in the U.S. generation supply mix;
--The National Research Council's recent report on DOE's Vision 21
program recommended that ``additional commitments should be
made to develop, design and test large scale turbine and fuel
cell power systems that can function successfully on both
synthesis gas (syngas) and hydrogen: ``The full potential of
these cleaner burning and more efficient coal-based generation
technologies cannot be achieved without continued investments
in advanced gas turbine and stationary fuel cell
technologies'';
--The Administration has correctly recognized the need for continued
R&D funding support for the cost shared, industry--DOE gas
turbine program. This program has been refocused and renamed
the High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET) program but
funding has remained essentially flat for several years while
the need and program goals have increased;
--The Administration also continued its R&D investment in stationary
fuel cell applications but with the focus now on fuel cell
transportation applications, the stationary fuel cell program
funding needs have suffered. The proposed 2004 funding level
for stationary applications for example is $16 million less
than fiscal year 2003. This is despite the widespread
recognition that the development of stationary fuel cell
applications is necessary before their success in the
transportation sector is possible. Successful commercialization
of stationary fuel cells should provide key technology building
blocks that will be required for the transportation programs to
reach the aggressive goals which have been established;
--As a result, the Administration's stationary fuel cell and turbine
program funding commitments fall significantly short of the
funding needed for these two key technologies if the United
States is to achieve the Administration's laudable
commercialization objectives.
Under the Fuel and Power Systems/Turbines budget line, Siemens
Westinghouse Power Corp. recommends a 2004 funding level for DOE's
refocused HEET program of $24 million. While this level is well above
the Administration's recommendation of $13 million, it is conservative
when compared to DOE--Stakeholder estimates that the program should be
funded at the $240 million (i.e. $40 million a year) level over six
years if we are to achieve the cost reductions necessary for widespread
market penetration of high-efficiency coal plants.
Under Distributed Generation/Vision 21 Hybrids we recommend a
funding level of $16.5 million (of which $11.5 million is for continued
development of the existing tubular SOFC program). This recommended
increase is up significantly from the Administration's request of $5.0
million in order to continue to achieve cost reduction goals necessary
for commercial market penetration. Past funding shortfalls have
resulted in the stationary fuel cell R&D program failing behind in its
commitments and the $16.5 million funding level should enable DOE to
continue progress toward the aggressive cost reduction targets mandated
under the Vision 21 program.
Under the Distributed Generation--Innovative Systems Concepts
budget line, we also recommend that funding be increased to $43 million
for fiscal year 2004. This increase is necessary just to maintain DOE's
previous program contract commitments. The Solid State Energy
Conversion Alliance or SECA, which this budget line supports, holds
great promise for delivering an advanced low cost solid oxide
technology that will make possible smaller and more efficient fuel
cells for the stationary and transportation markets.
GAS TURBINES
The Department of Energy, in cooperation with industry, funded
research and development through its Advanced Turbine Program that has
made the latest generation of gas turbines, in a combined cycle
configuration, almost twice as efficient as the existing fleet of power
plants, and with significantly lower emissions. At the same time,
natural gas turbine based generation technology can also be deployed
with investment costs that are also among the lowest now available in
the marketplace.
The United States is in the process of committing itself to major
improvements in both the efficiency and the emission levels of coal
powered power plants under the Administration's Clean Coal Power
Initiative. It has also committed itself to development of the hydrogen
economy through the FutureGen, FreedomCar and FreedomFuel programs. We
can also expect that the FutureGen initiative should result in
significant improvements in emission and efficiency levels for existing
coal burning generation facilities while at the same time moving us to
a new generation of technologies like Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle (IGCC). IGCC holds the potential of using the United States' vast
reserves of cheap and abundant coal in ways that are substantially
cleaner, more efficient and which will be able to sequester
CO2.
While the Administration has recognized the important role of the
gas turbine in preserving future U.S. coal markets by including funding
for the HEET program in its 2004 DOE R&D budget proposal, the level is
significantly below the level required to develop critical advanced
materials, sensors, and combustion technologies. In order to develop an
advanced turbine suitable for use in advanced generation technologies
such as IGCC and fuel cell hybrids that operate on natural gas or
synthetic gas from coal, we recommend that the funding level be
increased to $24 million. At this level we can continue the needed
natural gas R&D and accelerate the R&D needed for synthetic coal gas
applications. Our recommendation reflects the technology needs
identified by DOE and others and is also consistent with the view that
the program is an integral and key component of the NEP, the CCPI and
FutureGen. This increased level of funding will also permit adequate
support for the Cooperative University Gas Turbine Technology Research
Program. This program has played a key role in encouraging pre-
competitive basic science program participation by the university
community and has been a major source of graduate level recruitment for
the power generation industry.
Unfortunately, today's advanced gas turbines that use technologies
developed under DOE's Advanced Turbine Systems program will require
major technology advances if they are to play the key roles envisions
by the Administration's initiatives because;
(1) Today's turbine technologies cannot use the coal-derived
synthetic fuel gas or high hydrogen content gas produced by
gasification technology and essential to the Department of Energy's
FutureGen initiative;
(2) We do not have the materials available that will permit today's
machines to operate at the much higher operating temperatures that will
be required and thus advanced materials such as ceramics will be
needed;
(3) We do not have the integrated diagnostic equipment, such as on-
board sensors, to permit the higher levels of reliability needed in
integrated systems. Thus without significant additional research and
development in combustion science, advanced real time sensors and
diagnostics and advanced materials we run the very real risk that other
advanced technology components could be ready for deployment, but lack
the key component, the advanced gas turbine.
Without the research and development investments recommended above,
the ability of the energy industry to meet the future needs of the
economy with minimal environmental impact, could be jeopardized. With
the successful resolution of these and similar technology questions,
the United States will be able to increase its national energy
security, lower consumer cost and reduce emissions.
FUEL CELLS
Stationary fuel cell technology has advanced rapidly in recent
years and is increasingly seen as the stepping stone to more distant
transportation applications. In particular, fuel cell stationary power
applications are now a technological reality although their costs
currently limit their application to niche markets where the high costs
can be justified.
The Siemens Westinghouse Pittsburgh-based tubular solid oxide fuel
cell (SOFC) technology is at a critical pre-commercialization stage
with continued pre-commercial demonstrations for product development
required to assure commercial viability. The current focus on cost
reduction efforts also enables a competitive technology which is
crucial to the development of high volume manufacturing for
commercialization. While the SOFC program has resulted in impressive
cost reductions, additional work on advanced cell manufacturing,
manufacturing assembly and fabrication technologies is critical to
achieve the mandated DOE cost reduction targets. To date, our efforts
have produced a superior technology that has demonstrated the longest
running fuel cell of any kind, the longest running high temperature
fuel cell system, and the world's first high efficiency fuel cell/
mircroturbine hybrid, But continued federal support is critical to
achieving the program's milestones and commitments. To achieve these
additional cost reductions we recommend a fiscal year 2004 funding
level for the Vision 21 Hybrids budget line of $16.5 million.
While the Vision 21 solid oxide fuel cell program is now nearing
completion, a next generation of fuel cells is also under way. The
Solid Energy Conversion Alliance or SECA, is being implemented under
the Innovative Systems Concepts--Distributed Generation Systems budget
line. SECA will take the technology lessons learned in the Siemens
Westinghouse tubular SOFC program and apply them to a more advanced
SOFC program designed to reduce the costs dramatically and make
possible the widespread deployment of stationary fuel cells in
stationary, military and transportation markets. This program holds
enormous potential but at the Administration recommended level of $23.5
million, it is unlikely to achieve its goals in a timely fashion. We
recommend therefore that the Innovative Systems Concepts budget line be
increased to at least $43 million in order to achieve the cost
reductions necessary to achieve market penetration in the time frames
currently proposed by the program. Even at the $43 million funding
level, the program would only meet existing SECA contract commitments.
SEQUESTRATION R&D
The Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation supports the
Administration's request for $62 million directed towards carbon
sequestration. This forward-looking program is expected to culminate in
the development of a virtually emissions-free generation technology. To
support this goal, we have defined a concept that uses solid oxide fuel
cell technology. The technology, known as the Zero Emission 250 kWe
SOFC combined heat and power system would enable the emissions from the
power system to be processed in such a way that the CO2
exhaust is separated and captured. Support for this and other advanced
sequestration technology applications can benefit from the
Administration's FutureGen initiative.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Company
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Southern Company
operates the Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) in Wilsonville,
AL on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL) and several industrial participants.\1\
The PSDF was conceived as the premier advanced coal power generation
research and development facility in the world and it has fulfilled
this expectation. I would like to thank this subcommittee for its past
support for the PSDF and request its continued support. This statement
is in support of a $13 million increase in DOE's Coal and Power Systems
budget for the PSDF. The current budget requests $21 million for the
PSDF in fiscal year 2004; however, $34M is needed to conduct the
research needed to support the success of FutureGen--The Pollution Free
Power Plant of the Future--recently proposed by President Bush. The
major accomplishments at the PSDF to-date and the future test program
planned by DOE and the PSDF's industrial participants are summarized
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current participants include Southern Company, EPRI, Kellogg
Brown and Root, Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation, Peabody Energy,
and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company. Foster
Wheeler Corporation is a major past participant and Air Products and
Chemicals, Praxair, Inc., and Pall Corporation among others have
proposed significant participation in the future. In addition to the
Wilsonville plant site major work is planned, or components for the
PSDF are being developed at the following locations: Grand Forks, ND
(sub-scale gasifier testing), Houston, TX (gasifier development);
Orlando, FL (gas turbine low-NOX burner), Pittsburgh, PA
(filter fabrication), Allentown, PA and Tonawanda, NY (advanced air
separation technology); and DeLand, FL (filter fabrication).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key feature of the PSDF is its ability to test new systems at an
integrated, semi-commercial scale. Integrated operation allows the
effects of system interactions that are typically missed in
unintegrated pilot-scale testing to be understood. The semi-commercial
scale allows the maintenance, safety, and reliability issues of a
technology to be investigated at a cost that is an order of magnitude
below the cost of commercial scale testing. Capable of operating at
pilot to near-demonstration scales, the PSDF is large enough to give
industry real-life data, yet small enough to be cost-effective and
adaptable to a variety of technology research needs.
In addition, Southern Company supports the overall $60 million
increase in the President's Coal Research Initiative within DOE's
Fossil Energy R&D program for fiscal year 2004 recommended by the Coal
Utilization Research Council (CURC \2\). The goals of the Technology
Roadmap developed and supported by DOE, the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) and the CURC are achievable with funding at this
increased level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CURC has over 40 members interested in coal-based energy
systems including major universities, coal companies, railroads,
electric generators, and technology suppliers. CURC members also
include EPRI, the United Mine Workers of America, the Edison Electric
Institute, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Roadmap identifies the technical, economic, and environmental
performance that advanced clean coal technologies can achieve over the
next 20 years and is included in CURC's testimony presented before this
committee. CURC believes that over this time period coal-fired power
generation efficiency can be increased to over 50 percent (compared to
the current fleet average of 32 percent today) while producing de
minimis emissions and developing cost-effective technology for carbon
dioxide management.
The Roadmap also identifies the R&D cost to achieve this
performance. From now until 2010 $6.6 billion is needed and over the
following decade approximately $3.5 billion is needed--a total of $10.1
billion. About half of these funds will come from industry and half
from the Federal government. This is a $5 billion Federal investment
over the next 20 years that can be reasonably projected to return at
least $300 billion in benefits to U.S. consumers by 2050. EPRI recently
used the modern financial technique called ``Real Options'' to estimate
the value of advanced coal research and development.\3\ The major
conclusion is that the value to U.S. consumers of further coal R&D for
the period 2007-2050 is at least $360 billion and could reach $1.38
trillion. But, for these benefits to be realized the critically
important R&D outlined in the Technology Roadmap must be conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPRI Report No. 1006954, ``Market-based Valuation of Coal
Generation and Coal R&D in the U.S. Electric Sector,'' May 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
The United States has always been a leader in energy research.
Given the concerns for homeland security, adequate funding for fossil
energy research and development programs will provide this country with
secure and reliable energy while reducing our dependence on foreign
energy supplies. Current DOE fossil energy research and development
programs for coal, if adequately funded, will assure that a wide range
of electric generation technology options continue to be available for
future needs. The choices that confront Congress when it examines the
near-term effects of research programs on the Federal budget are
difficult. However, significantly increased support for advanced coal-
based energy research is essential to the long-term environmental and
economic well being of the United States. Prior DOE clean coal research
has already provided the basis for $100 billion in consumer benefits at
a cost of less than $4 billion. Funding the Technology Roadmap
beginning with this year's request of $60 million above the
Administration's budget request for DOE coal R&D can lead to additional
consumer benefits of between $360 billion and $1.38 trillion.
One of the key national assets for achieving these benefits is the
PSDF. The fiscal year 2004 funding for the PSDF needs to increase to
$34 million to support construction of new technologies that are
critical to the success of President Bush's FutureGen program.
PSDF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The PSDF has developed testing and technology transfer
relationships with over 50 vendors to ensure that test results and
improvements developed at the PSDF are incorporated into future plants
by the systems suppliers. Major subsystems tested and some highlights
of the test program at the PSDF include:
Transport Reactor.--The Transport Reactor has been operated
successfully as a pressurized combustor and as a gasifier in both
oxygen- and air-blown modes and, as a result has exceeded its primary
purpose of generating gases for downstream testing. It is now projected
to be the lowest capital cost coal power generation option while also
providing the lowest cost of electricity with excellent environmental
performance.
Advanced Particulate Control.--Two advanced particulate removal
devices and 28 different filter elements types have been tested to
clean the product gases, and material property testing is routinely
conducted to assess their suitability under long-term operation. The
material requirements have been shared with vendors to aid their filter
development programs.
Filter Safe Guard Device.--To further enhance reliability and
protect downstream components, a ``safe guard'' device was successfully
developed that reliably and completely seals off the filter element
upon filter element failure, thus preventing damage to the combustion
turbine.
Coal Feed and Ash Removal Subsystems.--The key to pressurized
operation is reliable operation of the feed system to the pressurized
reactor and ash removal system from the reactor and filter vessel.
Modifications developed at the PSDF and shared with the equipment
supplier allows the equipment to perform in a commercially acceptable
manner.
Syngas Cooler Testing.--Syngas cooling is of considerable
importance to the gasification industry. Ferrules made of several
different materials were tested at the inlet of the gas cooler and one
ceramic material has been shown to perform well in this application.
Instrumentation.--Several instrumentation vendors have worked with
the PSDF to develop and test their instruments under realistic
combustion and gasification conditions.
Highly Experienced Staff.--In addition to this physical
infrastructure, a highly experienced staff has been created that has a
demonstrated ability to solve complex technical problems and rapidly
move new technologies to commercial applications.
PSDF FUTURE TEST PROGRAM
Future testing at the PSDF is intended to support FutureGen, the
previously described Technology Roadmap, and the DOE Vision 21 coal
initiative, which aims to eliminate all the environmental issues that
present barriers to the continued use of coal. This includes major
reductions in emissions of SO2, CO2,
NOX, particulates, and trace elements (including mercury),
as well as reductions in solid waste disposal and water consumption.
The focus will remain on the commercialization of these new
technologies as well as those currently under development at the PSDF.
Assuming adequate funding the new five-year program at the PSDF is
planned to include the following activities.
Oxygen-Blown Transport Gasifier.--Continue the development of the
oxygen-blown Transport Gasifier to further optimize its performance,
explore feedstock flexibility and provide syngas for testing of Vision
21 technologies and FutureGen.
Air Separation Membranes.--Test advanced air separation membrane
modules provided by Praxair and Air Products to evaluate membrane
performance and system integration issues.
Advanced Synthesis Gas Cleanup.--Test new advanced synthesis gas
cleanup systems for hydrogen sulfide, hydrochloric acid, ammonia, and
mercury removal to near-zero levels.
Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Element Test Skid.--Test a solid oxide fuel
cell to evaluate performance on coal-derived synthesis gas and identify
integration issues. Combustion Turbine Burner: Integrate the existing
3.8 MW combustion turbine with a new synthesis gas burner developed by
SWPC.
H2/CO2 Separation Technologies.--Integrate
and test advanced H2/CO2 separation technologies
to assess performance on coal-derived synthesis gas.
Synthesis Gas Cooler.--Test alternative designs that are less
complex, have lower capital cost, and offer better control of the
synthesis gas exit temperature.
Cooler for Char Removal from Gasifier.--Alternatives to current
screw cooler technology have been developed and will be evaluated and
tested to improve reliability and availability. New Particulate Control
Device (PCD) Internals: Evaluate alternative filter internal designs
from several vendors.
High-Temperature Valves for Char Removal from the PCD.--Original
design requirements dictated high temperature char depressurization.
Developments since startup allow substantially reduced char temperature
prior to depressurization. Several higher reliability moderate
temperature valves are available that need to be tested.
Improved Fuel Feed Systems.--Alternatives to conventional lock
hopper feed systems have been identified and will be evaluated. The
results will be applicable to all dry-feed gasifiers.
High-Temperature Heat Exchangers.--The PSDF has been identified as
a suitable location for testing of high-temperature heat exchangers
that can be used in both advanced combustion and IGCC technologies.
Sensors.--Several vendors have begun testing their sensors for a
variety of functions, including control of temperature and coal feed
rate; detection of gaseous species, tar, and dust at low
concentrations; and detection and continuous measurement of hazardous
air pollutants.
______
Prepared Statement of the Teachers' Retirement System, State of
California
Department of Energy.--Elk Hills School Lands Fund: $59 million for
sixth annual installment of Elk Hills compensation
Acting pursuant to Congressional mandate, and in order to maximize
the revenues for the Federal taxpayer from the sale of the Elk Hills
Naval Petroleum Reserve by removing the cloud of the State of
California's claims, the Federal Government reached a settlement with
the State in advance of the sale. The State waived its rights to the
Reserve in exchange for fair compensation in installments stretched out
over an extended period of time.
Following the settlement, the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve went
forward without the cloud of the State's claims and produced a winning
bid of $3.65 billion, far beyond most expectations. Under the
settlement between the Federal Government and the State, the State is
to receive compensation for its claims in annual installments over 7
years without interest. Each annual installment of compensation is
subject to a Congressional appropriation. In each of the past 5 fiscal
years (fiscal years 1999-2003), Congress has appropriated the funds
necessary to pay the $36 million installment of compensation due for
that year.
Congress should appropriate for fiscal year 2004 the $59 million
due as the sixth annual installment payment of compensation under the
settlement that Congress directed the Administration to achieve.
The Elk Hills appropriation has the broad bipartisan support of the
California Congressional delegation. Senator Feinstein is the lead
Senate sponsor. On the House side, the California House delegation has
sent a letter signed by the entire delegation to the Chairman of the
House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee strongly supporting the $59
million appropriation for fiscal year 2004.
BACKGROUND
Upon admission to the Union, States beginning with Ohio and those
westward were granted by Congress certain sections of public land
located within the State's borders. This was done to compensate these
States having large amounts of public lands within their borders for
revenues lost from the inability to tax public lands as well as to
support public education. Two of the tracts of State school lands
granted by Congress to California at the time of its admission to the
Union were located in what later became the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum
Reserve.
The State of California applies the revenues from its State school
lands to assist retired teachers whose pensions have been most
seriously eroded by inflation. California teachers are ineligible for
Social Security and often must rely on this State pension as the
principal source of retirement income. Typically the retirees receiving
these State school lands revenues are single women more than 75 years
old whose relatively modest pensions have lost as much as half or more
of their original value to inflation.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION TO SETTLE THE STATE'S CLAIMS
In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) that mandated the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve to
private industry, Congress reserved 9 percent of the net sales proceeds
in an escrow fund to provide compensation to California for its claims
to the State school lands located in the Reserve.
In addition, in the Act Congress directed the Secretary of Energy
on behalf of the Federal Government to ``offer to settle all claims of
the State of California . . . in order to provide proper compensation
for the State's claims.'' (Public Law 104-106, Sec. 3415). The
Secretary was required by Congress to ``base the amount of the offered
settlement payment from the contingent fund on the fair value for the
State's claims, including the mineral estate, not to exceed the amount
reserved in the contingent fund.'' (Id.)
SETTLEMENT REACHED THAT IS FAIR TO BOTH SIDES
Over the course of the year that followed enactment of the Defense
Authorization Act mandating the sale of Elk Hills, the Federal
Government and the State engaged in vigorous and extended negotiations
over a possible settlement. Finally, on October 10, 1996 a settlement
was reached, and a written Settlement Agreement was entered into
between the United States and the State, signed by the Secretary of
Energy and the Governor of California.
The Settlement Agreement is fair to both sides, providing proper
compensation to the State and its teachers for their State school lands
and enabling the Federal Government to maximize the sales revenues
realized for the Federal taxpayer by removing the threat of the State's
claims in advance of the sale.
FEDERAL REVENUES MAXIMIZED BY REMOVING CLOUD OF STATE'S CLAIM IN
ADVANCE OF THE SALE
The State entered into a binding waiver of rights against the
purchaser in advance of the bidding for Elk Hills by private
purchasers, thereby removing the cloud over title being offered to the
purchaser, prohibiting the State from enjoining or otherwise
interfering with the sale, and removing the purchaser's exposure to
treble damages for conversion under State law. In addition, the State
waived equitable claims to revenues from production for periods prior
to the sale.
The Reserve thereafter was sold for a winning bid of $3.65 billion
in cash, a sales price that substantially exceeded earlier estimates.
proper compensation for the state's claims as congress directed
In exchange for the State's waiver of rights to Elk Hills to permit
the sale to proceed, the Settlement Agreement provides the State and
its teachers with proper compensation for the fair value of the State's
claims, as Congress had directed in the Defense Authorization Act.
While the Federal Government received the Elk Hills sales proceeds
in a cash lump sum at closing of the sale in February, 1998, the State
agreed to accept compensation in installments stretched out over an
extended period of 7 years without interest. This represented a
substantial concession by the State. Congress had reserved 9 percent of
sales proceeds for compensating the State. The school lands owned by
the State had been estimated by the Federal Government to constitute
8.2 to 9.2 percent of the total value of the Reserve. By comparison,
the present value of the stretched out compensation payments to the
State has been determined by the Federal Government to represent only
6.4 percent of the sales proceeds, since the State agreed to defer
receipt of the compensation over a 7-year period and will receive no
interest on the deferred payments.
Accordingly, under the Settlement Agreement the Federal Government
is obligated to pay to the State as compensation, subject to an
appropriation, annual installments of $36 million in each of the first
5 years (fiscal years 1999-2003) and the balance of the amount due
split evenly between years 6 and 7 (fiscal years 2004-2005).
THE MONEY IS THERE TO PAY THE STATE
The funds necessary to compensate the State have been collected
from the sales proceeds remitted by the private purchaser of Elk Hills
and are now being held in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund for the
express purpose of compensating the State.
Congress has appropriated the funds necessary for each of the
previous five annual installments of Elk Hills compensation.
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE SIXTH ANNUAL
INSTALLMENT OF ELK HILLS COMPENSATION
Following payment of the fifth installment of Elk Hills
compensation for fiscal year 2003 (funds having been appropriated for
payment on October 1, 2003), the State is owed approximately $144
million under the Settlement Agreement between the Federal Government
and the State. The exact final amount of compensation is subject to
finalization of the respective equity interests of the Federal
Government and Chevron, the co-owners of the Elk Hills field prior to
the sale. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the
Administration as part of the fiscal year 2000 budget held back $26
million from the State's share of the Elk Hills sales proceeds
deposited in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund, to provide for any
potential downward adjustment in the Federal Government's equity
interest. This equity determination process still is being completed,
some 6 years after the sale. The State is entitled to return of this
$26 million ``hold-back'' if the final equity determination leaves the
Federal Government's equity interest unchanged. (If the Federal
Government's share is increased, the State is entitled to return of the
holdback as well as 9 percent of the increase.)
The balance of the Elk Hills School Lands Fund currently stands at
$118 million, after subtracting this $26 million ``hold-back''. Under
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, for the sixth installment of Elk
Hills compensation due for fiscal year 2004 the State is entitled to
half of the balance of the Elk Hills School Lands Fund that remains
after the holdback. Thus, the State is entitled to $59 million for the
sixth installment. (The remainder of the State's 9 percent share of the
Elk Hills sales proceeds is due in the subsequent, seventh annual
installment.)
For fiscal year 2004, the Administration has requested an
appropriation of $36 million as ``a placeholder for half of the
estimated balance for years six and seven as required by the settlement
agreement until final equity finalization [sic.] is complete.''
(February 2003 Budget Highlights for the Department of Energy Fiscal
Year 2004 Congressional Budget Request, at p. 98). See Budget of the
United States Government--Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix, at p. 383-384.
The Administration's budget request in effect calls for a second
``hold-back'' that is contrary to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
The State respectfully requests appropriation of the full $59
million that it is due for fiscal year 2004 as the sixth installment of
compensation under the terms of its Settlement Agreement with the
Federal Government.
______
Prepared Statement of the United States Advanced Ceramics Association
The United States Advanced Ceramics Association (USACA) is a
Washington-based association of major producers and users of advanced
ceramic products. USACA is the premier association that champions the
common business interests of the advanced ceramic producer and end-user
industries.
USACA appreciates the opportunity to provide the United States
Senate Appropriations Committee, Interior Subcommittee with our
industry's statement regarding the fiscal year 2004 Department of
Energy (DOE) budget request for FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies,
Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability, Industrial
Technologies, and Coal Research Initiatives in the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and the Office of Fossil Energy
(FE).
USACA Recommends increased Funding for:
--$41.7 million.--Materials technologies (freedomcar and vehicle
technologies), increase of $2.1M
--$23.0 million.--Turbines (coal research, central systems), increase
of $10M
--$43.0 million.--Fuel cells (distributed generation systems, SECA),
increase of $19.5M
--$16.5 million.--Fuel cells (distributed generation systems, vision
21 hybrids), increase of $11.5M
USACA Supports the Administration's Request for:
--$10.7 million.--Heavy vehicle systems (freedomcar and vehicle
technologies)
--$37.1 million.--Advanced combustion engines (freedomcar and vehicle
technologies)
--$31.9 million.--Distributed generation technology development
(distributed energy and electricity reliability)
--$12.7 million.--Industrial materials for the future (industrial
technologies)
--$12.0 million.--Materials (coal research initiative, advanced
research program)
USACA has a long-standing commitment to promoting the use of
advanced ceramics as the foundation for a new generation of high-
efficiency and high-performance products for surface transportation,
aerospace, defense, energy, and industrial applications. In order to
maintain U.S. competitiveness in key areas, increased focus of programs
in advanced materials is needed, with joint programs and continuation
of the interagency coordination committee recommended for promoting
transfer of knowledge at reduced cost.
USACA supports Department of Energy (DOE) programs in distributed
power generation, hydrogen, fuel cells, vehicle technologies,
industrial technologies and coal research, which will lead our country
on a path to energy independence and infrastructure assurance.
FREEDOMCAR AND VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
USACA supports an increase over the budget request from $39.6M to
$41.7M in this program to provide full funding for the High Temperature
Materials Laboratory (HTML). This funding increase for the HTML from
$4.0M to $6.1M, representing a $0.5M increase over fiscal year 2003,
would support necessary research and development of advanced
structural, propulsion, and catalyst materials for heavy vehicle and
automotive applications which may enable significant fuel cell cost
reductions. Under Materials Technologies, USACA supports the
administration request for Propulsion Materials Technology ($8.9M) and
Lightweight Materials Technology ($26.8M).
High Temperature Materials Lab (HTML) [EE0703].--Over the past 15
to 20 years, the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Temperature
Materials Lab, in conjunction with scientists in the ORNL Metals and
Ceramics Division, have been at the forefront of advanced materials
R&D. The HTML, through its collaborative programs with industry,
national labs and universities has, in our opinion, done the most of
any government program in expanding the state of the art of advanced
materials. The U.S. ceramics industry enjoys a technological leadership
position in part due to these programs. Materials technology, as a
direct result of ORNL programs, such as Ceramic Technology Project, and
HTML, now has the potential to be successfully incorporated in power,
transportation and industrial technologies, as well as other commercial
and military applications.
We wish to emphasize the importance of the High Temperature
Materials Laboratory, which through its research staff, user center,
and fellowship programs, has provided cost-effective but critical
support for materials development in energy intensive markets. The
world-class materials research facilities at HTML have been
particularly vital to assisting small businesses be competitive and
technologically innovative. The HTML continues to expand our
understanding of high temperature materials, vital for improving
efficiencies in transportation, industrial and power generation
systems.
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY
The electrical power generation and distribution industry is
vulnerable to threats to the Nation's energy security. Distributed
generation technologies provide opportunity for energy infrastructure
assurance. In addition, energy efficiency in both production and end
use is becoming more critical to maintaining a growing national
economy. Past and continuing technology advances in materials have
contributed to the production of improved technologies for energy
efficiency. One example of this is DOE EERE Advanced Microturbine
Systems, providing distributed power generation typically 30 kW to
1,000 kW. Microturbines are capable of producing electricity more cost
effectively at the customer site than the delivered cost of the central
station. Advanced microturbine designs, using ceramic components that
can operated at hundreds of degrees hotter than metal components, would
theoretically boost efficiency from about 25 percent to over 40
percent. Further efficiency improvements are possible utilizing
advanced materials concepts in technologies such as fuel cell hybrid
systems. Solid oxide fuel cell systems, in particular, will be
dependent on advanced ceramics to realize extraordinary power
generation efficiencies utilizing high temperature fuel cell/
microturbine hybrids. In addition, advanced materials may provide
solutions to improve catalysts and hydrogen storage performance.
Currently, gas turbine power is the most fuel-efficient, cleanest,
and consumer friendly way to generate electricity. Combined cycle gas
turbines provide the highest efficiency and lowest emissions of all
combustion generation technology available today (producing twice as
much electricity and less than half the CO2 as compared to
existing non-gas-turbine power plants). Turbine systems are cost
effective, and can be quickly deployed to meet the country's growing
energy needs. The gas turbine industry is currently manufacturing and
installing these high-tech power plants across the United States to
reduce the cost of electricity, create new jobs, and stimulate
investment to support economic development.
However, America's new energy policy goals require dramatic new
technology development. The vision of a modern, secure U.S. power
generation infrastructure that runs on domestic fuels without harming
the environment is achievable, if the Federal government makes a
sufficient investment in DOE/industry turbine partnership programs.
USACA believes the above funding levels are necessary if our nation
intends to realize the public benefits envisioned in our national
energy policy.
DOE showed exceptional initiative and foresight in identifying the
opportunity for advanced high temperature materials to improve
efficiency in turbines, microturbines, and fuel cells. We would like to
work with DOE to include greater opportunities for advanced materials
research and development in these important programs. The United States
is committed to reducing reliance on imported oil. Therefore a diverse
energy infrastructure is needed. Program goals in the areas of
turbines, microturbines, and fuel cells all seek to contribute to a
diverse domestic energy portfolio. Research and development in advanced
materials is necessary in order to improve performance, reduce weight,
extend equipment life, decrease emissions, increase specific power, and
decrease fuel use.
INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS FOR THE FUTURE
The Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) Industries of the
Future (IOF) process has shown that improved materials are a
crosscutting need of many industries and one of the keys to cleaner,
more energy-efficient and productive manufacturing. The mission of the
DOE Industrial Materials for the Future Program is to lead a national
effort to research, design, engineer, and test new and improved
materials, as well as more profitable uses of existing materials for
the Industries of the Future (IOF). Through this program, significant
advances have been made in a broad range of advanced materials
including ceramics and ceramic matrix composites, in addition to
advances made in materials for the Industries of the Future. These same
materials have in many cases supported development efforts in gas
turbines, fuel cells, reciprocating engines, and vehicle technologies.
While the successful application of ceramic materials to industrial
applications continues to be limited by their high cost, continued
support of the Industrial Materials for the Future program is requested
to insure that price-performance targets are ultimately met.
COAL RESEARCH INITIATIVES--HIGH EFFICIENCY ENGINES, TURBINES AND FUEL
CELLS
The DOE HEET Program is critical to the President's National Energy
Policy (NEP) Clean Coal Technology goal of ``low-cost, zero emission
power plants with efficiencies close to double that of today's fleet''.
The DOE/industry HEET partnership will make it possible for power
generation equipment manufacturers, as well as systems developers,
owners and operators to create the core technology solutions necessary
to overcome the complex challenges identified in the NEP report. The
HEET Program turbine system efficiency goal is 60 percent for coal-
based systems, and HEET turbo fuel cell hybrid systems that offer the
potential for unprecedented efficiencies (in excess of 80 percent). The
HEET near-zero emission environmental goal translates into systems with
no carbon, and negligible NOX, SO2, and trace
contaminants. The program is also targeting a 15 percent reduction
life-cycle cost of electricity generated by gas turbine power plants.
Federal cost sharing is needed to enable successful development
technology improvements envisioned under the HEET, and to expedite
commercialization of these systems. A $23.0 Million federal
contribution to the HEET program in fiscal year 2004 will have a direct
impact on the fuel-efficiency, fuel flexibility and emissions levels of
America's coal and natural gas fired power plants. Our nation's
investment in the HEET program will allow the United States to continue
to serve as the world's principal source for clean turbine power
generation systems. Added funding is required beyond the
Administration's request to fund an Advanced Materials Initiative, with
advanced ceramics components likely to be the key enabling technology
needed to meet NEP goals. As the leading developer and producer of
these clean, fossil-fueled power technologies, the United States can
remain the leader of the international effort to lower global power
plant emissions levels through technology innovation. Gas turbine
equipment manufacturers, as well as systems developers, owners and
operators have already indicated strong interest in working with DOE to
help reach the HEET program goals. Now, Congress needs to ensure there
is adequate fiscal year 2004 federal funding ($23 million) to
facilitate a government/industry partnership that successfully allows
new HEET technologies to mature in a timely manner.
Fuel cells hold the potential for clean, efficient energy
production for both transportation and stationary power applications.
While the Administration has recognized their potential and increased
funding focused on transportation applications, near term electric
power generation fuel cell programs have seen decreases in research
funding. USACA recommends increasing overall fuel cell funding to $43
million. Added funding is needed to fully-fund on-going research for
next generation, high power density stationary power fuel cell systems
(SECA), with advanced ceramics research critical to their success. DOE
has identified turbine-fuel cell hybrid systems as a key enabling
technology for Vision21 Power Systems. USACA recommends increasing
Vision21 fuel cell hybrids funding to $16 million. Added funding will
accelerate integration of fuel cell and turbine systems and meeting
existing obligations to industry cost-shared programs.
The HEET program, combined with DOE fuel cell program efforts, will
lead to the required cost reductions needed to ensure the commercial
viability of these hybrid systems. Gas turbine research is necessary to
enable the technology to meet the pressure ratios, mass flows, and
other critical operating and performance parameters of high-temperature
fuel cells. Ultimately, the program will culminate with the testing a
near-commercial-scale multi MW Vision21 coal-fired hybrid power system.
PUBLIC BENEFITS
DOE gas turbine R&D Programs stimulate economic growth, clean up
the environment, and ensure that the United States has a reliable
supply of power. Implementation of the next generation of advanced
turbine technology R&D programs will accelerate U.S. market
restructuring and environmental goals. Armed with new advanced gas
turbine systems, the U.S. power supply industry will provide America
with the following benefits:
Reliable Power
The United States can have technologies that can operate better in
the dynamic restructured market including technologies able to perform
``just-in-time'' dispatch without operational or environmental
penalties. This translates into improved power quality and fewer
disruptions in power supply. Distributed generation technologies such
as microturbines and fuel cells greatly increases energy security.
Economic Strength through Improved Power Systems
Development and accelerated deployment of advanced turbine power
technologies will reduce the cost of electricity, create new jobs, and
stimulate investment to support U.S. economic development. The
expertise American manufacturers gain in producing these sophisticated
technologies positions our companies for success in growing
international power generation markets.
Meet Mounting Demand for Increased Power Production Capacity
United States demand for electrical power is expected to increase
by nearly 35 percent over the next 20 years. Manufacturing and
information technology businesses require reliable power generation,
thus dictating the need for DOE's next generation of R&D programs to
develop state-of-the-art gas turbines for reliable, low-cost
electricity.
A Cleaner Environment
DOE gas turbine programs provide a cost-effective solution for
clean power. Advanced gas turbine technologies developed through DOE
programs have much higher efficiencies and lower emissions than
competing combustion power systems.
Replace Environmentally Deficient, Aging Power Plants
In today's market, only revolutionary, advanced gas turbine
technologies provide the economic advantages needed to trigger the
accelerated retirement of inefficient, environmentally challenged base-
load power plants.
For further information, please contact Karen Miller, Executive
Director, the United States Advanced Ceramics Association (USACA) at
202-293-6253, or by E-mail at [email protected].
usaca members
Amercom/Synterials, Inc; Ceracom, Inc.; COI Ceramics, Inc.; Deere &
Company; General Electric Company; UT Battelle, LLC; Saint-Gobain
Ceramics & Plastics, Inc.; Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation.
______
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Prepared Statement of the Alaska Native Health Board
The Alaska Native Health Board (ANHB) submits this statement on the
fiscal year 2004 Indian Health Service budget. Our fiscal year 2004
Federal Legislative Priorities paper which we gave to the Subcommittees
provides more detail than we can include in this four-page testimony.
In summary, our fiscal year 2004 IHS budget recommendations are:
--Community Health Aide Practitioner Program--a $7.4 million increase
--Stop the erosion of the IHS budget by fully funding mandatory
increases including pay costs, inflation, and population growth
($360 million)
--Staffing packages for the health centers at St. Paul ($1.4
million), Metlakatla ($2.5 million), and King Cove ($1.5
million)
--Funding to complete construction of the health centers at St. Paul
and Metlakatla and the Bethel quarters
--Funding for the Barrow Hospital planning and site acquisition ($8
million) and for beginning funding for replacement of the Nome
Hospital
--Medevac transportation in Alaska--a $2 million increase
--Patient travel in Alaska--a $2 million increase
--Increase funding for Contract Health Services
--Fully fund contract support costs--$60 million increase
--Support $20 million increase for Sanitation Facilities
--Distribute the Special Diabetes Program for Indians program via the
existing formula
Community Health Aide Practitioner Program.--We request a $7.4
million increase for the CHA/P program to be phased in over a 3-year
period. CHA/P provides emergency and primary health care for 80,000
Alaska Natives. We request $5 million to increase the number of CHAP
positions by 115 FTE's, for a total of 615; $1.5 million to increase
the number of field supervisors; $750,000 to increase state-wide CHA/P
training capacity; $150,000 for ongoing updates of materials specific
to the CHA/P.
Stop the Erosion of the IHS Budget.--Year after year the IHS budget
is eroded by the lack of funding to fully meet built-in cost increases,
and the Administration's fiscal year 2004 proposal for the IHS is
particularly deficient in this area. As evidence of this, the IHS
projects that its fiscal year 2004 budget proposal would result in
367,000 less patient visits in fiscal year 2004 than in fiscal year
2003 (IHS Budget, page 29).
The proposal for the IHS Services account is only one percent over
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. This represents a significant
erosion of IHS buying power as there is inadequate funding for
inflation, population growth and pay raises. Some of that one percent
``increase'' is in fact the $50 million increase in diabetes
entitlement funding and a projected $7 million increase in third party
payments. Given the reductions states are making in the Medicaid
program, we are concerned about tribal Medicaid collection going down,
and are surprised at the projected increase in collections.
According to the IHS budget document, tribes and IHS will have to
absorb $114 million in built-in costs in fiscal year 2004. This is only
part of the story. The Administration requested only a 2 percent pay
raise for civilian employees, even though it is expected that Congress
will approve 4.1 percent pay raise. We appreciate that the fiscal year
2004 House and Senate budget resolutions support giving civilian
employees the same level of pay raise as is scheduled for military
employees and urge the Subcommittee to provide funding to fully meet
pay raise and other built-in costs.
We also appreciate the Senate approving an amendment recommending a
$292 million increase in the IHS budget, but that should be viewed as a
minimum increase. Just to keep IHS Services at their current level
would require approximately $360 million increase (inflation, pay
costs, population growth, staffing for new facilities).
Medevac Funding.--We request $2 million in recurring appropriations
through the IHS for Alaska Native tribal health organizations to meet
the escalating costs resulting from FAA requirements for the use of
critical care air ambulance services for medical evacuations. This
service is critical to the delivery of health care in Alaska. As
evidence of that, the Alaska medevac planes were the first medevac
services in the nation allowed to resume service following the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
In recent years the cost and number of medevac flights have
continued to rise. The Alaska Native Medical Center, for instance, has
seen a 30 percent increase in the number of medevac flights in the past
four years. During that time the costs increased five fold. A major
factor has been changes in the FAA requirements regarding use of
critical care air ambulance services for medical evacuations. In many
cases now only critical care air services that meet new FAA
requirements may transport patients that historically have been
arranged on other aircraft (e.g., transport of patients on oxygen).
Other Patient Travel.--Funding for patient travel is a critical
component of health care in Alaska. Individual inability to pay for the
cost of patient travel, including land, transportation, food and
lodging results in persons deferring health care. That, in turn, leads
to more severe compilations that ultimately result in increased cost of
providing health care. A roundtrip ticket to Anchorage can cost as much
as $1,600 from some communities. People may have to make the decision
between health care or food, fuel and other basic necessities. We
request $2 million in recurring funding for patient travel in Alaska.
Facilities at St. Paul, Metlakatla, Barrow, Bethel and Nome
St. Paul Health Center.--Congress appropriated $5.5 million in
fiscal year 2003 for partial construction of the St. Paul Health
Center--the Administration had requested $11 million in fiscal year
2003 to complete construction. We ask that Congress provide the
remaining amount necessary to complete construction. The present clinic
has many documented physical and environmental deficiencies and is much
too small to adequately serve the Native and non-Native population.
While the clinic serves the approximately 900 permanent residents of
St. Paul Island, it also is the sole source provider of health services
to 3,000 fishermen during fishing and crabbing seasons. The health
clinic is not handicapped-accessible, and hallways and doors are very
narrow. There are only two examination rooms. Due to lack of
examination space, treatment of patients must also be provided in
hallways and in the x-ray room. There is little privacy for patients,
and patient confidentiality is difficult.
Metlakatla Indian Community Health Center.--Congress appropriated
$306,000 in fiscal year 2003 for construction of the health center for
the Metlakatla Indian Community and it also directed that an additional
$5 million be made available for this health center from savings from
completed health care facilities. We ask Congress to appropriate the
necessary amount in fiscal year 2004 to complete construction of the
Metlakatla clinic and associated quarters.
Clinic services are currently housed in four modular units that
were built in the 1970's. The units are set on pilings and are
connected by open, elevated, wooden walkways. The buildings have
settled unevenly, posing an unsafe environment for people seeking
health services. They continue to re-settle, particularly when freezing
and thawing occurs, resulting in cracked walls and other damage. There
is an ongoing, and losing, effort to do emergency repairs.
Additionally, the facilities are overcrowded and the utility systems
are inadequate to support the modernization or updating of medical
equipment.
Barrow Hospital (Arctic Slope Native Association) ($8 million).--We
request $8 million in fiscal year 2004 funding for the Planning and
Site Acquisition phase of the project to replace the Samuel Simmonds
Memorial Hospital (SSMH) in Barrow. This critical facility is the only
hospital available to residents of an area larger than the State of
Washington. The single story wood frame building was constructed in
1965 and most of the major systems in the building are the original
equipment. It was designed to meet the requirements of a much smaller
population and now provides less than 25 percent of the space needed to
provide appropriate medical care for the current population.
The IHS approved the Project Justification Document and a draft
Program of Requirements for this project in 1998. The Barrow project
would cost $104 million when complete and is currently the fourth
priority for inpatient facility construction on the IHS priority list.
Nome Hospital (Norton Sound Health Corporation).--We urge Congress
to move forward to advance the projects on the outpatient priority list
so that the critical need for an inpatient facility in Nome can be
proceed. The Nome Hospital is fifth on the IHS outpatient priority
list--the uncertainty with regard to the plans for the facility in
Phoenix has unfairly delayed getting IHS funding for the Nome facility
and perhaps others who are just below Phoenix on the priority list.
There is an urgent need for replacement or renovation/expansion of
the severely overcrowded Norton Sound Regional Hospital. Originally
constructed in 1948 and since expanded, the hospital is filled with
code violations and safety deficiencies which include unsafe wiring and
plumbing, lack of fire sprinkler system, inadequate ventilation, and
structural problems due to foundation movement
Bethel Quarters.--We request $5 million for the last year of a
four-year quarters construction project.
Staffing Packages for St. Paul Health Center, Metlakatla Health
Center, and King Cove Clinic.--We urge funding for staffing packages
for new facilities at St. Paul ($1.4 million), Metlakatla ($2.5
million) and King Cove ($1.5 million). Detailed information on these
staffing needs have been supplied to the IHS.
Rural Sanitation Funding.--We give special thanks to Secretary
Thompson for his support for increasing the IHS sanitation construction
budget by $20 million, for a total of $114 million. We believe that the
Secretary's visit to rural Alaska was instrumental in his decision to
support this increase.
The IHS estimates that it would cost $960 million to meet the
current sanitation needs of Alaska Native villages. The future,
however, holds challenge as well as promise. For example, providing
water and sewer service to the last 16 percent of households will be
particularly difficult. In some communities, sources capable of
producing even a modest supply of water are not available. In very
small communities, it is hard to overcome diseconomies of scale to make
water and sewage service affordable.
Resources to support technical, financial, and managerial capacity
necessary to operate the systems on an ongoing basis have not been
proportionately increased. Many of the villages with water sanitation
projects in place or under construction lack the financial resources to
ensure their long-term operation and maintenance. With a limited
economic base to pay for user fees, higher costs of shipping and
transportation to contend with, and harsh climates and geology, among
other mitigating factors, support for operation and maintenance is
critical to assuring long-term success of village sanitation projects.
Contract Support Costs.--The Administration has proposed no
increase for IHS contract support costs, even though it is expected
that new contracts will be entered into during fiscal year 2004. The
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, in its March 11, 2003, letter to
the Budget Committee, reports that 25 new or expanded contracts are
expected during fiscal year 2004. The estimated unmet contract support
costs in fiscal year 2003 was approximately $60 million. We believe
that there is a federal obligation to funds these costs.
Diabetes.--We thank Congress for reauthorizing the Special Diabetes
Program for Native Americans and Alaska Natives last year. Funding for
this program will be $150 million, a $50 million increase over the
current year. We ask that IHS not award the new $50 million
competitively, but rather that there be consultation with tribes about
the use of these funds. Tribes individually need more diabetes funds
and we would not want to see to entire $50 million distributed outside
the formula. We point out that Alaska has the highest rate of increase
in new diabetes cases in Indian country. The rate of diabetes cases in
the Mt. Edgecumbe Service Unit increased 81 percent from 1985-1999
(from 22 to 49 per 1,000).
HHS Consolidation and Reallocation Proposals.--We appreciate that
Congress rejected in the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Act the HHS
proposals to consolidate maintenance and construction funds, and
legislative and public affairs within the office of the HHS Secretary.
The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the IHS budget specifically
requires that HHS proposals to consolidate or realign functions that
affect the IHS be implemented through a reprogramming request approved
by the Appropriations Committees. Should the Administration push these
``one HHS proposals'' during fiscal year 2004, we urge that they be
rejected as they were in fiscal year 2003.
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
Halito [Hello] from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to the
distinguished Members of this Subcommittee and yakoke [thank you] for
accepting this written statement prepared by the Tribal Members on the
Choctaw Reservation in Durant, Oklahoma.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere
appreciation for the military personnel who are away from home and
their loved ones. On behalf of my People, I pray that they will have a
safe and expedient return to their families and to their Homeland.
The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is requesting this Subcommittee
consider the following funding priorities in the fiscal year 2004
Budgets for the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs:
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
The BIA and IHS are preparing to re-organize. We are concerned that
this will come at the expense of diminishing tribal programs and the
delivery of tribal services. Therefore, we ask that the Subcommittee
include language directing both the BIA and IHS not to reduce funds
appropriated by this Subcommittee to offset Departmental or agency
shortfalls, to support reorganization plans, or trust reform
initiatives without consulting with Tribal Leadership. This language
should be included in future appropriations bills for these agencies;
--Provide $98 million for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost
(CSC);
--Restore $4.5 million the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of
Tribal Self-Governance;
--Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
growth increase to maintain existing health care services;
--Support the President's budget request for $50 million increase in
the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.
JUSTIFICATION
1. $98 million is needed in IHS and an additional $5 million
increase is needed in BIA to fully fund CSC. This shortfall continues
to penalize Tribes that elect to operate BIA and IHS programs under the
self-determination policy. Further, this shortfall threatens to pit
tribe against tribe as mature contractors are asked to absorb all
inflationary increases in order to fund new contractors. Additional CSC
appropriations are needed to implement the self-determination and self-
governance policy as supported by Congress. We urge the Subcommittee to
fully fund CSC for Tribes similar to how other contractors are funded
within the federal government.
2. In fiscal year 2003, a total of $4.2 million was eliminated from
the Office of Tribal Self-Governance within the IHS budget. We believe
that this decrease will severely impact IHS's ability to fully
implement the provisions of Title V of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act, as amended. The IHS Office of Tribal
Self-Governance was established in 1996 to advocate and implement the
Self-Governance initiative within IHS. There are currently 285 Tribes
(51.1 percent of all federally-recognized Tribes) implementing Self-
Governance agreements. While the number of Self-Governance Tribes has
and continues to increase, the staff and organizational capacity of
OTSG has not. Additional funding is needed to increase the OTSG's
organizational capacity to meet the legal requirements of Title V and
to protect and advance the Self-Governance initiative.
3. The Administration's request of $40 million in fiscal year 2004
is far short of the $360 million needed just to maintain current health
care services. These costs are unavoidable and include medical and
general inflation, pay costs and staff for recently constructed
facilities. IHS and Tribal programs simply cannot afford to continue to
lose real resources. Mandatories should be the first consideration in
budget formulation. If unfunded, these cost increases will result in
further health service reductions in our Tribal communities.
4. As a result of the special Diabetes Program, today there are
over 300 diabetes prevention and treatment programs serving American
Indians and Alaskan Natives. The funding has allowed Tribal governments
to develop and improve wellness centers, establish education programs,
and all other activities. It is not only an effective tool in
preventing and treating diabetes, but it also provides opportunities to
reduce the incidence of diabetes related blindness, amputations and end
stage renal disease. We ask that the increase in funding for the
Special Diabetes Program does not come at the expense of other vitally
important Indian health services.
Yakoke!
______
Prepared Statement of the Council of Annette Islands Reserve,
Metlakatla Indian Community
We are writing to you to bring to your attention, once again, our
needs with respect to the fiscal year 2004 appropriations.
--$14,511,000 in IHS funds to complete construction of a health
clinic and quarters and $2.5 million in health clinic staffing.
--Increased funding for the Alaska Community health aide program,
Alaska Medevac services and full funding for IHS contract
support.
--$6,000,000 in BIA funds for continuation of the Walden Point Road
project.
Health Clinic, Quarters and Staffing.--We are especially concerned
that sufficient funding is included in the fiscal year 2004
appropriations to the Indian Health Service facilities account to
complete the proposed new Annette Islands Service unit clinic. As you
are aware the present clinic is housed in obsolete modular units which
are crowded and deteriorating. Construction of the new clinic project
has begun with funding provided in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year
2003 Congress appropriated $306,000 and directed IHS to apply $5
million in savings from other projects to proceed with the clinic on
our reservation. We should, therefore, be in a position to complete
construction with funding to be provided in fiscal year 2004.
The Administration has requested $14,511,000 for completion of the
clinic and eight units of staff quarters in fiscal year 2004. We
support this request. We understand that IHS has carried out the
instruction of the Congress to make available $5,000,000 in fiscal year
2003 funds for clinic construction. Thus the appropriation for fiscal
year 2004 can be appropriately adjusted. We also request an
appropriation of $2.5 million to support an increase in staffing of 31
positions. We greatly appreciate the support of your Committee and the
Congress for this vital health care project.
Special Health Program Needs in Alaska.--We also support the
request of the Alaska Native Health Board for a $7.4 million increase
to be phased in over three years to increase the Community Health Aide
program in Alaska and we support full funding for the Indian Health
Service to cover all built in increases in costs and to keep services
at least at their current level. We understand that this would require
an increase of $360,000,000.
We urge that Congress provide a $2,000,000 increase to cover the
special need for medevac services in Alaska. This is important
especially for insular locations such as ours on Annette Island where
we have no hospital facilities.
We are concerned that the Administration has requested no
additional funding for contract support to enable an estimated 25 new
tribal contracts and self-governance agreements to be award in 2004,
without diminishing contract support funding available for existing
self-governance health services programs like ours. We support full
funding for contract support.
We urge that in appropriating additional funding for the special
diabetes program the Congress require the Indian Health Service to take
account of the relative incidence of diabetes in its various regions
and consult with tribes on the appropriate manner of distribution. Our
own incidence of diabetes here at Metlakatla is very high.
Walden Point Road.--Under a Memorandum of Agreement, dated November
20, 2000, the Metlakatla Indian Community has worked jointly with the
Department of Defense (DOD), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, on developing the Walden Point
Road to alleviate isolation and improve public safety and health care
(emergency medical evacuations must now be all by air). The project,
when completed, would link Metlakatla to the city of Ketchikan. The
project is eligible for funding under 23 USC 101 (a) 12 and is listed
on the Indian Reservations Roads Inventory of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (Walden Point Road, Air 7, Sections 30-130 (14.7 miles). The
Community is seeking $8,850,000 (based on FHWA cost estimates) to keep
this project on track in fiscal year 2004 from the Federal Highway
Administration. The Community requests $6,000,000 to continue the
Walden Point Road project in fiscal year 2004 from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
Thank you for consideration of our concerns with respect to the
Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs appropriations for
fiscal year 2004.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Valley Tribe
Greetings from the Hoopa Valley Tribe, name is Clifford Lyle
Marshall and I am the Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, which is
located in Northern California wilderness, in a beautiful but
geologically remote area, economically depressed and with a high rate
of unemployment. Our people are struggling with poverty, discrimination
and limited access to health care. The Hoopa Valley Reservation was
established by an Executive Order in 1864 as a direct result of
negotiations for a peace and friendship treaty between the Hoopa People
and the United States Government. More recently, it was one of the
original ten federally recognized Indian tribes to participate in the
Self-Governance Demonstration Project.
THE HOOPA VALLEY RESERVATION DEMOGRAPHICS
144 square miles of reservation territory. The off reservation
service area is over 400 square miles. This is a tri-county service
area consisting of Humboldt, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties.
--The population (2000) was 2,633
--Native language: Athabascan
--Race: 84.7 percent Native American, 11.9 percent White, and 3.9
percent Other
PERSON LIVING BELOW POVERTY LEVEL (1999)
[Percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoopa, Families............................................ 29.0
Hoopa, Individuals......................................... 32.0
Humboldt County, individuals (1990)........................ 12.8
State of California........................................ 14.2
National................................................... 12.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOOPA COMMUNITY HEALTH PROFILE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disability status (percent):
21 to 64 years with a disability..................... 22.7
Over 65 years with a disability....................... 54.4
Birth Rate:
Hoopa................................................. 24.7/1000
United States......................................... 14.6/1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diabetes Health Disparities
--175 current patients diagnosed as diabetic
--700 Children 2-19 years of age at risk of developing adult onset
diabetes secondary to obesity
Childhood Obesity is a major health disparity on the Hoopa
Reservation. Over 64 percent of the Hoopa Valley Reservation is obese.
The National level is 15 percent, the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation
is far over this amount.
The Governing Board and the Executive Leadership at K'ima:w Medical
Center conducted a comprehensive analysis regarding the health profile
of our community and concluded that many significant and alarming
health disparities are growing. Our people are in desperate need of
assistance to expand and improve existent services and to create new
services. We have a long and strong tradition in delivering healthcare
locally. Exporting health services to urban centers would disrupt the
continuity of care lifestyle, and would conflict with our cultural
tradition and will weaken even further our economical infrastructure.
After a careful consideration, the following four priorities were
identified as most needed.
Expansion of healthcare access to include 24-hour emergency medical
standby.--Our people deserve accessible, prompt and consistent service
at the most beneficial and necessary time. By extending our hours we
will provide not only better access, also continuity in time
comprehensiveness and coordination of care. The cost of increased
required staffing and operating extended hours is estimated at $635,868
per year.
Dialysis Center.--Our community has an above average number of
diabetic patients on dialysis that we transport three times a week at
approximately sixty miles distance. We project that the number of
people in need of dialysis will double in the next five years. In
order, to start with four stations and expand as needed we estimate the
need of $1,400,000.00. This will cover the initial cost of equipment
and startup of the service for one year.
Ambulance Expansion.--Our service population is dispersed over 400
square miles, with rugged roads. Maintaining the Ambulance service is
critical for transporting patients to K'ima:w Medical Center in Hoopa
or to the next hospital. We need to move the Ambulance to a more
efficient central location and to replace some of the critical
equipments. The total level of funded needed to do this is estimated at
$205,000.00.
Expansion of the Field Health and Outreach program.--We provide
continuity of care and education at patients home. Part of the service
is transporting non-emergent patients to and from K'ima:w Medical
Center or to specialty visits in Redding or San Francisco. The CHR
service is essential in assisting elderly with home healthcare. The
level of funding to expand our service is estimated at $197,000.00 per
year.
In order, to increase service to our remote rural area we will need
$2,437,668.00 in addition to what we are currently funded. Our American
people are confronted with disproportionate incidence of disease and
medical conditions, aggravated inadequate funding and worsening
economical and social environment. Equalizing care and providing
similar health services available to most Americans is our sacred
responsibility. Thank you, for your time and consideration, and if you
have any questions check out our website at www.hoopa-nsn.gov or call
Emmet Chase at (530) 625-4261.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Health Board
The President's Indian Health Service (IHS) fiscal year 2004 budget
request is $2.89 billion, and we are requesting an additional $679
million to boost clinical services, contract health services, facility
construction, self-governance programs, and funding to address
increased pay act costs, population growth, etc.
The NIHB serves nearly all Federally Recognized American Indian and
Alaska Native (AI/AN) Tribal governments in advocating for the
improvement of health care delivery to American Indians and Alaska
Natives. We strive to advance the level of health care and the adequacy
of funding for health services that are operated by the Indian Health
Service, programs operated directly by Tribal Governments, and other
programs. Our Board Members represent each of the twelve Areas of IHS
and are elected at-large by the respective Tribal Governmental
Officials within their regional area.
As we enter the 108th Congressional session, we call upon Congress
and the Administration to address the funding disparities that continue
to hamper Indian Country's efforts to improve the health status of
American Indians and Alaska Natives. No other segment of the population
is more negatively impacted by health disparities than the AI/AN
population and Tribal members suffer from disproportionately higher
rates of chronic disease and other illnesses.
The federal responsibility to provide health services to American
Indians and Alaska Natives reflects the unique government-to-government
relationship that exists between the Tribes and the United States. The
importance of this relationship is reflected in the provisions of
Article I, Sec. 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which
gives the federal government specific authorities in its dealings with
Indian Tribes.
Indian Country has continuously advocated for equitable health care
funding. Health care spending for AI/AN's lags far behind spending for
other segments of society. For example, per capita expenditures for AI/
AN beneficiaries receiving services in the IHS are approximately one-
half of the per capita expenditures for Medicaid beneficiaries and one-
third of the per capita expenditures for VA beneficiaries. Sadly, the
federal government spends nearly twice as much money for a federal
prisoner's health care that it does for an American Indian or Alaska
Native. The failure of the federal government to provide equitable
health funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives reflects a
tragic failure by the United States to carry out its solemn Trust
responsibility to American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal governments.
The greatest travesty in looking at the deplorable health of
American Indians comes in recognizing that the vast majority of
illnesses and deaths from disease could be preventable if funding was
available to provide even a basic level of care. It is unfortunate that
despite two centuries of treaties and promises, over 1.6 million
American Indians and Alaska Natives are forced to endure health
conditions and a level of health care funding that would be
unacceptable to most other U.S. citizens.
The President's IHS fiscal year 2004 budget request is $2.89
billion, an increase of $40 million over the fiscal year 2003 enacted
amount for the Indian Health Service. Even if the $50 million increase
for diabetes funding is included the budget request is still over $200
million short of what is needed to maintain current services. It is
estimated that a $325 million increase is required provide the same
level of health care services provided in fiscal year 2003. This amount
would be sufficient to cover pay act costs, population growth, etc.
The President's budget includes $114 million for sanitation
construction, an increase of $20 million over the fiscal year 2003
Budget Request. This 20 percent increase represents the largest
increase provided for sanitation construction in over a decade. This
provision and significant increase is applauded and demonstrates the
Administration's commitment to providing safe water and waste disposal
to an estimated 22,000 homes, an increase of 2,600 over the number of
homes served in 2003. Proper sanitation facilities play a considerable
role in the reduction of infant mortality and deaths from
gastrointestinal disease in Indian Country.
The President's budget request also reflects the $50 million
increase in the Special Diabetes Program for Indians funding approved
during the 107th Congress. We are grateful to the Administration and
Congress for recognizing the success and effectiveness of the Special
Diabetes Program for Indians as a tool to reduce the incidence and
harmful effects of Diabetes in Indian Country.
Health Facility Construction.--The budget includes a total of $72
million for construction of new health facilities allowing IHS to
replace its priority health care facility needs with modern health
facilities and to significantly expand capacity at its most overcrowded
sites. The request will complete outpatient facilities at Pinon (Navajo
Reservation, Arizona) and Metlakatla (Annette Island, Alaska); continue
construction of the Red Mesa Outpatient Facility (Navajo Reservation,
Arizona) and begin construction of a new outpatient facility to replace
the Sisseton hospital (Sisseton- Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, South Dakota).
When the Sisseton hospital is closed, IHS will purchase inpatient and
emergency care from non-IHS facilities such as the nearby Coteau Des
Prairies hospital.
Pay Costs.--The budget includes an additional $35 million to cover
increased pay costs for IHS's 15,021 FTEs and to allow tribally run
health programs to provide comparable pay raises to their own staffs.
The budget documented the IHS health care funding needs at $18.2
billion. President Bush's proposed appropriation of $2.89 billion falls
well short of the level of funding that would permit Indian programs to
achieve health and health system parity with the majority of other
Americans.
Failure to adequately increase the Indian Health Service clinical
services budget will force numerous Tribal health providers to cut back
services, worsening the plight of an already severely at-risk
population and jeopardizing greater public health. Staff cuts would
also result, increasing waiting periods to get appointments, as well as
reducing clinic hours. Also, without adequate funding, several
successful programs throughout Indian Country would have to be
eliminated, such as patient outreach, nutritional programs, preventive
care, referral services, dental and optometric services.
Funding for the Indian Health Service has failed to keep pace with
population increases and inflation. While mandatory programs such as
Medicaid and Medicare have accrued annual increases of 5 to 10 percent
in order to keep pace with inflation, the IHS has not received these
comparable increases. Current Indian Health Service funding is so
inadequate that less than 60 percent of the health care needs of
American Indians and Alaska Natives. We request that an additional $292
million, which represents an additional 10 percent over the President's
request, be provided to the Indian Health Service to address medical
inflation, currently at a rate of 12 percent.
As we have carefully reviewed the President's fiscal year 2004 IHS
Budget Request, several provisions would seriously affect the agency's
ability to carry out its responsibilities pertaining to the health and
welfare of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Below, I will briefly
discuss several of these provisions.
The President's Budget Request includes $493 million, which
provides an additional $25 million or 5 percent increase over the
previous year's request, for Contract Health Services. The documented
need for the Contract Health Service Program in Indian Country exceeds
$1 Billion. At present, less than one-half of the CHS need is being
met, leaving too many Indian people without access to necessary medical
services. We recommend an increase of at least $175 million, which
would raise American Indian and Alaska Native tribes to approximately
60 percent of need.
The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget Request includes $271
million, the same as the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget, to support
tribal efforts to develop the administrative infrastructure critical to
their ability to successfully operate IHS programs. Tribal governments
continue to assume control of new programs, services, functions, and
activities under Self-Determination and Self-Governance, therefore
additional funding is needed. Tribal programs have clearly increased
the quality and level of services in their health systems fairly
significantly over direct service programs and failing to adequately
fund Contract Support Costs is defeating the very programs that appear
to be helping improve health conditions for American Indians and Alaska
Natives. We recommend an additional $150 million to meet the shortfall
for current contracting and compacting.
According to the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget, the number of
tribally managed IHS programs continues to increase, both in dollar
terms and as a percentage of the whole IHS budget. Tribal governments
will control an estimated $1.6 billion of IHS programs in fiscal year
2004, representing 53 percent of the IHS's total budget request.
Because of this, it is critical that funding for self-governance be
provided in a manner reflective of this. Therefore, we feel it is
necessary to provide $12 million funding over and above the proposed
amount of $12 million. The enacted fiscal year 2003 budget cut the
office of Self-Governance funding by 50 percent without any notice to
tribes.
The President's budget includes savings of $31 million from
administrative reductions and better management of information
technology. The IHS proposes to achieve these savings primarily by
reducing the use of Federal staff. IHS also plans to reduce
administrative costs and to achieve efficiencies through the
development, modernization and enhancement of IHS information systems.
The National Indian Health Board and Tribal governments have long
been concerned about ``cost-saving'' provisions contained in the
President's Budget Request, both in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
2004. The result will be the elimination of potentially hundreds of
full-time staff at the headquarters and area levels, which would add
new burdens to the provision of health care to American Indians and
Alaska Natives, rather than addressing the widespread health
disparities throughout Indian Country. We feel it is appropriate that
the President's Management Initiatives not be implemented until Tribal
governments have the opportunity to develop feasible alternatives.
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) reflects the priorities of the
United States with regard to health and safety concerns relating to
Homeland Security. It reflects the Administration's commitment to
anticipating future threats to America's public health care, health
infrastructure and human services systems. It is important to note
that, along with the Department of Defense and Veteran's Affairs health
systems, the Indian Health Service occupies a unique position within
the Federal government as a direct health care provider. Therefore, we
are requesting $50 million be added during fiscal year 2004 to help the
Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal
governments prepare for and respond to potential terrorist attacks,
including increases for Data Systems Improvements and much needed funds
to expand the capacity of tribal epidemiology centers.
On behalf of the National Indian Health Board, I would like to
thank the Senate Appropriation Committee--Interior subcommittee for its
consideration of our concerns as we strive to improve the health of
American Indian and Alaska Native people. If we are ever to reduce the
terrible disparities between the health of American Indians and Alaska
Natives compared to other Americans, we need to properly fund the
Indian Health Service and we urge Congress to significantly increase
IHS funding for fiscal year 2004. IHS and the Tribes are continuing to
work diligently to develop health systems of sufficient quality and
with levels of services that our people desperately need.
______
CULTURAL AGENCIES
Prepared Statement of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development
On behalf of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
Culture and Arts Development (IAIA), our Board of Trustees, students,
faculty, staff and entire community, we express our enormous gratitude
for the Subcommittee's past commitment to IAIA. Federal appropriations
are crucial to the operations, continued success and development of the
college and museum.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
IAIA is authorized under Public Law 99-498. Herein, we respectfully
submit our fiscal year 2004 request, a total of $9.25 million to be
allocated as follows:
--$5.25 million, as supported in the President's fiscal year 2004
Request, for strengthening operations as IAIA continues to
mature into a four-year postsecondary institution and prepares
for its first accreditation assessment of new four-year
programs; and,
--$8 million for capital construction, phased in with $4 million in
fiscal year 2004 and $4 million in fiscal year 2005 to meet an
$8 million federal matching requirement of the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation for the development of an international American
Indian, Alaska Native and indigenous lifelong learning center.
INTRODUCTION
IAIA, originally established in 1962 by Executive Order of
President John F. Kennedy, has produced most of North America's most
illustrious contemporary Indian artists. Founded as a Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) high school, IAIA's path has been one of steady
evolution--from a unique high school, sharing quarters with Santa Fe's
old Indian School, to a federally chartered four-year college, building
its own campus and operating the American Indian Arts Museum--a
cultural jewel in historic Santa Fe, NM.
The Institute's founders championed freedom of expression for
American Indian artists. Stereotypes were dispelled through bold
creative expression and for the first time, Indian artists set their
own artistic standards, becoming empowered by their own voices. From
this vision, the contemporary Indian art movement was born, enriching
Indian and non-Indian cultures alike, aesthetically and economically.
The Institute's success is firmly grounded in the empowerment of
American Indian and Alaska Native people in their pursuit of higher
education, economic self-sufficiency, and the continued expression of
their artistic creativity and cultural traditions.
IAIA's history has not always been an easy path. The past decade in
particular presented many difficulties due to leadership turnover and
severe cuts in federal appropriations. Important programs were
eliminated, student enrollment suffered and the college endowment was
severely depleted. As a result, accreditation was threatened.
IAIA is still working to rebuild its former strength. Through
dedicated effort it has emerged stronger and more determined than ever
and has won the hearts of many. A stronger working relationship with
Congress and the OMB has been established, along with a focused
concentration on private sector fundraising. Undertaking a design and
build process as monies were raised for new campus construction allowed
the Institute to celebrate a grand opening of its new campus in 2000.
In 2001-2002 another historic landmark was reach--IAIA became a four-
year college and was granted accreditation from the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools to offer Bachelor's degrees in
Museum Studies, Creative Writing, Studio Arts, and Visual
Communications. In 2002, IAIA celebrated its 40th Anniversary and
gained national accolades for its history, enormous contributions to
the larger society, and most importantly, its impact on the thousands
of Native students it has served.
KEY FACTS RELEVANT TO FEDERAL FUNDING.
Charter.--IAIA is federally chartered by Public Law 99-498. This
law affirms and acknowledges that Native art and culture are critical
to the nation as a whole and, consequently deems it appropriate and
even essential for the federal government to support IAIA in advancing
the preservation and promotion of Native arts and cultures.
Mission.--With IAIA's unique authority and charter, its mission is
to serve as the national center of research, training, language and
scholarship for Native Americans and Alaska Natives, dedicated to the
study, creative application, preservation and care of our Native arts
and cultures. The primary goal of IAIA is to enhance knowledge and
understanding of the cultural traditions of American Indians and Alaska
Natives with a special focus on traditional and contemporary Native
art. To this end, it provides a culturally based curriculum that
combines professional skills development with an integrated liberal
arts education.
Funding.--As a national postsecondary institution, IAIA operations
are funded through direct federal support and a diversified private
sector approach to foundations, corporations, tribes, and individual
donors. It does not receive state support for operations or student
aid.
Governance.--IAIA is governed by a board of trustees appointed by
the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, a
majority of which must be of American Indian and Alaska Native descent.
Educational Goals.--IAIA's educational goals are to: recruit and
admit qualified American Indian and Alaska Native students and provide
them with a Native-centered arts education--graduate students from the
degree programs with demonstrated artistic and academic competency--
focus on the needs of the individual student by providing an
environment that encourages independent work, personal growth and
professional development--strengthen cultural identity--and provide
awareness of community and cultural diversity.
Museum.--IAIA's enabling legislation also authorizes funding to the
IAIA Museum and specifies its dual purpose of education and
presentation. Its facilities and collections provide hands-on training
for students and faculty and serve as an outlet to showcase exemplary
work and ongoing connections with alumni. It provides the Institute
with a highly visible venue for public relations, education, and
outreach efforts, attracting over 50,000 visitors annually. It also
houses 6,500 pieces, comprising the National Collection of Indian
Contemporary Art and valuable artifacts from BIA collections.
Campus.--The Rancho Viejo Partnership, Ltd. donated 140 acres to
IAIA for the establishment of the college's permanent campus. IAIA
developed the land infrastructure for site development and created an
impressive master campus plan. The first phase of the new campus, which
is nearly complete, includes several buildings: Academic and
Administration, Cultural Center, Student Housing, Student Life Center,
Facilities and IT Management, and the Library and Technology Center.
Student Body.--IAIA's diverse student body represents virtually
every state in the country. Over the years, IAIA has enrolled and
graduated almost 4,000 members of the 558 federally recognized tribes.
The student population is 90 percent American Indian and Alaska Native.
It is relatively young in comparison to other tribal college student
populations. The majority is need-based, reside on campus, and
experience phenomenal personal and professional growth from the
holistic framework and relevancy of the curriculum. Graduates become
renowned artists or highly respected professionals in tribal
communities and mainstream society.
Tuition.--IAIA's tuition rates are similar to other community
colleges in the Santa Fe area, but is strongly committed to assisting
its student body access federal and private sources of financial aid.
Performance Measures.--The college is assessed regularly by
mainstream accreditation review committees and meets strict evaluation
standards. It has achieved dual accreditation as a Fine Arts College by
the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and the National
Association of Schools of Art and Design.
Community Support.--IAIA is strongly supported nationally by tribes
and Indian education and tribal organizations. This budget request has
the unanimous support (by resolution) of the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium, the All Indian Pueblo Council, the National
Congress of the American Indian, and the National Indian Education
Association.
Budget Justifications
After many years as a two-year college, the Institute is now
transitioning into a four-year college of higher learning. It is in the
process of fully developing a range of arts and culturally based degree
programs in art, design, media arts, and digital communications. Along
with this successful growth it is critical to recognize the challenges
and additional associated costs, as reported to you in our budget
requests for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. Actual costs of
core operations, imperative to the four-year designation, were not
addressed in the fiscal year 2003 budget. Through the implementation of
an aggressive fundraising campaign, aimed at individuals, corporations,
tribes, and private foundations, IAIA has increased its private sector
donations. However, serious challenges exist due to the downturn in the
economy and stock market, both of which have resulted in substantial
investment losses for the philanthropic community.
However, even with diversified and additional private support, it
has not been enough to adequately supplement federal appropriations in
addressing ``actual'' costs of operations at the Institute. This has
forced IAIA to absorb the difference internally, posing serious
implications for the overall health of the Institute and placing
additional burdens on an already stringent core budget and over-
stretched staff. Staff and faculty have not received cost of living
increases over the past three years. Program budgets have been reduced
by over 10 percent annually and existing staff and faculty are
absorbing additional responsibilities. This is causing burnout, high
staff turnover, and a depletion of IAIA's reserve/endowment fund,
ultimately weakening core infrastructure and budget stability.
Consistent funding streams and stable core operations are imperative to
maintaining accreditation standing and essential to continued progress
and success. This situation must be addressed before the next
accreditation review in 2004. Our budget request represents the minimum
amount necessary to address infrastructure needs, stabilize operations
and meet other accreditation standards and criteria.
Continuing Education Lifelong Learning Center
The emergence of adult learners as a major constituency in American
higher education has been one of the most dramatic changes in the
United States in the past 25 years. Since the 1970s, major commissions
have been established to examine lifelong learning. Their
recommendations and findings present significant research and evidence,
which have led to a national education agenda with a high priority on
comprehensive lifelong learning. As a result, the Kellogg Foundation
has established continuing education centers throughout the world,
demonstrating their commitment to creating comprehensive lifelong
learning models across all levels and groups of people. However, while
Native populations have not been considered in this dialogue or agenda,
they have some of the highest educational needs in this country.
Through a competitive process the W.K. Kellogg Foundation recently
selected IAIA as the designated site for the very first continuing
education center to serve American Indian, Alaska Native and indigenous
peoples worldwide. Planning, construction and development costs are
projected at $22 million. The Kellogg Foundation awarded IAIA a lead
gift of $2 million for planning, which requires a federal match of at
least $8 million for an additional $8-10 million award from the
Foundation. Federal cooperation is essential to the success of this
initiative. It will exemplify a national model of excellence in
reaching the primary goal of President Bush's Executive Order on Tribal
Colleges and Universities--federal and private engagement in supporting
American Indian higher education. The Institute is fully committed to
planning for the sustainability of the Center and diversifying initial
construction and start-up costs by engaging private, federal, state,
and tribal partners, as the following chart specifies:
BREAKDOWN OF FUNDRAISING GOALS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kellogg Initial Planning Award and Lead Gift............... 2
Federal Sector............................................. 8
New Mexico State Legislature............................... 2
American Indian Tribes..................................... 2
Kellogg Matching Award..................................... 8
------------
Total................................................ 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have shared information about the Center with the key leaders in
the Congress, federal agencies, White House, New Mexico State
Legislature, and tribes, indigenous communities, organizations, and
other potential national and international partners. The response has
been incredibly favorable, as there is a collective vision that the
Center will allow for an exponential increase in quality lifelong
educational opportunities for our people and indigenous populations
across the world. Our goal is to ensure that the Center will empower
and better equip Native people to take their rightful positions in all
aspects of the changing global society.
CONCLUSION
Last year IAIA celebrated 40 years of artistic excellence. Through
a tireless dedication of IAIA's staff, faculty, trustees, as well as
the critical support of President Bush, Congress, foundations and many
individuals, we have achieved great things. This success has positioned
the Institute to truly become a nationally prominent, internationally
respected four-year institution of higher education. We appeal to you
to provide the necessary support to IAIA's hard-earned momentum. The
federal resources specified in our budget request are essential to the
future of the Institute of American Indian Arts. Thank you for your
serious consideration and continued support.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Museums
Chairman Burns, Senator Dorgan and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, the American Association of Museums (AAM) is pleased to
submit testimony concerning the fiscal year 2004 budgets of the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for
the Humanities (NEH).
The American Association of Museums (AAM), headquartered in
Washington D.C., is the national service organization that represents
and addresses the needs of the broad range of the museum community to
enhance their ability to serve the public. AAM disseminates information
on current standards and best practices and provides professional
development for museum professionals to ensure that museums have the
capacity to contribute to life-long education in its broadest sense and
to protect and preserve our shared cultural heritage. Since it's
founding in 1906, AAM has grown to more than 15,800 members across the
United States--over 10,000 individual museum professionals and
volunteers, nearly 3,000 institutions, and 2,300 corporate members.
The museum community has enjoyed a positive and productive working
partnership with both the NEA and NEH for many years. Whether they have
worked in conjunction with the Institute of Museum and Library Services
or on their own, the contributions of the NEA and NEH to the vitality
of America's museums and the public services they provide to our
communities can not be underestimated. These two agencies have provided
invaluable support to America's museums since their inception, and we
fully support them and the good work they do for the American people.
Consequently, we view the proposed fiscal year 2004 budgets for the
NEA and NEH with a mixture of optimism and disappointment. We
appreciate the Administration's strong support for the National
Endowment for the Humanities and fully support the President's request
of $152 million for NEH in fiscal year 2004 but we are disappointed by
the decision to keep NEA funding essentially flat at $117.5 million.
As the committee knows, the core of the NEH request is an increase
of $25 million to expand a special initiative begun last year entitled
We the People. We fully support this initiative which is designed to
advance understanding of American history, culture, and civics. We
believe, however, that the arts are as integral to American history,
culture and civics as the humanities and we are disappointed the
administration chose not to reinforce the power of We the People by
providing additional funds to the National Endowment for the Arts to
help broaden public access to and understanding of our rich artistic
heritage as well.
We recognize that we are in the midst of a national crisis both at
home and abroad and that difficult budget decisions need to be made,
but we urge the committee to consider the economic, educational and
social return even a modest increase in the federal investment in the
arts and humanities would bring to the people we all serve.
It would be incorrect to suggest that artistic and cultural events
would cease without funding from the federal government. However, we
are convinced that America would not have the rich, diverse and vibrant
artistic community we have in this country if it were not for the
support both large and small organizations have received from the NEA
over the last 35 years. The recognition that comes from being awarded
NEA grant funding is invaluable to an organization. It helps them
leverage additional private support--NEA requires grant recipients to
match all awards up to a ratio of four to one--that allows
organizations to continue to grow and mature long after the federal
money is gone. Dollar for dollar, private funding simply cannot match
the impact of even a modest amount of government funding. Even leaving
aside the educational and social value of strengthening the federal
investment in the arts, both of which are substantial, the economic
value speaks for itself. The nonprofit arts industry alone generates
$53.2 billion annually in economic activity, supports 2.09 million jobs
and returns $5.6 billion to the federal government in income taxes. NEA
seed money has helped make this possible.
In his testimony before the committee on March 13, NEA Chairman
Dana Gioia stated that one of his five primary goals for the NEA was to
``reclaim its leadership role in American culture.'' He said, the
Endowment:
``. . . must enter a new era, confident of its civic
responsibilities in a society overwhelmed by commercialized electronic
mass entertainment. The NEA must enlarge the conversation of American
public life to include the arts. It must promote, preserve, and
celebrate the best of our culture, old and new, classic and
contemporary. It must reacquaint America with its own best self.''
For, as he so rightly put it, ``nothing less is worthy of our
nation.''
A budget of $170 million would enable the NEA to take important
strides towards reclaiming its leadership role and expand its ability
to support and promote creativity in the arts in America. In addition,
a $170 million budget allows the endowment to fully fund the Challenge
America initiative. By fully funding this initiative, the Arts
Endowment can use the program's vast potential through grants for arts
education, youth-at-risk projects, cultural preservation, community
arts partnerships and improved access to the arts for all Americans, to
use the strength of the arts to enhance America's communities.
Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is that culture is what defines,
builds and binds our communities. In cities and towns across America
one finds numerous examples of arts, culture and the humanities being
used as educational tools, economic engines, sources of civic pride,
and catalysts for fostering a greater sense of community identity and
multicultural understanding. To ensure that America continues to have a
strong, vibrant, and viable artistic and cultural community that future
generations can enjoy and learn from tomorrow requires a prudent and
forward thinking investment in our artistic and cultural institutions
today. We ask the committee to make that investment and support a
budget of $170 million for the NEA for fiscal year 2004.
We also ask the committee to support the administration's request
of $152 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. The NEH
plays an important role in the American experience. In fact, the
humanities are essential to democracy. They are the basis for reasoned
discourse and make possible the shared reflection, communication, and
participation upon which democratic society depends. In his testimony
to the committee on March 13th, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole made a very
compelling case for supporting the NEH's budget request for fiscal year
2004. He said:
``At this critical time, it is urgent that Americans understand the
principles, events, and ideas that have defined our past and shape our
future. Democracy, unlike other forms of government, is not self-
perpetuating. Its principles and practices must be cultivated in order
to be transmitting and sustained.''
Yet numerous studies and reports show that students in K-12, and
even college, have a poor, or at best confused, understanding of our
nation's history and the ideals and principles of democracy upon which
it was founded. The NEH is well positioned to help redress these
deficiencies.
The NEH is the largest single funder of humanities programs in the
United States, enriching American intellectual and cultural life
through support to museums, archives, libraries, colleges,
universities, state humanities councils, public television and radio,
and to individual scholars. Continuing this support is critical to
addressing the nation's future needs in education. With more than two-
thirds of our nation's K-12 curriculum dedicated to the humanities,
including subjects such as reading, literature, history and civics,
continuing this support is crucial to addressing our nation's needs in
education and correcting the problem of ``American amnesia'' as
Chairman Cole put it.
NEH's impact, however, reaches beyond the classroom and lecture
hall by engaging the public in the humanities through exhibits in
museums, libraries, and historical organizations; the varied programs
of the state humanities councils and a variety of other activities. In
a recent national public opinion survey, almost 9 out of 10 Americans
(87 percent) said museums are one of the most trustworthy sources of
information among a wide range of choices. This high level of trust can
in part be attributed to the careful research that goes into developing
museum exhibitions and programs. NEH grants, in addition to being
invaluable in supporting efforts to preserve and protect our vast
cultural, historic, and artistic resources held in trust for the
American people in our museums, are also invaluable in supporting
efforts to research those treasures and put them into historical
context. An object or artifact without context tells no story and
teaches nothing.
As with the NEA, a modest investment through the NEH produces rich
dividends. NEH seed money for high quality projects and programs, and
NEH's reputation for scholarly excellence, leverages millions of
dollars in private support for humanities projects and brings the
humanities alive for millions of Americans each year--from the youngest
students to the most veteran professors to men and women who simply
strive for a greater appreciation of our nation's past, present, and
future.
Federal support for the humanities has historically received
bipartisan support in Congress, from the Endowment's creation in 1965
to the present day. Every American President has said that the
humanities play an essential role in American life and are worthy of
federal support and this administration is no exception, as evidenced
by their strong support for the We The People initiative. We strongly
support this program and the NEH in general and ask the committee to
fully fund the administration's budget request of $152 million for
fiscal year 2004 for this extremely valuable agency.
Mr. Chairman, we firmly believe that the NEA and the NEH are both
wonderful resources and leaders for the American people in their
respective areas. The museum community is proud to partner with both
agencies to provide high quality programs and services for the people
we all serve.
The NEA and NEH are not the same entities they were almost a decade
ago. The agencies have reformed and refocused their programs on serving
public and community needs. It is the time to reward these efforts and
give the Endowments the resources to fully embrace this new phase of
their history, particularly at a time when all Americans need to
understand the principles of their own and others' cultures in greater
depth. Additional funding would enable the agencies to enhance and
increase their public service activities as well as expand the reach of
new and innovative programs and help the agencies rebuild their
technology and internal administration after years of essentially
stagnant budgets.
We of course recognize, Mr. Chairman, that you and your colleagues
are under intense pressure to balance the funding needs of the many
worth programs under your jurisdiction. We would ask you though to
consider carefully the good work being done by the NEA and NEH for the
American people and do what you can to fund these urgently needed
increases.
______
Prepared Statement of Americans for the Arts
Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony to
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior in support of
fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts
at an increased funding level of $170 million, with the increase used
to support the creation, preservation, and presentation of the arts and
for the Challenge America initiative.
Americans for the Arts is the nation's leading nonprofit
organization for advancing the arts. With a 40-year record of objective
arts industry research, it is dedicated to representing and serving
local communities and creating opportunities for every American to
participate in and appreciate all forms of the arts.
Local arts agencies comprise our core constituency. As important
grantees of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), local arts
agencies are entrusted public stewards of government funds for the
arts. An increase in funding for the NEA means more grants for local
arts agencies to utilize as they increase Americans' access to the arts
at the local level and improve communities by stimulating economic
development and improving community life. An increase in NEA funding
would create increased funding for local arts agencies to continue
their vital role in community building.
LOCAL ARTS AGENCY TRENDS--THE KEY TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE
ARTS
A local arts agency is a private community organization or local
government agency that supports cultural organizations, provides
services to artists or arts organizations, and/or presents arts
programming to the public.
For 15 years, local government arts funding has been growing
steadily, staying ahead of inflation and even showing growth during the
recession years of the early 1990's. This year, however, we saw the
first aggregate decrease in local government funding for the arts in
more than 15 years, to an estimated $771 million--a drop of about 3.5
percent.
Local arts agencies continue to expand the role of the arts in
their communities by using the arts to address social, educational, and
economic development issues. Nearly all of them collaborate with
community organizations or local government agencies to integrate the
arts more fully into their community and to assist those agencies in
achieving their missions, e.g., economic development departments to
develop cultural districts, chambers of commerce to attract new
businesses, parks and recreation departments to create after-school
programs, convention and visitor bureaus to increase cultural tourism,
and police departments to prevent crime.
Arts & Economic Prosperity
In 2002, Americans for the Arts released the results of a national
economic impact study measuring the nonprofit arts industry in 91
American communities during 2000-2001. The diverse communities range in
population (4,000 to 3 million), geography (Anchorage to Miami), and
type (rural to large urban). Local arts agencies-public and private
organizations working to increase community access to and participation
in the arts-served as local research partners, collecting detailed
expenditure data from 3,000 nonprofit arts organizations (full range
from theater to museums) and 40,000 audience members. The project
economists, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, customized input/
output analysis models for each of the 91 communities to provide
specific and reliable economic impact data about their nonprofit arts
industry.
The Arts & Economic Prosperity study documents in unprecedented
scope and detail the key role played by the nonprofit arts industry in
strengthening our nation's economy. It dramatically alters the
perception that the arts are luxuries--worth supporting in prosperous
times but hard to justify when the economy is struggling. At a time
when governments at all levels are making tough budget choices, this
study sends an important message--that support for the arts does not
come at the expense of economic development. In 1994, Americans for the
Arts published its first economic impact study and the results from
that study became the most frequently used statistics in Congress and
other arenas to demonstrate the value of the arts to our communities,
our states, and our nation. In 2000, we set out to update those numbers
with a new and larger study. Not only did we want to measure the impact
of spending by nonprofit arts organizations, but also to quantify the
economic impact of event-related spending by their audiences.
By all measures, the results are impressive. The nonprofit arts
industry generates $134 billion in economic activity every year--$53.2
billion in spending by arts organizations and an additional $80.8
billion in event-related spending by arts audiences. This economic
activity has a significant national impact. This economic activity
supports 4.9 million full-time equivalent jobs--a greater percentage of
the U.S. workforce than is employed as accountants, lawyers,
physicians, or computer programmers. America's nonprofit arts industry
also generates $24.4 billion in federal, state, and local government
revenues combined annually. By comparison, federal, state, and local
governments collectively spend less than $3 billion on support for the
arts each year-a financial return of more than 8-to-1.
Growth of the Nonprofit Arts Industry since 1994
The nonprofit arts are a growth industry in the United States.
Spending by arts organizations increased from $36.8 billion in 1992 to
$53.2 billion in 2000 (45 percent).
Measuring Ancillary Spending of Nonprofit Arts Audiences
The nonprofit arts, unlike most industries, leverage significant
amounts of event-related spending by their audiences. Attendance at
arts events generates related commerce for local businesses such as
hotels, restaurants, and retail stores. For example, when patrons
attend a performing arts event, they may park their car in a toll
garage, purchase dinner at a restaurant, eat dessert after the show,
and return home and pay the babysitter. This spending generated an
estimated $80.8 billion of valuable revenue for local merchants and
their communities in 2000--an average of $22.87 per person, per event,
not including the price of admission.
Cultural Tourism: Out-of-Towners Spend More
In addition to spending data, survey respondents were asked to
provide their home zip codes, enabling researchers to determine which
attendees were local (i.e., reside within the county in which the event
occurred) and which were non-local (reside outside the county). Local
attendees spent an average of $21.75 per event, while non-local
attendees spent $38.05 per event (74.9 percent more). As would be
expected, travelers spent significantly more in the categories of
lodging, meals, retail, and transportation. These data demonstrate that
when a community invests in the arts, it stands to harness significant
economic rewards.
NONPROFIT ARTS ATTENDEES SPEND AN AVERAGE OF $22.87 PER PERSON
[Not Including the Cost of Admission]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-resident
Category of expense Resident \1\ \1\ attendees All arts
attendees attendees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meals and Refreshments.......................................... $9.99 $15.12 $10.33
Souvenirs and Gifts............................................. 3.49 4.01 3.51
Transportation.................................................. 2.39 5.74 2.63
Overnight Lodging (one night only).............................. 2.13 7.80 2.55
Other........................................................... 3.75 5.38 3.85
-----------------------------------------------
Total Per Person Spending................................. 21.75 38.05 22.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Residents live in the county in which the event took place; non-residents live outside the county.
When governments reduce their support for the arts, they are not
cutting frills. They are under-cutting a nonprofit industry that is a
cornerstone of tourism and downtown revitalization. When governments
increase their support for the arts, they are generating tax revenues,
jobs, and the creative energies that underlie much of what makes
America so extraordinary.
This message is equally important for the private sector to hear.
The nonprofit arts, unlike most industries, leverage significant event-
related spending by their audiences, with non-local audiences spending
75 percent more than their local counterparts. The arts attract
visitors downtown and extend the business day: restaurants add dinner
service, garages stay open until midnight, and stores draw more
customers.
When we hear talk about reducing support for the arts, we should
ask: Who will make up for the lost economic activity? Who will attract
tourists to our community? Who will vitalize our downtowns seven nights
per week? Who will provide the 8-to-1 return on investment that the
arts provide to federal, state, and local treasuries? Who will replace
the jobs that the arts support? The expression, ``the arts mean
business,'' is an economic reality that can no longer be dismissed.
Impact of NEA Grants on the Economy
Federal arts grants administered by the National Endowment for the
Arts are required to be matched by the private sector or with state and
local government funds. As a result, NEA grants help leverage
additional funds, which significantly contribute to our nation's robust
economic nonprofit arts industry. NEA's matching requirement also
provides incentives for state and local governments, as well as private
donors, to maintain or increase their level of funding support.
As important NEA grantees, local arts agencies are key local
partners to the federal government in improving community life, from
offering after-school arts education programs to generating economic
development through increased tourism, urban renewal, and attracting
new businesses. We urge this subcommittee to make a commitment to
support community building and to secure the economic growth of the
nonprofit arts industry by appropriating $170 million for the National
Endowment for the Arts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of American Universities, the
American Council on Education, National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
The Association of American Universities, the American Council on
Education, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges appreciate this opportunity to submit for the record
testimony in support of the National Endowment for the Humanities
(NEH). Through our combined memberships, our associations represent
virtually all of the public and private research universities in the
country--institutions that educate large numbers of the nation's
undergraduate and graduate students and conduct the bulk of the
country's basic research and scholarship. We respectfully request that
the Subcommittee provide the President's request of $152 million for
NEH in fiscal year 2004.
The fiscal year 2004 request represents an increase of $27.1
million (21.6 percent) over fiscal year 2003 and would be the first
significant increase in over a decade. The increase would be dedicated
to the ``We the People'' history initiative announced by the President
on September 17, 2002. The goal of the initiative is to deepen
Americans' knowledge and understanding of our national heritage.
Because all divisions and programs would be eligible to participate in
the initiative, more funds would be available for ongoing core
programs--a goal long supported by our three associations. The ``We the
People'' initiative will also involve an expansion of the NEH Summer
Seminars and Institutes program, and enhanced support for American
Editions and Reference Works, fundamental scholarly resources for
understanding our identity as a nation.
Given current world events and the war on terrorism, it is more
important than ever that Americans have a good understanding of
history. Several surveys over the last few years have emphasized both
students' and the public's lack of knowledge about our nation's
history.
--A recent National Assessment of Education Progress test found that
more than half of high school seniors thought that Germany,
Italy or Japan was our ally in World War II.
--A Columbia Law School survey found that 35 percent of voting-age
Americans thought that Karl Marx's dogma, ``From each according
to his ability, to each according to his needs,'' was in the
United States Constitution. Another 34 percent responded that
they weren't sure.
These findings highlight the need for the ``We the People''
initiative. University students all too quickly become working young
adults, and their assumptions and attitudes are carried over into
society at large. As NEH Chairman Bruce Cole has stated, ``The
principles of democratic self-government cannot be affirmed unless they
are understood and remembered. Surely we diminish our young people's
lives and weaken our nation if students do not learn how the society in
which they live came to be.''
Many of NEH's projects support efforts to preserve and expand our
knowledge and understanding of our history and culture. Such projects
are unlikely to be funded by any single state or institution because of
their scale and magnitude. Only an agency like NEH, with its federal
funds and broad vision can support such projects, which include
bibliographies, encyclopedias, and the preservation of papers of great
leaders, such as presidents George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and
Dwight Eisenhower, and the papers and writings of Frederick Douglass,
Benjamin Franklin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lewis and Clark, Thomas
Edison, and Mark Twain. NEH has also supported educational television
documentaries such as Ken Bums's The Civil War, The West, and Jazz, and
biographical films on Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Charles
Lindbergh, and George C. Marshall.
History and culture is brought alive in other ways as well. At the
University of Virginia, NEH grants have helped to support the ``Valley
of the Shadow'' project (http://www.iath.virginia.edu/vshadow2n), an
archive of documents, images, maps and records for two communities, one
Northern and one Southern, during the Civil War. The project is a
hypermedia archive of thousands of sources for the period before,
during, and after the Civil War for Augusta County, Virginia, and
Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Those sources include newspapers,
letters, diaries, photographs, maps, church records, population census,
agricultural census, and military records. Students can explore every
dimension of the conflict and write their own histories, reconstructing
the life stories of women, African Americans, farmers, politicians,
soldiers, and families. The project is intended for secondary schools,
community colleges, libraries, and universities. Shepherding and
nurturing such efforts--in essence, preserving our heritage--is the
government's trust and must remain at the federal level.
NEH support often leverages state, local, and private philanthropic
investment and increases public engagement with the humanities. The
imprimatur of NEH funding, awarded on the basis of merit as determined
by rigorous peer review, has a multiplier effect, increasing public
participation in humanistic endeavors and attracting additional funds.
NEH challenge grants require $3 or $4 in matching funds for each
federal dollar, thereby generating more than $1.2 billion in nonfederal
support for U.S. libraries, colleges, museums, and other eligible
institutions.
MATRIX, the Center for Humane Arts, Letters, and Social Sciences
Online at Michigan State University, is one example of a project
leveraged through NEH support. MATRIX is devoted to the application of
new technologies in humanities and social science teaching and
research. In addition to serving MSU and its faculty and academic
units, MATRIX is the home of H-Net, which houses and supports over 100
interactive listservs edited by scholars in North America, Europe,
Africa, and the Pacific. MATRIX has received a very high level of
external funding from federal grant agencies such as NSF, NEH, Ford,
Mellon, USAID, and has very high on- and off-campus visibility, which
includes international recognition and extensive collaborations with
other countries, especially in western and southern Africa. Its members
collaborate extensively with other disciplines, including those outside
of the humanities. Notable academic accomplishments include projects
providing educational access (e.g. for women in Africa), content for
schools (e.g. Civics on-Line), and educational outreach (work with off-
campus groups from other countries and local school districts). Further
information can be found at http://www.matrix.msu.edu/newmatrix.
The creation of knowledge is one of the central missions of
research universities. It permeates the institutions in ways seen
nowhere else. NEH funds humanities research that may not be immediately
accessible to the broader public, but which builds a foundation from
which Americans of all ages will ultimately benefit. As the results of
NEH-supported research become part of the learning environment, our
overall knowledge base increases and new generations of scholars find
fresh questions to explore.
One example of this is the Digital Scriptorium at the University of
California, Berkeley. The project was conceived as an image database of
dated and datable medieval and renaissance manuscripts and was intended
to unite scattered resources into an international tool for teaching
and scholarly research. It has evolved into a general catalog designed
for the use of paleographers, codicologists, art historians, textual
scholars, and other researchers. It allows scholars to verify with
their own eyes cataloguing information about places and dates of
origin, scripts, artistic styles, and quality. It documents visually
even those manuscripts that traditionally would have been unlikely
candidates for reproduction. It provides public access to fragile
materials otherwise available only within libraries. Because it is web-
based, it encourages interaction between the knowledge of scholars and
the holdings of libraries to build an ever-enriched and corrected flow
of information.
Another important role NEH plays is in the area of preservation.
Again, such efforts are of substantial benefit to the entire nation but
are unlikely to be funded by any individual state or institution. NEH's
Newspaper Program has supported newspaper preservation projects in each
of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. Cornell University has used NEH funds to
coordinate the identification and preservation of 8,075 aging volumes
on American agricultural history and rural life published between 1820
and 1945 and held by land grant universities in California, Florida,
Nebraska, Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana,
and New York. The preservation of brittle books and newspapers assist
scholars in producing source material accessible to all Americans, from
legal scholars to political scientists to schoolchildren.
Research universities, small private institutions, state colleges,
and community colleges use NEH grants to conserve and nurture our
American heritage, bring the humanities to the community, expand
knowledge, and educate the next generation of Americans. NEH-supported
summer seminars and institutes provide an opportunity for high school
and college teachers to spend six to eight weeks learning from and
working with leading scholars in the humanities. Summer seminars and
institutes provide an exhilarating boost to the participants,
regenerate their enthusiasm, and facilitate the transfer of new
knowledge. This summer, teachers will have the opportunity to study
ethics at the end of life at the University of Utah, Afro-Hispanic
literature at the University of Missouri at Columbia, science and
values at the University of Pittsburgh, and Aristotle's writings on
meaning and thought at San Diego State University.
The NEH has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its 38-year
history and has been the most important source of federal support for
humanistic endeavors in the United States. By deepening knowledge of
our national heritage, the ``We the People'' initiative will give
Americans a better understanding of how major events of our history
reflect certain fundamental and enduring ideas. AAU, ACE and NASULGC
strongly support this initiative, and again urge the Subcommittee to
provide the $152 million that the President requested for NEH in fiscal
year 2004.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of State Humanities Councils
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present written testimony on behalf of the state
humanities councils, the state-based programs of the National Endowment
for the Humanities. I am Jamie Doggett, chair of the board of the
Federation of State Humanities Councils. My husband and I are ranchers
in Montana, where I served three four-year terms as a governor's
appointee on the Montana Committee for the Humanities. I am writing in
support of the Administration's fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the
National Endowment for the Humanities which seeks funding of $152
million, including an increase of $25 million for the exciting new We
the People (WTP) initiative on American history, culture and civics.
The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for NEH also
includes the critically important continuation of $31.829 million in
funding for state councils through the Federal-State Partnership line.
We are pleased that this will be supplemented by significant resources
we anticipate will be available to councils through the new WTP
funding.
The state humanities councils are located in each of the 50 states,
Washington DC and the U.S. commonwealths and territories. Since their
creation nearly three decades ago, the state councils have been
promoting the use of history and literature to connect individuals with
each other and with the life of their community. Working with dedicated
historians and other scholars and professionals, the councils have
helped communities understand and preserve their local history, define
and distinguish among conflicting values, and undertake dialogue that
can help address real problems. Notwithstanding the widening gap
between their extremely modest funding level and the dramatic and
consistently growing need and demand for their programs, state councils
tirelessly seek to utilize the resources available to them as
efficiently as possible in order to respond effectively to the demands
of the communities they serve. Unfortunately, councils find it
increasingly difficult to fulfill many of the burgeoning requests they
receive.
WE THE PEOPLE INITIATIVE
All of us involved with this vital work recognize now more than
ever that it is crucial for Americans to understand our own history,
culture and system of government before we are able to engage
meaningfully with nations and groups with different traditions and
values. Thus, councils have responded enthusiastically to the NEH's
expanded WTP initiative focused on broadening and deepening Americans'
understanding of our nation's history and culture, for its thrust has
for some time been a primary concern of state councils, as reflected in
the Illinois council director's description of her council's ``enduring
commitment to promoting greater public understanding of our history in
communities and venues, large and small, across the state.'' It is
illuminating to consider the tremendous scope of activities already
underway across the country which typify the sense and spirit of WTP,
with all state councils looking forward to additional resources which
will allow them to build on what has already been accomplished.
History and Heritage Programs
Because they are deeply committed to responding to community needs,
councils pursue a variety of approaches to promoting knowledge and
understanding of American history and culture. Speakers Bureaus, a
stable of speakers on a variety of topics who are available to do local
programming for a minimal fee, are a long-standing and popular vehicle
used by councils to deliver programs and expertise to locations
throughout their states, especially distant rural areas. The Montana
council hosts a Speakers Bureau with about half of its 100 programs
focused on history including Native American studies, regional history,
Lewis and Clark, and ``living history.'' In Oklahoma, ``Territory
Speakers'' engage public audiences on topics such as ``The Meaning of
the American Revolution'' and ``Shaped By Adversity: The Depression
Generation.'' Iowa offers a rich array of Speakers Bureau programs
including ``The Underground Railroad in Iowa,'' ``The 30s and 40s
Depression and WWII: How Did We Cope?'' and ``Early Iowa Pioneer
Women,'' with librarians and historical societies telling the council
that these are some of the best programs their institutions offer. The
council reports that requests for these programs has soared, exhausting
the budget well before the end of the year and necessitating limiting
organization requests. In addition to allowing expansion of Speaker
Bureaus programs to a level sufficient to meet demand, many councils
seek new funding to support development of new WTP-focused speakers
bureaus, some with a particular emphasis on reaching young people.
Several councils sponsor chautauqua, or ``living history,''
programs which feature portrayals of historical characters. A group of
councils, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, and North and South
Dakota, have joined together in the ``Great Plains Chautauqua,'' a
program conducted under a tent in local communities throughout the
participating states. For the next four years the theme of the Great
Plains Chautauqua is ``From Sea to Shining Sea,'' an examination of the
westward expansion of the new American nation. They will feature
scholars portraying historical figures such as William Clark,
Sacagewea, York and Dolley Madison, who will participate in week-long
residencies in rural communities and help audiences understand the
theme in all its complexity. Great Plains Chautauqua programs draw
thousands of attendees from throughout the local area; current resource
constraints preclude councils from offering chautauqua programs in more
than one community per year in their states.
The Nevada council has an especially vibrant chautauqua program.
The ``Great Basin Chautauqau'' is held on five consecutive nights in
Reno and draws 1,000 people each night. The 2002 theme was ``The
Founders Generation'' and for 2003 it will be ``The Lewis and Clark
Expedition.'' In-state Chautauquans usually become a part of the
council's ``Humanities on the Road'' speakers bureau. The council also
developed their ``Young Chautauqua Program,'' which received a Coming
Up Taller Award from the President's Committee on the Arts and
Humanities, as a creative approach to the teaching of history based on
the research-intensive model of the adult chautauqua.
A number of councils have developed programming with a particular
emphasis on an understanding of state or local history. The Virginia
humanities council has launched the African American Heritage Program,
an educational and economic resource for the state jointly developed
with the Virginia Tourism Corporation. The program includes a database
of more than 400 significant historic sites, a trails program
comprising publications and marketing to encourage the public to visit
the sites, and a grant program supporting organizations involved in
interpretation of Virginia's African American Heritage as well as the
goals of other components of the initiative. The Michigan council co-
sponsors ``Michigan's Great Outdoors Culture Tour'' featuring 24
performing artists and cultural interpreters offering more than 110
programs in scenic settings such as parks, campgrounds, and historic
sites in northern Michigan. The family-friendly events bring to life
the rich culture and heritage of people, places, and traditions of
Michigan's northwoods and Great Lakes. The Humanities Council of
Washington D.C. has inaugurated ``Soul of the City,'' a three-day urban
leadership development seminar encompassing hands-on projects about
Washington's neighborhoods taught through the lens of history, ethics,
literature and public spaces.
Councils use their regrant programs to encourage programming done
by other institutions, frequently providing greater outreach and access
and encouraging institutional capacity-building. The South Carolina
humanities council supported a series of forums focused on the story of
Reconstruction history in Beaufort County, sponsored by the
Reconstruction Heritage Partnership, a coalition of local institutions
and governments. The Illinois council with a notable depth of
programming in the area of American history and culture, has a broad
cross-section of regrants and other activities which it has organized
under headings such as Inventing America/Becoming America, America at
Work, American Mirror/American Memories, and American Challenges/
American Issues. In Wisconsin, the council has supported development of
a 13-week series of radio programs combining oral histories and
contemporary commentary to create living memories of Wisconsin. The
director of the Nevada council has observed that some of the best
humanities programs in the state are developed through their regrant
program, with additional federal funds allowing them to create a
program that would ``roughly match the growing need.'' The Florida
council director speaks of the need to triple their regrant program to
meet the needs of the 17 million people in their diverse, complex
state.
Support for K-12 Teachers and Students
All of us recognize that teachers are at the frontline of
addressing the challenge of understanding who we are and where we have
been. The state humanities councils, two-thirds of which conduct either
summer institutes or one- or two-day teacher workshops, have
established these programs to provide high-quality support and
assistance to teachers in the humanities, recognizing that it is these
disciplines which provide children with the analytic and verbal skills
they need to participate in democratic society. The Idaho council, for
example, has sponsored annual summer institutes for teachers on topics
ranging from the Bill of Rights to Idaho political history since WWII,
with this year's interdisciplinary institute for literature and history
devoted to the theme of ``John Steinbeck and the Art of Social
Engagement.'' This summer the New Jersey council is offering institutes
for K-12 teachers on ``A Reconsidered Past: New Scholarship in African
American History'' and ``Religious Diversity in America.'' The Georgia
humanities council director captured eloquently the unique experience
these institutes provide teachers in referring to letters received from
attendees at the civil rights institute the council co-hosted last
summer. He mentions participating teachers characterizing it as a life-
changing experience, observing this happens because they ``came into
contact with heroism, sacrifice, [and] fundamental values of humanity
for which some were willing to give their all . . .''
The Nebraska humanities council has chosen to take advantage of
what they refer to as the ``teachable moment'' provided by the Lewis
and Clark Bicentennial. The council has made a four-year commitment to
programming that prepares K-12 teachers to benefit from the newest
scholarship on the Lewis and Clark Expedition with summer seminars, in-
school workshops for school districts, and a state-wide video
conference for school and public librarians on the best materials for
acquisition.
For nearly 20 years, the Louisiana humanities council has been
funding intensive four-week graduate seminars for elementary, middle
and high school teachers, with the potential to affect the quality of
teaching for 78,000 students annually. A significant number of these
seminars have focused on American history, including four seminars on
the U.S. Constitution. Among the offerings this summer are seminars on
the Bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase.
The Indiana council has focused on re-designing the customary
residential teacher institute to take advantage of technology as a
delivery system for content. They have created an internet tool which
provides teachers with lesson plans tied to state academic standards
and information about rich humanities resources from cultural,
academic, and library sources around the state.
Eager to assist teachers interested in providing students with
meaningful and engaging material, several state councils are working in
partnership with National History Day (NHD), the national year-long
classroom-based education program which engages students in grades 6-12
in a process of discovery and interpretation of historical topics
grounded in research. State councils both serve as state affiliates for
National History Day and provide sustaining funding to other
organizations in that role. The Maryland Humanities Council, which is
the NHD state affiliate, views the program as an important vehicle for
invigorating history education in the secondary grades. Crippling
cutbacks in state support for NHD programs has constrained
participation by many schools and the federal funding provided through
state councils is often the only source of support for this and other
similar high-quality programming devoted to teaching and learning about
our history and heritage.
THE ONGOING NEED FOR NEW RESOURCES
In addition to expanding current programs and activities and
pursuing new opportunities afforded by the new funding provided through
the WTP initiative, councils continue to require funding for other core
programs, many of which are targeted at audiences otherwise overlooked.
For instance, several councils, such as Georgia, Maryland and
Wisconsin, are grappling with the challenge of serving immigrant
communities, a growing audience throughout the country Additional
funding would allow the Oklahoma council to develop programming
specifically addressed to the state's Hispanic population which has
grown 256 percent since 1990.
In his testimony concerning the Administration's fiscal year 2004
budget request, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole acknowledged the important role
of state councils as the ``delivery system'' for high-quality
humanities programming, noting that the request incorporates
significant support for local and statewide projects on American
history, culture, and civics sponsored by the 56 state humanities
councils, essential NEH partners who will help to ensure that We the
People reaches throughout every state and territory of the nation.
Although even in challenging economic circumstances councils work to
raise resources from state and private sources, federal funding is a
crucial catalyst for council activities and efforts both as part of the
WTP initiative or more generally.
Thank you for your continuing support for the work of the state
councils and NEH and for your consideration of our endorsement of the
Administration's fiscal year 2004 request for $152 million for the NEH,
including the $25 million for the We the People initiative.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Abraham, Hon. Spencer, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Energy........................................... 107
Prepared statement........................................... 111
Summary statement............................................ 109
African Wildlife Foundation, prepared statement.................. 207
Alaska:
Department of Fish and Game, prepared statement.............. 174
Native Health Board, prepared statement...................... 460
Alliance to Save Energy, prepared statement...................... 392
Allison Transmission Division of General Motors, Indianapolis,
IN, prepared statement......................................... 395
American:
Association of Museums, prepared statements................207, 472
Bird Conservancy, prepared statement......................... 207
Council on Education, prepared statement..................... 477
Forest and Paper Association, prepared statement............. 349
Gas Association, prepared statement.......................... 398
Geological Institute, prepared statement..................... 243
Hiking Society, prepared statement........................... 212
Indian Graduate Center, prepared statement................... 265
Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement....... 266
Iron and Steel Institute, prepared statement................. 400
Public Power Association, prepared statement................. 402
Society for Microbiology, prepared statement................. 246
Sportfishing Association, prepared statement................. 351
Veterinary Medical Association, prepared statement........... 207
Zoo and Aquarium Association, prepared statement............. 207
Americans for:
National Parks, prepared statement........................... 210
Our Heritage and Recreation, prepared statement.............. 211
The Arts, prepared statement................................. 474
Anza-Borrego Foundation, prepared statement...................... 348
Appalachian:
Mountain Club, prepared statement............................ 354
Trail Conference, prepared statement......................... 356
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation,
prepared statement............................................. 269
Association of:
American Universities, prepared statement.................... 477
Navajo Community Controlled School Boards, prepared statement 271
Audubon, prepared statement...................................... 362
Florida, prepared statement.................................. 215
New York, prepared statement................................. 340
Bear Trust International, prepared statement..................... 205
Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah:
Opening statement............................................ 8
Questions submitted.......................................... 102
Biomass Energy Research Association, prepared statements.......403, 408
Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., prepared statement.............. 406
Boone and Crockett Club, prepared statement...................... 205
Bosworth, Dale, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Summary statement............................................ 11
Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, prepared statement............. 205
Buckmasters American Deer Foundation, prepared statement......... 205
Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin,
prepared statement............................................. 411
Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Opening statements.......................................1, 57, 107
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Questions submitted by......................................86, 141
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
Opening statement............................................ 121
Questions submitted by....................................... 157
California:
Government and Private Sector Coalition for Operation Clean
Air (OCA), prepared statement.............................. 416
Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study (CCOS)
Coalition, prepared statement.............................. 216
Campbell, Senator Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
Opening statement............................................ 5
Questions submitted by....................................... 39
Campfire Club of America, prepared statement..................... 205
Caterpillar Inc., prepared statement............................. 413
Center for Advanced Separation Technologies, prepared statement.. 417
Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, prepared statement. 339
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, prepared statement................... 463
Chugach Regional Resources Commission, prepared statement........ 274
Citizens for Mojave National Park, prepared statement............ 218
City of Kansas City, MO, prepared statement...................... 176
Civil War Preservation Trust, prepared statement................. 219
Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC), prepared statement..... 420
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, prepared statement.......... 423
Colorado River:
Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement............. 163
Board of California, prepared statement...................... 165
Confederated Tribes of the:
Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, prepared statement.......... 277
Warm Springs Reservation, prepared statement................. 278
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, prepared statement......... 205
Conservation:
Force, prepared statement.................................... 205
International, prepared statement............................ 207
Trust Fund Coalition, prepared statement..................... 342
Council of Annette Islands Reserve, Metlakatla Indian Community,
prepared statement............................................. 464
Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT), prepared statement..... 281
Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statements.....................177, 207
Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, prepared statement....... 207
Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from South Carolina:
Opening statements...........................................9, 126
Questions submitted by..................................35, 99, 153
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
Opening statements.......................................3, 59, 108
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Questions submitted by......................................42, 105
Doris Day Animal League, prepared statement...................... 166
Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, prepared statement. 283
Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council, prepared statement.... 336
Federation of State Humanities Councils, prepared statement...... 479
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California:
Opening statement............................................ 7
Questions submitted by....................................... 157
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement... 284
Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, prepared statement..... 205
Fremont County, WY Legislative Delegation and Members of the
Select Committee on Tribal Relations, letter from.............. 286
Friends of:
Acadia, prepared statement................................... 220
Back Bay, prepared statement................................. 175
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, prepared statement...... 220
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement... 180
Frontera Audubon Society, prepared statement..................... 180
Gasification Technologies Council, prepared statement............ 424
General Electric Power Systems, prepared statement............... 426
Grand Canyon National Park Foundation, prepared statement........ 221
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, prepared
statement...................................................... 287
Ground Water Protection Council, prepared statement.............. 248
Highlands Coalition, prepared statement.......................... 367
Hollings, Senator Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
questions submitted by......................................... 48
Hoopa:
Tribe of California, prepared statement...................... 289
Valley Tribe, prepared statement............................. 465
Houston Safari Club, prepared statement.......................... 205
Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement.......... 182
IBACOS, Inc., prepared statement................................. 429
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development, prepared statement................................ 469
International:
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared
statements................................................. 167,
185, 205, 222, 250, 291, 369
Elephant Foundation, prepared statement...................... 207
Fund for Animal Welfare, prepared statement.................. 207
Rhino Foundation, prepared statement......................... 207
Interstate:
Council on Water Policy, prepared statement.................. 252
Mining Compact Commission, prepared statement................ 260
InterTribal:
Bison Cooperative, prepared statement........................ 292
Timber Council, prepared statement........................... 295
Izaak Walton League of America, prepared statement............... 205
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement.................... 298
Jane Goodall Institute, prepared statement....................... 207
Japanese American Citizens League, prepared statement............ 224
Kashdan, Hank, Director of Program and Budget Analysis,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared
statement...................................................... 299
Lower:
Elwha Klallam Tribe, prepared statement...................... 302
Lake Rancheria Koi Nation, prepared statement................ 303
Lummi Nation, prepared statement................................. 304
Mescalero Apache Tribe, prepared statement....................... 307
Mineral Policy Center, prepared statement........................ 253
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, prepared statements.192, 224
Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club, prepared statement....... 371
Mule Deer Foundation, prepared statement......................... 205
Narragansett Indian Tribe, prepared statement.................... 309
National:
American Indian Court Judges Association, prepared statement. 312
Association for State Community Services Programs, prepared
state-
ment....................................................... 432
Association of:
Abandoned Mine Land Programs, prepared statement......... 263
Conservation Districts, prepared statement............... 372
State Energy Officials, prepared statement............... 434
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, prepared
statement.............................................. 477
University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs, pepared
statement.............................................. 193
Audobon Society, prepared statement.......................... 207
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared
statement.................................................. 225
Council for Science and the Environment, prepared statement.. 254
Indian Health Board, prepared statement...................... 466
Institutes for Water Resources, prepared statement........... 256
Mining Association, prepared statement....................... 438
Parks Conservation Association, prepared statement........... 227
Recreation and Park Association, prepared statement.......... 239
Research Center for Coal and Energy, West Virginia
University, prepared statement............................. 441
Rifle Association, prepared statement........................ 205
Shooting Sports Foundation, prepared statement............... 205
Trappers Association, prepared statement..................... 205
Wildlife Federation, prepared statement...................... 207
Navajo Nation, prepared statement................................ 314
Nebraska Game & Parks Commission, prepared statement............. 196
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement...... 171
New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic
Preservation, prepared statement............................... 241
Nez Perce Tribe, prepared statement.............................. 317
Northern Forest Alliance, prepared statement..................... 380
Norton, Hon. Gale A., Secretary of the Interior, Office of the
Secretary, Department of the Interior.......................... 57
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Summary statement............................................ 63
Oregon Water Resources Congress, prepared statement.............. 196
Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement... 230
Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, prepared statement........ 443
Plug Power Inc., prepared statement.............................. 445
Pope and Young Club, prepared statement.......................... 205
Preservation Action, prepared statement.......................... 242
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement.................... 322
Quality Deer Management Association, prepared statement.......... 205
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, prepared statement................ 205
Ruffed Grouse Society, prepared statement........................ 205
Safari Club International, prepared statements.................205, 207
SAGE Electrochromics, Inc., prepared statement................... 448
Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, prepared statement................... 325
Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and
Budget, Department of the Interior............................. 57
Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement.................... 327
Shikar Safari Club International, prepared statement............. 205
Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation, prepared statement....... 449
Sierra:
Club, prepared statement..................................... 207
Nevada Alliance, prepared statement.......................... 383
Society for:
American Archaeology, prepared statement..................... 207
American Foresters, prepared statement....................... 385
Historical Archaeology, prepared statement................... 207
Southern Company, prepared statement............................. 452
Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission, prepared statement........ 329
Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared statement......................... 331
Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:
Opening statement............................................ 60
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Questions submitted by....................................... 97
Teachers' Retirement System, State of California, prepared
statement...................................................... 455
Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee, prepared statement..... 195
Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership, prepared statement..... 199
The:
Cascades Conservation Partnership, prepared statement........ 365
Fund for Animals, prepared statement......................... 207
Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement...... 207
Nature Conservancy, prepared statements....................207, 375
Ocean Conservancy, prepared statement........................ 342
Wilderness Society, prepared statement....................... 345
Wildlife Conservation Society, prepared statement............ 207
Wildlife Society, prepared statements......................205, 390
Trezise, John D., Director of Budget, Department of the Interior. 57
Tumbledown Conservation Alliance, prepared statement............. 388
United States Advanced Ceramics Association, prepared statement.. 457
United Tribes Technical College, prepared statement.............. 333
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 199
Whitetails Unlimited, Inc., prepared statement................... 205
WildAid, prepared statement...................................... 207
Wildlife Management Institute, prepared statements............... 172,
202, 205, 207, 259, 388
Wind River Irrigation Project in Wyoming, prepared statement..... 335
World Wildlife Fund, prepared statement.......................... 207
Wyoming Water Association, letter from........................... 204
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Page
Accountability................................................... 15
Additional Committee Questions................................... 35
Aerial Operations................................................ 40
Alaska:
Forest Trip by Air........................................... 32
Jurisdictional Problems...................................... 31
Analysis Paralysis............................................... 6
Assessment of Threat............................................. 39
Audit Opinion.................................................... 12
Bark Beetle...................................................... 7, 9
Beetle Kill on the Kenai Peninsula............................... 31
Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation............................. 2
Categorical Exclusions........................................... 14
Collaborative Adaptive Management Program........................ 7
Cost Containment................................................. 52
County Partnership:
Program...................................................... 28
Restoration.................................................. 35
Deferred Maintenance............................................. 36
Drought.......................................................... 2, 25
Establishment of Emergency Treatment Objective................... 39
Evironmental Litigation Costs.................................... 9
Fire:
Funding...................................................... 43
Impacts on Watersheds........................................ 24
Preparedness................................................. 2, 37
Suppression.............................................. 11
Firefighters..................................................... 3, 42
Firewise......................................................... 24
Forest Service Research.......................................... 16
Grass Banks...................................................... 47
Grasslands Management Plan....................................... 46
Grazing Permits.................................................. 4
Ground Operations................................................ 40
Grounded:
Air Tanker Fleet............................................. 25
Fire Air Tanker Fleet........................................ 6
Hazardous Fuel Treatments........................................ 53
Healthy Forests Initiative....................................... 12
Insects and Disease.............................................. 38
Invasive Species................................................. 34
Lake:
Arrowhead.................................................... 22
Tahoe........................................................ 21
Restoration Act.......................................... 8
Leafy Spurge..................................................4, 34, 45
Legislative Proposals............................................13, 18
Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Activities............................ 46
Maintenance...................................................... 44
National Forest Land Management Planning......................... 32
Noxious Weeds.................................................... 5, 33
Prairie Dog...................................................... 8
President's Management Agenda.................................... 16
Process Predicament..........................................14, 15, 27
Quincy Library Group............................................. 8
Range Management.............................................13, 16, 33
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program............................. 23
Research.........................................................13, 19
Safety--Ground and Aviation Operations........................... 54
San Bernadino National Forest.................................... 21
Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association.............................. 48
Situational Assessment........................................... 51
State and Private Forestry....................................... 16
Stewardship Contracting..............................10, 11, 19, 28, 37
The Next 100 Years for America's National Forests and Grasslands. 17
Tongass Timber Reform Act........................................ 30
USDA Forest Service--Fire & Aviation Operations Action Plan 2003. 50
Vibrant Forest and Range Based Economy........................... 36
Water Filtration Plants.......................................... 24
Western:
Forest Fires................................................. 22
Water Rights................................................. 23
Wildland:
Fire Management.............................................. 26
Urban Interface.............................................. 29
Yosemite Toad.................................................... 7
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
Additional Committee Questions................................... 140
Advanced Vehicle Technology Programs--Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) and FreedomCAR................... 142
Clean Coal....................................................... 130
Power Initiative............................................. 153
Technology Program........................................... 133
Clean Energy Technology Exports.................................. 138
Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI)..................... 153
Competitive Sourcing Program..................................... 136
Elk Hill......................................................... 161
Energy:
Conservation Budget Request.................................. 117
Information Administration Budget Request.................... 120
Markets...................................................... 159
Environmental Impacts of Fuels................................... 144
Fiscal Year 2004/05 Competitive Sourcing/A-76 Planning........... 137
Fossil Energy:
Budget Request............................................... 113
OMB Budget................................................... 129
Program Top-to-Bottom Review................................. 135
Research Budget Cuts......................................... 127
Distributed Generation--Fuel Cells--Solid State Electricity
Conversion Alliance (SECA)................................. 150
Distributed Generation--Fuel Cells--Vision 21--Hybrids....... 150
Domestic Gas Production/Imports.............................. 147
Domestic Oil Production/Imports.............................. 146
Fuels........................................................ 149
Futuregen.................................................... 151
Fuel Cell......................................................130, 155
Research at Los Alamos National Laboratory................... 132
Future-Gen....................................................... 134
Gasoline Prices.................................................. 124
High Temperature Superconductivity............................... 156
Hybrid Technology................................................ 133
Hydrogen:
Fuel......................................................... 160
Transportation System........................................ 141
Vehicles..................................................... 131
Insourcing....................................................... 137
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Budget Request....... 113
National Energy Technology Laboratory............................ 134
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves--Rocky Mountain Oil
Technology Center (RMOTC)...................................... 151
Non-Release of Department's OMB Budget Request................... 129
Nuclear Weapons Testing.......................................... 157
Off-Highway Vehicle R&D.......................................... 144
Program Termination.......................................... 124
Oil and Gas:
Federal Transmission Siting.................................. 155
Research..................................................... 154
Performance Measures............................................. 145
Petroleum Reserves............................................... 116
President's Management Agenda and National Energy Policy
Coordination................................................... 112
Program Assessment Rating Tool [PART]............................ 128
Solid State:
Conversion Alliance.......................................... 139
Energy Conversion Alliance................................... 139
Lighting..................................................... 152
Status of Clean Energy Technology Report......................... 139
Summary of the Management Plan................................... 136
Technology Transfer--Clean Energy Technology Export (CETE)....... 157
Transition of Technologies to Market............................. 143
U.S. Department of Energy, Revised Competitive Sourcing Plan..... 136
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
Activity Based Costing........................................... 83
Additional Committee Questions................................... 86
Alaska Conveyance Program........................................ 97
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.................. 97
Budget Overview.................................................. 68
Bureau of Land Management:
CBM EIS for Montana.......................................... 92
Energy and Minerals.......................................... 94
Fire Funding................................................. 95
Montana Gas Permitting....................................... 92
Conservation Grants.............................................. 70
Conserving Wildlife and Fisheries................................ 70
Cooperative Conservation Initiative..............................64, 69
Crownpoint Institute of Technology............................... 99
Denali National Park............................................. 98
Different Funding Categories..................................... 76
Energy Development............................................... 65
Everglades Restoration........................................... 66
Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project........................ 103
Federally-Owned Land Statistics.................................. 99
Fish and Wildlife Grant Programs................................. 96
Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie................................ 91
FWS/Consultation on Fuels Reduction Projects..................... 89
Going-to-the-Sun Road............................................ 89
Helping to Meet the Nation's Energy Needs........................ 72
Historical Trust Accounting...................................... 74
Indian:
Education................................................65, 73, 77
School Construction.......................................... 100
Schools...................................................... 75
Law Enforcement and Security..................................... 74
Maintenance Backlog.............................................. 65
MMS Royalty-In-Kind.............................................. 88
Mojave Desert Tortoise........................................... 104
Northwest Area Water Supply Project.............................. 79
OIA/Status of Compact Negotiations............................... 89
Oil and Gas Permitting on Federal Lands.......................... 102
Other Partnerships............................................... 70
Other Program Initiatives........................................ 66
Overhead......................................................... 82
PILT--Proposed Movement From BLM to the Department Level......... 93
Powder River Basin EIS........................................... 84
President's Management Agenda.................................... 91
Program Assessment Rating........................................ 81
Recreation....................................................... 73
Opportunities................................................ 65
Rural Water Program Legislative Proposal......................... 80
Santa Fe Indian School Reconstruction Funding.................... 101
Science..........................................................67, 74
Security......................................................... 67
SMCRA Reauthorization............................................ 86
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI)................. 101
Spruce Bark Beetles.............................................. 99
State Regulatory Grants.......................................... 87
Stewardship Contracting.......................................... 84
Taking Care of Parks............................................. 72
Tribal Colleges Funding.......................................... 77
Trust Programs................................................... 68
Trust Reform:
Initiatives.................................................. 63
Reform Reorganization........................................ 95
Wild Horse and Burro Program.....................................78, 83
Wildland:
Fire......................................................... 66
And Healthy Forests...................................... 71
Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation................................ 85
-